Slashdot Mirror
Adult Site Sues Google, Google Compared To MS Again
daria42 writes "It looks like Adult magazine publisher Perfect 10 is suing Google to stop the search engine giant from using images of models in the images part of its search engine. The publisher has alleged Google is in breach of its copyright by displaying more than 3,000 photos." From the article: "Perfect 10 first became aware of Google serving up text links to other Web sites that allegedly carried copyright images of Perfect 10 models back in 2001, Zada said in an interview on Thursday. The company then sent notices to Google, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, asking the search giant to discontinue linking to the other sites." Additionally, with users writing to mention that that Google has changed their 10 Things statement recently, yet another article comparing them to Microsoft was bound to turn up. From the Sydney Herald article: "The question is whether the young upstarts who have built a hugely profitable business on Google's anti-corporate image are on the way to following Gates's path from bright young turk to monopolistic behemoth." Update: 08/26 13:27 GMT by Z : xmas2003 points out that the requested injunction is part of the suit Perfect 10 brought against Google last November, which we have previously reported on.
This looks like a publicity stunt if I ever saw one. No, I won't provide a link, thankyouverymuch.
More
Cool! Free prOn.
Who said Google was evil?
Why don't these sites make use of the file robots.txt to stop googlebot from indexing these images? Isn't this much easier than to sue google? *shrug* Or perhaps they refuse to do this, in an attempt to create some free publicity for the site.
to just remove themselves?? They could just read http://www.google.com/remove.html or google for "remove website from google"... But then again, lawyers have got to make a living...
How to Destroy Angels II
It seems the real issue would be the (ab)use of the DMCA... it seems to be the weirdest and most destructive of laws I have ever seen!
Nandz.
2. It's best to do one thing really, really well. (From Google's 10 things)
They should listen to their own philosophy...because they seem be trying to do 100 things "ok", and maybe 3 or 4 things really really well. When was the last time they made an innovation in search?
If they're putting these images out on a public website, how can they be upset when people view the images? It doesn't matter if they're found in a search engine or if someone browses to the site, they're out in the open.
Smells like someone is up to some clever marketing.
Concrete Cam is up and running ... ;-)
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
"Sex is my job"
""I have never felt exploited. If anything it's giving you power over men. The only people exploited, if anyone is, are the men who go out and spend their money on porn," says..Michelle Thorne, who has worked in the porn industry for six years"
Perhaps google should completely remove all references to the site from its search engine database, and ensure that it never gets listed again?
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Simple fact is that the site needs to fix its security to disallow images it doesnt want shared to anyone from being displayed via search engines. Another reader said to block the robots.txt which would stop the problem right there. There are just too many lawsuits wasting the time of the US judicial system nowadays. Sorry just annoyed once again that the laziness of the site owners seems to warrant them suing someone who isn't really the root cause of the problem. (Can't you sue yourself!)
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
It seems they're in a habit of getting free publicity. From TFA:
Perfect 10's lawsuit against Google is similar to one it filed against Amazon.com in July. In that suit, Perfect 10 makes similar allegations against Amazon's A9 search engine.
If they're so damn pissed with their images turning up on search engines, why don't they just pull them off 'public' access. I mean put them under an area accessible only after someone logs in.
Heck, there's robots.txt...
Nandz.
It's a de facto standard. If they're not using it then they're allowing search engines to index their site. Google should just blacklist idiots who use lawyers instead of robots.txt.
here come the google sackriders defending Google no matter what
The question is whether the young upstarts who have built a hugely profitable business on Google's anti-corporate image are on the way to following Gates's path from bright young turk to monopolistic behemoth.
Sure it's possible. It's also possible that they'll become a gentle giant, and that's the outcome I'm rooting for.
When they start threatening computer makers for letting the users go to any search engine other than theirs, then we can start worrying about the "monopolistic behemoth".
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I do things for money that I wouldn't ordinarily do. It's called "gainful employment".
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Microsoft's public relations firm is really doing a great job with this. What a skillful move, so typical of Microsoft, to unleash the FUD campaign on Google. It will be interesting to see if Google can survive this.
I think they will survive, actually, because I know I don't feel any ill will at all toward Google as a well-connected technical person. And your average Joe isn't likely to read any articles like this (and it didn't stop them from using Microsoft when they were the big bad of the media either.)
Yawn.
"The question is whether the young upstarts who have built a hugely profitable business on Google's anti-corporate image are on the way to following Gates's path from bright young turk to monopolistic behemoth."
well i don't know any bright young turks who wouldn't mind becoming monopolistic behemoths.
Hehe, so an article comparing Google to MS is akin to a version of Goodwin's Law?
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. -Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
In other words, they are suing Google for not policing Perfect 10's copyright. Not for indexing Perfect 10's sites, but rather for indexing other sites who happen to have stolen Perfect 10's images. And they're not suing the other sites - they're suing Google. This would be like if the *AA immediately started suing all ISPs as if they were knowingly involved in large-scale copyright infringement.
This is scary, and I hope Perfect 10 falls flat on their ass. It's not Google's job to police everyone else's copyright and make sure that they don't index images in such a manner.
FC Closer
How about instead of suing Google, they sue the people who are actually displaying the copyrighted images on their sites and simultaneously give Google a big pat on the back for making it so easy to find these people using GIS?
It really is about time now. Why not just create a free (as in beer) pr0n-service while holding up "Don't be evil" moral standars, and watch the competition be washed away?
;-)
:%s/Open Source/Free Software/g
YTARY!
not even the article, just the summary, you'd see that the images in question are on OTHER PEOPLE'S WEBSITES. Apparently not only have 90% of the posters here not even read the summary, neither have the mods.
The laws of probability forbid it!
Search Google Images for "site:perfect10.com" and see for yourself. Even with SafeSearch turned off there are only 112 softcore pictures (mostly non-nude, naked breast on very few of them, a lot of logos and other website design elements). I Call bullshit.
A quick Google search (in the images area) for "Perfect ten" doesn't provide me with much except for a pic of this
So I guess this is what all the fuss is about.
Um. That's what capitalism is, exploitation.
IN other words, what the fuck is the comparison? Wake me up when I'm NOT ALLOWED to switch away from their products and they've managed to muzzle the regulators despite clearly illegal monopolistic behavior!
Doesn't anybody get it? MS doesn't have to do anything for their customers and they automatically get billions every month. Google has to satisfy customers to get revenue. Does Google try to go over your head if you don't want to use their products?
So because their techs don't know how to impliment robots.txt this is googles fault? Besides being a giant Crock of crap this is nothing more than a publicity stunt.. And for some INSANE reason they are granted an injuction this would be the worst decision ever made.
MMmmm google images..
The Young Turks were and are a faschist movement, also responsible for the Armenian democide. The West liked them as anti-clerical modernizers. It is really sad this use of language which supports foreign extremists.
If an infinite amount of monkeys submitted an infinite amount of FUD about Linux/Google to Slashdot, would anyone actually believe they are the same as MS? Come on this is getting ridiculous now.
They complain not that Google indexes and displays their site. They complain that people copy pics off their site, then display them on their own sites, and google indexes these sites.
IMHO bullshit. Google is not a police to check whether images they index infringe on someone's copyright. All they host are thumbnails which can be easily proven to be "fair use" for informative purposes. Then they LINK to pages that infringe on the site's copyright - and from then on, admins should send out C&D, sue and do all kinds of nasty things to admins of these sites. Once they remove the infringing content, Google will make its own indexes expire automatically, with next update. Of course assholes think it's easier to make Google remove the links, removing all traffic to the competing sites at once, instead of hunting each of them separately, but it seems all they can get is waste a lot on lawyers and have the case thrown out of court.
If I make a photo of a pile of CDs, with purpose to put it in a newspaper, I don't copy them, and in no way I'm responsible about finding out whether they are pirated or original. Same with thumbnails of images found on various sites. Google states the fact: "This site has these images". Determining legal status of that site having these images is completely offtopic.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Archive.org's cache of Google's Ten-Things list:m /corporate/tenthings.html
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.google.co
that Google has changed their 10 Things statement recently,
;-)
As a 'no evil high tech company', they should provide a changelog, shouldn't they?
e.g. Search for something like this on your favourite site filetype:jpg site:www.sun.com at http://images.google.com/
2 0site%3Awww.sun.com&hl=en&lr=lang_en&c2coff=1&sa=N &tab=wi
http://images.google.com/images?q=filetype%3Ajpg%
Google is providing the suers with a service. The service of finding the people that are infringing on thier copywrite.
EEEEdiots
"He's a real midnight golfer"
Google is helping them by allowing them to easily find sites that have said copyrighted images on them.
How would the magazine know about these infringements if it weren't for google?
What is happening is that some random people took some "Perfect 10" images, either from P10's publicly available previews, or by any other means. Then these same random people have put up their own web site with these selfsame images, without permission from P10.
Finally these sites were harvested by Google and indexed.
So who is committing copyright infrigement again?
If anything Google should be thanked for providing a link to the people's website who took the images without permission, allowing them to be perhaps identified. P10 should be suing *them*.
But no, it's too much work and they probably are just a bunch of amateur with little to no money, so P10 is choosing to sue Google instead. Guess why.
How this has anything to to with Google's alleged "arrogance" we'll never know.
"Arrogant" is another term for successful people who are onto a good thing and they know it. Many can't take somebody else's success. So Apple, Microsoft and now Google are "arrogant".
Personnally I'm delighted that Google is doing so well. So far everybody benefits, including mere users. At least we have Microsoft running scared a little. In the past this meant they react intelligently and fast (like in the case of the web browser for win95) but these days they take the PR approach a bit more.
We'll see what happens.
I thought Google DOES honor robots.txt files ...
If they do then it takes all of three seconds to tell Google to leave your site.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
the thing about the web is that you really have no idea how things are happening under the hood. i find it pretty unlikely that google is simply letting their search technology rot on the vine, instead of continuing to improve it. or perhaps you'd prefer more press releases? ("Google search v10.3.5.2.1.1.9a released!")
I would think that Perfect 10 magazine would be enthralled to know that there is an easy, simple way to find out who is sharing their copywritten material. Without Google and other search engines, these photos would still be shared, but now Perfect 10 can be aware of the majority of those stealing their content. Google has handed them a list of sites who are infringing on their copywright, and now they're pissed off? I don't get it. If I were Norm Zada, I'd be sending Google a stripper gram for their efforts.
Th
Why do I see so many articles on Slashdot about "Google being like Microsoft"?
They aren't -- sure, maybe they'll wind up that way, but they aren't at the moment. The only people that I've really seen full of hate for Google are "SEO" (spam) people -- I'm wondering if those are the people who keep submitting anti-Google articles.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Doesn't make sence to let people see whats on your site through a search engine to get them to actually come to your site?? I know I dont go to sites (not jut pr0n either) that I have no idea whats on them.
* Full-disclosure update: When we first wrote these "10 things" four years ago, we included the phrase "Google does not do horoscopes, financial advice or chat." Over time we've expanded our view of the range of services we can offer -- web search, for instance, isn't the only way for people to access or use information -- and products that then seemed unlikely are now key aspects of our portfolio. This doesn't mean we've changed our core mission; just that the farther we travel toward achieving it, the more those blurry objects on the horizon come into sharper focus (to be replaced, of course, by more blurry objects).
Far better than just changing it on the sly and hoping no-one will notice.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Whats the worst part about it is that if people had known that google was going to trash dejanews, they wouldn't have deleted their own usenet archives.
What happened to Robots.txt to start with? And authentication?
If google can crawl more than 3,000 Perfect 10 photos why wouldn't non-members be able to view these pictures?
This is an indicative that there's something wrong with their setup.
Case overruled!
ty.
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
Let's see:
1- Ummm, no, porn stars aren't used to the greatest possible advantage. If they were, they'd be turned into fuel sources after their time passed
2- If we interpret this definition strictly, no, since the model gains money too. And if we interpret it loosely, almost all (or all) of human relations are exploitative ones. So no luck here either.
3- Clearly not.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Sure it's exploitation.
They KNOW men can't help but reach for the nearest credit card in their wallet's (with their free hand) when they show those nek-ked hotties but they do it anyways.
I'm sure most of those guys feels a little exploited with that non-descript line on their visa statement for $20 shows up month after month.
Basically Googles "do no evil" slogan is slowly whipped away with every lawsuit it gets. Because the more you sue a company the more protective it will get to preserve its own rights. The more protective it gets the more likely it will strike back. If we knew how to properly boycott companies that do evil things until they stop vs. trying to sue them but still purchase their stuff. Companies will probably be a lot less "evil" because their bottom line is based on their goodness.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
/me fires up google images and searches for "Perfect 10"
This is a tricky question. Here we have two systems, with different targets and goals that collide. Much like when two cultural societys meets each other.
Google aims to provide the best possible search engine on the internet. This requires certain methods that are optimized in regard to provide the users with the content they need. This engine has not been designed to violate copyrights. Should it be held liable when it happens? It's the same as being able to make a law suit against a baseball bat manufacturer, as their bats might be used as weapons.
Perfect 10 deliver porn to its users. Most of this content is in images, and therefore the value (the product) is the images them self. This is the reason copyright laws were made. If their content is "stolen" and "sold" through other channels than their own site, they lose money.
The problem is that both arguments make reason.
It would be difficult if a company like Google should integrate a filter to lockout individual cases, like Perfect 10. In a sense such a filter would work against the Google product.
Technically the real case will probably end with discussions about caching of images on the Google servers and displaying content outside their context... time will show. The winner will probably be the company with most muscle, as it usually is, and this will unfortunately deprive us of knowing the best solution to the problem.
-:) Oh no - not again.
www.rednebula.com
With luck, the law will (ultimately) distinguish between enterprise and infrastructure. Suing Google makes as much sense as suing your post-office for mail fraud.
Moreover... beyond images, what about copyrighted phrases like "Things go better with Coke"? Should Google not search for them?
Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
...how else would this pr0n site know that it's copyrighted material was stolen? Google indexed it for them! Jez, I can smell the publicity stunt all over this one.
"Give up hope, dreams are for suckers."
NO! The query no longer works :(
**TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
Who in their mind will spend money on porn? There is enough free porn on the net to last several lifetimes.
Or is the free porn being sponsered by paying johns? If that is the case, then thank you, SUCKERS!
The evil empire beckons.
Cache of the article here.
Join Tor today!
Extending this logic, we should be able to sue Microsoft for allowing virus writers execute code on My Computer.... looks like when it comes to pubic interest, frivolous lawsuits are okay ;-)
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
This article is hilarious. From the linked ZDNet article:
Google is directly infringing on our copyrights. They are copying and showing our work on their Web site. They are also placing ads on these Web sites that are infringing on our work.
Google doesn't copy the images. It shows the images that are turned up by the search! Also, place ads on the pages? No, the pages place Google ads on themselves. Google provides the scripts, the people put them up.
I am.
Can't sites just prevent hotlinking? I thought this was common. Anyhow, the worst offender is a site called a m i n a k e d . c o m
(obviously w/o the spaces, I don't want to be responsible for people clicking it at work...)
They even have an interface to view the most pictures from individual directories....
Keep in mind that lawsuits have become a "legitimate" revenue stream for many companies.... So of course you would sue the company with the most money, not necessarily the biggest offender...
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
Ok, it's probably pointless and redundant to point out the fact that this pr0n company is suing the very site that has probably given them more business than anybody else on earth, but whatever.
These lawsuits seem to be coming up far too often, but the solution is so simple. All google (and any other search engine, for that matter), needs to do is simply require that robots.txt gives that bot or bots in general the persmission to index the site. If it's not there, the site isn't indexed, period. No more lawsuits - you gave them permission. And if not, well, you reap the results of that decision, too. Don't know about robots.txt? Sorry, but you're out of luck. You probably weren't ranked very high in the search engine to begin with anyway.
This problem *doesn't have to be there*. The solution is simple, and search engines are costing themselves loads of money by not simply requiring that robots.txt give bots permission to index the site.
A community-oriented lyrics site
Unfortunately, as best I understand it (IANAL), both A9 and Google are in breech of DMCA. This might actually be a blessing in disguise. The best cure for bad laws is for them to get enforced good and hard, and if Google were to get a judgement against them, I don't think it would be too long before the DMCA would be repealed or replaced with something reasonable.
Feel free to compares Google and M$ when Google requires all PC OEMs to include a browser that will only display their Web site and Google penalizes these companies if they attempt to provide a browser that will display non-Google pages. Oh, and when Google builds and operating system and only provides their services/apps to that OS. Oh yeah, and when they use their marketshare to rebrand technologies that will only work with their upcoming OS.
Let's make an effort here to make the point that there might be some similar aspects to Google and Microsoft, but this bland statement of comparision is silly.
I don't know. Let's ask Miss Thorne, who started in the porn industry at the age of 20, which falls neatly into your 18-24 range:
""I have never felt exploited. If anything it's giving you power over men. The only people exploited, if anyone is, are the men who go out and spend their money on porn," says..Michelle Thorne, who has worked in the porn industry for six years"
Nope, it looks like the 18-24 year olds are doing just fine.
D00d - this is your big chance!!1! Google's slacking off and YOU could beat them at their OWN game! Everybody bookmark momoru, the new upstart search engine. D00d - you could be teh new l33t 534rch 3ng1n3!!1! w00t!
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
It's really fascinating to see how many fuckwits didn't bothered to read the fuckin` article.
One 'o', you fucking nazi!
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
So a porn publisher whose whole business is built on exploitation
Amen, brother! It's time to stop the shameful exploitation of men who pay for something they can have for free!
The age of majority is 18. That means an 18 year old is, by definition, old enough to decide these things on their own. An 18 year old who makes a different decision that you might isn't neccessarily naive or stupid. Your attitude is actually an extremely patronizing and disrespectful one.
Are you arguing that the age of majority should be raised to 25?
Frankly, I've known several 50 and 60 year olds who, in my opinion, were no good at considering the long-term consequences of their actions. But so what? They're adults and they will do as they wish, regardless of what I think.
Any site administrator worth their salt can protect images from being cross linked or copied.
Someone ought to write a friend of the defense brief about this. Maybe then we can stop this baloney before the web becomes completely useless.
Show me a porn site that doesn't want people's browsers sent its way. Half of spam sent is trying to achieve that effect (okay and infect you with spayware and other creepy crawlies.)
They must be be getting their money some other way than by earning it.
So who are the players here? What links are there to some competition. (And there must already be a way to tell search 'bots' to ignore subdirectories so this suit is nothing but a legal annoyance, not a valid suit.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
So are all these web masters so stupid they don't know how to make a simple robots.txt file? I mean seriously...it's not that hard people!
I am a big guy, 6 and a half feet tall,definitly not your typical computer engineer, although it does work to my advantage during spec reviews ;) During school I worked as a bouncer at a "gentlemans club". Almost all of the woman I talked too there knew what was going on, they were there of their own free will, they knew the long term consequences, they were there for the money. Granted some girls were forced to work there, but thats another store about Russians importing girls. Additionaly most woman at the club believed the men to be suckers or the ones being taken advantage of. Just my two cents.
this is starting to look suspicious to me. This story is just plain stupid, but the last 5 or so months have been so loaded with bad publicity for google that it really seams impossible that all these people would start questioning them at the same time. I've seen my local news run stories on how google takes information from people's computers(reffering to IP addresses). And why this Microsoft comparison? that's nuts.. since when does success = evil? Microsoft truely does very shady stuff that everyone here is aware of. Google is company that's where it is because it's products are the best. And people seem to forget, google's search is probably the most unbiased approach you could take towards indexing all the crap out there. just seems very weird, all of this out of nowhere...
The problem is that they're going after Google, not the sites that are trying to profit from copyrighted material...
-JMP
Sigh... are you kidding me? Liberals and/or feminists are the people that define porn as exploitation. And, of course, a "conservative = bad" post get's a +5 Insightful.
Where's the hot new startup?
but tell that to the RI|MP AA
You are quite right, why doesn't this company simply change its robots.txt file?
Your post was right on the money, but why the flame-bait title?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
How about all the 18-24 year old girls who are paying their way through school or supporting a family?
BTW - age 18 is considered in Canada (and much of the United States) as "age of majority". By that age, people are considered mature enough to vote to change the future of our nation, smoke cigarettes, drive any form of motor vehicle, own property, enter into legal contracts, hold full-time careers, etc. Why then are they not old enough to decide how, when and where to use their own bodies?
BTW2 - what are the consequences? To have people such as yourself and others look down on them for their career choice?
A friend of mine was a stripper (no sexual favours, just dancing) who paid her way through college, bought a car then replaced it some years later and completely supported her husband while he attended university. She now works full-time (with her clothes on) as does he, and he makes more than enough money to support them both comfortably due to his credentials.
Does she hide the fact that she stripped? Hell no. Does she feel exploited? Yep. She feels that she exploited dozens of men every night who turned over 10, 20 or even several hundred dollars to be in her company.
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
Duh, they can GOOGLE for them.
Never confuse volume with power.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Try some reading comprehension next time.
a NOT can change the whole meaning of sentence, eh?
You don't even have to go back to the original post, just read what you excerpted.
"Hmmm, I'll need to see the pictures in question. No, you said they were perfect 10s! These titties are clearly 9s. Ok, I'm going to take these and retire back to my chambers and think about this for a while."
Socially conservative liberals and/or feminists may do so.
I personally think fear of sexuality and nakedness crosses political beliefs but is certainly a part of social conservatism. And many feminists are in general what would be considered socially conservative on many issues.
I would like to end this post saying that I am not saying any of this is good or bad so don't retort this with a liberals/conservatives are bad accusation.
P.S. Just as many feminists that I know think that people should be alloud to choose to have sex for whatever reason they want as think that people should not be alloud to.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
A major difference between Google and a young MicroSoft is that Google seems to be building their evil empire from scratch rather than buying an also-ran product and using large volumes of money to push it past the good products. Does Google have a Paypal competitor yet? It will. In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the money, then you get the women. Then you shoot up your competitors, and they in turn shoot you up in your palatial mansion...damn you Ben Kingsley! What were we talking about?
Or is the free porn being sponsered by paying johns? If that is the case, then thank you, SUCKERS!
:) Simple story really...
Considering that many of the porn which floats around the net comes from people who subscribe to porn services and then leak out the content, yes. Look, there are tons of people who don't care about small amounts of money! And of those, a subset is generous enough to leak the material
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Evil? Actually the legal definition is called 'Copyright Infringement'.
And it would be ALL search engines on the net that would be infringing, not just Google.
If Google can take on Microsoft, then more power to them. Many Slashdot readers have been waiting for this for a long time.
If anything, Google is evolving into the new old Yahoo.
So why aren't they suing the image thieves?
that's right, google's got deep pockets.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Google pisses off their competetitors, who can't compete because, well, they suck at competing. Their users all love them.
Microsoft pisses off their competetitors because they use illegal, immoral, unethical tactics to forgo competition, even with companies that are far better ethically and technologically.
Microsoft's customers hate them because their products suck.
Bet Perfect 10 still want to be listed on Google. Do we really care if a silly site wants some free publicity off of the back of Google? Hey, how about I sue someone else who is in the media lots on some tossy little technicality to get my not very well known name in the papers...
/. articles have been a bit rubbish lately.
Move along... nothing to see here...
Be nice, sponsor me: http://jailbreak.ragabonds.org.uk
Liberals and/or feminists are the people that define porn as exploitation
Yeah sure. It was liberals and/or feminists who made so much fuss about half a breast last superbowl. Sure.
The truth is that feminists AND social conservatives are the ones who seem to have a problem with pornography, arguably for very different reasons. Most liberals don't really give a damn. Of course, most feminists ARE liberals, but most liberals are NOT feminists.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
We are ALL exploited by our employers and made to do things that make us uncomfortable in order to secure our next paycheck. Whores and strippers are not unique in this.
This is Jack's inability to be impressed with one form of exploitation vs. another.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I used to love Google, but not anymore. Don't ask why, but reading Google-related stories on slashdot every few hours is one of the reasons.
This has led me to come up with the seeds of a compelling plan that will bring down Google. It involves making search engines respect privacy and copyright, by law.
Search engines like Google enable people to compile information from different sources about the same thing. So while one website might not provide enough information about some John Smith, using search engines it is very easy to find out a lot more about that person. And without the consent of that person. This compiled information could be harmful to that person in various ways. CNET was recently shunned by Google because one of it's reporters "googled" Google's CEO and found out some stuff about him. Google didn't like that. I don't like it either when someone else is able to "google me". I'm sure you don't like that as well, after all, it could be a potential employer, spouse, scammer, stalker, etc. who could be "googling" you.
I am sure most people and entities (companies, government, etc.) would not like to be "googled" because of various reasons. It could be about national security, competitive reasons, personal well-being, etc. They should be able to "opt-out" of internet searches.
This is what a proposed "Do-Not-Search" law would look like: There would be a national do-not-search registry which the search engines would have to check against before returning the results of each search. All items in the do-not-search registry would have to be excluded from the search results. If the search engine doesn't do that, then there would be penalties associated with it.
A person or entity, upon presenting some valid credentials, could add some terms to the do-not-search registry. For example, John Smith can exclude himself from being searched. Only problem is, how to ensure other John Smiths are not excluded as well ? This is a 'bug', and will be sorted out soon.
This is a work in progress, and only began a couple of days ago when all the hoopla surrounding Google Talk reached its height. Your comments/opinions on this would be helpful as well.
Google needs to be tamed because it is a threat to many of us. I am sure some lawmaker in the US, Canada or Europe would grab on to this and then it will begin. The stock price would tank and the searches would become increasingly complex, time-consuming and irrelevant as the do-not-search registry grows. That would be the end of Google as we know it, and we would have saved slashdot and ourselves.
These lawsuits should be thrown out.
We've seen this before with the lawsuits that took place against companies who developed p2p networks because the plantiffs had a misconception that the developers knowingly allowed this material on their "network".
They just want someone to blame as an easy way to get money. Google has lots of it, so their next logical step is to blame them.
Google is not responsible. They are merely a search index. You know this, I know this, but the technologically illeterate morons we have for judges don't see this.
Instead they see in black and white, and without knowing the truth about how the technology works and who's to blame/not to blame, they blindly dish out decisions - and a lot of times they aren't in favor with real justice.
I wonder if they could countersue for these companies trying to manipulate the system.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
I'm sure my karma will burn in hell but...
The nip slip and those opposed to it have nothing to do with this conversation which is: who equates porn with exploitation. The nip slip was considered bad by conservatives because it was an inappropriate view of "nudity" at an inappropriate time. They felt it was wrong for one of the largest family viewed events.
Porn = exploitation is completely different and a feminist issue. It is used to make another victim class. Those who do it cant make it any other way. And so on. Feminists invented the line any boss/employee sex = exploitation.
Google should challenge those asshat lawyers and take their chance in court. Might discurage the next company planning to file that kind of crap.
TCAP-Abort
Half of spam sent is trying to achieve that effect (okay and infect you with spayware and other creepy crawlies.)
I've got the creepy crawlies just thinking about what spayware could do to a person.
"You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
If this "Perfect 10" found a publisher illegally using their images was advertising in a local newspaper, they'd sue the newspaper rather than the publisher, right?
It's completely GAY, however, I possibly forsee google losing. As I remember, certain searches were banned via the DMCA. Google fought it kicking and screaming (and rightly so), but in the end complied.
Kazaa lite search
Scroll to the bottom. I wonder if ALL other search engines have to comply? I mean, it's only fair...
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
In the form of the thumbnails that Google generates and stores on their own servers.
It might be fair use (but I doubt it). I'm not sure on what legal theory Google is allowed to produce thumbnails of other people's copyrighted images (or for that matter, cached copies of other people's copyrighted webpages, etc).
Of course, if you report a copyright violation to Google they will remove the infringing content from their servers. I suppose this company could seek to have Google remove all the thumbnails of photos from other people's site, if they can prove they own the copyright to it and the other people are infringing.
I think these days that Google is so damn useful that we would find a way to allow it to do these things even if it meant getting new laws passed.
But you can make even more if you do, and publicly traded corporations are bound by law to make the best return possible for their shareholders.
Replace Google with Napster and Perfect 10 with the RIAA. Is this really such an open and shut case in favor of Google?
This is nonsense. The cases are totally different -- Napster's primary function was transferring music files directly between users, most of the transfers were illegal, and the RIAA found evidence that Napster encouraged this.
A better analogy here would be to say replace Google with "the phone book" and imagine suing them if some of the businesses listed turned out to be selling some stolen goods. Sure, some people are finding those businesses based on a search in the phone book... but the VAST majority of businesses thus indexed are totally legal, and if you find your stolen TV sitting on the shelf in a store you GO AFTER THE STORE, not the phone book.
Notice too that Google is not being sued for helping the copycats steal the images (because the Google spider gets stopped by password protection like anyone else, and obeys robots.txt) -- these sites must have purchased a membership and downloaded the images themselves, then paid for hosting, and created their own sites.
Face it, technology aside, Google is a direct marketing firm. They have the same business model and the jerk companies that bombard consumers with annoying direct marketing calls.
The cool technology Google builds is simply there to draw users to their sites so that they can market and collect information.
Once the bloom is off the rose and their stock prices normalize to a realistic level based on earnings, the shareholders will demand results no matter what, and at that point the pressure to "make money, even if it means being evil" will be too great.
IMO, Google has the potential to be worse than MS because they want monopoly control over access to information, which I consider much more threatening than monopoly control over what word processor I use.
However, Google images is not simply an indexing service. It also keeps a minimized version of the image into its own storage and it servers this particular image to its users.
Personally I would wish pornographers rot in hell, but if there are legal issues in Google image's practice, then they must be resolved.
The second article uses literary side-stepping to indicate who is actually comparing google to MS. "Whispers in silicon valley". More like businesses that google is PWNing with superior products, bitching and moaning that pouring money into advertising inferior products isn't working anymore. "Oh crap. Their amazingly awesome and simple to use with mass amounts of storage that takes 30 seconds to sign-up with email service is really cramping our style. Well, competing would cost money. Let's see... we could probably bad mouth them and speculate with no proof until their business turns south. Then, when they are beaten and battered, we introduce our lame gmail clone and advertise it as a great alternative to the evil empire of google."
k thx business n00bs~~ I'm going to stick with google until they give me reason not to trust them. Which they haven't done. In fact, quite the opposite (ala fighting the DMCA). b
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
You're misinterpreting his use of the word "conservative."
Now, how do I put my pic of Ackbar in here?
There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
Google should offer infringing image search services to Perfect 10 and anyone else who wants to buy them. Companies like Perfect 10 could register their images with Google, pay a fee, and Google could then provide them with a list of all sites indexed by Google that contain the images in question. To begin with, Google could identify bit-for-bit identical files, but perhaps could use fuzzy image comparison technology to identify highly similar images, such as images that have been resized, recompressed or even slightly modified. If the client could prove to Google's satisfaction that the other sites were infringing, Google could stop indexing those images, perhaps as part of the basic service, perhaps for an additional fee.
I would think that the high-profile porn sites who distribute original content would find significant value in identifying infringers so they could shut them down. While there's no reason why any reasonable person should expect Google to police others' copyrights for them, Google is certainly in a position to do it, if compensated.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Me, I'm more worried about neuterware.
There may be some geek-girls concerned about spaymore moreso than I though.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I'm not sure how I feel about that, not withstanding the irony of Kazaa complaining about copyright infringement!
If I am selling some copyrighted material.
And some house down the street is selling copies of my copyrighted material. I have the right to sue the phone company for listing that house in their phone directory?
WTH...
Its upto the copyright holder to enforce his copyright on ppl who violate it. Not the person who lists it without knowing what it is.
Is anyone else wondering how Perfect 10 expects Google to accomplish the feat of enforcing their copyright privileges?
The search bots are intelligent, but not THAT intelligent. They would either need to create a certificate system to represent copyrighted content and then run image comparisons against copyrighted images in order to maybe flag the pirated copies.. or have a department of people looking for this sort of thing. Either way its a little unreasonable. They could create a form for webmasters to submit infringement complaints, but that would be like putting out fires one drop of water at a time - the pirates could always just move to a new URL.
I hope the judicial system doesn't make the Napster connection without giving this more thought, otherwise we may have to kiss Image Search goodbye.
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
(The Beatles)
to our new Perfect-10 models overlords.
So they're liberal and feminist UNLESS they disagree with your definition of liberal and feminist. Have you started a church we could all join?
Yes, one sample ought to be enough for anybody to generalise wildly. You realise that Thorne is not necessarily the only, nor the most exploited, female working in the pornography industry, right?
If so, I'll hold on to it until the government sues them for monopoly practices, NASDAQ hits 5,000 again, and the third time it is speculated that this Friday will be the one where the judge will release his Findings of Fact.
Then I'll short the heck out of them!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
vi robots.txt /
:wq
User-agent: Googlebot-Image
Disallow:
Can some one please explain the problem and the need to sue google?
does Google get into more trouble for linking? China? with plain old regular law? or the US/Europe? with their draconian IP laws?
What?
So where are these images? How can we judge if we don't STFI (See The Free Images)?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Also: "You people ARE fucking stupid"
I'm just saying.
First of all, its the magazine's fault if their images weren't protected... and if its showing up on google, then their website didn't do the proper procedure to warn googles bot that it wasn't to use these images. For all search engines, if a website doesn't want to appear on them, all it needs to do is put a text file into it that the search engines look for, and if its found, the info on the site wont apear on the search engine.
No, Google really are evil.
They're clearly a data-mining company looking to build a massive profile on each and every one of us.
I'm convinced this whole "Google is a Microsoft" is coming from Microsoft itself. There's just too much of it appearing since Microsoft started going after similar markets. Hype is hype. I'm seeing no proof of anything remotely as unethical as Microsoft...yet.
Appologies if this has already been mentioned, no I haven't read the entire thread.
It seems google is in the perfect place to offer a service. They scan your site, but don't make the contents available to the public. Then they notify you of all the matches they found indexing other sites.
That would make Google the copyright police. Or at least bounty hunters after a fashion.
"The avalanch has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote." -Kosh
Create a prominent link on the front page that would say "Remove my site". There you go, problem solved. Folks who don't want to be indexed can remove themselves forever.
And it seems like if they were smart they'd use Google to find these other sites and send cease-and-desist letters, etc.
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
'gates going from young turk to monopolistic behemoth' is a nice straw man, but the historical record demonstrates that gates has always been evil. To imply otherwise is to give him/it benefit of the doubt that would never be accorded from him/it.
The problem is the DMCA and copyright laws. And congress Lobbying... Not google nor Microsoft! The best proof Microsoft doesn't truely have a monopolistic status is that they fear the pengouin!
"Every one ... is ..." is a perfectly acceptable grammatical structure.
Did I say overlords? I meant protectors.
Firstly - you can insert tags into your website that prevent search engines from spidering your pages.
If the website in question has not added these tags into the pages well its there own darned fault.
But honestly the only loser in this game is the porn site Google should just remove them from the results entirely then watch their visitor logs go right down. I dont see how there can ever be a case for a a website to sue google succesfully on these kinds of grounds. That is provided Google are going by the book and parsing those "dont spider this site" tags.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
If I were Google I would simply remove "Perfect 10" from there crawler's accepted sites. That way it would never even mention perfect 10, no matter what. If you don't like your sluts being posted on an image search, then your website won't get posted either, say good bye to Perfect 10.
Sounds like there would have to be a scheme for metadata inside the image that says something like "for use only on website xxx.xxx"
(Someone buy the domain quickly please)
Then google would be able to filter images that have such meta-data, especially if they are on domains other than "xxx.xxx"
of course, there are meta data editors out there, etc, but then the blame and curse falls on the people who hacked the metadata to say they owned the picture in the first place.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Google should fight.
Few courts will award monetary damages to PORNOGRAPHERS from a reputable company defendant unless the law very clearly says they must and/or there was egregious misconduct on the part of the defendant.
It doesn't look good in the eyes of the public. It is very bad if the judge ever wants to get re-elected, re-appointed or move to a better/higher court.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
So because the law says so, on your 18th birthday you suddenly become a perfectly responsible person and you know the consequences of everything you're doing?
(Sorry for the tongue-in-cheek)
Probably because it's easier to sue Google than it is the sites that are stealing images. Not to mention, Google has a lot more money than these other sites combined.
Shoot the messenger...
In one post he accused google of manipulating their stock price while SIMULTANEOUSLY saying they were going to have the biggest point loss in the history of the company. I'm sorry, but I fail to see why they'd manipulate their own stock price down.
So the company can buy the stock back for much less than they previously sold it for, meaning the public IPO earnings were "free money"? Or so executives can buy stock on the cheap now, and then execute a master plan to bring the price back up, putting more money in their own pockets?
It's the same thing SCO has been accused of doing, and personally I suspect that the board of WWE, Inc. is doing the same thing. What other explanation for the sorry state of pro wrestling can there be?
So as I understand it, Perfect 10 contends that the image search function on Google is the equivalent of Google actually producing a web site of images. Since the images belong to Perfect 10, displaying them is copyright infringment. Part of the complaint seems also to revolve around a Google actually indexing and producing "text links" to sites where someone has copied their images and is redisplaying them. Perfect 10 has supplied a list of these URLs to Google and asked that they "remove the links". So, seems simple to me, Google blocks all those sites that have Perfect 10 content as listed by Perfect 10, including the the Perfect 10 site. End of problem....oh, unless they were sort of banking on Google links getting new customers.
Because being the biggest name on the Internet does not exempt you from basic copyright obligations, and Google is directly or indirectly providing access to material without holding the copyright. It's indirect in this case, but see also past discussion of Google Groups, PDF to HTML translation, Google Cache, etc.
I know this isn't a popular view around these parts, but that doesn't make it any less true. You might argue a reasonable compromise that Google is providing a generic service similar to common carrier status in telecomms, and therefore should be excluded from responsibility as long as its service is completely impartial. However, even then it's tough to argue that when you've been explicitly notified of a specific breach you can continue to look the other way and pretend it's nothing to do with you.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
You say "exploited"
Did someone capture these girls and force them to star in porn?
Or did they agree to it?
Y'see... in America, we've decided that reaching 18 means you're an adult, and able to make your own decisions. You seem to want to raise this number to 25, thereby "protecting" all the 18-24s from the horrible possibility that they might *shudder* decide what to do with their own lives. *gasp*
But, if we raise it to 25, then you'll just say "the poor 25-32 year olds who didn't know better" and then we'll raise it to 32. wash. rinse. repeat.
So because the law says so, on your 18th birthday you suddenly become a perfectly responsible person and you know the consequences of everything you're doing?
(Sorry for the tongue-in-cheek)
No, you're expected to become increasingly responsible as you grow older; and it's your parent's legal responsiblity to make sure you do.
If you're 18, you've recieved at least 13 years of free education in mathematics, science, English composition, and rhetoric, all of which teach both formal reasoning and critical thinking as core components. You're better prepared to face the world today than at any other time in history, and you're being asked to face it at a much later age. If 13 years of comprehensive formal education hasn't made you ready to face the world's challenges, what will?
You're better educated by age 10 than the average peasant was during his entire liftetime during the last thousand years or so. My grandfather was expected to be a man, and provide for his family as head of the household at age twelve. (His father died early during a farm accident, and my grandfather was the oldest boy).
My dad, and all his brothers, worked construction jobs and gave the money to support the rest of the family all through high school. My Dad lived in a poor, remote, frigid corner of Canada, near Winnipeg. He had to walk to school (and take care of his little sister along the way; he was nine and she was seven), and when he got there, he was expected to light the wood stove if the was the first one in the school, and to fire up the coal oil lanterns. He remembers five year old kids driving grain trucks across the prairies, being called out of school during the fall for grain harvest. There's such a thing as being forced to grow up too fast, and theres such a thing as being unwilling to face up to your responsiblities.
Frankly, if you haven't learned to make responsible choices by age 18, you've been terribly neglient wich all the free opportunities you've been provided with. Kids today don't appreciate just how sheltered and pampered their daily lives today really are. At some point, they have to grow up, and join the adult world.
--
AC
Agreed, they should do something that has no effect on the rest of their lives, like have children or decide whether to attend college.
Does the idealized exploitation free porn market place you fantasize exists actually exist? No. It could exist if there were radical societal shifts, but it doesn't exist today.
Just because someone is paid doesn't mean they aren't being exploited (being made use of selfishly or unethically). The world is more nuanced and complex than you think.
Come on, why are people acting like there's no stigma attached to having been a stripper or a porn star?
I find it fascinating that everyone who challenged what I had to say posted as AC (with the exception of you, which is why I chose to respond to you).
What people are expressing here is their ideal reality, not the way things really are. For every one middle-aged woman that you can show me who's proud of her stripper heritage, I can show you 500 women who would look down on such a thing.
Ahahahahaha! That was hysterical! What a cutting and penetrating wit you have...the chicks must just dig you.
Oh wait. You're just another unfunny partisan asshole.
Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
1. It's not a consensus, even though some loudmouths try to portray themselves as speaking for everyone with the same affiliations. I am a socialist and a feminist and I am pro-pr0n. I know many people in the same boat as me.
2. The anti-pr0n US feminists allied themselves with the anti-pr0n Christian Fundamentalists in their bid to ban what they perceive as an obscenity. The were openly denounced by other US feminists at the time.
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
If these "Perfect 10" guys don't want their media being displayed by search engines, they should just make their pages non searchable, and there are a good many ways to accomplish this.
:p
IMHO these guys are just a bunch of (technically)poor programmers, running a (technically) crappy site and expecting to draw some bucks and free publicity from Google, the legal system, and their own lack of (technical) abilities.
Hey, Goatse could also sue Google!
1) mark their site with a robots.txt file which would prevent Google from indexing it and have Google take down the content they've already indexed, yet...
2) still leave some pages index-able as a teaser to the bulk of their content
idiots...
Her reply was something on the line of "Honey, I make more money in one photo shoot than in a week in the factory. If anyone's exploited, it's the wankers who pay to see the pictures."
FWIW, it's a job I find much less immoral than, say, MLM or politics.
Ignore this signature. By order.
How about all theose 18-24 year old WOMEN you ar calling girls? They are adults and can make thier own choices.
What people are expressing here is their ideal reality, not the way things really are. For every one middle-aged woman that you can show me who's proud of her stripper heritage, I can show you 500 women who would look down on such a thing.
See, this is the problem. You state that for every woman WHO STRIPPED, you can find 500 WHO DIDN'T STRIP that look down on it. News flash. For every single hot stripper, you can always find 500 frumpy old bags who disapprove. However, who cares?
You would have a point, if you could find 500 ex strippers who look down on it, for every ex stripper that defended it. But you can't. Why? Because for many of these women, it was EASY money, with almost no risk.
These are choices that adults get to make. No more, no less. And do not kid yourself, you can find 500 people in opposition to ANY decision that you may have to make in life. In the end, only one person has to accept that decision, you.
I find this quote really funny
Come on, why are people acting like there's no stigma attached to having been a stripper or a porn star.
There is no stigma attached to it, at least not in my eyes. Stigma is the sole property of the person passing judgement.
In the grand scheme of things, here is a little list of things that I would find MORE embarassing than having my daughter strip her way through school:
-vote Bush
-become an evangelical christian
-become a US citizen
-join the US millitary
-support a war
-be a thief
-be a liar
-drop out of school
Everyone has different things that would drive them nuts. Nudity does not offend me. Sex does not offend me. The above list does.
It is not passing judgement BTW, they are the things that drive ME nuts, and that I would find more embarassing to tell my family and friends about my child. Your list would be different, I am sure.
Google could just take them out of all search results, and after the initial promotional rush generated from the lawsuit, they would stop getting traffic, and die. If you don't want your pictures accessed, don't put them online and unsecured. It's their own damn fault.
Well...
If I had made the same joke about Bush it would have been moderated +3 funny.
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
it's just way to much work to put a robots.txt file on your web site to keep google from indexing your web site.
Lazy bastages would rather sue people than do anything useful at all. F all y'all law suit muther humpers!
And what long-term consequences are those? I do supose they have to put up with the large majority of perverts that think the natural body is a nasty, sick, disgusting thing that needs to be hidden at all times.
As for the age range you list, I supose you're right. Only those who are at the end of their lives should be able to realise how foolish it is to hate your own body.
Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
Seriously, it is obvious that there is private information on the internet that google doesn't pick up due to the security policy being correct on the server. Google uses automated processes, not monkey with type-writers searching the web. How is it their fault for somebody else linking public images?
The whole story is bullshit.
is beginning to seriously annoy me, 'coz they really are.
For those of you who speak german, this might be a interesting read:
http://saar-echo.de/de/art.php?a=25378
Stop the whining and face it.
If I go to Google.com and see my copywrited works when going to http://google.com/ then Google is wrong.
Just because YOU are not hosting the file doesn't mean YOU are not doing something illegal.
Going to this Google.com results page shows me copywrited images in my browser. PERIOD. No matter what the application, search, indexer or aggregator.
It doesn't matter. Really, think about it.
Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
Use the rewrite mod in Apache and make sure that Google and others can't hotlink the material presented on the website in question.
Besides this one being publicity-stunt, it's quite stupid - as perfect 10 magazine can get more visitors by having some of their "freebies" listed in Google. (even though this whole thing gave perfect 10 more publicity since last november than ever, I guess)
The term "Cunning Stunts" comes to mind here...
One thing about Google I don't like is the fact that it refuses to tell AdSense publishers what percentage of the click-through revenue they get. They just have to accept what ever Google deigns to throw them. I seen an opening for a competitor to promise a concrete share.
Earlier they went after CyberNet Ventures, the people behind the Adult Check age-verification service.
They seem to be extremely serious about protecting their copyrights (as they interpret them). Google is just the latest target.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Perhaps so, but I would imagine that the arbiter would have made the same comment.
kaens.blogspot.com
Doesnt this sound like this article..Maybe this is where they got the idea http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/14/11 52234&tid=123&tid=141&tid=155&tid=95
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller