Slashdot Mirror
Googling May Break Copyright in Canada
twray writes "From The Globe&Mail: Could it be possible that Canada will make Google or any other Internet search and archiving engines illegal?
Bill C-60, which amends the Copyright Act and received its first reading in the House of Commons on June 20, suggests it could be illegal for anyone to provide copyrighted information through "information-location tools," which includes search engines."
So, just dont base any canadian Google in Canada and Just keep google in U.S
The bill defines information location tools as "any instrument through which one can locate information that is available by means of the Internet or any other digital network."
Would that mean that library networks that allow you to find copyrighted material are illegal too? All of the libraries I've been in recently have an online card catalogue which is usually accessable in-house and over the web... Granted they might not be caching materials and making thumbnails but who knows? Maybe the libraries even use site:library.org with Google to do searches.
But, cautions Mr. Knopf, Bill C-60 has received first reading only, and that "there"s a lot of time for them to take this out or to fix it."
He warns that "we shouldn't cripple the Googles of the world by imposing copyright chill on the very basis of their architecture. In fact, they perform a very useful service to copyright owners by enabling easy detection of infringement. The owners should go after the actual infringer, rather than effectively shooting the messenger."
Then why even bother to draft it? This seems like an awful waste of time and energy if you know the bill could cripple the search engine industry and that's not what you want.
Almost nobody who profits from the sale an licensing of copyrighted work is losing money due to competition from search engines. Just the opposite in fact. Most people who create work whether art, photography, music, or writing also would like to be ranked highly in search engines--in fact many people actually pay google for advertisements. I don't really understand who is gaining anything from this. Seems like a law that hurts everybody involved.
Short and sweet: This is what happens when legislation can't keep up with tech, and legislators don't understand tech
Look at some of the stuff here in the states- I mean, a bunch of 200 year old Supreme court judges making laws about P2P when they dont even use email????
I thought Canadians had a reputation for being reasonable....
If Google is outlawed, only Outlaws will Google.
I have to go, I need to google tyrany.
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
Shouldn't it be up to the individual holder of the copyright to decide whether or not they want their copyrighted work to be publicly searchable or not?
I think they're aiming at things such as torrent & eMule search engines not Google and Yahoo.
Trolling is a art,
Most regulations, such as this one, exist not to protect anyone, but just to make lawyers rich. It doesn't matter which side the lawyer takes, plaintiff or defendant, they both stand to make good money off of ambiguous and overly broad laws. Stuff like this just proves the old saying, "in a town with only 1 lawyer, the lawyer will starve but in a town with 2 lawyers they will never go hungry."
On both sides of the border we make no pretense of electing people who actually know what they're doing. Almost every politician is a hack these days whether in America or Canada, and that probably applies to most countries in general. Look at that POS proposed by Leahy and Specter in the US recently. These lawyers and buisnessmen don't know a damn thing about the ramifications of their legislation most of the time, and when they do, malice is frequently their motivation for the diabolical implications of its scope. Is it any wonder why liberty-minded people tend to just eschew regulation altogether these days since most of the time, we have to choose between scoundrels and blithering idiots for our lawmakers?
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
I don't care which it is, this isn't right.
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
Stop getting worked up over nothing. This is an initial draft, it wont be passed as law as is. This is just an attempt by the media to garner paranoia about some future restricting law because it will make them money.
Just chill out and don't worry, Canada is not so stupid as to pass a bill that could possibly be as damaging as this.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Google is not providing. They are not making it available. They are indexing its already existant availability and providing a link to it.
If someone makes it available, it would have been "provided" whether or not Goggle indexed it and provided a link to it.
Holding a search engine liable would leave them all open to sabotage by people posting copyrighted stuff and getting it indexed.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
If I put a website online, even if it's contents are copyright, surely anything which brings traffic to that website cannot be held responsible for subsequent abuse of the content? This is especially true if the intent of the person/tool which brings the traffic to my site is not to breach copyright but to connect visitor with content?
If this can be banned, then we have to hold the Yellow Pages publishers guilty if a bank robber looks up the address of banks...
(IANAL, as if you couldn't guess...).
Backward%20compatibility%20is%20over-rated
Copyright laws and the internet don't mix. What a new and interesting concept.
Google does not threaten our privacy because it only indexes things that are already available on the internet. Google isn't breaking into private systems and posting their content on the web, it is just making already visible content easier to find.
They have their right to privacy just as much as you have a right to yours. If they do not want to give up the algorithm or tools they use to index/search, then they have that right. Wishing otherwise does not make it so. And typing in all caps does not make your point any stronger.
They produce a service which people find useful. Just because they don't make a hard good does not mean they do not produce anything.
I think that Google's contributions to the open source field are much more significant than you claim. It is pretty well documented that Google allows their employees to contribute to open source projects on company time. They also have programs such as the Summer of Code where they pay college students to contribute to open source projects.
I don't really know what your problem is with Google. They don't alter your content in any way, and they provide a valuable service to people. If you don't like Google, you don't have to use it.
Two things to feed the troll..
1. Google is a service company, their products(Keyhole, Search Appliance, etc) are extensions of their services really.. They provide a service that leverages other things.
Mining the information of 8 billion pages is not a product, it is a service. One that is hugely useful.
2. You are not, in any way, forced to use Google's services/products. Thus, they are not a the end all of the world, you can simply choose to not work with them. Really, it is easy.
What is google obligated to give back?
You are made they use linux(and other open source tools) but dont 'give back' enough? Well, they seem to be following the terms of the GPL, etc... Just because you wish they open sourced their algorithm(something they have no reason, legal or ethical or logical, to do) doesn't mean they are bad people because they don't. It means you are just demanding something you have no right to.
"Our share" is the service they provide to us. They are a company, not a socialist state.
It just means liberal with spending.
So they're just like our Repubicans and Democrats. Bada bing!
"The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
The article doesn't say that bill C-60 will make Google illegal. It says that one lawyer's opinion is that one sentence that is designed to limit Google's and other search engine companies' liability is worded wrong such that it could be interpreted as making Google's caching illegal.
Clearly that is not the intention of the bill, and that sentence will be rewritten before the bill is passed if other lawmakers agree that it has that implication.
So what's the fuss?
Over at Groklaw, PJ touches on this in an article about Internet Archive being sued article She makes good points such as recommending that site owners utilize subscriptions to protect content that they do not wish to be open to the public domain. The is also a discussion of the robots.txt file that many sites use and search engines honor voluntarily.
Search engines are tremendously effective tools for bringing visitors to web content. Without them, many web sites would go unnoticed. I don't see that attacking the search engines will be effective. I believe that simple solutions such as those PJ has touched on are readily available and easy to implement rather than resorting to such extensive legislation, and I agree that this is what we as citizens need to convey this to our respective governments.
Get some.
yep, if everybody, be it user or crawler, can point their browser to copyrighted material, than copyright loses it's purpose.
So the first action for the provider is to regulate access to the material (logins, subscription, etc.) for both users and browsers and put up a robot.txt for crawlers. Although, as pointed out in an earlier discussion, the latter is a voluntary setup, with no garantees for the provider, it probably gives the provider a better case in court, because he has done his part to 'protect' his copyright.
All Canadian law needs to do is say that web search engines *must* observe these controls, i.e. respect the sites' owners in their access controls. There's probably some law already about privacy or copyright that could be extended to cover this aspect of web sites.
However, governments love knee-jerk reactions especially if there's a chance of some political funding from big business lobbyists (or lawyers sensing a way of benefitting from arbitrary and nebulous laws - see the push for software patents).
No, half the internet usage is on Bit Torrent.
And that's quite possibly the dumbest idea I've ever heard, thank god it's a joke. Seriously though, to point and laugh at a law that hasn't even passed and assume your system is better is just a fucking riot. I'm killing myself laughing over here, please stop. I don't see the RCAA busting down my grandmother's door and arresting her, do you?
-FweE-