Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
[news.com.com...]
A Nevada federal court has ruled that the cached versions of Web pages that Google stores and offers as a part of many search results are not copyright infringement.
Clearly, the court did not understand what real caching is and what Google calls caching. I do not thing Googles meets the crieteria for caching:
The material described in paragraph (1) is transmitted to the subsequent users described in paragraph (1)(C) without modification to its content from the manner in which the material was transmitted from the person described in paragraph (1)(A) {FN104: 17 U.S.C. §512(b)(2)(A)}
What this does I think, is effectively neuters all copyright laws on the internet today. It is the wild-wild west again.
With all that Google has done that is good - I don't know how we could be so far apart on this one issue.
Blake Field: (who brought the suit):
[blakeswritings.com...]
Yeah, it is also worth pointing out that the feature should be disabled AUTOMATICALLY due to a bigger code called a COPYRIGHT. A copyright automatically implies that the creater/owner has the sole right to the disrtibution/presentation of their material REGARDLESS if distribution information is present.
Somewhere people/entities have created this BACKWARDS thinking. Something like this:
"IF it is in public view that means I can do what I want on MY terms unless the owner opts out using my special code/request."
Hey stupid! I the creator of my material MAKE THE RULES on how I want my stuff distributed. If no rules are presented then the rules of COPYRIGHT are implied. Why is this so hard to understand?
Maybe they get away with it because they have better laywers. Maybe they get away with it because the majority website owners just don't care or care to fight it.
Maybe these people/entities score points in the public eye (or judges) for having "good" intentions. Maybe the score points because they don't seek direct monitary gain. You know what?! IT does not matter what their intention are or if the seek monitary gain. It isn't their stuff unless deemed otherwise by fair use or permission.
Also one other note:
In cached version on Google,Yahoo,MSN...Certain advertisements do not show up or are mistargeted (adsense). People can read my material without my opportunity for financial gain through those ad placements.
[edited by: arubicus at 7:42 pm (utc) on Jan. 27, 2006]
No that is the copyright laws take on it.
It's a good thing that most district court judges know the law better than most webmasters and media company executives.
No. That ruling affects hardly anyone.
1. A hiding place used especially for storing provisions.
2. A place for concealment and safekeeping, as of valuables.
3. A store of goods or valuables concealed in a hiding place: maintained a cache of food in case of emergencies.
I'd say G's definition fits those definitions. Sure they could be considered 'temporary' ... but that is an unqualified delimiter ... how long is 'temporary'?
Kaled, caching is 'storing for later retrieval' in almost every sense of the word. It is an appropriate definition of what G does.
(Geez, I hope I didn't violate any copyright laws by posting that snippet ... was that 'fair use'? ;) )
[edited by: StupidScript at 8:14 pm (utc) on Jan. 27, 2006]
What rights would those be that isn't covered by fair use?
"but they neve seem to like to consider the fact that those are "limited rights"."
Yep and those limited rights contain the right to reproduction, distribution, and derivitives until the copyright expires (Usually it is the life of the creator +70 years or when done for hire it is 95 years from plublicaton or 120 years from creation whichever is shorter)!
A cache is a STORAGE. The later retrival is not a CACHE. The later retrival is the OBJECT that was formerly cached.
Run to the cache and bring back a doughnut. So you run to the storage and bring back a doughnut. Is the donut a cache? Nope. Is it still cached after you bring it back? Nope.
Now if you treat it like a window in to see what is in storage...now you have a different little story. The object is still cached but you are able to see it.
But the question still remains. Who owns the actual object? In the case of websites and google. The cached version they hold is a copy of the original work. Even though they made the copy the right to copy belongs to the copyright holder. But google is not supplying a window. They distributing it by sending the cached copy to a someone who is requesting it electronically. In other words they send a copy of the contents they copied from websites.
So you are complaining about those copies of your intellectual property that are 'cached' in G's 'cache' when they were finished 'caching' it?
Yeesh.
Pretty much. No matter if they call the term use is cached(which I agree is correct), archive(which I agree is also correct), or bobby joe it is the method they use to obtain is questionable in my view.
Now let's move over to the lawsuit against the waybackmachine for it's archive ... which should be far more important to those outraged by G's 'cache'.
Archive [dictionary.reference.com]: A place or collection containing records, documents, or other materials of historical interest. Often used in the plural: old land deeds in the municipal archives.
(I post another potentially illegal snippet in the interest of demonstrating that different words mean different things ...)
It's only a matter of time until Google stumbles on this, which is rather sad, because I actually like the feature and find it useful. It was precisely for this reason that I offered a simple (ish) solution that would allow the cache/archive to continue to work whilst at the same time changing it from opt-out to opt-in. I find it strange that not one single person even commented on that suggested solution. Presumably this was because people prefer to argue rather than discuss solutions - once again, very sad.
Kaled.
1. A hiding place used especially for storing provisions.(Bold is mine)
2. A place for concealment and safekeeping, as of valuables.
3. A store of goods or valuables concealed in a hiding place: maintained a cache of food in case of emergencies
Judging from these definitions I'd say a cache is something no one would see other than those who hid whatever is cached.
The problem is that Google is publishing the cache! The concern isn't whether search engines cache but that they put a copy out where the whole world can go to the copy instead of the original. Publishing isn't caching.
I want Google to cache, archive or whatever my pages. That helps my site get found and it helps people find what they are looking for on the net.
[edited by: annej at 1:23 am (utc) on Jan. 28, 2006]
What they do to date is like as if Mc Donalds copied and then gave away copies of Steven King's books and put "Ronald" stickers on every page ..you'd never neeed to buy the book again ..( not to mention that they link straight into all the images from your actual site "live" so you pay the bandwidth ..) even if you serve the images to your pages via coded javascript routines ..without ever getting the visitor ..
The problem is that Google is publishing the cache!
Why don't we start another debate on the meaning of "publish"? :-)
And no, I'm not entirely kidding. Whether an online work is considered "published" isn't clear-cut, according to the "Space 3" section of the U.S. Copyright Office instruction sheet Circular 66:
[copyright.gov...]
So you might argue that Google is "publishing" the cache, but Google might answer that it's merely "displaying" the cache. (This probably wouldn't have any bearing on your case or Google's in a courtroom; it just goes to show that terminology is often in the eye of the beholder, and arguing about labels is wasted breath.)
Writing a cache-busting script would be easy. I'm sure many webmasters shy away from using noarchive just in case Google penalizes such pages, so this would be a viable alternative.
Kaled.
A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.
That's interesting. If I earn my $$$ with adsense and affiliates am I just displaying the articles?
It appears you have to be distributing or offering to distribute copies for sale, rent etc to be considered copyrighted material.
Does that mean anyone can legally copy any of my articles or pictures?
It appears you have to be distributing or offering to distribute copies for sale, rent etc to be considered copyrighted material.
No, the material is automatically protected by copyright at the time of its creation, and the copyright can be registered whether or not the material is "published."
If you send it to a listserve with public archives, it would probably meet the "further distribution" and "public display" portions.
If you sell copies, then it is definitely published.
Also, this judgement by no means implies that the Internet is suddenly the wild, wild west. The judgement only applies to the parties in question. Because one judge felt that Google's use of cache was benign doesn't mean that another judge will rule that a different web site was using something like a cache in a way that was not benign.
thanks brett for an interesting and important subject ..now if only you could find a way to restrict posting ability to those who actually know something of what they are talking about it would be even better ..and less prone to sidetracking to "teach them"
<snip>
Brett ..remember mcgurus "weed routine" ..could ya try and find it ...and implement it ;)).huh ..puhleeeese
apologies for "quoting" myself ..but apparently the observation is still relevant in this thread ..ya don't need to know nor understand the first thing about what is being discussed..to post ..nor to run adsense on a site ...jsut want the money ..(some of the adsense people do understand )..most dont ..frightens me that those who dont ..also get to vote in wherever their elections are / aren't ..held..
:((
[edited by: lawman at 10:48 pm (utc) on Jan. 29, 2006]
[edit reason] Tact is paramount [/edit]
James Cameron is persuaded to make Terminator 4 starring The Rock. A week before its premier (i.e. before publication) a copy is accidentally sent to a TV station by mistake. It is utterly absurd to imagine that the TV station could show the film without breaching copyright simply because it hasn't been published yet.
For an original work, copyright commences at the moment of creation (even before a work is finished) and has nothing whatsoever to do with publication.
Kaled.
A week before its premier (i.e. before publication) a copy is accidentally sent to a TV station by mistake. It is utterly absurd to imagine that the TV station could show the film without breaching copyright simply because it hasn't been published yet.
Ie, if it had broken into the film studio, ripped the DVD then that would be breach of copyright.
Getting their hands on a legal copy whether its before or after the premier would'nt be breach of copyright - just perhaps breach of someone elses contract with the publisher not to release it before the date...
The film is published when it is fixed in a copy for the first time, not when it is premiered.
Ok by your standard, publication occurs when a work is "fixed in a copy for the first time". (This is a crazy notion, but I'll run with it). According to this standard, a document is published at the moment it is first saved to disk, and therefore, by your standard copyright applies thereafter. In other words, your argument is self-defeating.
Getting their hands on a legal copy whether its before or after the premier would'nt be breach of copyright
Kaled.
Question from a dummy: "Why does Google need to show the everyday search population the stored cache / archive / pear (see earlier posts)?
Speaking as a total dummy (Just trying to stop Leosghost & Kaled from insulting me after I leave this post) I couldn't care less about whether Google archive my websites, I just wish it was easier to find the information I'm looking for and that it would be accurate information once I have tracked it down.
So google, take all the links to 'cached' pages off and everyone could get on with life again ... until there's something else to whinge about that makes us all feel like big important players ;-)
All the best
Col :-)
"Publication isn't necessary for copyright protection."
Whether a Web page is "published" or not may be of academic interest, but it has nothing to do with the legality or illegality of the Google cache (or the Google "archive" or whatever people who don't agree with Google's nomenclature would like to call it). Nor does it have any role in determining whether someone else's use of the page's content is infringement.
The minute I write an article it is copyrighted. I don't have to have published it either online or on paper.
So which below would be a breach of my copyright.
1) If someone took it off of my computer and stored it on their computer?
2) If someone took it off of my computer and published it on the Internet?
3) Only if someone took it off of my computer and published it in print?
1) Theft
2) Copyright infringement
3) Copyright infringement
It would also a breach of copyright if you emailed a draft to a friend (for an opinion) and they then distributed any (substantial) part of the draft either in print, on the internet, or by audio recording, etc. However, in such a case, it is probably advisable to have both a copyright notice and a confidentiality notice attached but neither is normally required in law (but these may affect judgements as to costs and penalities, etc. in the event of a court case).
Clarity of intent is a good idea in almost all things. A copyright notice is essentially just that - a clear statement of intent that a work may not be duplicated, etc. without permission. The absence of a copyright notice does not make a work free from copyright.
Kaled.
