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
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.
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.
Because the images in question aren't on Perfect 10's website, but are on other websites that have stolen their content and are redisplaying it without permission. The robots.txt file doesn't allow you to force google to not index other people's websites... only the almight lawsuit can do that.
--
RumorsDaily
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!
Strangely enough, these people are suing google for the actions of others. They are suing google because google's webcrawler doesn't automatically block sites containing their copyrighted works. They're basically saying it's Google's job to police the entire web to enforce their copyrights. They have no case, because they would have to prove under the DMCA that Google was built to facilitate the copying of copyrighted works. Not only that, but it'd be difficult to say that they are circumventing a copyright protection scheme because the pictures are not protected by anything more elaborate than password protection on the website. They'll lose and they're dumb for wasting the time filing the suit. This is a real good example of a frivolous lawsuit.
James
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.
Then the suit should be filed against the websites illegally serving their copyrighted images, not Google.
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.
"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?
The images aren't from Perfect 10 directly. They wants Google to stop linking to other sites that have (potentially illegal) copies of their copyrighted images. So to put it in really simple terms, Perfect 10 wants Google to enforce their copyrights for them. Seems to me that the burden of copyright enforcement is on the owner of said rights and Google isn't doing anything to aid in misappropriation of copyrighted material. Throwing the DMCA claim on top just adds to the absurdity. Personally, I hope these guys get crushed in court for trying to pull a stunt like this.
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!
Yeah, and I'm sure google can help Perfect 10 find them and help put the people away since they have the pictures cached with the URL. Case closed, but no, go after the one that has more money is always the way people go these days. Not after the real criminals.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
That philosophy has always bugged me....it's like "Well if you don't want me robbing your house, why don't you just lock the doors?". The point is I shouldn't HAVE to lock my doors...you're the one robbing my house, why should I have to go to an extra step to keep you from displaying my copyrighted material against my wishes?
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.
Then.. uh... shouldn't Perfect 10 be going after the real offenders, and not the index server which simply aggrigates all of the images that fit the searched terms?
To me, it looks like everyone and their mother is trying to cash in on Google. They're such a huge target that they're easy to attack with lawsuits. This actually does make them like Microsoft, but unlike Microsoft, Google doesn't have a legal department the size of Kentucky to back it up... give it time though.
Who knows, I might sue Google for aggrigating my slashdot comments! That's about as frivilous as this lawsuit is.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
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.
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..
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?
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?
Are they asking for money, or just asking Google to take down the links once they've been notified of the offending content? I wouldn't call it "cashing in" if they're just asking for the links to be taken down. I have other problems with it, but it's not "cashing in."
--
RumorsDaily
Because the implicit assumption when you POST SOMETHING TO THE WEB is that people can see it whenever they want. This isn't like tacking something up to the wall in your house, it's like putting it up on a billboard. That's why you need to take special measures if you don't want people to do the obivous.
I read the internet for the articles.
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.
Oh come on, get off your high horse. Search engines facilitate people connecting with content. If it is on the web, and I can view it, then Google's web-engine has every right to view it. They are giving you the option.
This case is nuts. I'm not going to 100% back Google, it IS a gray area, but having Google protect your own copyrights for you is crazy!
-nick
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!")
"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."
All it takes is someone being successful for all of you to take a shot at them...That comment and yours was worthy of a slashdotter any day!
Well, lawsuit tends to have the word "settlement" attached to it, which usually has a monitary value either in time, lawyer's paychecks, etc. And it's free publicity for Perfect 10, at the cost of Google's shining 'Do no evil' image.
So it may not have financial value, but it definitely has value. If it were a sane company/person, they would have emailed Google and said "hey, look. please, please take down those links, they're hurting our business and violating our copyright".. instead of waving around the DMCA and getting the media involved, which I'm sure Perfect 10's gonna use to their advantage in trying to get a bigger settlement.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
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.
* 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.
i) harder to track down than Google
ii) probably much poorer than Google,
so it's really not a tricky decision for Perfect 10's lawyers as to who they go after.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Exactly. In any civilized justice system, you go after the people who actually break the law and not the conduit by which they do it.
They can sue the Internet next.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
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
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.
Of course they're doing it for the free publicity. They now have 1000's of /.ers searching perfect 10's site for pr0n...
/.
I'm sure perfect 10's IT crew knows that if they get into a story involving google, it will eventually end up on
I got nothin'
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 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!
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....
The other websites stole their content? You mean Perfect 10 doesn't have those pictures anymore because they were stolen?
Please, let's not adopt **AA Newspeak: the name of the offense is "copyright infringement". Calling it "theft" is as accurate as calling it "rape".
Really? I thought I was stating the obvious in a pretty straightforward way. Tell me what was pretentious about my post, and I'll try to cut it out later?
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Perfect 10 already caters to the geek market. They have a booth at Dragoncon and presumably other geeky conventions.
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.
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
So by your thinking, if I post a billboard in public, you should be able to just copy it for free and make a profit off of it? After all I put it IN PUBLIC!! Just because something is public does not give others the right to reproduce it, let alone make a profit off of it (as Google could potentially do)
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 guess it depends... if the judge considers google's software to be analagous to p2p networks then the case might fly. Just as a p2p allows individual offenders to distribute their ill gotten gains, so does google allow pornthieves to spread their smutloads to willing viewers...
This is not my POV but merely an alternative view to the matter than what you posted.
-if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
As EVERYONE one else mentioned they are suing over their copyrighted photos that other websites have stolen, that google is indexing.. They should sue the other websites, but google is more prodominate.
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.
>If they do then it takes all of three seconds to
>tell Google to leave your site.
Although it take slightly longer than 3 seconds for you to actually read the article, you would realise that is not about indexing their own site, but other sites containing their pictures.
One 'o', you fucking nazi!
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
I think there's two parts to a large majority of the bad press that Google has been getting. Keep in mind, I'm not going to defend them blindly, but I just can't bring myself to buy into most of the garbage that's being run, so here goes:
1. Like you said ciro, people are just suing Google because they know that Google has money. It's like all the Michael Jackson pedophile cases (please don't go further into those). As long as people can suspect that something is going on even without proving it, they're going to go for the gold. Google tries to keep their secrets about the business and so people think that the mystery behind their search engine gives companies the right to sue over the stupidest things.
2. As childish and stupid as it may sound, I think there are a small number of cases of bad press about Google going around whose flames were fanned by getting lowered on the grand ladder of Page Rank. With how much money people are pouring into SEO and SEM 'experts' however knowledgable they really are, I can easily conceive that someone will cough up that same amount to shit on Google's front lawn when that SEO project resulted in a lower rank in the only engine they think matters.
Bottom line: The internet is a big and scary place, and when you can't find that mean man that stole your purse, you can blame it on that really big guy standing next to you because he's probably that big for a bad reason. Or at least you can make a few judges believe you.
Perfecting Discordia
www.stevenvansickle.com
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!
states
so for one I doubt they have exclusive rights to all their "Thousands of images", in fact there are quite a few wholesalers that will sell you rights to tons of porn on a non-exclusive basis for the budding pornographer, I'm sure more than a couple of these photo's ended up in their archives, or possibly perfect10 has a subsidiary that wholesales to other sites. Another problem is for example I take a few pictures, while burning through a roll I get a couple that are almost identicle, who's to say I can't sell rights for one to one company, and rights to another. perfect10 definetely has an uphill battle, even proving infringement even took place.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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...
But for the fact that Napster was used almost exclusively to download illegal content. This can hardly be asserted for Google...
It sounds like they did that... in 2001. If Google wasn't able to remove the requested content in 4 years, then a lawsuit seems understandable. Again, I don't particularly like it either, but it's to say that they've been impatient.
--
RumorsDaily
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?
You are quite right, why doesn't this company simply change its robots.txt file?
As stupid as the people who don't RTFA.
It's not about displaying images that are on their website(s), its about displaying their images that are on OTHER peoples websites, aka google finds their images on other peoples websites and displays them without the origional owners permission.
TruePunk | Games
I stole your post (remember, comments are owned by the poster) and put it in a text file on my desktop.
Maybe sometime I'll post that txt file to a website.
So what have you lost?
The point is it's more like have your house invaded and your lawn mower stolen, then sue the news paper for publishing your address that was contained in the public record police report, making it easier for the next crook to know where some idiot that doesn't lock up lives.
Google only shows a thumbnail of the image, this is assumed to be within the doctrine of fair use as its a small portion, not the full image, to get the full image you have to follow the link to it, where the rights owner is able to distribute the full image on their standards, or to the location of the infringer.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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.
First of all, this is not a robots.txt issue because it's not a matter of Google linking to images on Perfect 10's web site, but images on other various web sites that are beyond their control. For those that think it's not Google's responsibility to protect Perfect 10's copyrights, under the DMCA, it is their responsibilty and they are required to remove this infringing content. Google is facilitating copyright infringement by providing an image search service. This is not unlike the old Napster and P2P cases from five years ago. The solution here is for Google to remove the infringing content. Google's defense in this case would be "fair use" of the content, but I think the DMCA has special provisions for scenarios such as this, where a web site facilitates access to infringing content, the owner of that site (Google, in this case) is required to remove it.
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?
This makes me wonder as well. Why would they go after the company that gets them the most hits, and thus ad-revenue. It makes no sense.
cat
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"
Then the suit should be filed against the websites illegally serving their copyrighted images, not Google.
Google has more money.
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.
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.
Where do you think you download the previews from when you search images.google.com? Google serves them up. I'm sure that's fair use, but the argument that it's infringement could easily be made.
Has it not also been found that if you link to an infringing site that you're committing contributory infringement?
Ten years ago I would've agreed with the thinking that Google is a clear winner in this case without so much as an argument made, now I don't think that's the case. Google still has a good chance of winning, but I doubt it'll go that far.
OMFG!!!! Doesn't ANYONE read the fucking article anymore????
That's pretty stupid of them actually. Google serves as a big fat neon sign pointing these malfactors out.
Being able to easily find infringing content is a double edged sword. You would think they would appreciate the flip side of the blade here.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Then the suit should be filed against the websites illegally serving their copyrighted images, not Google.
Right, but then they wouldn't make it to the front page of slashdot.
If it weren't for my stupidity, I'd be some kind of genius.
...it'd be difficult to say that they are circumventing a copyright protection scheme because the pictures are not protected by anything more elaborate than password protection on the website
The DMCA covers more then circumventing a copyright scheme. The only good part of the DMCA is the DMCA notice they sent Google. That part of the DMCA specifies that you cannot sue until you send a C&D notice telling the person they are displaying your works. Then if you refuse to remove the content they can sue. Traditional copyright law says you can sue for the whole time period that they were displaying the copyrighted works. (i don't have time to reread it but that's the parts i remember.)
AAAAAAggghhh!!!!! Read the fucking article!!!!!
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!!
Don't you see? See, we all know that the programmers at Google know exactly what digital data belongs to who, regardless of who actually is displaying it. I mean, Google made a javascript map... thingy... and you could clicky it and it moved, so obviously they must know everything right?
Ahhhhhhhhh! *removes the "think-like-your-adversary" helmet*
Hmmm, think a jury would buy it?
I8-D
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.
Case closed.
Actually I can. There's nothing stopping me from taking a picture of your billboard. The only way you would have a case against me is if I used your copyrighted images in some public way without your consent. My private photo album doesn't count. If you never want anyone to be able to use something of yours at all, don't display it. IANAL, but I highly suspect that case law would back me up on this.
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.
I've got bad news for you, everytime someone looks at your data they're going to make a copy of it. Browsers store a copy every time they visit a site. Google is much the same way, they need to store data about your site to index off of.
It's not like Google is going to open up "google: Momoru's site" or something. They're grabbing the data to index. Frankly, if you're that worried that someone make make money (however indirectly) off of your work, you'd better keep it locked up and hidden from the world because you never know when someone might satarize it or use it indirectly somehow and leave you out of the loop. Part of the web is letting go of the 100% control that some people want to exercise over everything they do. It's realizing that not everybody thinks the same way and that what is "illegal use for profit" in your eyes is "part of the most useful and extensive cataloging of the largest collection of data known to man"
Finally, I remind you that no great artist/author/etc... works in a vacuume. All of the greats stole stuff from their contemporaries. Overly restrictive copyright laws hurt society in the long run.
I read the internet for the articles.
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.
It's all context, and his reasoning for why the case was nothing to worry about was just too close to a description of the napster case.
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.
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)
They can use Google to find the offenders. Oh wait, they did that. Why are they suing Google again?
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."
Yes, because this time the Good Guys have the most money.
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."
i know that the content is coming from other sites. but google isnt responsible for what copyrighted material ends up on someone elses site. Go after the gun maker, not the murder i guess is the theory here.
The DMCA says that they have to take down the links once they're told about them, that's the thing. Remember google being forced to remove kazaa lite and friends from its search results because it was infringing Sharman's copyrights? This is exactly the same thing.
I am trolling
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.
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).
This is of course purely a matter of opinion, which I too disagree with. Copying and illegally showing others images already has a name - copyright infrignement, there is no need as far as I know to drag other terminology on when sufficient terms already exist, and/or when the law also differentiates them as well.
Seriosuly though, are you trying to come off as a troll, or just posting your opinions sincerely? I say this not on your opinion, but because you have managed to parrot the RIAA's famous tort exactly as they say it. No it is not by any stretch of the imagin the same as shoplifting a CD. In shoplifting a CD, there is no chance of a store or company to make any profits off of the CD, and the CD is not poasessed anymore by the store, none of this happens with copying images.
Opinion wise yes, factually... doubtful to almostr never... as anything that is only repeated without backing it up or explaining why it is a good example... no chance (to me).
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
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
Besides, I'm not saying that (Perfect 10 v Google) == (RIAA v Napster). I was just saying that the logic to dismiss this case is eerily familiar to the logic once used to try and defend Napster.
Beyond other things, I think that Perfect 10 isn't trying to say that Google's service is illegal so much as they're trying to say that Google, when their service is used for illegal purposes, is liable for damages. This changes the entire scope of the discussion and ignores a lot of the issues surrounding the substantial noninfringing uses,
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.
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.
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
No, you didn't. The post is still on ./. You copied my post.
So what have you lost?
I don't know... what has someone lost when he or she gets raped? Privacy? Autonomy? Dignity? Reputation? Peace of mind? Economic advantage? These things are no more or less material than what is lost by the owner of an infringed copyright.
You've convinced me. "Theft" is the same thing as copyright infringement, as is "rape". From now on, I'm going to call people who infringe on others' copyrights "rapists".
Reinventing the definitions of words is fun!
>As soon as the they stop linking to "we split
>the story into 30 ad-ridden pages" stories I'll
>start reading TFA.
So instead you continue to post completely erroneous posts? Great.
Besides, had you actually read it, it was just one page....
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