Slashdot Mirror
Google Asks Booble To Cease And Desist
cosmodemonic writes "The folks at Search Engine Journal have the low-down on a cease and desist order that Google has sent to the porn search engine/Google parody Booble. It seems that, although Booble is claiming to be a parody (which is protected under law), Google is flexing its muscle because of the marketability of the parody." Search Engine Journal makes the reasonable suggestion: "Recent rulings may favor Google in the case, since Booble may be trying to profit from the marketability of the parody."
I hope Google adds this to their search features. Who wouldn't want to harness the power of Google for searching pr0n?
Check out my sysadmin blog!
Shame, I liked Even Worse a lot when I was a boy...
Who did what now?
I thought the folks at google had a better sense of humor.
Is it dissappearing as a result of the impending IPO?
The best planning can be done after the project completes.
What about parody movies like space balls? Can Lucas sue them because they made money?
--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor?
American Weblog in London
Pun intended. See topic.
C|N>K
Why is there no 'I'm feeling Horny' button.
Anyone have a mirror of any sort? Xstop stepped in to block it...
***
Everyone wants a semi psychotic imaginary stalker ex-boyfriend
That doesn't seem right. It's no more pornographic than google is.
Like Spaceballs, Hot Shots, etc? Since when was making money off of a parody such a bad thing, as long as there is no mistaking it for the original?
Game dev and music blog
A search engine, like google, but that finds porn? Why is there no permanent link to this from the slashdot main page?
I haven't come across that one before - ...
Unlike youho.com
Is google afraid that people would mistake booble for the real thing?
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Thanks slashdot for introducing me to booble!!! P0rn is the backbone of the internet, glad someone create a easy and funny way to search out my fetishes..
If it wasn't for news like this one I would have never known about this excellent site! Thanks google
I can find porn much faster and more accurately with google than with booble, so I don't see why they have their panties in a bunch. Speaking theoretically of course!
besides most of the search results on google these days are just commercial indices to "Hot Products." Why use google ? What other options are there though ? Anybody here have suggestions on a decent search engine ?
Well, Booble returns exactly 0 (zero) hits for the term "pr0n". So much for that "service". Try it on Google instead and hit the I Feel Lucky button.
Money for nothing, pix for free
to became also stupid. Even making money, booble adds a brick to google's institution, and doesn't hurt google's busines. Pity.
Please don't shut down the dedicated porn search engine Booble, I ONLY JUST FOUND OUT IT EXISTED!!
:(
If this is about your own, you know, "inadequacies", you don't need to worry, I'll still love you, but you need to understand, I really like porn!
Doesnt he have some songs he doesnt publish for licensing reasons but still performs?
Tip: The most successful porn sites update daily or (at least) every three days.
Tip: In most cases, Credit Card charges will reflect the billing company or, a vague and benign reference to the Adult site.
Tip: Avoid sites that offer access to free pornography by requiring downloading of special software.
Tip: Never download any software unless you are 100% percent certain about what you are downloading.
Tip: Adult merchants don't want a problem with Credit Card companies, and therefore they do not want a problem with consumers.
Will they go after Bloggle.com next. It's not a Web Blog search engine, but it does have a similar sounding name.
...the marketability of the parody
IWTKAL, but I think Booble is on pretty solid ground here. This is clearly, clearly a parody site (in fact, it's pretty bad parody if you ask me) and nowhere near functional.
I mean geez, a porn search engine that doesn't return any hits for "Jenna Haze," "Cherry Rain," or "Belladonna" is a long way from "marketable."
It's one thing to infringe copyright with additional creative material to create a parody.
It's another thing to do a 5 minute knock off of a popular website and stick a giant adult store behind it.
Did you notice Google wants the domain? Starting Booble again? On a nother note, this is the first juridical document that I've ever seen from Google... Otherwise it's more of a "hey buddy..." tone in their writing...
To shut it down sure would be twisted
We just learned this place existed...
The Simpsons has an answer for everything
and if you see me strut, remind me of what left this outlaw torn...
From the article:
2. Take steps to transfer the Domain Name to Google;
Now what could google do with this...
IANAL, but I think I see the line being drawn here.
Money can be made off of a parody, such as Spaceballs, because of the intent behind it - to make money directly from reaction to the parody.
Booble isn't doing that. Booble is using the name parody as an advertisement. They're trying to make money by using that as a pull, a gimmick, a trick.
Too bad Google probably has the name trademarked. Google now can use fair litigation to shut them down.
In other words: Google uses dark magics for good purposes, such as self-defense!
What's going to happen to these others? Like xgoogle.com (irc search) etc? Hell they may as well go after www.googirl.com.ar too, pathetic.
I've already lost all confidence in Google, they're just another ecompany who's lost their way.
--- any post that takes longer than 20 seconds to write, isn't worth writing
reason; there never was a Fox News vs. Simpsons tiff.
Groening came out and said his comment was just a joke; Fox News never complained about the Simpsons parody, much less threaten to sue.
Teoma is giving a lot better results for most searches I try there compared to Google. Teoma does have some drawbacks, its database is not as big or as fresh and it does not have the extras like usenet search or a news search.
Wait, so a parody is okay...unless it's such a clever parody that it makes you money?
The government should not be in the business of judging jokes. The joke is not subtle and it's not very creative. So what?
Copyright is an exacting thing so that people CAN build on the work of others - that's the whole point of copyright to begin with. As for Trademark, yeah the site is misleading, but Booble is not Google.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
After hearing about Booble on a local radio morning show, I figured I'd have a look. Booble is simple a clever spin on Link or TGP sites, trying to up sell paid porn sites. Booble gets a commission when you click any link and sign up for a premium site.
:-P
You're better off just going to the hun for your porn.
and seperate porn search into its own space. This way, searching the web would improve alot - and searching for porn too :)
I understand that the spate of frivilous and poorly thought out litigation that has swept over the Internet in the past few years has made everyone who appreciates the freedom that the net offers cringe when they see lawsuits and C&Ds like this one. However, Google's concerns don't appear to be unfounded.
The comments that I've seen so far have been quick to point out that parodies such as Spaceballs and Hot Shots! made money and were protected, but the analogy falls down quicky, in my opinion. The Booble site looks exactly like Google, and the only indication (from the front page) that you're not dealing with the same company and the same search technology is the fine print at the bottom of the page that Joe Internet User couldn't read and understand if he wanted to. Going back to the film parody analogy, Booble's parody of Google would be akin to Mel Brooks casting Mark Hammill, Carrie Fisher, and Harrison Ford in Star Wars Episode VII: Spaceballs and creating a film that looked and felt like it fit in the series, while providing a small disclaimer at the beginning that it wasn't affiliated with the franchise.
Most litigation and "big guy ordering little guy to C&D" that we see is bad and hurts everybody, but there are still times when it's legitimate. I submit that Google has done what it had to do in this case, and that we shouldn't all immediately run to back the little guy without considering the situation.
In my opinion, it's just a marketing strategy to get attention for their site, which they can change to something else in the future and keep all the 'clients'.
Aargh, I've seen some terrible pictures in my life, but the one of Cowboy Neal at his desk beats them all :)
If only I could come up with a good sig
On an adult webmaster board a couple of days ago. The owner of booble posted a reply to the thread saying he believed he was completely protected by the 1st amendment. It was a parody site he claimed.
Well...looks like he was wrong...
Booble is (was ? ) simply worthless as a pr0n engine.
What, an "adult search engine" that returns exactly 0 matches for the word "bondage" ?
I mean, come ON ! Even altavista picture search does better !
(Uh, hope my supervisor doesn't read slashdot too much...)
Thomas Miconi
Ooops it looks like Booble made a boobie.
Philip
Philip
Signatures are broken
Why hasn't google gone after goggle or other closely spelled web domains similar to google?
I had users go to goggle and be stuck with many popups.
How dumb can people be and still be accounted for as people? No, seriously? At some point you get retarded legally speaking, and are put to care (usually due to mental illness, but some people have extra cromosons and stuff. You know..).
So I repeat my question: How stupid can people get, while still being considered people?
Some recent lawsuits makes me think that smart people are an endagered species these days. We are obviously to be held accountable when stupid people fuck up, because whatever we did, we anticipated, well... some minimal sort of intelligence?
Sorry... This question just leaps to mind at regular intervals... And the intervals are getting smaller and smaller...
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
You have come a long ( and sad ) way when you can make the news on /. and have many of the horde aligned against you. This is not the Google I love.
I'd never heard of Booble before seeing it in the /. post.
I think that the publicity brought by the C&D letter will probably increase Booble's bottom line to the point where they'll be able to fight it in court. A court fight would bring substantial media attention, and Booble's traffic would increase a hundred-fold.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
Why do none of these comments seem to notice that this seems to be another example of a recent trend to effect a huge extention of the concept of a trademark to cover not merely the registered mark itself, but the entire family of phonetically "similar" (for arbitrarily vague definitions of similar) structures in the language? This isn't just owning a word, which is an evil enough concept. This is in effect software-patenting an algorithm for the construction of words: something very different indeed!
That law as I understand it prohibits uses of a trademark (the mark itself, not homophones like mikerowesoft) in ways that dilute the value of the mark, but permits use of the mark in unrelated contexts (which is why Yahoo! can't sue all literary works that use the word). The law seems to pretty clearly end at the mark itself: Booble is safe not because it's a parody, but because it doesn't say "Google". The cases I've heard of (standard disclaimers of legal naivete apply) where this line is burred are all organized around the concept of confusion: the contested use "might be confused" with the registered mark. This is already territory ill-defined enough for plenty of injustice. Nobody is going to accidentally go to Booble, or think "Google is running a porn site!" or anything else that might hurt their IPO (which is, after all, the Highest Law of our land).
Google's action is arrogant bullying: those guys should show some of that legendary idealism and hire some lawyers more secure in the potency of their tools.
Booble has brought suit to the child website Poodle.com for neglecting to adequately reference fecalphiliac or beastiality sites.
It seems Booble doesn't want their image tarnished by legitimate pet sales.
Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform
Several posts have questioned the difference between a parody making profit and the site in question. Besides the obvious RTFA, there is a rather large gap between the movies/songs suggested and the site in question.
Parody's are allowed to make money, there is no problem with that. The distinction lies in whether the parody makes money (attention, whatever) due to it's own content or due to the content of it's predecessor. A successful parody uses it's predecessor as a starting point but, in order to be successful paradoy, must have it's own message, generally humor.
Example: Song x makes a few million dollars. As a form of art another artist creates song y based on the original song x. People hear song y on the radio (stream, etc) and decide to buy (download, etc) song y because they like it. Or in simplest terms, they purchase/download/acquire song y due to it's own merits, not necessarally due to the merits of the original.
In the case of the site in question, they have used the notoriety of the original to create business for themselves. They are not creating a commentary or derived work to be successful or not on it's own two feet. The goal of Booble is not to make a commentary/etc on Google, but to use the image of Google to sell their own product. The fact that it is Porn meens nothing, it would be no differant than if I started up a searchsite called Wooble, used a very similar front-end, etc. to search for Small Furry Animals.
I would submit that the closest I have seen to an actual google paradoy would probably be elgoog, though even that would be stretching the definition of parody as I see no real commentary in Elgoog, only nifty "See what I can do"-ity.
Whee signature.
"We would rather sue than compete". Nuff said
Cheers
junk
Amazingly, only an hour ago, I considered google one of the coolest companies I knew of, and actively defended them when people commented on the amount of googlebombing and googlespamming.
If this article is true, then they can go to hell, like all the other legal-driven asshat corporate tools I have to deal with on a regular basis.
Way to destroy that brand loyalty. For the first time in years, I'm going to go and see what other search engines exist, because web searching just became a commodity in my mind.
If I were putting together a porn parody of google then I would have made the search results part of the parody. Search for 'volkswagen beetle' and it prompts you for 'Did you mean: Hot young teens f**king '
And more of the same.
Now that would be parody.
OK, that's IT! I can live with Google selling "product placement slots" and telling me I can't spell probably.. but now they're touching my pr0n?!?!? I WILL DESTROY YOU!
That is just a bunch of B.S.
It's obviously a parody. Google's basic argument is that it's a successful parody. So you're not allowed to parody a website unless no one visits it?
What a stupid viewpoint. Do that mean it's only ok to make jokes about corporations as long as no one laughs? After all, funny jokes are marketable, crappy one aren't. (Except here on slashdot.)
Life is too short to proofread.
He didn't do the video because he desires permission of the authors. Nothing in that article states that he's legally disallowed from making the video, he's just standing by his (previously mentioned) judgment that it's better for artist relations if he's not going against artists' wishes.
One decision since then has vilified them, and suddenly they are the bad guys trying to restrict our rights and freedoms.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
You know what? Screw you and your dumb joke. Most, if not all corporations are evil.
Or at least amoral. There are only two options for a corporation: amoral or immoral.
When I see a company like google taking steps like these, then damnit, they step over the line, and they deserve what they get. That's the price they pay for the "invented status" we give corporations in America. They get the benefit of being an entity and massive tax cuts, without the negative aspects like being sued or jailed, and the people involved don't get held responsible for the reprehensible things they do.
It sucks, and that's where the outrage comes from - if the U.S. Stopped giving corporations a shield against the crimes they perpetrate and the ability to hold themselves outside of society, but still reap the benefits of being a member, then we wouldn't need to attack them over every infraction.
if so , why hasn't whitehouse.org taken down whitehouse.com or blackhouse.com ? given the fact that both are porn site...
they didn't think of it first.
Here it is from booble.com site:
January 28, 2004
Dear Trademark Enforcement Team,
We are intellectual property counsel to Guywire, Inc. This letter responds to your e-mail message of January 20, 2004 to our client via domains by proxy.
As your communication recognizes, our client adopted and uses the BOOBLE and booble.com designations to parody the Google web site. Our client's web site is in fact a successful parody, which simultaneously brings to mind the original, while also conveying that it is not the original. See, e.g.,Jordache Enters., Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd., 828 F.2d 1482, 1486 (10th Cir. 1987) (finding no likelihood of confusion between LARDASHE for oversized jeans, despite its obvious similarity with, and parody of, the well-known JORDACHE mark for jeans). Cf. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F. 3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001) (finding a domain name parody was unsuccessful because Internet users had to view the web site before they were able to discover that it was not the original). Obviously, the Booble web site brings to mind the Google web site, at the same time that it underscores its unique identity as a parodic adult search engine.
In trademark law, parody is a defense to trademark infringement. Eveready Battery Co. v. Adolph Coors Co., 765 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (holding that a commercial advertisement of a well-known actor in a bunny outfit, banging a drum, was an effective parody of the plaintiff's mechanical toy rabbit advertising character). In the present case, consumers are highly unlikely to be confused as to the source of services for several reasons, including the following:
the domain names are entirely different;
the BOOBLE web site searches only provide content related to Adult web sites, including TGP sites, Adult stores, and Adult-related products like browser cleaners, pop-up filters, etc.; and
the BOOBLE mark is distinct from the GOOGLE mark in that it differs in sound, appearance, commercial impression, and other relevant aspects:
it features a woman's chest;
it uses the phrase, 'The Adult Search Engine;'
it posts a warning that the web site contains explicit content; and
it disclaims any association with Google.com.
Neither does the Booble trademark dilute Google's mark. First, the capacity of the GOOGLE mark to identify and distinguish its services is unchanged by Booble's use of its mark. See, e.g., Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 US 418 (2003) (requiring proof of actual dilution). In addition, Booble does not tarnish the Google mark. See, e.g., L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1987) (finding that a sexually explicit parody of appellee's catalog did not constitute tarnishment). Moreover, Booble's web site is an adult search engine, not 'a pornographic site,' as referred to in your letter. In fact, entering the terms "porn" and "sex" in the Google search engine return 98,400,000 hits and 269,000,000 hits, respectively, while entering these same terms in the Booble adult search engine return 268 hits and 291 hits, respectively. Therefore, the Google mark - which has a longstanding association with pornographic terms and material - is obviously not tarnished.
In your letter, you refer to the Supreme Court decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (holding that a commercial parody may qualify as a fair use and is not presumptively unfair). As you may have recognized, this is a copyright case. Although some analytic similarities exist between copyright and trademark parody cases, Google neither claims copyright infringement in its letter, nor is any relevant portion of its web site copyrightable. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 815 (1st Cir. 1995) (holding that literal copying of a computer command hierarchy does not constitute copyright infringement because it is an uncopyrightable method of operation). Therefore, while we feel that Campbell adequately supports the legality of Booble's paro
Omgili - Find out what people are saying.
If it wasn't for Porn, you wouldn't enjoy the benfits of the VCR or the Internet.
No joke. Porn drives most of the geek stuff that we want. It drives the cost down so regular folks can afford it.
We joke about spin-offs from the space program (i.e. Teflon, velcro), which turns out *just aren't true*.
But the spin-offs from porn are real, and we use them daily. And you badmouth it?
Besides, I don't get why you get so offended about sex. You mom and dad did it. Maybe you'll get it some day, and your children will do it.
Its as much a part of the human condition as eating, shiting, sleeping or anything else.
You know what? Screw you and your idiotic ideology. Most, if not all ideologues are mentally ill.
...is Google jumping over a big fat shark.
Troll? Really?
This is clearly a parody of IANAL, and therefore protected under copyright law...
www.youho.com has been around for a while, and is eerily similar to yahoo.com, save for the subject matter.
Booble is a genius idea for Google. Why not just buy them out?
What drives you to live above simple hunter-gatherer status, if you have no ideals to follow?
I think a good example of this would have been Mike Rowe calling his domain name a parody of the Redmond company.
Google turns more and more evil every day. Go ahead, mod me down. Contrary thoughts are forbidden.
This might be the case of butterflies in stomach before the expected Google IPO. They might want to portray a little 'not so soft' image implying that they can put up a fight in the big corporate world of patent/trademark slinging giants.
I love Google like most of you all out there but going public is ought to have bittersweet consequences. Methinks.
Free XBox, PS2
The scat search engine at poogle
Thanks, Google!
don't click on their "I am feeling confused" button below the text field (I suppose it's analagous to Google's "I'm feeling lucky" button).
It returnes a website dedicated to Hermaphrodite pr0n (if you don't know what that is, trust me... you're better off not knowing)
Ecchhh... I'm going to go shower now.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Wouldn't oogle be a better name for a porn site?
I admit, I stole the joke from a previous poster a few weeks ago. But I thought it worth repeating.
From the C&D, their case appears to have one invalid point and valid point:
"Your web site improperly duplicates the distinctive and proprietary overall look and feel of Google's website"
Invalid. Cases based on "look and feel" alone have been shot down, stemming back to Borland vs. Lotus. It might be a different story if they are running Google search code.
including Google's trade dress and the GOOGLE logo.
Logos and names are legitimately protected by copyright and trademark, and Google has a right to defend their name and logo.
It's hardly a parody, but an attempt to capitalize on a play on Google's name. However, they should be able to get off the hook just by changing name and logo.
While doing a search on Google for the NAED (National Association of Electrical Distributors), Google's first response:
Did you mean: Naked
How right Booble was in pointing out that Google tarnishes its own reputation more than Booble does...
On another note, I think it's completely ludicrous that Google, in their letter, wanted Booble to transfer the domain name to them. They have absolutely NO business asking for something like that. The two words are completely different. But hey, this is the world we live in now...
Tiava.com is my favorite. No blind links, and there's even a help page to teach newbies how to get rid of popups and spyware. No links to Mozilla though :(
http://www.booble.com/google.html
this actually steals google's code (look at the source, you'll see). they are actually using google's logo. and it's actually stored on their server. that is unauthorized reproduction, essentially.
it's a funny twist on google. and screw google for going IPO, but booble is directly infringing if they keep that page.
--even a broken watch is correct twice a day.
Legally, I believe you'd have a strong case. Financially you'd be dead in the water. Only a DORK would drive a Dorkswagen.
But only a dork would drive a Volkswagen. It doesn't seem to hurt them.
This has been decided many times in court. The whole reason that trademarks exist is so that someone can't leech off of the hard work that Google has put into building its brand. Booble can not win this case. Parodies can not be repetitive by nature. You can't start an entire business which is a parody. That said, you may want to check out my porn search engine which doesn't infringe on any trademarks: http://www.igetporn.com
Here's the help page from that site. Pretty cool info for a porn site :) (nothing that most people here don't already know though).
If MikeRoweSoft had to give it up for MicroSoft...cause they sound the same...then Booble should give it up for Google...they sound the same too, course my harelip may be tainting my opinion.
Then again, did you say a porn search engine!??!
Yeah, yeah!
If Booble had been a parody, then the point would have been to make us laugh at / think about Google. But that's not their point. Their point is to sell something else, using Google's fame to do it.
For instance, a real Google parody might try to return the funniest / most twisted search results for a query. Booble, by contrast, is returning serious results so that they can sell advertising. It's not that the joke, such as it was, wasn't a little funny -- it's that they can't keep using it to promote their business.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Boy, I walked into that one, didn't I?
Thanks! I needed that laugh this morning!
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
not really eating-breakfast safe either
goatse never fails tu turn my stomach...
I tried to find "dogs", "pigs" and even "pacifier" but it didnt work.
SHE does throw dice.
Parody? How is that site a parody? Are those ads I see on it? Just like googles?
The ideal solution is for Boogle to change the design of the site so it does not like they just copied the html code straight from Google's site. If Google is trying to uses its power to control every deriative word that sounds like Google, such as Boogle, then I will start using Teoma more than I do now.
Owning a poodle? That's a paddlin. Doodlin? That's a paddlin. Eating oodles of noodles? That's definitely a paddlin!
The "joke" has all the humor of an IRS audit.
It might have actually been funny IF that was a lagit screen shot and not edited graphics.
This is cheap shot at Google for the C&D. It's sour grapes not humor.
Sort of like when a bully beats a kid up. "It's funny" at least as far as the bully is conserned.
They don't want to take the situation sereously and have opted to rely on cheap shots and simple minded arguments.
But the "parody" is nothing more than an adult search engen. It like the "Google has no sense of hummor" cheap shot is funny like a tax auditors expression when you say your puppys are dependents.
I don't actually exist.
And these guys?
Its not parady, but it sure looks MORE like google to me, but its not as they state.
and http://xgoogle.org/
these guys have an irc search engine, sure making it sound like a google thing.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
"Recent rulings may favor Google in the case, since Booble may be trying to profit from the marketability of the parody."
So a movie that parodies other movies (Scary Movie) isn't allowed to try to make a profit? That explains a lot...
Go to http://www.googlegear.com/, and notice how the URL changes to http://www.google.com/googlegear.html. The message displayed:
Please note: The website formerly known as Googlegear.com is not now and has never been associated with Google Inc., and is now zipzoomfly.com. To go to zipzoomfly.com, click here.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
So they need an IPO and make the owners rich, sack all the hard workers that made google what it is, and pay them only 3months salary. Hire new people from India and 1/5th the cost. Keep making shitloads of profits for the major shareholders.
If you have those requirements, why would you want to work at google, make your company to compete with them, if 3-5 guys can make google what it is, then screw em and compete with them.
Besides PHDs are useless, any one can get a PhD on "how ants walk" or "joy of irc" , just write 50,000 words on it thats boring as fuck and 10 years out of date. What a waste of human brain power.
Make a million in 12 months, thats worth more than any PhD.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
A parody is something that pokes fun at the various commonalities of something in a humorous way. It's a original work that makes fun of another original work.
This is someone trying to make a business, and copying the look and feel of another, popular entry in the same arena, slightly changing the name and logo, and then wondering why it's getting in trouble.
Imagine if Pepsi made a new drink called 'Bolt.' It's logo is a large, yellow, metal bolt. That just happens to be be bent a little in the middle. And it's got a whole ton of caffiene. Would that be a 'parody' of Coke's Jolt cola?
Are in SERIOUS trouble Mister!
...the fact that the "g" and the "b" are pretty close together on qwerty keyboards...
What's obvious to me is that Google is, in fact, trying to capitalize on an innovation that they did not think up, to name a website "Booble" and make it a search engine. However, if they're really worried about the public's good will to them, they can put out a statement on their website saying that they have no affiliation with Booble. Oh, and sorry, but they have NO RIGHT to have the public at large have "good will" towards them either.
Note to Google: You have no property right in your reputation. In other words, you do not have the right to have others think well of you. Get over it.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Went to the website, searched for hardcore paris hilton, sex and penetration. couldnt find anything. this site has to be a parody cause i couldnt get any good porn from it.
Well, Google keeps trying to set up new services, like "Froogle". Culd it be that an official Booble is next? I am rooting for google on this one.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Pitty [sic] god didnt write in the bible the one who takes money from interpretting law is the devil.
You forget priests are just the first type of lawyers to appear. It would never get in the bible...
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
It would be a sad excuse, except that 'booble' and 'google' aint' the same. Google can't trademark all sounds that "start with a consonent, and end with the same consonent and 'le'". The idea of it is riduclous and I hope it gets thrown out as frivolous.
I'll add two to that list:
Sublime Directory
Literotica
Also, Google really doesn't have much choice but to go after Booble, even if they had enough sense of humor to tolerate it. If they fail to "defend" their trademarks like this, their trademark protection would lapse, and every other sound-alike or look-alike variation on their trademark would also be availble for anyone to use.
The purpose of Spaceballs was to churn a profit. As far as movies go, success is not measured by if the movie is entertaining, but by how much money the movie makes. Sure Titanic made lots of money, but it was not entertaining. Spaceballs was not made to entertain, it was made for profit. Stuiods do not make movies thinking:
"If this movie loses millions of dollars it is fine, because this is entertainment, as long as people are enjoying it, we are winners."
As the owner of an incorporated business, I take offense to your statement. Sure, we tried to make money, but we played by the rules and didn't do anything terrible. Furthermore, in my work there we encountered many, many non-profit corporations that employed caring good people to help those in need. I would argue these would be good corporations. I would guess that the Salvation army is also incorporated and not terribly evil.
I'd also point out some companies like Ben and Jerry's (prior to selling in particular) which enforced a degree of wage equality and donated a significant portion of their takings to charity. I'm sure you'll respond to a link pointing out that B&J's has a secret lab where they torture kittens, but the point is not about them, but about the large number of benign companies.
I would agree that most companies are fairly amoral. They strive mostly to make money, but most play by the rules to do so. They also give a lot of money to charity, but not so much as to grossly impact their bottom line. In fact, they sound pretty much like good decent working people who are out to make money in order to take care of their families or self and occassionally give some money to the needy.
In this case of Google, I feel they are fully justified in protecting their hard work from some assholes who are trying to rip them off. The point I make elsewhere is that with Google and Froogle and what I'm sure are going to be others in this naming scheme, consumers are becoming used to the idea that _oo_le.com is powered by Google technology and has Google's support. Booble is doubly embarassing then. Firstly, because it is pornagraphic in nature which may damage Google's reputation for being relatively clean. Secondly, because of these reports that the searching technology employed is terrible. If people (remember many people are dumb) associate the two sites, Google stands to lose what its hard working people built up, in the meantime Booble gets to profit from cleverly riding Google's good name. Which of these companies did real work, and which is the freeriding asshole? I'll stand behind Google.
Google in some ways is a very good example of what a for-profit corporation should be. They provide an excellent service. They have refused to take money to worsen that service. They also do their best to prevent their service from being hijacked by people with one agenda or another. They make money and deserve to do so. They haven't been overly litigous, and in this instance are simply protecting themselves. Even if the lawsuit fails, by generating some press that they and Booble are at odds, they have innoculated themselves from the association and thus limited their losses. Wouldn't you do the same to protect your work?
I've taken the time to read some of your other posts and know that this was not the troll it appeared to be. You appear to be stressed, have problems with the legal system and be bitter about corporate life. I (probably delusionaly) hope to moderate your view on corporations somewhat. Most corporations are fairly small and represent people who have risked a lot to try and make a living for their families or help somebody else's. If you have problems with some, don't attack everyone else.
And to everyone else - we all like to support the little guy ripping off the big guy. It just really sucks when you're the big guy and remember what it was like to be the little guy who found a way to succeed fairly.
'nuff said.
No, Google's argument is that it's not a parody if you're actively and specifically using it to make money. Then, it's just a really funny trademark infringement.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Booble is well protected as a parody under the copyright laws. Indeed, parody is one of only two "fair uses" explicitly coded into US law. The other (if you're interested) allows lending libraries to make copies.
Although its probably possible to prove that Booble really isn't a parody, Google faces an uphill battle to do so.
The trademark laws are another matter entirely. If Google can prove that Booble mimics their trademarks in a manner which dilutes Google's value (for example, by failing to make it clear that Booble is not run by Google) then Google can stomp all over them for the trademark violation.
Remember, if I put up a red sign on my restauraunt with yellow lettering which reads "MacDonalds" I am very much in violation of McDonald's trademark. and they can nail me to the wall.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
What dark magics? Despite being lumped in with "Intellectual property" by corporate types, there's nothing particularly bad about trademarks - they are simple, non-overreaching limits on what you can do with somebody else's name and image. It's pretty damn hard to do anything bad with a trademark; they just can't do that much.
(having an answer for everything, that is)
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
Google is effectively claiming that people are confusing Booble with the original Google, when they search for porn, so Booble is competing with Google and diluting Google's trademark. So Google is claiming the porn search business as essential to their brand image. Not exactly the best ammunition to hand the sniping Microsoft as the search war heats up again, with a Google IPO coming down the pipe.
Does this Google defense demonstrate a new defense from satire fair use? If my website also publishes a weak self parody, can't I just claim that any otherwise legit mockery is unfair competition for my satire customers, and an illegal dilution of my brand? This is better than a "poison pill" to thwart a hostile equity takeover: it's an acid tab to thwart journalists!
--
make install -not war
MOD PARENT UP!
Um there is one platform I hate, and I do know what I'm talking about. I despise the platform I had to make as part of Operating Systems Class. I probably hate it in fact because of how well I DO know what I'm talking about. Oh, and the fact that that damn thing stole my life from me for almost two months.
Have you ever heard the word "infrastructure"?
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Google has developed a distinctive layout and design for its Google website. Over the years since its inception, Google has invested considerable time and money establishing exclusive rights in this layout and design.
Hey, Google, I use a userContent.css client-side stylesheet in Mozilla to override aspects of your distinctive layout, including suppression of all your Sponsored Links, creating an unauthorized derivative work visible only to me. Wanna sue me?
Anyway, to the story: Booble is only confusingly similar to Google because Google itself is confusing their own trademark with Froogle and other alterations of their trademark. If you mangle your own trademark, you have less grounds to object when someone else does. (This is the reason one of TiVo's representatives gave when TiVo eliminated the "Sad TiVo" logo in their Blue Screen of No Signal (BSoNS).)
They've weakened their own trademark by their own actions. They should be serving cease & desist orders on themselves first before going after other sites.
As to their objection that the pornographic searches of Booble damages Google's reputation, perhaps then Google should discontinue Google Image searches that allows searches for boobies which turns up bare female human breasts at all three levels of their Safe Search settings.
And the site does parody Google as it comments upon Google's own dilution of their trademark, such as Froogle. Google opened the door to parody with Froogle. Google has no case. (At least, so long as Booble doesn't sell real Sponsored Links or otherwise accept advertising money.)
They do however have the money to pay lawyers through lengthy litigation. Booble will need to solicit aid from EFF and/or other sources willing to foot their legal bill.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I typed several of the leading search terms (you know what they are, and you know they're all pr0n related) and they all return 0 hits.
However, the "I am feeling lucky" button changes. Sometimes it says "I am feeling lucky", sometimes it says "I am feeling playful", and sometimes it says "I am feeling nostalgic". Each of these buttons takes you to a different adult site.
So, booble is more of a portal than a search engine.
Now, we know that we can have software called "Firebird" and "Thunderbird" without the car industry dropping engine blocks on us. However, I think "portal" and "search engine" are close enough, in the eyes of the courts and lawyers, for this to be trademark infringement (after all, they thought the Phoenix browser infringed on Phoenix BIOS!)
Yahooka.com, a marijuana activism site, is obviously a takeoff on Yahoo, and they even provide directory-based search engine services. To date, I think Yahoo has left them alone. I suppose it's because they're a not-for-profit website though.
No, Google's argument is that it's not a parody if you're actively and specifically using it to make money. Then, it's just a really funny trademark infringement.
Which is pretty much what I said, just stated in terms that don't make google look quite as dumb.
What your first sentence is saying is that making money and parody are supposedly mutually exclusive. So if you want to have a parody, it can't make any money, which is ridiculous. Ever hear of Mad magazine?
Booble.com is a clear mockery of google.com. It uses titties for O's fer chrissake. Trademark infringement is when you use someone else's trademark or something that looks close enough that most people would mistake it for the real trademark. Even if someone misses the titties on the front page and the bright red warning, they're gonna catch on that it's not google when the only search results they get are for porn.
What google is doing is anagous to a company suing mad magazine for trademark infringement over on of its ad parodies. Sure Mad magazine is for-profit, and the names of the products are similar to real products, but it's still a very obvious parody.
Life is too short to proofread.
nuff said... maybe i should have gotten it first.
Parodies are protected by fair use doctrine, which is why Weird Al can do what he does regardless of receiving permission. He asks permission because he believes it's the polite thing to do, and because lawsuits are bad even if unfounded.
The problem I have with billing "Booble" as a parody is that it's not really a work of art; it's a search engine, which is an object with a functional purpose outside of entertainment. If I were to release a TV with a volcano-themed decor and call it a "Magmavox", the name itself would be parody but it's not really art.
Trademark and copyright are very different things. Copyright deals with originality of works of art; trademark deals with the ability for a company to preserve its name and reputation. "Parody" falls under the former; this case seems to apply to the latter.
Member of Orkut? Annoyed with spam?
The idea here is that they're not making money based on the fact that they're an adult entertainment store, they're making money on the fact that they look like Google.
Nobody buys Mad Magazine because they think it has the screenplay for the lastest movie; they buy it specifically for the fact that it's a parody. People wouldn't go to booble.com specifically to view the funny parody; they'd go because they think it's Google's next logical step.
To qualify as parody, the work has to 'stand on it's own merits.' 'Bored of the Rings' is a parody; nobody would possibly buy it thinking it's the next part of the saga.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
When you can't compete -- sue.
I think people will continue to treat that event as fact for the foreseeable future, since it was not initially corrected when reported. I have kind of given up on telling people that Groening was joking, especially as I am not a big fan of the Fox News agenda.
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
Maybe they haven't heard yet about Sploogle (http://www.sploogle.com)? It's pretty low-tech, but I like the name better than Booble.
... as long as noone wants to see it? God bless America.
But I think it's a load of horse-puckey myself.
So should Saturday Night Live be required to non-profit because they parody SOMETHING in almost every show? National Lampoon? Conan?
Yes for example of parody see Google-fight. AFAIK Google hasn't gone after them...
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Is it good or is it whack?
aminaked.com is the way to go
aminaked.com is my choice
If they were, then a google search on "booble" would return a Google link to their actions against them, wouldn't it? Instead, the first hit is www.booble.com.
Granted, the text that it pulls is "... immediately. Leave now. Booble.com is not affiliated with any other search engines. If you are looking for Google.com click here." But then again, Booble could put their name somewhere else on the page if they wanted to avoid that, I bet.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
And since when does being functional preclude something from being art? How about a painted vase?
Eat at Joe's.
antipodean
antipodes ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tp-dz)
pl.n.
1.)Any two places or regions that are on diametrically opposite sides of the earth.
2.)(used with a sing. or pl. verb) Something that is the exact opposite or contrary of another; an antipode.
Google really fell in my eyes, even more than they did after their DMCA fiasco... Altavista had much more dignity when they treated the domain owner with much more respect, while they were still at altavista.digital.com. And they didn't send C&D letters to AstaLaVista, a search engine for cracks.
:)
Google sucks. Let's show them by turning "google" into a generic term! Use this word when you google for hot deal on eBay, google for information on AllTheWeb and google for porn at Booble (not that there is much porn to google for).
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Google uses dark magics for good purposes, such as self-defense!
It's not self-defense unless Google is harmed by it in some way. Google would only be harmed if the public were actually decieved into thinking they were using Google.
Booble is using the name parody as an advertisement. They're trying to make money by using that as a pull, a gimmick, a trick.
And there is noting illegal or harmful about using catchy word-play to make money. Businesses use gimmicks to draw attantion and to be memorable all the time. It is only a violation of trademark if it causes actual confusion in the minds of the public.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
B is near G, and not everyone is a good typist. (See yesterday's eBay thread.)
I wonder how much traffic Google gets from people who mistakenly typed Booble, particularly as a percentage of Booble's traffic. Those kinds of data would greatly help make their case.
Worldsex is all of the pr0n links in this thread combined.
Argh, google has so far been one of those "good" and "nice" companies...
:)
Is someone _really_ going to mistake the booble site for google? C'mon, it's pretty obvious that it's not google. I guess they're pissed that booble knocked off the look of the google page or something. But then they should just have booble chagne it so it's obviously different. Taking down the site name is just too much... I've always though booble was kinda funny
I guess google is just trying to protect their trademark or something, but really... is it that confusing?
I guess nobody's told Yahoo about yourmom.com yet... that site is organize pretty much like yahoo.com... they even mimic the logo. Hmmm, hope yahoo doesn't read slashdot, cuz I may have just alerted them... dammit!
Place sig here.
Just do a search and look the "tips" you get there:
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
Playing with the typos a bit more, I try:
gooble.com -- no DNS resolution
boogle.com -- comes up with a Google-like search box (which activates Google) surrounded by a picture and a quote.
What is this thing? A 'motd' (and picture of the day) run by Google?
...have won an Google has turned to the Dark Side. What's next - they are gonna port to Windows 2003 Server?
...that Google has Booble beat, pants down. Booble could not even hit once on "tribadism", while Google hits about 9,420 times and correct my misspelling of "tribidism". So, I will put up with Google.
Since when is marketing a parody wrong? Someone tell MAD Magazine, National Lampoon and of course movie producers that put out films like "Hot Shots" (parody of Top Gun).
I think Google would be more popular if it featured a woman's chest.
It looks like that google.com/query?lawyers=yes is on a charity drive.
http://www.geekle.com/
http://www.joxx.de/rg/
are two other sites that have had to remove their content.
The first is an associate, the second I found using the wonderful google search engine.
Overrated? It hadn't even been modded yet!
What?
The mind boobles.
The problem I have with this article has nothing to do with pr0n or google specifically. What disturbs me most is the clause that "Recent rulings may favor Google in the case, since Booble may be trying to profit from the marketability of the parody." I think it could be proven that literally EVERBODY who has ever parodied anything popular has profited from the parody. Weird Al could get his skin sued off according to this rule, and I like Weird Al!
I had a dream that I was dreaming about recursion.
with respect to parody.
First, as others noted, Al gets licenses to everything he uses.
Second, the standards for Copyright, by parody and the Fair Use defense under Section 107 of Title 17, is different both in kind and in the underlying analytical framework than the parody defense against Trademark and Unfair competition claims.
The Supreme Court has established the standard that even commercial parody can be fair use under the Copyright Act (This is Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, the 2 Live Crew v. Roy Orbison case regarding "O Pretty Woman.")
The standard for trademark law is far more mercenary in nature. The question goes to fundamental purposes for the parody -- is it to make fun of something, primarily, incidentally making some value because its funny, or is it to borrow the good will from sombody to sell something. Another question goes to the extent to which confusion might actually arise -- are they really taking good will here. Finally, it goes to tarnishment. Many parodies survived, but many others didn't. When the parodizer uses sex, drugs or rock 'n roll to play with the original mark, they tend to lose, in part, because of the tarnishment of the original goodwill.
Cases are regional in nature, and very haphazard. I wouldn't presume to predict how it would come out, but I must note that there may well be real likelihood of confusion here, and more, if so, a real risk of tarnishment.
There is a similar site at http://www.nooble.com/
Everyone should be able to go after MAD TV and SNL too. Am I right? They are making a profit on a parody...
Coolio cashed the check then said he didn't approve the parody.. If I remember correctly..
We might not be there yet, but google might become a regular word through usage, especially as a verb. After that, perhaps booble could become a verb for surfing porn. They may simply be ahead of their time.
Are google going to send a C&D to Aoogle, Boogle (ooo, google could have a case here too), Coogle, Doogle, Eoogle, Foogle, ...
mind you most of those don't look anything like google, but that means they would have no protection under parody.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
google is useless at porn searcher
Well, I tried "urine" and "watersports" in booble.
0 hits.
On google, "urine" gets over 3 million hits.
Even a more qualified search like "teeange asian watersports" gets over 3000 hits (and it even corrected my spelling: "Did you mean: teenage asian watersports ").
Being useful doesn't preclude it being art. The point is that the only thing about Booble that could be remotely considered "art" are the name and the logo, in other words the parts pertaining to trademarks.
If a vase has a painting on it, the painting could be considered art. Even coffee mugs with cutesy phrases on them could be considered art plastered on a functional item. Booble, on the other hand, is a non-artistic endeavor with a cutesy name.
Member of Orkut? Annoyed with spam?
Pity. Since adult sites are not going to go away, wouldn't it make sense to segregate them off onto their own search engine, thus freeing others to refuse to list them?
This way, almost everybody wins.. those that want to search adult sites don't have to filter through the non-adult cruft, and those that want to do other searches don't have to be annoyed by the adult sites. Search engines can choose to accept or refuse adult sites. The only people who loose are those that believe that the world doesn't want such divisions.