Google Wins a Court Battle 272
Gosalia wrote to let us know about an article which opens with: "In a legal win for Google, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a writer who claimed the search giant infringed on his copyright by archiving a Usenet posting of his and providing excerpts from his Web site in search results." Thankfully, we can all still read Usenet articles on Google as well as other archive services.
Cash Grab Suit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cash Grab Suit? (Score:5, Insightful)
50,000 John Does?
Racketeering?
Civil conspiracy?
The guy sounds like a nut job.
Re:Strange Decision (Score:5, Insightful)
You left out "that were submitted to a store-and-forward global distribution system with the intent of disseminating them as widely as possible, knowing full well that they would be archived, folded, spindled, and mutilated".
In other news, every public mailing list in the known universe does the exact same thing. Gonna sue Yahoo! Groups because they're publishing the email that you deliberately sent to 1,500 strangers?
Content isn't that special...get over it (Score:5, Insightful)
The bottom line...your damn content isn't that special anymore! Stop suing people! Get over it...we probably already forgot about the content we "stole" or archived long before you remembered to call your lawyer. We moved on to the next thing before you could look up "cache" for FREE on dictionary.com.
wtf (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Strange Decision (Score:1, Insightful)
Google Groups is just nothing but a web-based usenet reader.
Re:Strange Decision (Score:3, Insightful)
I've got a much simpler idea: If you don't want something to get freely archived and redistributed by countless 3rd parties outside your control, why don't you just try not posting it on Usenet?
Re:Strange Decision (Score:3, Insightful)
If he didn't want his posts archived, all he had to do was have the following line at the top of his post...
x-noarchive: yes
As for some of his site being quoted in Google's search results? That sounds like a classic case of fair use to me.
And further into the article...
I can't access Usenet (or Google Groups) from the base network here, so I can't look into this further. But if he was being some sort of asshat (spamming, trolling, etc), then the other users would have every right to call him on his bullshit, short of threatening him or commiting libel.
I'd comment more on this, but I need my sleep.
Re:Content isn't that special...get over it (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that the easy availability of 'content' has also cheapened it*. Sure, there are 6 billion or so people, and maybe they can all (one day) make content. The truth is, 99.99% of it will be complete crap.
Is it possible for people to sift through 10000 pieces of crap to find one useful/good item? No. People will do what they've always done - go with the crowd. One could argue that this is the 'service' that a centralised distribution system (currently known as a 'record company') provides, but I think even in the future these things will be useful.
For example, how would you find a good jazz album on p2p or bittorrent - if you don't know what it's called? both are really geared to shareing known material - if I made an album and posted it on either, there'd be bloody few downloads!
Sure, there are systems like last.fm, and to a certain extent they *can* replace current distribution systems, when coupled with p2p/BT/etc, but essentially people will still want some review process - that's why Google Scholar isn't putting academic journals out of business.
(*) Just on a side note - I was walking along listening to my ipod the other day, and I started thinking about how little attention I usually pay to the music that its playing. This is very different to our grandparents, who would've given total attention to music. Now, it's just another background noise (not always, of course). We're damn lucky - 4 to 5 generations ago there was *only* 'live' music, now, music's ubiquitous...
Re:Cash Grab Suit? (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope if nothing else this case helps focus more on the content, and less on the delivery method. A parallel being torrents that bring you linux Distributions vs torrents that bring you copyrighted media.
Just shows, we really *dont* shoot the messenger these days
However you're right, its frivilous and sets no real precedent. But makes way for some perhaps
Re:Thankfully? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Strange Decision (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that's a good analogy, though. If Linus himself posted that code or those binaries, then he gave his explicit permission to distribute them. If the messages were posted by someone else, and their posting violated the terms of the GPL, then Linus could petition Google to pull them - just as the RIAA could petition Google to remove their artists' songs (if put there by someone other than the copyright holder).
I think a better analogy is Slashdot itself, which is basically a limited-scale Usenet workalike. Posters own their messages (read the message at the bottom of each page), but they post here with the clear and obvious knowledge that their message will be read by thousands of strangers. I truly can't imagine that any judge would support a lawsuit against Slashdot by a reader who claims that Slashdot doesn't have the right to display their message. Of course they do! That's the entire purpose of the system. And because the poster knew that before they sent their message, I don't think they'd have much recourse against Slashdot doing exactly what they were asked to do.
But again, you don't have the right to post content you don't own, and the legitimate owners would have every right to ask it to be pulled. That's an entirely different issue than this lawsuit, though.
Re:Cash Grab Suit? (Score:5, Insightful)
The courts so far have ruled that these caches are legal and the search engine people are not doing wrong. This suit along with another one builds precendce over these types of concerns. So its been a long time coming.
Now people concerned with privacy can get educated about how to block robots/spider, how public the web/usenet is, and how to work around this.
Re:Content isn't that special...get over it (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless, content creators need to remember that whatever the reason, the consumer is definately being bombarded with massive amounts of content and no one piece of content can become supremely valuable anymore. We don't give it time to become valuable...we move on to something new before it even has a chance. The whole "MTV generation" attention span cliche is really kind of true. We want lots and lots of content, fast, and frequently. It's not that content was more valuable before, it's just that content creators used to have less competition because it was so expensive and/or difficult to distribute content in the past. Today, it's as easy as "Share this folder" or "post this blog" or what have you. The trick is to just keep creating exciting content constantly. The content providers that realize this instead of filing absurd lawsuits that pine for yesterday's paradigms will win.
Re:Gtalk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cash Grab Suit? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gtalk (Score:5, Insightful)
1) US paranoia-legislations and assramming-acts do not apply here, thank FSM, and
2) Norwegian laws regarding information extraction by police/etc from service providers are reasonably strict, i.e. they need to have a case. Also,
3) Should I ever want to discuss something illegal I would either use GPG through email or encrypted IM anyway.
Re:Your Choice (X-noarchive) (Score:4, Insightful)
Parker doesn't have that excuse though.
Re:Cash Grab Suit? (Score:5, Insightful)
You publish or you don't.
Re:Google is in the right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Your Choice (X-noarchive) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cash Grab Suit? (Score:1, Insightful)
The Internet is not a book, a movie, or a CD. As soon as people recognize that fact, half of the stupid legal issues and lawsuits will go away. All (sane?) copyright law was written and all the major cases were heard before the Internet existed, but now that routers and switches make copies of information as they forward it, proxies and internet browsers cache information, RAM and swap files store information, and there is very, very little practical difference between forwarding a URL and forwarding the content it points to, a lot of copyright law sounds like nonsense.
Re:Thankfully? (Score:3, Insightful)
Undoubtedly, there are those who never considered the possibility of USENET being archived. But really - those people just weren't thinking things out. Keep in mind that Google's archive is complete as it is because of archive donations from various individuals who, on their own accord and at their own expense, began archiving USENET well before "Google" or "Deja News" was first uttered. USENET archives have existed as long as USENET.
Re:Strange Decision (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a question although I don't see why not; other usenet servers have web based access as well I believe. If Groups still propagates messages that get posted to it then it only has a different interface. Again it is a reasonable extension of how usenet works, and does'nt fundamentally go against it the design.
If so, what the content provider posts under a license forbidding delivery through a web-based distribution model? This doesn't sound like an unreasonable restriction.
What is web-based? Can they limit my client? Can they limit what my client does? If I write a web based interface to access an nntp server am I infringing? What if my usenet server writes such an interface but it communicates using nntp? What if it accessed the data directly but looks exactly the same? What if it accessed the data through nntp then caches it all (as many usenet viewers do), I it still infringing?
The implied license may mean that reasonably it included web based clients, especially since google groups is quite popular I assume so by posting to usenet you reasonably must assume it will go to groups. I think usenet has a non-archiving flag, and the most I see google being forced to do is manually check posts upon request and remove them if the contents state different terms. Again this would be a reasonable assumption upon posting to newsgroups since it's quite impossible for google to check every single message.
Nonetheless for the vast, vast majority of posts this does not apply.
Two things motivated my interest in this case. First is that Google lost its case regarding Google Images, as mentioned in TFA, due to arguments similar to mine.
Not really that case involved images uploaded illegally to a website by someone who was not the copyright holder of the images. Not to mention that the case will be appealed and these things can often change. Nonetheless Google Images is quite a bit more fuzzy than Google Groups. Usenet servers function almost exactly to Grousp except with a different interface, however that does not hold true for Images. Nonetheless, the court seem to not agree with you (from TFA as well):
" The Perfect 10 lawsuit has received a high level of public attention, not least because of the 2003 Arriba Soft decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In that ruling, the court sided with an image search engine over a photographer who claimed the automatically generated thumbnails amounted to copyright infringement."
Second is that many works in usenet are copyrighted using relatively strong licenses, such as the GPL, that could potentially cause trouble for automated services like these, or GPL licensed works, should the shit hit the fan.
Not really as I don't see why the GPL would prohibit such copying of messages in full. If a user posts content that they do not have a copyright on then that may be grounds for the removal of the post, although even then GPL code would probably be free to post (assuming the license is mentioned and so on). Even if the lisence was more restrictive it doesn't matter: "Yay, I can view your code on a usenet server; if I compile it or add it to my app or copy it somewhere else I'm potentially infringing on your copyright..."
Re:disturbing asymmetry (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Strange Decision (Score:3, Insightful)
However Joe gave limited reproduction rights to all usenet servers, and google may be considered one within the limits of being one (ie: no books based on his stuff)
The fact that some third party burned Joe's work to CD and then gave it to Google does not establish a relationship between Joe and Google, nor does it establish a relationship between Joe and the third party that made the CD. In other words, the third party violated Joe's copyright when they distributed his work to Google.
Why? If google is a usenet server then the third part who archived the content in accordance with general usenet practices did nothing wrong. They already had implied permission to do this. I was simply pointing out that such storage was a practice before with usenet, and as such google cannot be chastised for having a permanent record since it already existed (and as such posting to usenet must involve such implied permission).
The works for hire bit you mentioned involves a consideration (payment) for the right to the works. Do you believe Joe had a work-for-hire arrangement with Google, possibly years before Google was incorporated?
It was an example; want a better one then here: webrowsers have implied permission to copy web pages into cache both in ram and on the hard drive. This is, ignoring implied permission, clearly copyright violation especially in hard drive cache. Nonetheless web pages do not need to give explicit permission and this implied permission may even override explicit permission.
Re:Thankfully? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not making a legal argument. RFCs aren't legally binding. But they would give you the expectation that implementors would follow them. So if you weren't relying on documented rules, what was the basis for your expectation?
That's the ground rules most people assumed,
Maybe you did. How do you know "most people" did? I didn't. I used an ancestor of Usenet back about 1979, and the modern version since the early 1990s. For one thing, individuals have always kept their own archives of groups that interested them. Hardened trolls and flame warriors delight in digging up ancient posts and quoting them back, preferably out of context.
Clearly, companies have wide latitude in archiving, repurposing, and republishing anything individuals put on the web or on USENET, without the permission of those individuals. I think that's bad
Why is this "bad"? I think it's excellent. Usenet archived messages have solved uncountable problems for me. You have plenty of options: you can post under a pseudonym (which I do mostly to avoid spammers); you can use the "X-No-archive" header which Google and some others (but not of course the NSA et al) will honour; or ask Google to delete your message from their archive. But once you publish something, whether on paper or the web, you can't unpublish it.
Re:Gtalk (Score:5, Insightful)
Which in turn makes it easier to prove it was you who sent the message, for example if your partner later decides to betray you.
Re:Strange Decision (Score:2, Insightful)
So, let's get this straight, when you post to Slashdot, you believe that you have the right to dictate that Slashdot only reproduce "your content" on the screens of people who've bought an exclusive $500 license from you, and that the Slashdot admins are responsible for enforcing this bizarre constraint because, you're a copyright holder?
In other words, you're an idiot.
If you don't want your content reproduced on Usenet (including Google Groups) then don't post it to Usenet.
Re:Gtalk (Score:3, Insightful)
I prefer to discuss all my illegal activities using the RL protocol.
Re:Gtalk (Score:3, Insightful)
What it you want to discuss something entirely legal, but private? Like talking to your lawyer about a case brought against you? Or discussing your child's medical condition with your spouse?
Are you really okay with Google keeping a record of such conversations?
I'm not, which is why I wouldn't use Google's services for anything which needs to stay confidential.