Google guilty of copyright wrong A French court has found Google guilty of copyright infringement and ordered it to pay half a million euros compensation to rights holders. The case was brought by film producer Mondovino along with documentary makers and photographers. The plaintiffs complained that Google had made their work available either on its search …
Hopefully this will be followed by Goggle losses in *many* other similar court cases in *many* other jurisdictions.
These people have profited too much, for too long, by copyright infringement on a massive scale. They have gone beyond resolute refusals to take meaningful action to prevent Adsense financing pirate sites, for example, and have spent hundreds of millions of dollars attempting to abridge, curtail, and generally trample on the rights of content creators.
All I need do is remind you is that when Schmidt was faced with the statement that art has an intrinsic value, his response was "Prove it". Of course, the best proof of that statement that artistic creation has value, is Google's insistence on continuing to steal as much of it as possible, and its insistence on generating income by helping other websites that offer stolen, copyrighted content for download.
Hopefully Google will be shown, by more court unfavorable court decisions and massive awards, penalties, and fines that, yes, creative works *do* have an intrinsic value, and profiting by their theft is unacceptable.
Here's what to do: go to http://www.musictechpolicy.com/ and do some reading. This guy is following Google's actions and inactions very closely, and, unlike you, actually knows something about it. So you can learn something about the situation.
And incidentally, you might not be as smart as you think. Putting a robots.txt is not the stroke of genius you think it is, and doesn't take a lot of brain power. You might want to assume that maybe, just maybe, other people have thought of the idea, and that there could, possibly, be cogent reasons for not putting a robots.txt on a website. And then maybe you could, you know, "look into the matter" and find out why that is not the panacea you seem to think it is.
And how does a robots.txt help with the copyrighted content on Youtube, by the way? Or the source code that Google took from Oracle and released as Open Source? &c &c &c....
Google respects robots.txt for search results. If you don't want Google specifically scraping your site, but for some reason Bing, Baidu and others are fine and dandy, block their IP addresses. If you don't trust the opt-out nature of the robots.txt then you can always password-protect your site.
As for the Sun^h^h^h Oracles and the alleged theft of the Java IP, well, Google is innocent until proven guilty. I for one don't buy it. Oracle is more evil then Google and this emanates the heady aroma of software patent trolling to me.
Beer, bcos I want one....
"As for the Sun^h^h^h Oracles and the alleged theft of the Java IP, well, Google is innocent until proven guilty. I for one don't buy it. Oracle is more evil then Google and this emanates the heady aroma of software patent trolling to me."
First there's this misconception of 'innocent until proven guilty'. That's criminal law.
In Civil law, things are a bit different. And then under Tort Law, they get a bit more complicated.
The point is that if/when Oracle makes the accusation, and the proffer evidence, the burden on the defense is to counter the claims raised by Oracle.
The fact that they already entered in to court documents infringing code, the burden of proof is on Google to show that the evidence offered by Oracle is faulty. And Oracle doesn't need to have all of its ducks in a row to file the lawsuit. They had enough to show that there was evidence and now they can go back to Google and check out their code repository. And that's the interesting part. A good forensic investigator can go to the repository and go through the releases. If something is missing, it would lend credence to Oracle's complaint.
From what I saw, there's enough evidence to suggest Google's infringement is real and that they don't have clean hands. Meaning that they reversed engineered (un-compiled) some of the code. (Which is a no no.)
If Google says... 'Your honor, the dog ate my hard drive...' its going to be an automatic win for Oracle. (See Trading Tech's latest win in Chicago.)
Both Oracle and Google are 'evil' and Google is more evil than Oracle, although Oracle's more shark infested than Google.
Oh, and by the way, how does a robots.txt prevent Google from giving Adsense accounts to sites that offer downloads of copyrighted content,and knowingly selling keywords to them that will help these sites attract visitors who want to download copyrighted content? For some reason, I put that in my first post, and you chose to ignore it. But then again, if you think that the solution to the Google Thievery problem is a robots.txt, you are ignoring that, and plenty more besides.
I don't think we're talking about google search results here. The point is that google make a ton of cash off of YouTube and a lot of the content they serve is in violation of copyright. All you have to do to stop them infringing your copyright is ask them to take it down but, and this is a big but, you have to find it first.
This requires you to watch every video, or at least search diligently for a whole host of terms related to your content, to keep your content off of youTube. Even a company the size of Sony has difficulty policing their content on YouTube so what chance do smaller content providers have? Google make a ton of cash out of the work of others and their reluctance to take responsibility for it is criminal. robots.txt doesn't enter into it.
Now, I'm off to scan the globe in street view to see if I've ever been photographed so I can ask to be taken off....
How is google supposed to know? That's precisely the point, it is google's problem. If they want to be able to monetise their video site then they'll need to work out a way of keeping copyrighted content off of it. Record companies accidentally sending takedown notices for their own stuff is probably due to the amount of legitimate notices they have to send. I know Sony regularly ask for Scandal videos to be taken down, but the same videos will be visible again a few days later posted by someone else.
So either you don't believe in copyright (which is a different debate) or Google are in the wrong.
Google has no way to know who owns what. How can they know if that "drunk kid comes back from the dentist" is the real owner or someone who ripped it off. Similarly how can they know the difference between a guy who spends a few grand of his own money to have his music professionally mixed and a pirate? They are stuck running it against a music industry list of audio/video checksums and basically have to trust you when you click that box that says you have the right to distribute whatever you just upload.
Even if they had live screeners the problem would still be there and It's important to note that not even the recording industry gets held to the standards you are demanding. Just do a search for lawsuits related to their compilation CDs.
I fully believe in copyright and have the stacks of DVDs and Blu Rays to prove it. I just don't see how you can charge anyone except the original uploader.
Hey, I didn't demand anything, I was just saying it's not an impossible task (though admittedly bloody difficult!)
But in the end I agree with you, the uploader should be held responsible. I just find YouTube's "ask and we'll take it down" policy to be a bit of a cop out as it makes copyright holders responsible for finding the infringing content.
How easy has Google made it for a person to publish such content?
Do they even need a "legitimate" e-mail address, or just set up a free gmail account?
If Google wanted to stop this is could in a heartbeat.
Require a name and address for people who want to use to Youtube account to upload content.
How else would you find the person for a criminal warrant?
Sure they can use fake names, but if Google also ties the IP used to the account (come on you KNOW they are already doing this anyways) and then bans/blocks any IP in violation from even getting to goole or youtube. Could content get up under faked names IP address? Sure it could, but it would be a hell of a lot harder and the copyright holders could maybe have a chance of protect their rights.
If Google's response is "its too hard to police", then its either B.S. or appears to be a untenable legal business model.
Granted I think IP rights should be limited to more like 5-15 years MAX regardless of the creators living status or self-importance. Truth is I've thought of dozens and dozens of things later patented, maybe I should just be more greedy, but I much rather the Patent office stop accepting obvious crap.
Here is a sweeping one:
If it is already done in the real world in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, and now it can be done on computers/virtually then it is not an INVENTION.
The computer/internet is the invention, EVERYTHING else on it is for the most part an OBVIOUS progression of society to this new platform. Believe me if one person doesn't think of simplifying shopping to a single click, then the NEXT ONE will.
You're right, to a degree. It would be impractical for a screener/manual reviewer to know every time that something violates someone elses copyright. However, a very large percentage of the videos could be rejected without any doubt. Such as the music videos, mp3 rips and tv shows. But of course that would put a dent in profits by having to pay manual reviewers.
I'll just setup a video hosting site. Wait for users to upload family guy, music videos etc etc and stick a bunch of ads next to the videos. Provided I don't review the videos, I'll be innocent! Just like Google :)
Youtube used to review videos before Google bought them. Thats why it took days for a video to appear. As usual, Google threw their weight around and said 'fuck copyright holders,we'll do what we want and wait for people to complain'.
Actually google have not made a ton of cash.
In fact it a loss earner for the company. I only just made profit of 100 million dollars or so, to put into context Google is said have loss anyware from 2-5 billion propping up Youtube since it bought it.
So no Google has not made a ton of money it made a ton of losses.
It may make a ton of money in the future but that the future not the past.
When I'm thinking of buying a DVD, I generally watch whatever samples are available on YouTube first, to get a better idea of whether it's worth getting the DVD.
And sometimes I buy DVDs (or music CDs) because I've stumbled across good excerpts from them on YouTube.
What's the background to this? "Google had made their work available *either* on its search engine *or* on Google Video, despite demands to remove it."
EITHER / OR - come on, which was it? Material available on a search engine is easily controlled via robots.txt which Google bots obey - so material appearing via the search engine is largely under the users control unless that material has been copied to another site and is indexed from there ... which you can argue is not Googles' fault (maybe their problem but certainly not their fault).
Media files uploaded to yahoo etc were either uploaded by Google or someone else ... either Google did it or someone else did - who's to blame here?
I'm off to film myself taking a shower so that I can upload it to youtube and sue Google ... it's early retirement for me I think.
Most of Google's services are automated. Web 2.0 stuff has to be. If someone has a problem, they complain, there are procedures and it may be taken down. That is the only workable way of doing stuff.
If this is regarded as insufficient in a country to the point where you can get successfully sued for it, then you cannot do Web 2.0 stuff in that country. OK, Google will be the first to be parted with their currency, but they will only be the first. Eventually even bloggers could be hit. If copyrighted material is posted as a comment, the blogger could be punished. If they are responsible for the poster's copyright infringement, then it follows they are responsible for the poster's acts of libel or posting of child porn.
Web 2.0 only works if you can operate with something akin to the ISP's conduit clause. You are not responsible for 3rd party content, but do have a duty to act responsibly if a complaint is made regarding material that appears on your service in breach of the law.
So however much you dislike Google, and however much you want them to be screwed for doing things they shouldn't have done (hoovering private WiFi data etc), be aware that justice and the legal system are usually two entirely different things. The Italian case is particularly disturbing. Vicarious atonement has no place in any legal system.
The next step down the road of being responsible for everything that appears on your website is being responsible for everything that goes down your wires. If someone hacks your WiFi connection at home, at a cafe or at a hotel, would you like to be held accountable for what they download?
>>Most of Google's services are automated. Web 2.0 stuff has to be. If someone has a problem, they complain, there are procedures and it may be taken down. That is the only workable way of doing stuff.<<
Don't think so. Google could pay people to screen the content. It might be viable financially, it might not be, but it certainly isn't impossible.
I'm in two minds about this, the boy watches a lot of genuine user generated content on YouTube and it would be a real pity for that to stop. I watch a lot of music videos on YouTube and the vast majority of these are copyright infringing, ie not posted by the content owner. Those probably should stop.
Some record companies buy into YourTube and have an official site, they get ad revenue and the users get good quality video. But that only goes so far, other video sites are available and unless we want a youTube monopoly of video sites this approach is only good for larger businesses.
It's a complicated issue, but the "it's web 2.0, it has to be that way" argument is in danger of becoming a green light to copyright infringement and where do the content creators stand in that situation? If I have a popular video and I don't want it on YouTube do I really have a choice?
...is that Google's fault? and again, how can they tell? all works of a certain artistic value are copyrighted by default. My music compositions are automatically copyrighted to me (i use no one else's music, i make my own), but Google can never tell if they were meant to be spread on the internet (which they were). Technically speaking, only public domain stuff would be legal to index if this ruling is anything to go by, but that notion turned reality would break the internet.
You could argue that they could post the license with the content, but IANAL, and neither are most of the people creating this content. We cant read the license conditions in their original form with certanity. This is a dangerous precendent.
...or is Google not a search engine? I simply don't understand how a seach engine can be blamed for the stuff it finds out there on the webz. Search engines find WEBSITES (well last time I looked they did) and if a WEBSITE is hosting copyrighted suff illegally then the WEBSITE needs to be taken down, or possibly the HOSTING COMPANY. How on earth do Google get the blame for 'making the work available' when all it has done os found one or more WEBSITES with it on?????
Now if it's to do with YouTube, which Google apparently owns then I thought that there was a way to get copyrighted material taken off....?
In other news, the AA were prosecuted for printing maps clearly showing streets where streetwalking has been known to occur at night, thus the AA were gulty of profiting from the proceeds of prostitution.......
Odd people, the French but I thought they were all for freedom and equality....?
Content owners complain that Google (YouTube) is not doing anything to limit the copious amount of their copyrighted material that Google is providing the to the general public on a daily basis on grand scale.
Also Search Engine or not - Google is hosting other peoples content on their google search servers.
Sure the copyright law has in the past allowed for a bit of fair use for creating indexes and other references.
I myself find that very often when I do a Google Search I am able to find in the text summary the answer I was looking for. In short Google has taken someone else's content, and provided it to me. At the same time they have stolen the ability of that content holder to either sell the same content to me, or require me to see ads to receive it.
This gets even further damaging for Google when they have been asked to remove the data and have failed to do so - even if it is index information. There is no portion of the Constitution or copyright law that refers to robots.txt, or any opt-out clauses either.
How is what appears in a search index of other peoples sites Googles fault?
If some copyright material was on utube or similar then there could be a case. I had a really quick dig around but I couldn't find any information on the actual violation only that Google rejected some demands from the film producer.
This just reeks of people thinking its to hard to go after the people commiting the illegal activity so lets blame Google.
No one complains when Google indexes what they want them too.
I bet Turtle starts actively foaming at the mouth when ever he hears the word google.
... ain't prosecutin'. However...
A number of responses appear to include variations on the theme of 'how can Google be found to be at fault if they're just a search engine pointing to 'stuff'' - Google didn't pirate the 'stuff' or host it.'
Well and all. Maybe it's right, and maybe it's wrong (I'll pass on the whole 'weak or strong' thing and apologise to Mssrs Kalmar and Ruby). But 'those who let you find stuff they don't host but that other people don't want found' can be, um, found guilty in law of being bad people. Just ask The Pirate Bay.
More times than one people have wondered why the RIAA and the like don't go after Google just as hard as they chased TPB and other P2P operations. Looks like the French courts may support a similar view...
legally I think you are right but letting TPB off would be to say that actively and expressly facilitating piracy is OK, and i think that is why TPB 4 went to jail. If you cant see the difference, look at the other stuff below their search engine.
Google takes down copyrighted stuff on notification. TPB tells them to **** off and makes a public example of them.
Google does not expressly allow people to post copyrighted material (infact it specifically DISALLOWS people from doing this, as found in their upload procedures). TPB's logo is a pirate ship (a play on the term 'piracy') with a cassette tape on the front, with the only disclaimers being that they wont be held responsible if you do host copyrighted material (and it is the end users who host in BitTorrent)
... I don't disagree :-).
However, the point I was trying (and no doubt poorly) to adress was that a number of reactions here boil down to 'how can Google/ Surely Google can't be prosecuted for just linking to stuff'. Well, recent history shows you can.
I am in no way in a position to offer a qualified legal opinion. There are indeed laws that suggest intent or pre-established purpose is or can be a part of the offence, or a part of mitigating the offence. However, in the case of the French court, there does appear to be a view that you can be considered a 'bad person' (tm) for simply linking to stuff. So. given that is the case, and given that the RIAA et al are all such impartial, noble souls, will we now see them mounting cases in France against Google and every other search engine that permits a link to torrents?
I'm not saying the view of the French courts is good. Nor am I saying it's bad. I'm saying that currently, in at least one legal jurisdiction, whether we here or others elsewhere consider it fair, reasonable, proper or simply a steaming pile stale fermented bat juice, you _can_ be held accountable for 'just linking to stuff'. It just is so. In France, at least. So far.
Just how the fuck they can sue Google?
1. Google's primary function is search engine. If you uploaded illegal stuff, you are the one who is responsible. Search engine which found the stuff you uploaded, has nothing to do with it.
2. If you found someone uploaded your work without permission on youtube, you can ask Google to remove it. Google doesn't create those, and there is no way Google can monitor or police the content before they can be viewed by public. Even they can, they won't, for the very same reason to avoid those greedy trolls and lawyers. If Google made any attempt to screen and approve content before it can be displayed, Google will be held accountable.
Yes there are legitimate concerns here, but the problem lies not with Google but with the very nature of the internet. Fixing these problems would end the internet as we know it. It would turn the internet into giant App Store with moderated content and a lengthy approval process.
Anonymous because I am an iOS developer and used the term "App Store" in a derogatory manner.
The world as we know it is always changing...
There was a fundamental change in society when it introduced laws to stop the bloke with the biggest rock bashing everyone else over the head and taking their property... Its only a few hundred years ago that killing someone in a fair fight wasn't considred murder - indeed it still isn't in defined circumstances.
The one thing we can be sure of is that the very nature of the internet will change, and I would not be especially suprised if we ended up with the giant app store with moderated content.
When people had the freedom to bash other people over the head they used it irresponsibly and society decided to remove that freedom. Internet anonymity/freedom is being used irresponsibly too, so there has to be at least a chance that freedom will be removed.
The giant app store/non anoymous internet with moderated content might at least be somewhat lighter in terms of spam, malware, scames and all the rest of the ********...
Those who say "Just use robots.txt" are idiots.
Does that mean I can start up a site like Google that rips a copy of all your content and then put a disclaimer that if you don't want your content to be duplicated on my site you just need to create a 'bots2k.txt' file to block me? Is that acceptable?
Require Google to display information along the lines of "Uploaded from 192.168.1.1 at 15:45:27 UTC" and allow the content owners to go after those responsible instead of having to issue an endless stream of ineffective take-down requests. I predict Google would be extremely reluctant to do this as it would noticably reduce their most popular content. The real LOLs would come if Google tried wriggling out of it by pleading it is for the protection of people's privacy.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
