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?
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.
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?
What I find most interesting, from an unemotional viewpoint, is why we are so fussy about trademark, copyright and patent law.
If you think about it, we (and by we, I mean, the Europeans, Americans and Antipodeans among others) enjoy a standard of life far higher than our African/Aisan/South American counterparts. Why is this so:
Certainly oil and other natural resources play a significant role, but, I think the main thing that maintains the imbalance is patent and copyright law. People in third world countries can produce things for the same prices as we can - or even cheaper, market them in much the same way and can attain similar standards of education (the privileged few initially).
What keeps them "down in the hole" is the constant flow of money back to the aforementioned "lucky countries" who hold the patents.
So, if we start to let even the hint of trademark, copyright or patent violation start to occur, we risk a slow steady slide away from out massive privilege. Governments and courts must be aware of this and I believe that in certain cases they act accordingly.
I am not casting moral judgement here, beyond to say that most cultures tend to vehemently (and often brutally) protect their privileges.
Just an interesting sociological phenomenon methinks.
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..
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
...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.
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.
Wait, so a parody is okay...unless it's such a clever parody that it makes you money?
(Is this a troll? I can't quite tell. Meh, what the hell.)
What keeps these countries "down in the hole" are the repressive regimes that spend billions on their own comfort while the masses go barefoot. It's the crippling multi-trillion dollar debts that make it impossible for them to invest in schools, houses and hospitals.
There is no such constant flow of money to patent holders, or if there is, it's a trickle compared to loan repayments. The third world doesn't have very many drugs manufacturing plants because their economies are too immature. In many places there is no running water, let alone high-technology industry.
It's true that strict patent enforcement doesn't help, but it's more that it causes millions of deaths from preventable diseases, than because it hurts third world economies.
These sigs are more interesting tha
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.
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
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.
I can neither agree nor disagree with you entirely.
:)
Certainly the oppressive regime thing is another major factor. While lavish lifestyles of those at the tops of such administrational structure are undoubtably inequatable and morally reprehensible, I find it difficult to believe that they are a significant factor in the grand scheme of things. What certainly is a massive factor if we are talking standard of life for the general populace (and not the economy as a whole) is the overwhelming military spending that occurs in spite of lack of clean water (as you mention) and lack of decent sewerage facilities, healthcare etc etc... the list goes on and on but I would consider those to be at the top of the list.
You are also correct, IMHO, on the crippling debt, but, I maintain, the money flow due to patents is a significant one - essentially they allow foreign companies own and operate manufacturing plants and whatnot in less fortunate companies and take pretty much all the money out barring a few neagre sheckels for local wages and tax. Difficult to pay your debts when you don't get the full rewards for the product you are producing.
If you don't like my principles, I have others
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.
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
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
I don't think this patents and copyrights are a big issue in this case.
Many poor countries simply ignore patents and copyrights. Why? Their economies are usually heavy on agriculture, natural resources or low-tech manufacturing, and not so much in knowledge industries. There simply isn't enough supply to warrant having the laws, and in many countries the demand is low enough that it is simply not worthwhile for first world firms to push the issue too hard.
There is one important caveat to this: sometimes demand for some patented product does skyrocket for whatever reason. One case in point is with AIDS drugs: there is an AIDS epidemic right now in Africa. Don't underestimate how bad it is: the word epidemic is so over used, I don't think it properly describes how widespread AIDS is in some countries. The first world manufacturers only wanted to sell at ridiculously high prices, considering how poor these countries are. Their insistance became moot when an Indian drug manufacturer agreed to sell AIDS drugs closer to the actual cost of manufacturing. The first world firms have since softened their position.
The situation may change as poor countries develop, but then it will probably happen only because they will have a domestic industry to protect (think India in 20 years).
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.
Without having the time to do sufficient research on the details, there's a monarch/dictator in one of the many maligned African countries spending his nation's wealth on palaces for each of his 9 wives.
Now admittedly I don't know off the top of my head how much each of these palaces is going to cost, but I am sure it would make a lot of difference to the MILLIONS of starving/impoverished citizens.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I think a good example of this would have been Mike Rowe calling his domain name a parody of the Redmond company.
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.
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.
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
Everyone is getting all fussy because trademark, copyright and patent law are pushing across dangerous lines. All of the above are in place to further a healthy, free competitive market.
/. story where it was clearly referred to as a "parody" site (what the parody or satire is, I don't see though). In my case I have no doubt that it's not a Google site. But what about people who find it on their own?
Wrong. Copyrights and patents (which are not at issue in this case) are interference with the free market. Their only purpose is to artificially create scarcity and monopoly where none naturally exists. The reason (at least as stated in the U.S. Constitution) is not protect some inherent right of authors and inventors in works they produce, but to encourage development in these economic sectors.
Trademark, however, helps keep the market free because they promote honesty. Their real purpose is to prevent fraud-- i.e. you can sell a watch that looks like a Rolex, but you can't say it is a Rolex. In this case, I have to wonder whether Booble goes too far. Is a reasonable adult going to be confused and think Booble is a Google affiliate? Hard for me to answer since my first exposure to Booble was as a link in a
I do not have a signature
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?
What they dont have is a viable legal system.
Without enfoceable contracts of any form, whether social or business, life is a struggle, and large social structures collapse from lack of foundations.
However, a viable legal system depends on enforceable law, and that requires the law to be a concept supported by the people. It is democracy that makes the law "something the people did for themselves", and a legacy of dictatorships and colonialism that teaches "the law is something evil people do to us".
Most people in Europe know that without contract law, there would be no food in the shops by the end of the week, so law is defended. Most people in Africa know the law is there to exploit them, so they dont respect it.
Its easy once you know ...
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
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.
In the late 1800s, when Japan first embarked upon their national economic development, they sent envoys to America and Europe to figure out what made those societies so successful, and to bring that knowledge back to Japan. The most important finding? Patent and copyright law. Without it, people steal each others' valuable ideas and products, negating that value and disincentivizing (if that's a word) each other from innovating. (And before you argue that Japan doesn't innovate, they do, although not as flamboyantly as America.)
Patent and copyright law is not something the West has a monopoly on. Anyone can (and everyone should) enact it (which is part of the reason for getting China et al to join the WTO). It helps the West that we enacted it first, but in time it will help developing nations equally. There is no monopoly on human invention, and patent and copyright law can protect the originators of intellectual resources from scavengers, be they in developed or developing countries.
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
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
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!)
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.
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.