Slashdot Mirror
Porn Site Sues Google Over Linked Images
Joel from Sydney writes "According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Google is being sued for copyright infringement by a Los Angeles-based porn site. The complaint revolves around Google's Image Search, which allegedly displays copyrighted pictures and links to unauthorised mirrors. The complaint also alleges that Google Search is providing 'links to password hacking sites that provide ways to gain illegal access to [the complainant's] website.' Where will it all end?
(Note: free registration may be required to view the article)." The same AP story is being carried by eWeek, no registration required. Reader Nath adds "Interesting that there's no Thank You from the site for the traffic that Google sends its way due to search hits; are these companies forgetting the important role that search engines play in their business?"
He can't insert a ROBOTS.TXT file and can't seem to handle his passwd file, and he wants to sue Google for his ineptitude?
I hope they squash him and don't give him a plug-nickel in "settlement".
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
If I remember correctly, their porno was no good anyway.
Geeks, boycott Perfect 10! They'll run out of money!
Jay | http://oldos.org
Google's response is to remove any link to their website from their search results. As soon as they see the drastic decline in new visitors, they'll come crawling back.
What?
From the article:
Perfect 10 publisher Norm Zada said he is targeting Google because the company is using the allure of naked women to draw more visitors to its site and generate more advertising revenue.
Riiiiggght. That's been Google's business model all along! Now that you mention it, the two "O's" in Google do kind of look like giant breasts! Who knew I was using a porn search engine all along???
Please, this is ridiculous. I'd hate to see Google settle with these idiots.
So they're not suing google for linking to images on their own servers, but for linking to images on someone else's site who they don't have the energy to go after. (Or perhaps just b/c google has deeper pockets). I wonder whether google will bother to fight it; this could probably be settled with some $ and then google could quietly close their images search since they didn't bother much to maintain it anyway. But if google can be sued for linking to material on other servers, it will seriously decrease the functionality of the internet. Not for free porn - I'm pretty sure that is on the net to stay - but for more useful information. The beauty of an automatic search engine is lost if someone has to screen every link for illicit content; eventually nobody will want the hassle of running a free search engine.
When we have free sites like goatse, lemonparty and tubgirl?
She's built like a steak house, but she handles like a bistro....
..to get their name in the news. Wouldn't be surprised if they had the press releases sent out before drawing up any claims.
Wanna get nasty? - DaNasty
It seems that this is a test case the EFF has been waiting for for years: Specifically, should search engines be expected to be the policemen of the internet? The other posts seem to think this is a spidering issue that can be resolved with robots.txt. In truth robots.txt is irrelevant because this guy isn't suing over Google's cache of his own website. He is suing over Google suing other people's websites. In other words he is suing Google because Google, by allowing search, is facilitating people to locate images that might have been stolen from his site.
Fascinating, no? This is the exact sort of precedent that would argue you could sue Google because you can find P2P apps there, or if you can find an illegal mirror of an Isaac Asimov book Asimov's estate could sue Google while ignoring the mirror. And this case is being put forward by an inherently publicly unsympathetic defendant: a porn site. I will be curious to see where this goes.
They only show thumbnails and keep out context, it is such a small portion that it is "fair use". The companies complaint is that illegal foreign websites are illegaly showing their images and google is finding them. The company should be going after the illegel websites but international law is a bitch and Google obviously has deeper pockets. I have no doubt that Google will squish them though, this is nonsense. Welcome to the internet.
Regards,
Steve
It's funny how people's morals change to suit them. Nicking images off someone else's site without permission used to be regarded as rude at best, and very rude indeed if you were actually linking using their bandwidth from your site. That was nothing to do with copyright (though I suspect that issue is pretty clear-cut here anyway) and simply a matter of polite netiquette. When did nicking someone else's graphics become socially acceptable?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
And you should learn to Read The Fucking Post You're Quoting! His point was this: How is it Google's fault that other people infringed their copyright?
Google isn't the one who committed the infringment. That's why the lawsuit is absurd.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
This is rediculous. This company is suing Google for crawling the web and recording images and information that have been stolen from the website in question by OTHER PEOPLE! They are suing Google because losers in other coutries pay the $25/month and then copy the images to their own site. Google's spider then finds them. Its not Google's fault that this site's customer's are misusing the site's content. Nor is it Google's fault that other people have decided to hand out their own passwords to the site.
Google is simply crawling the web... any legitimate judge will correct this pr0n company and make them go after the people who are actually cheating them...
Just another case of "go after the big guy cos he has more money that the little guys that are actually causing the problem". I hope the web site goes out of business and the sleeze bags go to hell...
"And instead of suing Google for providing a link to some page that allows one to exploit their site, why not make something more secure?"
... researched this topic quite heavily. It'd be very easy for them to generate revenue by these mirror sites. Put their name on the images, assuming they're not doing that already. Why? Because when one spots a pic they like, and they wanna see more from the same series, one needs to know where the images came from.
:P
Hate to sound like I'm defending them, but they can't. You can't prevent an image from being reposted elsewhere. All it takes is to subscribe to the site and capture the images. They're really in the wrong business if they're facing serious damages because other sites are carrying their images.
I've
There's opportunity everywhere.
"Derp de derp."
Credit companies sued over porn IP: "A Beverly Hills pornographer is ... filing a copyright and trademark suit against Visa International Service Association and MasterCard International Inc. The porn company says that without the support of these financial institutions, infringers wouldn't be able to steal their stuff."
Which failed: "U.S. District Judge James Ware tossed out a copyright and trademark infringement suit brought against Visa International Service Association and MasterCard International Inc. by Perfect 10 Inc....`A lot of copyright [litigation] is being pushed by pornographers who are trying to take advantage of cases brought by more mainstream media,' Bridges [representing MasterCard] said."
Do you think it's pure coincidence that when a company does things that Slashdotters like (IBM recently, Google, etc.), everybody develops a soft spot?
Are you old enough to remember when Google first hit the scene a few years ago? Yahoo, AltaVista, and all the other old-line search engines were becoming noticeably less useful every day, as opportunists found better and better ways of link-spamming the robots that fed those sites. The search engines themselves didn't seem to respond at all, which made searching more and more frustrating every day. In some cases (Yahoo comes to mind), the site pages became so bloated and portalesque that they offended aesthetics and load-time guidlines.
I remember clearly the first few weeks I was using Google: it was so refreshingly simple and clean, and it loaded in a snap. There was almost no link spam in the results, less than Yahoo by a factor of 100 for most searches. And there were no annoying, distracting ads. It was like paradise had been reborn.
Nowadays, that's not quite so true. Google has gotten more bloated than it used to be, but they've kept it pretty thin, all told. And they added advertisements, but kept them out of the normal flow of results and text-based only, which is a lot less aggravating to process in sight. And while the results occasionally get cocked up by spam, Google actively works to keep its results relevant by tweaking its algorithms and pruning spammers.
Also, I remember the rumors that started flying about various search engines raising revenues by selling hit placements, possibly without any on-the-spot notification to the user. This really offends the senses, because search engines lose value when the results aren't neutral and unbiased. Google does search-related ads, but in such a way that you trust what you see is aboveboard.
That's why everybody loves Google so much--they've consistently demonstrated a lot of concern for their customers, in ways that put them head and shoulders above the rest of the industry (and corporate entities in general, I'd imagine). Heck, Google is better behaved than most people I know!
We like them because they seem to be looking out for us.
This xbiz article (ads on that page are NSFW) has more information about the lawsuit:
I wonder why Perfect 10 didn't just use the DMCA to make Google remove/hide the links to the infringing pages. Google has complied with such DMCA requests in the past and has even published a DMCA Policy. It is interesting that the suit mentions trademark dilution, wrongful use of a registered trademark, and unfair competition rather than (or maybe in addition to) copyright/DMCA violation.
The shareholder is always right.
I've previously had Goatse and Tubgirl inflicted upon my eyes, but when I saw your post, I thought "Lemonparty? What the hell is that?"
Now I know. But that was your idea all along, wasn't it? Bastard!
Image resolution has nothing to do with copyrights.
Wrong. In this particular case it actually has quite a lot to do with whether copyright is enforceable.
According to teh article it seems to stem more from Google linking to sites that have illegal copies of thier images and ways to illegally get into their site.
So do what everyone else does: use Google to find those sites, then send them cease-and-desist letters and cancel any passwords they list. Don't blame the messenger.