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."
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
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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.
The Booble people hope to capitalise on the marketability of the name; to claim that the name is a parody is a sad excuse. I could, for example, start manufacturing cars, call the company Dorkswagen, and claim that it's 'only a parody of Volkswagen' when challenged about the similarity of the names.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be a "search engine". Try searching for likely subjects like "Pamela" and you get NO results. They "suggest" searching for "porn", that gives you a list of rated websites. I'd guess that's the only search that works -- unless anyone has more patience than me wants to try. It's really just a hand-compiled list of porn sites.
For a work to constitute a parody, it must use some elements of a prior author"s composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on the original author"s works. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569. Your website does not comment on the Google website at all; it merely uses the Google look and feel and a similar name for a search engine.
SpaceBalls clearly is a new work, and, in part, comments on the original author's works. Does the Booble website make jabs at Google's company practices? Is imitating Google's design a comment?
I'd say Booble's logo, in itself, is a parody. The website, as a whole, is not.
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
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.
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.
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.
The line I would draw (and this probably intersects the law at exactly zero points) is this: does the new work take market-share away from the original due to the original's name-recognition. If you are really parodying, there should be little or no intersection. If you are labeling a competing product with a recognizable play on the competition's name in order to attract business... well, screw you.
While I agree with much of what you are saying regarding phonetically similar words I think / suspect that there is more at issue here than just the name.
The website is quite clearly designed to look like the google site, and additionally may look like it is affiliated in some way to google (eg froogle and similar google tools). Add that to the nature and content of the site its pretty easy to see that google would be rather annoyed about it.
Contrary to what you are saying I believe people while they may not accidentally go to booble, I do think that the design is so similar it could easily be assumed that it was part of the google repertoire.
nick...
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
The Booble people hope to capitalise on the marketability of the name; to claim that the name is a parody is a sad excuse. I could, for example, start manufacturing cars, call the company Dorkswagen, and claim that it's 'only a parody of Volkswagen' when challenged about the similarity of the names.
Legally, I believe you'd have a strong case. Financially you'd be dead in the water. Only a DORK would drive a Dorkswagen.
It follows that people looking for BOOBS would use BOOBLE!
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
One decision since then has vilified them, and suddenly they are the bad guys trying to restrict our rights and freedoms.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
Not to mention MAD Magazine. Hell, they "profit from the marketability" of parodies since the dawn of time.
Now you're forbidden from telling jokes for money?
I think a good example of this would have been Mike Rowe calling his domain name a parody of the Redmond company.
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
didd you see the link at the bottom of booble labeled 'sense of humor'
Labeling the site a parody does not make it so.
This case is fairly cut and dry, but Booble is trying to nudge it into a gray area because of the legal protection and goodwill afforded parodies that they otherwise wouldn't receive.
Unfortunately, this arbitrary label doesn't change the fact that they are a business, looking to profit, and doing so by taking advantage of Google's good name and trademarked logo and design.
If you think Booble is "commenting" on Google, what comment is being made?
If Booble were simply a search engine, I could see some merit in their argument. But as many posters have noted, their search sucks, and is beside the point. The Booble page is a storefront.
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?
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
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.