Slashdot Log In
Google Wins a Court Battle
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:16 AM
from the justice-served dept.
from the justice-served dept.
Gosalia wrote to let us know about an article which opens with: "In a legal win for Google, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a writer who claimed the search giant infringed on his copyright by archiving a Usenet posting of his and providing excerpts from his Web site in search results." Thankfully, we can all still read Usenet articles on Google as well as other archive services.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Gtalk (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Gtalk (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Gtalk (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Gtalk (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Gtalk (Score:5, Insightful)
1) US paranoia-legislations and assramming-acts do not apply here, thank FSM, and
2) Norwegian laws regarding information extraction by police/etc from service providers are reasonably strict, i.e. they need to have a case. Also,
3) Should I ever want to discuss something illegal I would either use GPG through email or encrypted IM anyway.
Parent
Re:Gtalk (Score:5, Insightful)
Which in turn makes it easier to prove it was you who sent the message, for example if your partner later decides to betray you.
Parent
Re:Gtalk (Score:5, Interesting)
You wouldn't use a private key, for Pete's sake - you'd use symmetric encryption. You, your accomplice, and an unverifiably large set of strangers would all know the shared passphrase, and each of you could plausibly deny that the other encrypted it.
If you're going to conspire, you'll have to be more clever than that.
Parent
Cash Grab Suit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cash Grab Suit? (Score:5, Insightful)
50,000 John Does?
Racketeering?
Civil conspiracy?
The guy sounds like a nut job.
Parent
Re:Cash Grab Suit? (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope if nothing else this case helps focus more on the content, and less on the delivery method. A parallel being torrents that bring you linux Distributions vs torrents that bring you copyrighted media.
Just shows, we really *dont* shoot the messenger these days
However you're right, its frivilous and sets no real precedent. But makes way for some perhaps
Parent
Re:Cash Grab Suit? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Cash Grab Suit? (Score:5, Insightful)
The courts so far have ruled that these caches are legal and the search engine people are not doing wrong. This suit along with another one builds precendce over these types of concerns. So its been a long time coming.
Now people concerned with privacy can get educated about how to block robots/spider, how public the web/usenet is, and how to work around this.
Parent
Re:Cash Grab Suit? (Score:5, Insightful)
You publish or you don't.
Parent
Re:Cash Grab Suit? (Score:5, Informative)
--
On 17 March 2006, onedotzero (926558) wrote:
Parent
Re:Cash Grab Suit? (Score:3, Informative)
Not so fast... (Score:4, Interesting)
And there's your sticking point. If the original poster has explicitly indicated that they do not wish their post to be archived, it seems pretty clear that copying their material in a way that will be archived is an infringement of their copyright.
Usenet archives essentially rely on an "implied permission" defence to any charges of copyright infringement: they argue that if the person posted the comment, then are giving implicit permission to copy the post for the purposes of circulating it on Usenet, and archiving is just joining in with that network. Regardless of anyone's personal opinion, there is clearly some logic behind this position, and it's a fair case to make.
However, if the poster has explicitly indicated that they do not wish to have their post archived permanently, then there is clearly no implicit permission to do so, and keeping it beyond a normal period (which I'm guessing most Usenet users would describe in terms of weeks) would be an infringement.
Similarly, it's the accepted convention that someone replying to a Usenet post should quote properly. At least, it used to be; today, the law might view quoting improperly a la Microsoft and Google Groups to be the accepted convention. :-( In any case, one could again make a reasonable argument that implicit permission has been given by the poster to copy relevant excerpts of the original post for the purpose of preserving context in subsequent discussion.
Again, however, if the poster has explicitly denied their permission to archive their material permanently, then you can't really argue that they're giving implicit permission to copy their material in a way that will be preserved essentially forever. Quoting such a post without marking your own post as not-for-archiving itself might be dubious, and I'd have to conclude that archiving the material via that indirect route was a clear violation of the original poster's copyright.
The bottom line is that all of these archiving systems are on shaky legal ground as long as they're opt-out, because being on the Internet does not somehow preempt the accepted conventions of copyright law. (Neither do the opinions of a few people on Slashdot whose personal view is that copyright is wrong and the law doesn't apply to them, incidentally.) One could at least argue a reasonable defence of things like Google Groups and the Wayback Machine on the basis of implied consent, but if that consent has been explicitly withheld (via X-No-Archive, robots.txt or whatever) then really, it's hard to see how any service archiving such material via any means has a legal leg to stand on.
Parent
Re:Cash Grab Suit? (Score:5, Interesting)
Got it on the very first guess!
Gordon Roy Parker, to whom I usually refer as "grp" (rhymes with twerp), having nothing better to do, likes to waste the taxpayers' money on frivolous lawsuits like this one where he demanded ten billion(!) dollars from Google and fifty thousand(!) John Does for having archived a newsgroup. One of his other hilarious escapades was suing U. Penn for discrimination against him because he's a white male(!), when he didn't even apply for a job there!
He's up for a lifetime "Balsa Gavel" award in alt.usenet.kooks.
-jcr
Parent
Good for Google! (Score:5, Informative)
But without getting too off track, I'm glad they won this battle. Because of their line of work and the innovative new steps they take, they're bound to step on a few toes. I just hope we don't smother them in too many lawsuits, both as indivduals and as a government.
They won the battle ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Strange Decision (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Strange Decision (Score:5, Insightful)
You left out "that were submitted to a store-and-forward global distribution system with the intent of disseminating them as widely as possible, knowing full well that they would be archived, folded, spindled, and mutilated".
In other news, every public mailing list in the known universe does the exact same thing. Gonna sue Yahoo! Groups because they're publishing the email that you deliberately sent to 1,500 strangers?
Parent
Re:Strange Decision (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure they are. Google just happens to run an NNTP server with a pretty interface and a long expiration time. There're tens of thousands of messages stored on my own server, reader for public distribution, at this very moment.
What if I posted a licence with my content stating that only nntp servers and individuals could redistribute what I have posted?
As long as we're throwing out goofy ideas: what if I scream into a restaurant that no one is allowed to tell anyone else what I'm about to say?
When you contract with a carrier of a wide-open public medium to deliver your message to the world, you have no right to expect that another carrier of that medium won't deliver to someone you didn't expect, or in a form you didn't anticipate.
Parent
Re:Strange Decision (Score:4, Interesting)
Storage and redistribution are not the same thing, no matter how much you'd like it to be. For instance, I have a very large archive of MP3s from CD's I've bought. I cannot legally redistribute them without the copyright holder's consent.
But when storage is one of the primary design requirements, they're close enough to the same thing for gov'mnt work. This isn't like SMTP, where servers are expected to delete messages after they've passed on. Rather, NNTP servers are required to store their traffic for a while - that's how the system works.
So, Google just happens to have an undefined expiration time on their NNTP server, and have provided a web interface to it. What else are they doing that every other NNTP server in the world is not?
Sorry, you're wrong. As a copyright holder, I do have the right to dictate how my content is distributed.
Not always. I'd be interested in hearing you explain to the judge how you released your message with the explicit goal of unlimited worldwide distribution, but don't want it distributed. It's not like you can accidentally post to Usenet; you had to jump through hoops to put your words out there. What would a reasonable person expect to happen to them once they've entered the global network of computers designed to spread them around?
Parent
Re:Strange Decision (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that's a good analogy, though. If Linus himself posted that code or those binaries, then he gave his explicit permission to distribute them. If the messages were posted by someone else, and their posting violated the terms of the GPL, then Linus could petition Google to pull them - just as the RIAA could petition Google to remove their artists' songs (if put there by someone other than the copyright holder).
I think a b
Re:Strange Decision (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a question although I don't see why not; other usenet servers have web based access as well I believe. If Groups still propagates messages that get posted to it then it only has a different interface. Again it is a reasonable extension of how usenet works, and does'nt fundament
Re:Strange Decision (Score:3, Insightful)
I've got a much simpler idea: If you don't want something to get freely archived and redistributed by countless 3rd parties outside your control, why don't you just try not posting it on Usenet?
Re:Strange Decision (Score:3, Insightful)
If he didn't want his posts archived, all he had to do was have the following line at the top of his post...
x-noarchive: yes
As for some of his site being quoted in Google's search results? That sounds like a classic case of fair use to me.
And further into the article...
Re:Strange Decision (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Interesting Products... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Interesting Products... (Score:3, Funny)
1) Sue Google.
2) ???
3) Get laid!
What was he thinking ? (Score:4, Interesting)
I have always wondered what those guys suing for anything _really_ think ? For example, does this guy honestly thought Google was violating his copyright ? Or did he sue just to give a try and maybe obtain easy money via financial compensation ?
Re:What was he thinking ? (Score:3, Funny)
He's in the porn business. He sued for publicity.
Content isn't that special...get over it (Score:5, Insightful)
The bottom line...your damn content isn't that special anymore! Stop suing people! Get over it...we probably already forgot about the content we "stole" or archived long before you remembered to call your lawyer. We moved on to the next thing before you could look up "cache" for FREE on dictionary.com.
Re:Content isn't that special...get over it (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that the easy availability of 'content' has also cheapened it*. Sure, there are 6 billion or so people, and maybe they can all (one day) make content. The truth is, 99.99% of it will be complete crap.
Is it possible for people to sift through 10000 pieces of crap to find one useful/good item? No. People will do what they've always done - go with the crowd. One could argue that this is the 'service' that a centralised distribution system (curre
Re:Content isn't that special...get over it (Score:3, Insightful)
Thankfully? (Score:4, Interesting)
Web-based reading of USENET is fine; the problem is with archiving: USENET was originally not intended to be archived, and the fact that it is being archived has greatly changed it. Anybody who, these days, makes a controversial contribution to a USENET forum under his real name is a bloody fool. There is no point debating this anymore: unrestricted archiving of USENET news has become de-facto accepted. But that doesn't make it right or a good thing.
Your Choice (X-noarchive) (Score:3, Interesting)
You always had a choice in the matter via the "X-noarchive" flag. It would have made an interesting case if he had set "X-noarchive: yes" in his posting and Google (and DejaNews before them) had ignored it.
Re:Your Choice (X-noarchive) (Score:4, Insightful)
Parker doesn't have that excuse though.
Parent
Re:Your Choice (X-noarchive) (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Thankfully? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thankfully? (Score:3, Insightful)
Undoubtedly, there are those who never considered the possibility of USENET being archived. But really - those people just weren't thinking things out. Keep in mind that Google's archive is complete as it is because of archive donations from various individuals who, on their own accord and at their own expense, began archiving USENET well before "Google" or "
Re:Thankfully? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm confused--are you trying to make a legal argument? A technical argument? Or what? Because I'm not.
I'm saying: USENET was used by its users with the expectation that it was an ephemeral medium. Regardless of what laws or RFCs allowed or didn't allow, that's the ground rules most people assumed and most people acted in accordance with. Now that it has become clear that it is being archived, that has changed
Re:Thankfully? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not in my case, at least. I've been on USENET since 1988 and I never had that expectation. In fact, I have complained a few times to the relevant administrators that they were expiring stuff too quickly, as I wanted to go back in history looking for references.
What's more, that fact that Google can dig up some of my posts dating from at least 1992 also means that it was non-ephemeral. There was no Google back then, remember?
Parent
disturbing asymmetry (Score:3, Interesting)
When an individual posts something to USENET, then apparently it's OK for companies like Google to archive and republish that stuff, even making money from it if they put advertising on the same page.
But how is that different from broadcasting? It seems to me that if what Google is doing is OK, then I should be able to record, archive, and republish any music or other programming broadcast over the Internet or airwaves.
Re:disturbing asymmetry (Score:4, Informative)
So in short, Google archives all Usenet posting where the author doesn't say that he doesn't want it archived. Therefore the analogy would be that you can record, archive and republish any music and other programming unless the author says he doesn't want this. And indeed, this is almost the current copyright situation. The difference is that the default for radio broadcasts is the reverse: Unless the author explicitly allows you to rebroadcast, you may not.
I guess if the default would be changed, then the only difference would be that radio stations would start to explicitly say all the time that you may not rebroadcast their material. Which I don't consider an improvement over the current situation.
Parent
Google is in the right. (Score:5, Informative)
* E-mail header that prevent google groups from archiving your message: "X-No-Archive: Yes".
* Meta tags: <META NAME="Googlebot" CONTENT="nofollow">
* Hyperlinks <a href="http://google.com" rel="nofollow">
* robots.txt file with proper syntax
* Google's link removal page: http://www.google.com/webmasters/remove.html
Re:Google is in the right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Troll (Score:5, Interesting)
Gordon Roy Parker is the resident troll on various Usenet groups. He has been around for years, and alternates between posting nonsense disguised as an informed opinion and accusing other posters of plagiarizing his writing. I think he may also sell an e-book about seduction.
Here are some references [google.com]
Suegle (Score:5, Funny)
Features include:
-the ability to blog about the lawsuit and how much of google's money we are trying to get.
-RSS feeds of the latest filings & verdicts
-Lawyers oncall via GTalk
feel free to add any I'm missing
Open wireless access and filesharing you are a ISP (Score:3, Interesting)
So open up your wireless access point!
Use it for denyability when filesharing!
This is great for filesharing programs that pass packets "automatically and temporarily" as part of their protocol (always in proxy mode) such as MUTE http://www.planetpeer.de/wiki/index.php [planetpeer.de] (info link).
It's too bad it's only U.S. District Court and not from an appeal.
"When an ISP automatically and temporarily stores data without human intervention so that the system can operate and transmit data to its users, the necessary element of volition (willful intent to infringe) is missing," the court said.