Man, I knew the Germans were tough, but 2 years in jail for a stick of gum!
What about if I leave the gum in the shop and make a magic clone of it? Still two years? Even though, at best the shop is out a *potential* sale, rather than losing actual stock?
What if I invent a replicator, like they have in Star Trek and I replicate a 90's CD in a time travel episode on a Holodeck. Is that like 2 years in Real-Jail or Holo-Jail? Why does the computer never tell Riker that he can't have Jazz played because its copyrighted?
Suppose it's an episode with parallel universes, and in 1 parallel universe I buy a copy of the CD, and this universe, I download it instead. That's a loss of a sale that happened in the parallel universe. Am I locked up for 2 years in this universe or in the parallel one?
I guess I mean that copyright infringement isn't theft, it's something less, and that the penalties should reflect that crime. The French are proposing 20 times the cost for an infringement and 150 times for sharing it (35 Euroes and 150 Euro fine), which already seems way above the 3x rule.
I thinks its client (PC) side isn't it in Australia? It's piss easy to bypass for a computer savvy kid. Even Vista won't change that, since XBox is cracked, they're unlikely to be able to make Vista uncrackable.
Moving it server side would be better, but I disagree with this 'ACMA' defined filter list, because different people have different sensitivies, also black-list-only won't work, it will always be one step behind the real world. A white list should be offered too, but at the choice of the parent not to government.
i.e. parent orders internet, checks 'parental filtering', and chooses whose filter to use the first time they connect / changable later on a web page.
That seems a better choice to me. I think you guys that like porn should support the above too, if the parents can get decent filtering sorted, there won't be such an anti-porn/pro censorship movement.
Filtering is fine, if its *your* choice not to view, not someone else imposing their filtering on you. This is why the British model is not a good one.
Opt-in would be better, it should be a regular purchased service like any other net service. Parents should also have the option of decided WHO defines their filter list. So that they could choose the filtering according to their own religious/Moral beliefs. If you're Islamic you might want to block Danish cartoons for example. If you're a Google fanboy, you should be able to order the Google safe filter. The *parent* should get to decide who they want to do the blocking, the ISP should simply offer the service of routing it.
ISP should *sell* the service, then there is a commercial incentive to offer a market in good filtering choices, rather than a reluctant half assed service.
Governments should be kept at barge pole length, because they have a tendency to censor views they disagree with.
Parents should be able to change the preferences on a website with their login/password they get when they order net connections, so that as their children grow they can turn the filtering down, or when they want to supervise their kids internet usage they can turn it off.
Finally, some filtering services should be whitelisted services rather than blacklisted, i.e. a whitelist of known good sites, for parents that are particularly sensitive to porn/violence issues.
"SkyScan AP uses Image Composition Software (ICA), which decomposes an image," White explained. "It runs 22,000 algorithms and in addition to skin tone textures, it can decipher porn through other features such as facial expressions.""
In practice these tools are simply filtering by URL, then by colour gamut analysis.
"Depends. If the reason Oracle doesn't appear is because of a deliberate attempt by MS to block it, then no. If MS changed their search strategy in even a semi-reasonable manner and just one of many consequences was a lower rank of Oracle, yes."
Yes, its not 100% clear cut, certainly not 'they can do what they want'.
"Also, Google is far from a monopoly in searching."
I don't think it matters if they have a monopoly, the Tortuous Interference in Business laws don't require a monopoly, they are typically deception+commercial advantage. If MS blocked Oracle while pretending that their result was authoritative, that would fit. (IANAL).
Sony just lost another court case relating to the vibration feedback on the dual shock joysitck. (The claim is that the eccentric wheel is attached directly to the stick not the case and that this is novel because it gives feedback directly to the stick).
I found a patent that match exactly the same feature, same linkages, same thing, an eccentric shake feeback mechanism on a joystick on an aircraft simulator from Fokker in 1980's. Yet Sony just lost another case, even though its the same thing only smaller.
The court assume the patent office has done its job.
As long as the patent office doesn't enforce novelty and non-obviousness, the same patents will keep coming up again and again and again and the courts will enforce each new one.
Imagine Microsoft says it has the definitive authoritative search engine, and then blocks Oracle from the results. Now when you search for anything related to databases you don't get Oracle, even searches directly related to do with Oracle databases.
Are you OK with that now?
Google owes Kinderstart *nothing*, other than a good authoritative search result, because thats what they've promised to deliver. So anytime they end up in court it will come down to this 'can it be argued to be fair'.
And you guys shouldn't argue that 'they're a private business and can do *anything* they want', because what will happen when its Microsoft attacking its competitors? What will you argue then? What about when its Microsoft browser blocking Google.com?? Still OK with that?
I agree Google will win this one, because if you search for kinderstart, they are in the listings, and kinderstart.com does bring up the page. But type in [kinderstart animal friends] which is right on their home page, and you get this: http://carse.roxywatchsummer2002.info/
Thats not good, Google do need to clean up things in this result set.
"But it certainly doesn't show evidence of absence in determining whether or not rising sea temperatures are contributing to more deadly hurricanes."
Wikipedia:
"Hurricane aka Tropical Cyclone. "In meteorology, a tropical cyclone is a storm system with a closed circulation around a center of low pressure, driven by heat energy released as moist air drawn in over warm ocean waters rises and condenses. The name underscores their origin in the tropics and their cyclonic nature. "
I checked the site, they have apparently been sold to Pivotal Equity Group from Verisign.
If Verisign gets pre-emptive renewal of.com domains and sets up a centralized whois as per the agreement, then Verisign could monitor Whois to see which expiring domains to grab, and it can preempt even Network Solutions to grab those domains, so I NetSol has as much to lose as any other registrar.
"Almost directly below the search box on BMW.de there is the "händler suche" link"
True, missed that link sorry, but I don't see how it mitigates the poor Google result.
"Furthermore I just tried and searched on google.de to the phrase "autohaus finden" in combination with all german car brands and in none of these cases I found a link to the main car manufacturer involved,"
Again, I don't see how that mitigates the problem, Google, MSN and Yahoo all use to work for that search (and many many others) before Google took that action, it was only when Google forced BMW to remove the SEO that it stopped working. I think Mercedes removed SEO at a Google request too.
"It was not a very good search to begin with, because 'autohaus'" Presumably that is why the link is haendler, because more people will search for haendler than autohaus. But then again, how come Google doesn't know those two words in that context are synonymous?
"Tip of the day: if you want to find a local car dealer, skip google, go directly to the official factory website"
If MSN fixes this problem, the tip of the day will "Use MSN instead". This is why I like competition, it fixes stuff like this.
I think you missed the point, I Googled [bmw autohaus finden] and got BMW's Dealership finder. This was in the gap, just after the penalty had been lifted and just before the BMW site was recrawled. I did the same for many of the keyphrases BMW should be top for that were on that page of keywords Matt showed on his blog. That BMW site is probably the only good result for that query! After the recrawl BMW disappeared, that penalty directly caused the bad result.
"BTW, googling for "BMW..." Yeh, unfortunately going to bmw.de and typing 'autohaus finden' in the search box doesn't pull up BMWs dealership finder.
Well competition is good, it will simply drive Google & Yahoo to do better. Much as I love Google, they make choices I think suck sometimes...
e.g. [bmw autohaus finden] in Google.de use to pull up BMWs dealership finder before Google penalized them, BMW were forced to remove the doorway keywords, now it brings up nothing useful. Way to go Google.
Even if its competition from Microsoft, it will be a good thing, as long as MS doesn't try it usual anti-trust crap.
Random comparison of a sample of machines votes against paper audit trail votes is how you detect the fraud. So even then, the paper trail is necessary.
I want to play more adventure games, Monkey Island 3 was excellent, Myst, even Zork Nemesis, I was disappointed when Sam and Max got cancelled.
I kind of expect them all to move to web based games though, because then the game engine can stay on the server and so piracy stops being a problem and distribution cost drops to pennies. Rather than these $40-$70 shiny boxes with big expensive printed colour manuals on retail shelves.
Even if they lose some of the major studios, they should switch to unprotected MP3 VBR. (Or at worst use the Fraunhofer embedded serial number system). Without the need for DRM, they can play on all MP3 players, and all their technical difficulties and special drivers and DRM crap goes away.
The DRM is a big turnoff, they don't have a trust relationship to customers that Apple has. As it stands you have to virtually marry an online music store (or at least enter into a long term relationship) so they can operate their DRM. Nobody wants that, selling music at a loss is a dead end, they should quit wasting money on this DRM crap.
If any of the big record companies insist on it, then its better not to sell their music. If they're making a loss, what difference does it make to lose that record companies music? [/rant]
He talked about DRM, the broadcast flag, then he was reminded the talk was to be about giving his books away for free and he talked about that. Then the QA session was fanboy stuff, there was very few questions and in some cases he switched to English to explain the legal detail.
You're asking me to ignore my own first hand knowledge of that talk he gave.
"Many questions came from the floor and in forums after a talk he gave in Spain that he was not able to answer to this end. In one forum he claimed that OSX was an open-source OS and he considers himself a BSD user. IMO Cory can be a bit of a margin fudger at times."
I attended, what you say bears no relationship to the talk Cory gave or the questions he was asked. Grade A bullplop.
"The search engine isn't playing a part in this beyond doing what it's designed to do"
I think Google were in the wrong with Perfect 10, because the search engines right to index the work is covered by fair use, fair use includes such factors as benefit/loss to the copyright holder.
When Google indexes a site that has the copyright, there is a benefit to the copyright holder. When it indexes a site that is a pirate, there isn't, the pirate benefits instead and the copyright holder, so Google loses their fair use cover in that case.
That's why I think they lost (rightly so I think).
"So Google can also check the timestamp of every robots.txt file it downloads and ignore any dated prior to 1998? Can I ask the local Wal-Mart when they posted the No Shoplifting signs in their dressing rooms, and ignore any that were there before I was?"
Under fair use, they don't need to ask permission, if the copyright holder disagrees they can sue and a judge decides if it is or isn't.
Google offer an additional PRE-opt out. This is BEYOND what they have to do if their indexing is fair use. A request under that system is just a *request*. My points were that the statement in the book is neither the definition of copyright law (which permits fair use) nor a request under Googles additional PRE-opt out system, since it was written prior to Google Book Search and so could not have been written with the intent of opting out to GBS. As evidence that that statement can't be considered a request to opt out of Google, I pointed out that GBS didn't exist, and that some people who have that statement in their books wanted GBS to index their work. I also ruled it out as some sort of pseudo agreement between reader and publisher.
"The question is whether Google will cause more people to write books with this program." I think the words are "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". i.e. promoting researchers that use the book is also covered. But I also think their book search will be terrific for book authors because promotion results in sales and sales are monetary inducement to make new works. Google sends visitors to websites and that results in sales (so much so the SEO industry was created), so it does have positive benefits.
That comment in the book isn't the definition of copyright law. Copyright law permits reproduction of the book or portions thereof if it comes within fair use and other provisions, so that clause goes beyond copyright to restrict the rights further.
"Like I said, anyone not expressly authorized to copy is not authorized to copy." See above. You can copy portions (even the whole thing in some cases) if its fair use. Under that circumstance you don't need permission. This is what Google are claiming in the book publisher case.
"What contract? There's no contract." If that statement in the book isn't the definition of copyright law then it follows its nothing more than a request or attempt at aftersale contract. So the extension of copyright (refusing all permissions including those covered by fair use) has to survive the 'reasonableness and other tests'. Without that only copyright law applies and fair use is permitted.
You asked if you own the book and you do. That clause doesn't change that.
"No, excerpts used in book reviews are fair use. The courts determined that a long time ago. " And excerpts in a search engine will be decided likewise!
"The fact that some publishers (and authors) are happy to participate in Google Book Search doesn't compel those who aren't happy to participate."
The opt out is consistent with this case and DMCA. Recall in this case Perfect 10 first of all followed the correct DMCA process and REQUESTED GOOGLE REMOVE THE IMAGES FIRST.
There are 2 parts to Googles system. Fair use - they have the right to do this if it's fair use. In addition Google is offering an additional PRE-opt out, which isn't necessary but will count in their favour in the eyes of the Judge. All a publisher has to do is say "don't scan this list of my books" and the matter is ended.
You are arguing that that statement in the book constitutes a REQUEST to Google to opt out. But it can't be because it was written prior to GBS even existing. I use the word REQUEST because the pre-opt out isn't necessary if Google are under fair use.
"What happens when the next Google decides it will display a paragraph, and the next decides it will display a page, then a chapter?"
The judge will decide that on a case by case basis. There will be some point at which a judge decides its beyond fair use, but this isn't it.
"Would it be fairer if the indexer had to get permission first? " From who? There are a huge section of books from out of business publishers and whose current copyright owner can never be determined. This is the big difference here and the whole reason I think the publishers are doing this. I think they want to use copyright to suppress those out of print books to reduce competition.
"Copyright awners are welcome to enforce their copyrights as they see fit." If that was the case, MPAA would have successfully killed Betamax, it isn't, they don't have a free hand.
You should re-read the last sentence in my comment since it doesn't say what you think it does. The point being if we had to get permission for every use of copyrighted material (which is all material since copyright doesn't need to be declared) the world would grind to a halt, you wouldn't be able to quote my post in your reply, for example, without securing permission first.
"Just because you like Google, doesn't mean you should invent rationalizations for their behavior."
See my comment above, I think Google are *wrong* in the Perfect 10 case and *right* in the Google Book Search case and that the two situations are not comparable for the reasons I outlined in the above comments.
'bit01 who says: Copyright is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts".' What is search if it isn't promotion!?
The premium content is behind a login and a search suggests it is blocked, only public and tour pages are shown in the search results. So I don't think its important how they blocked Google indexing that content, only that they did.
Put it this way, is there a benefit to the copyright holder from Google indexing that data? In the case of books, yes because it [arguably] promotion and aids in researching of books. In the case of Perfect 10, no because the site being indexed isn't the copyright holder, its a pirated copy. So no benefit can be argued (IMHO).
Slashdot Mirror
Man, I knew the Germans were tough, but 2 years in jail for a stick of gum!
What about if I leave the gum in the shop and make a magic clone of it? Still two years? Even though, at best the shop is out a *potential* sale, rather than losing actual stock?
What if I invent a replicator, like they have in Star Trek and I replicate a 90's CD in a time travel episode on a Holodeck. Is that like 2 years in Real-Jail or Holo-Jail? Why does the computer never tell Riker that he can't have Jazz played because its copyrighted?
Suppose it's an episode with parallel universes, and in 1 parallel universe I buy a copy of the CD, and this universe, I download it instead. That's a loss of a sale that happened in the parallel universe. Am I locked up for 2 years in this universe or in the parallel one?
I guess I mean that copyright infringement isn't theft, it's something less, and that the penalties should reflect that crime. The French are proposing 20 times the cost for an infringement and 150 times for sharing it (35 Euroes and 150 Euro fine), which already seems way above the 3x rule.
I thinks its client (PC) side isn't it in Australia? It's piss easy to bypass for a computer savvy kid. Even Vista won't change that, since XBox is cracked, they're unlikely to be able to make Vista uncrackable.
Moving it server side would be better, but I disagree with this 'ACMA' defined filter list, because different people have different sensitivies, also black-list-only won't work, it will always be one step behind the real world. A white list should be offered too, but at the choice of the parent not to government.
i.e. parent orders internet, checks 'parental filtering', and chooses whose filter to use the first time they connect / changable later on a web page.
That seems a better choice to me. I think you guys that like porn should support the above too, if the parents can get decent filtering sorted, there won't be such an anti-porn/pro censorship movement.
My 2 cents:
Filtering is fine, if its *your* choice not to view, not someone else imposing their filtering on you. This is why the British model is not a good one.
Opt-in would be better, it should be a regular purchased service like any other net service. Parents should also have the option of decided WHO defines their filter list. So that they could choose the filtering according to their own religious/Moral beliefs. If you're Islamic you might want to block Danish cartoons for example. If you're a Google fanboy, you should be able to order the Google safe filter. The *parent* should get to decide who they want to do the blocking, the ISP should simply offer the service of routing it.
ISP should *sell* the service, then there is a commercial incentive to offer a market in good filtering choices, rather than a reluctant half assed service.
Governments should be kept at barge pole length, because they have a tendency to censor views they disagree with.
Parents should be able to change the preferences on a website with their login/password they get when they order net connections, so that as their children grow they can turn the filtering down, or when they want to supervise their kids internet usage they can turn it off.
Finally, some filtering services should be whitelisted services rather than blacklisted, i.e. a whitelist of known good sites, for parents that are particularly sensitive to porn/violence issues.
From 2001:
1 1126.html
http://www.isp-planet.com/news/2001/messagelabs_0
"SkyScan AP uses Image Composition Software (ICA), which decomposes an image," White explained. "It runs 22,000 algorithms and in addition to skin tone textures, it can decipher porn through other features such as facial expressions.""
In practice these tools are simply filtering by URL, then by colour gamut analysis.
"Depends. If the reason Oracle doesn't appear is because of a deliberate attempt by MS to block it, then no. If MS changed their search strategy in even a semi-reasonable manner and just one of many consequences was a lower rank of Oracle, yes."
Yes, its not 100% clear cut, certainly not 'they can do what they want'.
"Also, Google is far from a monopoly in searching."
I don't think it matters if they have a monopoly, the Tortuous Interference in Business laws don't require a monopoly, they are typically deception+commercial advantage. If MS blocked Oracle while pretending that their result was authoritative, that would fit. (IANAL).
Sony just lost another court case relating to the vibration feedback on the dual shock joysitck.
(The claim is that the eccentric wheel is attached directly to the stick not the case and that this is novel because it gives feedback directly to the stick).
I found a patent that match exactly the same feature, same linkages, same thing, an eccentric shake feeback mechanism on a joystick on an aircraft simulator from Fokker in 1980's. Yet Sony just lost another case, even though its the same thing only smaller.
The court assume the patent office has done its job.
As long as the patent office doesn't enforce novelty and non-obviousness, the same patents will keep coming up again and again and again and the courts will enforce each new one.
Well at least thats a more consistent argument than "they're a private company, can do anything it wants".
Replace Google with Microsoft.
Imagine Microsoft says it has the definitive authoritative search engine, and then blocks Oracle from the results. Now when you search for anything related to databases you don't get Oracle, even searches directly related to do with Oracle databases.
Are you OK with that now?
Google owes Kinderstart *nothing*, other than a good authoritative search result, because thats what they've promised to deliver. So anytime they end up in court it will come down to this 'can it be argued to be fair'.
And you guys shouldn't argue that 'they're a private business and can do *anything* they want', because what will happen when its Microsoft attacking its competitors? What will you argue then? What about when its Microsoft browser blocking Google.com?? Still OK with that?
I agree Google will win this one, because if you search for kinderstart, they are in the listings, and kinderstart.com does bring up the page. But type in [kinderstart animal friends] which is right on their home page, and you get this:
http://carse.roxywatchsummer2002.info/
Thats not good, Google do need to clean up things in this result set.
"But it certainly doesn't show evidence of absence in determining whether or not rising sea temperatures are contributing to more deadly hurricanes."
Wikipedia:
"Hurricane aka Tropical Cyclone.
"In meteorology, a tropical cyclone is a storm system with a closed circulation around a center of low pressure, driven by heat energy released as moist air drawn in over warm ocean waters rises and condenses. The name underscores their origin in the tropics and their cyclonic nature. "
I checked the site, they have apparently been sold to Pivotal Equity Group from Verisign.
.com domains and sets up a centralized whois as per the agreement, then Verisign could monitor Whois to see which expiring domains to grab, and it can preempt even Network Solutions to grab those domains, so I NetSol has as much to lose as any other registrar.
If Verisign gets pre-emptive renewal of
"Almost directly below the search box on BMW.de there is the "händler suche" link"
True, missed that link sorry, but I don't see how it mitigates the poor Google result.
"Furthermore I just tried and searched on google.de to the phrase "autohaus finden" in combination with all german car brands and in none of these cases I found a link to the main car manufacturer involved,"
Again, I don't see how that mitigates the problem, Google, MSN and Yahoo all use to work for that search (and many many others) before Google took that action, it was only when Google forced BMW to remove the SEO that it stopped working. I think Mercedes removed SEO at a Google request too.
"It was not a very good search to begin with, because 'autohaus'"
Presumably that is why the link is haendler, because more people will search for haendler than autohaus. But then again, how come Google doesn't know those two words in that context are synonymous?
"Tip of the day: if you want to find a local car dealer, skip google, go directly to the official factory website"
If MSN fixes this problem, the tip of the day will "Use MSN instead". This is why I like competition, it fixes stuff like this.
..."the crap has nothing to do with the penalty,"
I think you missed the point, I Googled [bmw autohaus finden] and got BMW's Dealership finder. This was in the gap, just after the penalty had been lifted and just before the BMW site was recrawled. I did the same for many of the keyphrases BMW should be top for that were on that page of keywords Matt showed on his blog.
That BMW site is probably the only good result for that query! After the recrawl BMW disappeared, that penalty directly caused the bad result.
"BTW, googling for "BMW..."
Yeh, unfortunately going to bmw.de and typing 'autohaus finden' in the search box doesn't pull up BMWs dealership finder.
Well competition is good, it will simply drive Google & Yahoo to do better. Much as I love Google, they make choices I think suck sometimes...
e.g. [bmw autohaus finden] in Google.de use to pull up BMWs dealership finder before Google penalized them, BMW were forced to remove the doorway keywords, now it brings up nothing useful. Way to go Google.
Even if its competition from Microsoft, it will be a good thing, as long as MS doesn't try it usual anti-trust crap.
Random comparison of a sample of machines votes against paper audit trail votes is how you detect the fraud. So even then, the paper trail is necessary.
I want to play more adventure games, Monkey Island 3 was excellent, Myst, even Zork Nemesis, I was disappointed when Sam and Max got cancelled.
I kind of expect them all to move to web based games though, because then the game engine can stay on the server and so piracy stops being a problem and distribution cost drops to pennies. Rather than these $40-$70 shiny boxes with big expensive printed colour manuals on retail shelves.
Even if they lose some of the major studios, they should switch to unprotected MP3 VBR. (Or at worst use the Fraunhofer embedded serial number system). Without the need for DRM, they can play on all MP3 players, and all their technical difficulties and special drivers and DRM crap goes away.
The DRM is a big turnoff, they don't have a trust relationship to customers that Apple has. As it stands you have to virtually marry an online music store (or at least enter into a long term relationship) so they can operate their DRM. Nobody wants that, selling music at a loss is a dead end, they should quit wasting money on this DRM crap.
If any of the big record companies insist on it, then its better not to sell their music. If they're making a loss, what difference does it make to lose that record companies music?
[/rant]
He talked about DRM, the broadcast flag, then he was reminded the talk was to be about giving his books away for free and he talked about that. Then the QA session was fanboy stuff, there was very few questions and in some cases he switched to English to explain the legal detail.
You're asking me to ignore my own first hand knowledge of that talk he gave.
"Many questions came from the floor and in forums after a talk he gave in Spain that he was not able to answer to this end. In one forum he claimed that OSX was an open-source OS and he considers himself a BSD user. IMO Cory can be a bit of a margin fudger at times."
I attended, what you say bears no relationship to the talk Cory gave or the questions he was asked.
Grade A bullplop.
"The search engine isn't playing a part in this beyond doing what it's designed to do"
I think Google were in the wrong with Perfect 10, because the search engines right to index the work is covered by fair use, fair use includes such factors as benefit/loss to the copyright holder.
When Google indexes a site that has the copyright, there is a benefit to the copyright holder. When it indexes a site that is a pirate, there isn't, the pirate benefits instead and the copyright holder, so Google loses their fair use cover in that case.
That's why I think they lost (rightly so I think).
"So Google can also check the timestamp of every robots.txt file it downloads and ignore any dated prior to 1998? Can I ask the local Wal-Mart when they posted the No Shoplifting signs in their dressing rooms, and ignore any that were there before I was?"
Under fair use, they don't need to ask permission, if the copyright holder disagrees they can sue and a judge decides if it is or isn't.
Google offer an additional PRE-opt out. This is BEYOND what they have to do if their indexing is fair use.
A request under that system is just a *request*. My points were that the statement in the book is neither the definition of copyright law (which permits fair use) nor a request under Googles additional PRE-opt out system, since it was written prior to Google Book Search and so could not have been written with the intent of opting out to GBS. As evidence that that statement can't be considered a request to opt out of Google, I pointed out that GBS didn't exist, and that some people who have that statement in their books wanted GBS to index their work. I also ruled it out as some sort of pseudo agreement between reader and publisher.
"The question is whether Google will cause more people to write books with this program."
I think the words are "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". i.e. promoting researchers that use the book is also covered. But I also think their book search will be terrific for book authors because promotion results in sales and sales are monetary inducement to make new works. Google sends visitors to websites and that results in sales (so much so the SEO industry was created), so it does have positive benefits.
"THAT is what the DMCA can be fairly used for,"
? NoticeID=1328
Read this:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi
From what I read about the case Perfect 10 served a DMCA request, Google ignored it, Perfect 10 sued, Google lost.
Is this not what happened?
"Copyright is not a "tacked on" term. It's law. "
That comment in the book isn't the definition of copyright law. Copyright law permits reproduction of the book or portions thereof if it comes within fair use and other provisions, so that clause goes beyond copyright to restrict the rights further.
"Like I said, anyone not expressly authorized to copy is not authorized to copy."
See above. You can copy portions (even the whole thing in some cases) if its fair use. Under that circumstance you don't need permission. This is what Google are claiming in the book publisher case.
"What contract? There's no contract."
If that statement in the book isn't the definition of copyright law then it follows its nothing more than a request or attempt at aftersale contract. So the extension of copyright (refusing all permissions including those covered by fair use) has to survive the 'reasonableness and other tests'. Without that only copyright law applies and fair use is permitted.
You asked if you own the book and you do. That clause doesn't change that.
"No, excerpts used in book reviews are fair use. The courts determined that a long time ago. "
And excerpts in a search engine will be decided likewise!
"The fact that some publishers (and authors) are happy to participate in Google Book Search doesn't compel those who aren't happy to participate."
The opt out is consistent with this case and DMCA. Recall in this case Perfect 10 first of all followed the correct DMCA process and REQUESTED GOOGLE REMOVE THE IMAGES FIRST.
There are 2 parts to Googles system.
Fair use - they have the right to do this if it's fair use.
In addition Google is offering an additional PRE-opt out, which isn't necessary but will count in their favour in the eyes of the Judge. All a publisher has to do is say "don't scan this list of my books" and the matter is ended.
You are arguing that that statement in the book constitutes a REQUEST to Google to opt out. But it can't be because it was written prior to GBS even existing. I use the word REQUEST because the pre-opt out isn't necessary if Google are under fair use.
"What happens when the next Google decides it will display a paragraph, and the next decides it will display a page, then a chapter?"
The judge will decide that on a case by case basis. There will be some point at which a judge decides its beyond fair use, but this isn't it.
"Would it be fairer if the indexer had to get permission first? "
From who? There are a huge section of books from out of business publishers and whose current copyright owner can never be determined. This is the big difference here and the whole reason I think the publishers are doing this.
I think they want to use copyright to suppress those out of print books to reduce competition.
...you are agreeing or disagreeing with me.
"Copyright awners are welcome to enforce their copyrights as they see fit."
If that was the case, MPAA would have successfully killed Betamax, it isn't, they don't have a free hand.
You should re-read the last sentence in my comment since it doesn't say what you think it does. The point being if we had to get permission for every use of copyrighted material (which is all material since copyright doesn't need to be declared) the world would grind to a halt, you wouldn't be able to quote my post in your reply, for example, without securing permission first.
"As one post pointed out, books already have their own version of robots.txt"
r eshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=14804026#14 804075
See my comment above:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=178558&th
"Just because you like Google, doesn't mean you should invent rationalizations for their behavior."
See my comment above, I think Google are *wrong* in the Perfect 10 case and *right* in the Google Book Search case and that the two situations are not comparable for the reasons I outlined in the above comments.
'bit01 who says: Copyright is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts".'
What is search if it isn't promotion!?
The premium content is behind a login and a search suggests it is blocked, only public and tour pages are shown in the search results. So I don't think its important how they blocked Google indexing that content, only that they did.
Put it this way, is there a benefit to the copyright holder from Google indexing that data?
In the case of books, yes because it [arguably] promotion and aids in researching of books.
In the case of Perfect 10, no because the site being indexed isn't the copyright holder, its a pirated copy. So no benefit can be argued (IMHO).