- Sponsored by:
July 16, 2008
Google to Scramble YouTube User IDs and IP Addresses in Viacom CaseYesteday, I reported that YouTube user viewing histories would not longer be handed over to Viacom by Google per an agreement by the two. I also wrote that User IDs, IP addresses, and Visitor IDs would still be handed over. What yours truly completely missed (i am afterall, only human) is that even that data will be scrambled. Here's the legalese:
When producing data from the Logging Database pursuant to the Order, Defendants shall substitute values while preserving uniqueness for entries in the following fields: User ID, IP Address and Visitor ID. The parties shall agree as promptly as feasible on a specific protocol to govern this substitution whereby each unique value contained in these fields shall be assigned a correlative unique substituted value, and preexisting interdependencies shall be retained in the version of the data produced. Defendants shall promptly (no later than 7 business days after execution of this Stipulation) provide a proposed protocol for this substitution. Defendants agree to reasonably consult with Plaintiffs’ consultant if necessary to reach agreement on the protocol.Posted by Nathania Johnson at 9:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
June 5, 2008
Google Faces Louis Vuitton Trademark Case in Europe's Highest CourtThe European Court of Justice (ECJ), Europe's highest court, will hear a case brought forth by high fashion retailer Louis Vuitton regarding trademark issues associated with Google's Adworsd program. The retailer previously won a case in France over the matter.
Louis Vuitton says that Adwords offers advertisers the ability to bid on terms like "Louis Vuitton fakes" and "Louis Vuitton replicas," but claims that Google does not have the right to offer their trademarked name as part of their search advertising program.
Similar cases brought forth in various states within the U.S. have yielded differing rulings.
No court date has been set and it could take up to a year for the ruling to be decided.
via NYT
Related Reading: Google Updates Trademark Rules for UK/Ireland Adwords Court Orders Negative Keywords Used To Block Trademark Terms Others' Trademark Terms In Meta Tags Illegal: Georgia Court Rules
Posted by Nathania Johnson at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
June 4, 2008
SEW Experts: Who Owns the Brand?For a whole lot of really good reasons, brands (particularly those with resellers) maintain an ongoing battle to protect their brands. And in the online world, they want to hold search engines accountable. In today's Searching for Meaning column, "Who Owns the Brand?," Kevin Ryan notes that even if a group of advertisers did come together and pull their search advertising, all they will really accomplish is losing large amounts of directly accountable revenue by missing placements in top search sites. But Google is going to need the deep-pocketed advertisers currently being alienated by the lack of internal trademark policing. This could be a very large instance of mutual back-scratching, but the outcome will not be decided in court.
Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
May 28, 2008
Belgian Newspapers Want $77.5 million in Damages from GoogleA Belgian newspaper group has filed a suit asking for $77.5 million in damages from Google. The group, Copiepresse, claims Google has violated copyright law by publishing their pages on Google News and caching pages from their websites.
Copiepresse first brought a suit in 2006 and The Court of First Instance in Brussels sided with the newspaper group. Google has appealed, but removed the pages from its News and main search sites.
But Google began indexing the pages on its main site again, which drove Copiepresse to bring its latest suit. Google maintains that its search products are legal.
What do you think of Copiepresse's lawsuits? Think they should just slap a robots.txt file on their site? Tell us how it is in the comments.
Posted by Nathania Johnson at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)
February 13, 2008
Largest Legal Vertical Search Engine Launches: Public Library of LawThe world's largest legal vertical search engine launched today in a partnership with legal research provider Fastcase, Inc. Public Library of Law (pLoL) may be more of a directory than a search engine, even though Fastcase CEO Ed Walters says it makes"first-time legal research as easy as using Google."
That's what Yahoo and Microsoft said and look where it got them.
The PLol.org site indexes cases from the U.S. Supreme Court, Courts of Appeals and all 50 states (back to 1997); federal statutory law and codes from all 50 states; and regulations, court rules, and constitutions.
More than 2 million pages of cases previously available only by subscription make PLoL the largest free legal search engine online.
Last November, a Fastcase deal with PublicResource.org made 1.8 million pages of federal cases available in the public domain. Fastcase now boasts what it calls "free links to paid content." Now there's an original idea -- make blue links free!
While domains are at a premium these days, the combination of "LOL," "dot org," and "p" as in public cries out for brand rehab.
Google and Yahoo tried to help Fastcase sell legal docs to the general public via search back in September 2006. Fastcase powered "premium legal search" in Google and Yahoo by making their extensive law library – previously only accessible on a subscription basis – available for $4.99 per case.
We'd ask Fastcase the Dr. Phil question ("So how's that workin' out for ya?") but the answer arrived today.
Posted by Kevin Heisler at 2:31 PM | Permalink
February 11, 2008
Israeli Town Suing GoogleSeems Google is being sued by a northern Israeli town because Google Maps claims it was built on an old Arab village, according to the International Herald Tribune.
This one will be interesting to watch, though one would think a simple correction would suffice.
The information was put into Google Maps by a Palestinian doctor, Thameen Darby, "raised in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said his mother was a refugee from to the village Balad al-Sheikh near Kiryat Yam. He said his contributions to Google Earth are part of the "Nakhba -- Palestinian Catastrophe" information hub aimed to help displaced Palestinians understand their heritage or find the villages of their parents or grandparents," the International Herald Tribune reported.
Posted by Frank Watson at 4:04 PM | Permalink
November 19, 2007
Google Gets Its Court Date In AustraliaAustralians are taking Google to court over the lack of clear division between paid and organic search results. The courts set the date for the hearing at June 23, 2008.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC), a government watchdog, had some initial problems with their brief but were allowed to represent and the new suit will be heard June 23.
"Separate allegations of deceptive and misleading advertising were first levelled against Google and Australian website Trading Post's parent company, Sensis, in July after the Trading Post was found to have purchased Google keywords using competitors' business names which were displayed on Google's sponsored links," ZD Net stated.
Google Australia claims the ACCC's allegations are an attack on all search engines and Australian businesses that use Google to connect with customers, ZD Net reported.
Sensis - "the search engine for Australians" - was also named in the suit and has suggested it may settle, ZD Net repoted.
Posted by Frank Watson at 1:26 PM | Permalink
September 20, 2007
Viacom Would Rather Not Sue, Chief Counsel ClaimsThe Chief Counsel for Viacom, Michael Fricklas, stated at the Convergence 2.0 conference today, that Viacom would rather not sue, according to JackMeyers.com.
He hopes that a firm set of usage rules are developed and adhered to, he told the audience. The right filtering by companies like YouTube (that Viacom is suing for illegal content usage) would make sure content copyrights would not be violated.
Posted by Frank Watson at 2:30 PM | Permalink
September 11, 2007
Australian Watchdog Suing Google Gets Judical CriticismThe Australian Competition and Consumer Commission was told its legal briefs were unclear and were ordered to submit summaries of their main allegations by the Australian judge overseeing the case, The Australian reported.
Google contends that it did not mislead advertisers or readers and "Google Australia spokesman Rob Shilkin said the company had said from the outset that the case was wrongly based," the Australian newspaper stated.
Posted by Frank Watson at 6:08 PM | Permalink
August 17, 2007
American Airlines Suing Google Over Trademark ViolationSeems American Airlines has not read about previous law suits over trademark terms as keywords. According to a report by TechDirt, they have decided to go to court and see how their lawyers fare against the well trained and precedent backed Google team.
Posted by Frank Watson at 3:39 PM | Permalink
August 7, 2007
Others Join YouTube, Google Copyright LawsuitViacom has company now that other companies have joined the lawsuit against Google and YouTube for copyright infringement, Reuters reported.
"The new parties include the National Music Publishers' Association, which is the largest U.S. music publishing trade association, the Rugby Football League, the Finnish Football League Association and author Daniel Quinn," Reuters stated.
Posted by Frank Watson at 5:13 PM | Permalink
July 16, 2007
Google Responds To Aussie Fraud ClaimsGoogle has responded to the "legal proceedings by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) that Google has failed to adequately distinguish 'sponsored links' from 'organic' search results", the UK Telegraph reported today. Google spokesman Rob Shilkin told the UK Telegraph: "Google Australia believes that these claims are without merit and we will defend against them vigorously. They represent an attack on all search engines."
The court date is set for August 21.
Posted by Frank Watson at 1:05 AM | Permalink
July 12, 2007
Australian Gov. Suing Google Over Misleading ConductThe ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) is taking Google, as well as Trading Post Australia, to court over misleading and deceptive advertising, according to the press release on the Australian government agency's website.
Google Inc, Google Ireland and Google Australia have all been named in the suit.
"The ACCC understands that it is the first regulatory body to seek legal clarification of Google's conduct from a trade practices perspective," the press release states.
Posted by Frank Watson at 2:41 PM | Permalink
May 29, 2007
FTC Looking at Google-DoubleClick Deal?The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has opened a preliminary antitrust investigation into Google’s planned $3.1 billion acquisition of DoubleClick, according to the New York Times.
The outcry of privacy experts and competitors made an investigation all but inevitable, according to the report.
Because the FTC is handling the investigation instead of the Justice Department, which shares antitrust enforcement duties, some sources are assuming that the issues are more privacy-related than anti-trust related. When the deal was announced, three privacy watchdog groups asked the FTC to investigate the potential implications on user privacy. The groups feared that the combination of Google's search history and DoubleClick's tracking of sites visited would "give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world."
But privacy is not an antitrust issue, so it will not be relevant to the investigation except in the ways those issues would relate to a reduction in competition.
"We are confident that upon further review the F.T.C. will conclude that this acquisition poses no risk to competition and should be approved," Don Harrison, a senior corporate counsel for Google, told the NYT.
Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 12:03 PM | Permalink
May 16, 2007
AdWords Gets Its Day In CourtAn actual court date has been set in the Google versus American Blind and Wallpaper Factory, Inc. court case. The suit against Google's adwords will be heard on November 9, 2007.
"In an April 18, 2007 decision denying Google's motion to dismiss the case, the court wrote that '''the evidence suggests that Google used [ABWF's] mark with the intent to maximize its own profit ... [and] ABWF has produced sufficient evidence of likelihood of [consumer] confusion [to allow the case to be decided by a jury],''' it was reported.
Google's allowance of advertisers to use other's trademark terms as keywords has been contentious for quite some time. Even though the trademarked term cannot appear in the ad copy, it does allow the branded terms to be used.
The trial will be held in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose. So the home court advantage goes to Google.
Posted by Frank Watson at 3:16 PM | Permalink
May 1, 2007
Google Fights Back in Viacom/YouTube Copyright SuitWhen Viacom sued Google in March for $1 billion as a result of alleged copyright infringement on YouTube, it accused Google of building a business on the backs of content owners, and turning a blind eye to the infringement.
News.com has posted a copy of Google's response (PDF), filed this week with the U.S. District Court in New York. In it, Google denies all of the allegations, and claims protection under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) Safe Harbors and fair use:
Viacom's complaint in this action challenges the careful balance established by Congress when it enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA balances the rights of copyright holders and the need to protect the internet as an important new form of communication. By seeking to make carriers and hosting providers liable for Internet communications, Viacom's complaint threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment, and political and artistic expression. Google and YouTube respect the importance of intellectual property rights, and not only comply with their safe harbor obligations under the DMCA, but go well above and beyond what the law requires.Michael Kwun, managing counsel for litigation at Google, told News.com and others in a briefing yesterday, ""There is a certain irony to the lawsuit. Viacom and others...were at the table when the DMCA was adopted. These are the very people who helped design this law. They are getting material taken down quickly and yet, suddenly, they don't want to live with the other end of the deal."
Viacom, in turn, said, "This response ignores the most important fact of the suit, which is that YouTube does not qualify for safe harbor protection under the DMCA. It is obvious that YouTube has knowledge of infringing material on their site and they are profiting from it. It is simply not credible that a company whose mission is to organize the world’s information claims that it can’t find what’s on YouTube.”
Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 12:22 PM | Permalink
April 6, 2007
Google Wins in CourtIn a click fraud case filed against Google in Pennsylvania by one of the 556 plaintiffs that opted out of the July 2006 class-action settlement, Google won a victory not on any click fraud-related grounds, but on the strength of its AdWords contract. As legal blogger Eric Goldman reports on his Technology and Marketing Law blog, the case was brought in the wrong venue, and now must be re-filed in Google's home court in California.
According to Goldman: This case is a nice win for Google for two reasons. First, by upholding the mandatory venue clause, it should inhibit AdWords advertisers from suing Google all over the country. Therefore, all lawsuits will have to be in Google's home court, which raises the costs of lawsuits for most plaintiffs and gives Google some other home-court advantages.
Second, by holding that this plaintiff is bound by the AdWords contract and those terms aren't substantively unconscionable, Google can now invoke its risk management clauses (like the warranty disclaimers, limits of liability, etc.) to cut the economic heart out of the click fraud claim.
Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 10:00 AM | Permalink
March 21, 2007
Google Wins in KinderStart CaseGoogle has come out on top in a case filed last year by KinderStart.com, in which the kid-friendly search engine and parental advice site accused Google of "downgrading its search-result ranking without reason or warning."
The case was dismissed, according to technology law blogger Eric Goldman. KinderStart will also have to pay some of Google's legal fees, which usually is done when a case lacks merit or is deemed frivolous by a judge.
KinderStart had alleged a host of misdeeds, from free speech violation to unfair competition to defamation. Most of those were easily disproved at the time the case was filed, as Barry Schwartz outlined at the time. Goldman sees the judge's ruling as a clear victory for Google.
Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 10:05 AM | Permalink
February 27, 2007
Search Engines Are Allowed to Reject AdsA Delaware court made it clear that search engines are allowed to reject an ad as part of their protected right of free speech, according to law professor Eric Goldman. The Langdon v. Google case was brought by an advertiser whose requests to buy political ads were allegedly rejected or ignored by Google, Yahoo and Microsoft because they attacked other candidates.
Goldman believes the precedent-setting influence of the case is limited, but it should help search engines deflect future cases filed by advertisers that go against their editorial policies.
Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 10:26 AM | Permalink
February 23, 2007
EFF Backs Google Trademark Advertising MethodsGoogle's allowing of advertising on trademarked keywords has received the support of the civil rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation.
A Federal Appelate Court will decide if Google can allow advertisers to use trademarked terms as keywords so long as they are not mentioned in the actual ads.
Similar to the case dismissed against Geico, Rescuecom continued its legal battle and went to a Federal appelate court which should reach an opinion very soon.
The EFF supports Google as they see it as a part of first amendment rights.
MediaPost reporteds that in a friend-of-the-court brief filed this week, the EFF argues that there's more at stake than just competition between business rivals. The EFF makes the case that Google's policy of allowing people to purchase trademarked names also protects free speech rights.
Posted by Frank Watson at 4:01 PM | Permalink
January 29, 2007
Google Fights for Its TrademarkGoogle has sued serial trademark litigant and self-styled "intellectual property entrepreneur" Leo Stoller for false advertising, unfair competition and RICO violations for claiming that Stoller owns the Google trademark (and that Google doesn't). Attorney-bloggers John Welch, Rebecca Tushnet, and Eric Goldman have details.
Stoller is notorious in trademark circles for the numerous oppositions he's filed to trademark applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)'s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). He's perhaps more notorious for the number of requests of an extension of time he's filed with the TTAB -- more than 1100 between November 2005 and March 2006. As a result, the TTAB last year banned Stoller from filing any extensions for two years.
According to Tushnet, since there's no provision in trademark law penalizing false claims of trademark ownership, Google had to resort to other ways to go after Stoller. Google opted for "false advertising" claims against Stoller under the Lanham Act, but it may be troublesome for Google to prove that it has standing to bring those charges, since it's not in the trademark-licensing business.
Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 4:04 PM | Permalink
December 22, 2006
Australian Court Ruling Could Impact SearchThe Australian Federal Court ruled the other day that a web site providing links to available illegal video downloads is culpible as well as the ISP that hosted the site.
Electronic Frontiers Australia, a civil-liberties group, said the ruling could have impact on search engines such as Google.
The Associated Press report stated:
The full bench of the Federal Court, the country's second-highest court, has upheld a lower court ruling that Stephen Cooper, the operator of the Web site in question, as well as Comcen, the Internet service provider that hosted it, were guilty under Australian copyright law.They were accused of authorizing copyright infringement because they provided a search engine whose results linked to songs available for illegal download, even though the Web site did not store the music files directly.
Cooper had argued that his Web site performed a function comparable to search engines such as Google Inc., which is based in Mountain View, Calif.
EFA chairman Dale Clapperton said Australia holds internet users to a higher standard. The legal interpretation of liability is untested for search engines like Google.
Posted by Frank Watson at 10:31 PM | Permalink
November 30, 2006
Yahoo Turns Down Google's Request For Information On Book SearchThe NY Times reports that Yahoo has recently rejected Google's subpoena for help with the Google Book Search project legal woes. Reportedly, Yahoo turned down Google's request for similar reasons mentioned by Amazon when they turned down the same request. If you are interested, I have posted the full court filing at my server as a PDF download.
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:11 AM | Permalink
November 27, 2006
Q&A On Google's Belgium News AgreementsThis week, news emerged about an agreement between Google and two Belgian author groups that were suing it over copyright issues. Below, a short Q&A on what this means for Google. Highlights: The case goes on with three other groups taking part, but large damages seem unlikely. The new deal gives especially seems to give Google photo rights. Google says it is not doing an about-face on opt-out in Denmark. More about these an other issues covered below, based on a talk with Google spokesperson Jessica Powell. Plus, some bonus stats on how much traffic newspapers get from search engines.
Q. The case was originally filed against Google by Copiepresse. What are the other groups that joined and when did they come on?
A. In mid-October, Sofam, Scam, SAJ and Assucopie all joined the case after Google posted the Belgian court ruling in late September.
Q. Who remains as part of the case?
A. Copiepresse, SAJ and Assucopie.
Q. Has Google paid any fines in the case so far?
A. Despite rumors, Google reiterated again today that it has not been asked to pay any fines.
Q. If Google loses the case, will it have to pay any damages?
A. Google says it hasn't been asked to pay any fines.
Q. What do the new agreements with the author groups Sofam and Scam allow?
A. Sofam represents Belgian photographers while SCAM covers mainly audio/video content. Exact uses are being worked out. As with the AP deal, Google highlighted this as providing new uses rather than a solution to the legal challenges over spidering and thumbnail image use. "It's a way for us to use their content in new ways beyond what copyright law currently allows us without the permission of the authors," said Powell said.
Q. Was there a financial aspect to the agreement?
A. Google's not commenting. Google is definitely paying the Associated Press to use some of its content, as the AP itself has reported. However, the exact terms, mechanisms or amounts have never been disclosed. Google wouldn't get into specifics on the financial details on the two Belgian deals other than to say these were deals that will allow the search engine to use the content in new ways.
Q. Is Google talking with the other parties to the suit?
A. Google said it won't comment on discussions but that it's always open to dialogue.
Q. Did Google reverse course and go opt-in for Google News Denmark?
A. Google says it chose to only launch in Sweden and Norway and that going forward it is not planning on an opt-in model in Denmark or elsewhere. The reason, says Powell, is that the company believes Google News complies with copyright law. "If publishers don't want their websites to appear in search engines, robots.txt enables them to automatically prevent their content from being indexed. And we even go beyond that: if a newspaper doesn't want to be a part of Google News, they only need to ask, and we remove them."
Between The Lines Time
The use of news images is one of the touchiest areas for Google to deal with, as I covered more in my Search Engines, Permissions & Moving Forward In Copyright Battles article.
The Sofam deal might help solve some of Google's legal issues in Belgium. The group represents the rights of nearly 4,000 photographers in Belgium, Google said. Google did NOT say how this might translate into usage at Google News. However, potentially this means Google can have photos in Google News even from publication that it had to remove from Google Belgium by court order. The Sofam deal might provide legal cover there. Of course, if those publications are the only source of certain photos -- and they block use through systems like robots.txt -- that would still keep the content out of Google. I'm also following up more on this particular issue.
The deals do not restore access for Google to list textual news stories it finds. That means it has to remain hopeful that the legal case will go its way, if it wants to prevent some type of negotiations with the publishers that have opted-out.
If the case goes against Google, it doesn't appear to be facing in major damages. If these were to be levied, that should have happened when it lost the first time. Instead, the publishers will remain out of Google, making Google News Belgium less useful than it would be. However, they also deny themselves traffic from Google. Possibly Google might negotiate a payment-based system to include them. Equally possible, it might also decide to hold its ground and focus attention on other countries, to see if it can wait the publishers out.
If the case goes for Google, then it regain content that will help enhance Google News Belgium, unless those publisher decide to specifically block spidering, which Google would almost certainly honor.
Overall, the action in Belgium -- as with Denmark -- underscore that in smaller markets, Google (and other search engines) may come under increasing pressure to negotiate deals to list material. The players are fewer and have more power concentrated among them. Whether these will be lucrative deals remains to be seen. In smaller markets, Google might decide it's simply not worth figuring out some type of financial arrangement -- especially for Google News which carries no ads, so generates no direct revenue. That might bring about more non-financial arrangements where the publishers cooperate for the benefit of getting traffic and also being dealt with personally by Google, rather than impersonally through automated permissions systems like robots.txt
Traffic To Search Engines
As an aside, I got a request from another reporter trying to understand how much traffic newspapers get from search engines. My response:
There's no specific answer to this. It will vary from paper to paper. Places like the New York Times will likely get a lot, because they specifically work to generate search traffic. Papers such as those suing Google in Belgium are getting probably nil, since they were removed by court order from Google.
In general, surveys have found sites getting anywhere from 8 to 13 percent of traffic from search engines. That might not sound like much, but often the first visit leads to repeat visits.
I also included two people on my response who I thought might have some better stats. Marshall Simmonds, chief search strategist for the New York Times Company, came back with this:
The one stat I can report is the NYT gets approximately 22% of its traffic from search engines. This number is very actively growing.
Bill Tancer, over at Hitwise, reported this:
Hitwise tracks 800,000 sites divided into 170 industry categories. One of those categories is our News & Media – Print category which covers Newspaper and Magazine websites (3,180 sites total). For the week ending 11/18/06 (based on our U.S. sample), Google was the #1 site sending traffic to the category at 13.66%, Search Engines as a whole were responsible for 22.44% of traffic for that same week.
That's a lot of traffic, however you slice it. There's no doubt things like Google News help build Google up as a company. But at the same time, Google News drives a ton of traffic to newspapers that are seeing the web as a new revenue source that might save them as print subscriptions dry up.
Posted by Danny Sullivan at 12:35 PM | Permalink
November 26, 2006
Google Settles With Some Belgian Publishers Over Belgium News InclusionVia Techmeme, news that Google has settled with two Belgian publishing groups involved in a lawsuit against it over content included in Google News Belgium. This comes a day after Google's legal case was reheard in an appeal. The settlement, following what seems a similar settlement with AP earlier this year, seems to open the door that Google is going to continue making such appeasements rather than fight cases in court.
Bloomberg reports that Google struck an agreement with Sofam -- which represents Belgian photographers -- and Scam, which represents Belgian journalists. The agreement allows for Google to use content from these groups (or from their members). Whether they are being paid for this, what content or how it will be used is not explained:
"We reached an agreement with Sofam and Scam that will help us make extensive use of their content," Jessica Powell, a spokeswoman for Google, said in a phone interview yesterday. She declined to give details of the agreement or say whether it involved paying the groups for the content, and declined to say whether Google, based in Mountain View, Calif., was considering similar accords with the newspapers.
In September, Google lost a copyright case filed against it by another Belgian publishing group, Copiepresse. Google later had to post the ruling against it on Google Belgium. However, Google was granted an appeal for the case to be reheard, as it hadn't been represented in court the first time. The stories below provide more background on all of this:
- Google's Belgium Fight: Show Me The Money, Not The Opt-Out, Say Publishers (Long look at how the case happened and issues surrounding it)
- Google Changes Mind, Posts Belgian Ruling
- Google To Go To Belgium Court Finally
At some point, Sofam and Scam joined in the case. I see one reference to this back in October. Two other groups also apparently joined, since the Bloomberg report speaks to the settlement being with two of five total parties to the suit.
Those parties, led by Copiepresse, continue on in their action against Google. That action, as I've covered in my Google's Belgium Fight: Show Me The Money, Not The Opt-Out, Say Publishers article, is far more about trying to pressure Google into a financial arrangement to use Belgian news content than keeping that content out of Google itself. If it was just to keep content out of Google, the publishers could have easily done this through methods such as using robots.txt files.
Copiepresse seems confident of a legal victory:
Speaking on the phone from Brussels after the hearing, Margaret Boribon, the Copiepresse secretary-general, said she felt very happy with how things proceeded today. "I can't see how the judge could change his opinion,'' she said, certain that the court will uphold the September ruling.
Perhaps that legal victory will come, when the ruling is issued in late December or January, when expected. If so, it may not help Copiepresse in the real aim of a financial deal. Google may have enough content to make Google Belgium viable without the participation of the papers Copiepresse represents. They'd then be left in a situation of asking Google for reinclusion or going without the substantial traffic Google News can send web sites.
On the other hand, Google's settlement with the groups following on an agreement earlier this year with the Associated Press seems likely to fuel further publishing groups pushing for such arrangements, especially in smaller markets where key content is put out by a small set of publishers. Banding together and sticking with exclusion, they can severely hamper a news search service.
Norway Upset With Google News Over Copyright Laws covers how Google is being challenged in Norway. That hasn't developed into a legal case yet, but it's hard to see how Google's going to be able to say no to some type of agreement there. Pandia also covers how in Denmark, publisher opposition apparently created the unprecedented case of Google asking for permission to index news sites, rather than the normal case of spidering and requesting an opt-out.
Search Engines, Permissions & Moving Forward In Copyright Battles from me covers how in particular, Google's use of images for its news area is complicates issues and is making it harder for search engines in general to defend opt-out spidering, which I support. That article calls on Google to stop the inclusion of news images, as well as a pullback on showing cached pages and scanning of in copyright works without permission.
However, asking for permission to spider textual content for news search is likely to be as slippery a slope as cutting deals with publishers. It weakens the core legal position Google has argued over gather textual content from the web, most recently against suggested copyright changes in Australia that it said might make search engines unworkable.
As a reminder, Microsoft was also challenged in Belgium. Microsoft Removes Belgian Content Without Court Order covers this more and how Microsoft's reaction was to drop those publications. So far, it hasn't apparently cut a deal for reincluding them and perhaps may not feel a market need to do so.
Judge Gives AFP Case Against Google More Time covers how a copyright case against Google but Agence France Press over news inclusion is still ongoing.
I plan to follow up with Google Monday and see what further details I can gather on the case. I don't expect terms to be disclosed, but it would be good to know if a financial arrangement of some type was reached. That happened in the AP case, though Google was adamant the agreement there was not to allow it to solve a legal problem with spidering.
Many saw this as spin. There are other things the agreement would give Google aside from the right to spider, as my Google-AP Deal Not Pay-Per-Click & Some Further Details covers in more detail. However, it also conveniently solved the spidering issues for Google.
Postscript: See Q&A On Google's Belgium News Agreements for more on this story since it was written.
Posted by Danny Sullivan at 5:04 PM | Permalink
November 24, 2006
Google Video France Sued For Copyright InfringementReuters reports Google France was sued by Flach Film, a French film producer, for copyright infringement. They claim their video, "The World According to Bush," was published on Google Video France, and viewed more 50,000 times, before Google removed the video. The French film producer estimates $648,700 in prejudice but Google said "our terms and conditions specify that users (Internet surfers) don't have permission to use videos which they don't own the rights to."
Google has put away $200M for copyright case legal issues with the YouTube acquisition.
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:05 AM | Permalink
Google To Go To Belgium Court FinallyThe AP reports that Google is finally going to show up in court to present their side of the case in the Belgium copyright suit. Google has never showed up to fight the publishers and papers in Belgium the first time the case was heard.
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:58 AM | Permalink
November 21, 2006
Norway Upset With Google News Over Copyright LawsPandia reports that Google News is in trouble again over copyright laws overseas. Google News Norway was launched and publishers are upset that Google is placing copyrighted images in the Google News home page. Mediebedriftenes Landsforening, an association of Norwegian media companies, claims Google "cannot make use of photographs without a proper agreement." This form of syndication is in "violation with Norwegian copyright law," says Dagens Næringsliv.
Google is also in trouble over copyright issues in Belgium (also see here and in Australia.
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:04 AM | Permalink
November 15, 2006
Google Holding $200 Million In Escrow For Possible YouTube Copyright CasesFirst Google was rumored to be keeping $500 million back from the YouTube sale to settle possible legal problems. Then Google CEO Eric Schmidt said they weren't. Today, turns out they are. Google holds back stock in YouTube deal from the Associated Press covers the details about keeping 12.5 percent of the stock swap for one year "to secure certain indemnification obligations." What Eric Schmidt Meant When He Said Google Wasn't Holding $500 Million From YouTube For Lawsuits: We're Holding $200 Million from TechDirt does a summary, plus gives you a funny headline about the entire thing.
Posted by Danny Sullivan at 10:12 AM | Permalink
November 12, 2006
Articles On Google's Copyright Conflicts From Me & New York TimesA Struggle Over Dominance and Definition is good New York Times article out today that looks at Google and whether it is a media company that conflicts with other media owners, especially in terms of using content from others without permission. It also sparked me to finally finish a long piece I've been meaning to do on Google, search engines and copyright issues. Search Engines, Permissions & Moving Forward In Copyright Battles is now up over at my personal blog Daggle, covering the important difference between indexing and reprinting, how robots.txt already provides a permissions system, why Google should stop scanning in-copyright books and also be a leader in dropping cached pages.
Posted by Danny Sullivan at 11:58 PM | Permalink
November 9, 2006
Google Video Sued, Plus More Info From New SEC FilingThe Associate Press reports that Google Video was actually sued for copyright infringement but yet, Google did not reveal who actually sued them. The lawsuit was disclosed by Google via a quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (link via Gary, but we do not know much more. PaidContent reports (site currently down), that Google may loan YouTube money prior to closing the deal with them, in order to help them settle or battle certain lawsuits.
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:02 AM | Permalink
Google Sends Porn Worm To 50,000+ Subscribers'Porn' worm sent to 50,000 after Google blunder from Silicon.com covers how Google accidentally sent a worm to the official Google Video Blog email list
The worm apparently, which came in the form of pornography sent to the group, which had over 50,000 subscribers at the time. The Kama Sutra email, also known as W32/Kapser.A worm, was "designed to overwrite files on infected computers on a specific date."
If you got this email and downloaded the file, it is important that you run antivirus software on your computer. Google promised to try to not do that again.
Postscript From Danny: Google has a post about it here, which gives them a chance to pitch getting free antivirus software through the Google Pack.
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 7:43 AM | Permalink
November 8, 2006
Eric Schmidt At Web 2.0 On YouTube & Other IssuesJohn Battelle spoke with Eric Schmidt at Web 2.0 yesterday. What have we got? YouTube's growth made it a necessary purchase. No, money's not set aside to cover YouTube legal claims. Yes, you can have your date if you want it, users. No, Google's not trying to take out Microsoft Office. Plus some more below.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt: We would never trap user data from ZDNet has coverage that has Schmidt saying:
- Google bought YouTube because it was growing faster than Google Video, and video was a "fundamental data type" to Google.
- Google's still figuring out ways to compensate content owners with video, a complex area.
- Google would support exporting personal data (search history, email, etc) to other providers, if it can be authenticated.
- Google's office products are "casual" and not aimed at Microsoft.
Google CEO denies rumor of YouTube legal reserve from Reuters quotes Schmidt as saying "not true" to a rumor that $500 million of the YouTube sales prices was set aside for legal claims.
@ Web 2.0: Day One Highlights: Ad 2.0; Google CEO; Skype Content from PaidContent covers Schmidt but also touches on IAC's Barry Diller saying in a separate interview that he doesn't expect Google will become a media monopoly or dominant player.
Web 2.0 Con: Liveblogging the "Conversation with Eric Schmidt" from Valleywag has a nice minute-by-minute rundown of the interview, for those that want more -- and covers that if Schmidt or one of the cofounders Larry Page or Sergey Brin don't agree on something, the cofounder wins. "I'm the one with the experience who's late. Left to their own devices they'd be early and right, but too early."
Posted by Danny Sullivan at 5:34 AM | Permalink
November 7, 2006
Australia's Proposed Copyright Rules Would Make Search Engines Impossible, Warns GoogleAFP reports that Google has warned Australia that if they pass certain a new copyright law that it will set the country back to "the pre-Internet era." Google's senior counsel, Andrew McLaughlin, told the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, "If such advanced permission was required [to index pages], the internet would promptly grind to a halt." I believe the issue here is that Australia wants Google to get copyright owners to opt in to having their content indexed, archived and cached, as opposed to opting out via a robots.txt file. Australia is not alone here; Belgium newspapers are fighting Google over similar copyright issues. This all just amazes me, seriously.
Postscript From Danny: See also my Google's Belgium Fight: Show Me The Money, Not The Opt-Out, Say Publishers piece that goes into great depth about how this is effectively already the law in Belgium, due to a court ruling there. The appeal on that case will happen later this month, but the threat alone also already caused Micrsoft to back out of some indexing.
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 10:29 AM | Permalink
November 3, 2006
Google Working To Stop Lawsuits Over YouTubeThe Financial Times reports that Eric Schmidt's Google is running from media company to media company trying to offer upfront cash, in sums of "tens of millions of dollars," to slow and "halt" the threat they pose to YouTube. FT.com says that Schmidt met with CBS, Viacom, Time Warner, NBC Universal, News Corp and others recently. There are some more details over at paidContent.
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:27 AM | Permalink
November 2, 2006
Google Says Belgium Did Not Send $43.2M FineElinor Mills reports that Google has denied a report last week that it was fined $43 million for not removing all Belgian publishers' content from the engine's index and cache. Google spokesman Ricardo Reyes, told Elinor Mills at News.com in an email, "Google has complied with the Copiepresse judgment and we are not aware of any fine. We believe this story to be completely untrue."
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:17 AM | Permalink
November 1, 2006
Google Click Fraud Settlement Payments ReceivedI reported this morning that Google Advertisers Receiving Settlement Payouts for the refunds they were rewarded based on the Google Click Fraud Settlement. The amounts of those payments are making many advertisers feel like they were ripped off. For example, one advertiser informed us that they paid Google over $480,000 over the past three years and only received a credit of $280. You can check to see if you received a credit by viewing your "Billing Summary" under each campaign in your Google AdWords account.
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:45 AM | Permalink
October 31, 2006
Belgium Slaps Google With $43.2 Million FineGary Price points to a Poynter.org report showing that Google has been fined €34 million (about $43,231,000 USD) for not removing all of the Belgian publisher's content based on a court ruling. Google claims they could not find all the publishers and asked the publishers for help in identifying the content that has to be removed.
Postscript: Google Says Belgium Did Not Receive $43.2M Fine.
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:42 AM | Permalink
More Details On YouTube & Google AcquisitionBlog Maverick has some intimate details on the Google YouTube Deal from a "trusted anonymous author" in a message board. Here are some of the excerpts:
The first request was a simple one and that was an agreement to look the other way for the next 6 months or so while copyright infringement continues to flourish. The second request was to pile some lawsuits on competitors to slow them down and lock in Youtube's position. Infringement lawsuits will be served on Youtube and the new proud parent Google in the coming months. Google will respond with two paths: an expensive legal fight or a quick and easy settlement with most choosing the latter.Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:26 AM | Permalink
October 30, 2006
Google Appeals Federal Judge's Orkut RulingThe International Herald Tribune reports that Google has appealed a federal judge's order to hand over the IP address information to Brazilian authorities. Google claims the "federal civil court did not have the proper authority" for such information. But Google spokesperson, Debbie Frost said Google will help Brazilian authorities identify individuals accused of illegal activities on Google's social networking platform, Orkut. This history goes way back, just start from here and keep clicking those links back to the previous stories. This amazes me that it is still going on since early this year.
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:13 AM | Permalink
Judge To Rule By End Of Year On Kinderstart CaseReuters reports that Judge Jeremy Fogel said he will take until the end of this year to rule on the Kinderstart case. The case was about how Kinderstart's ranking and PageRank fell and Kinderstart sued Google on numerous counts for the ranking drop. The judge recently said, "Assuming Google is saying that KinderStart's Web site isn't worth seeing. Why can't they say that? That's my question." So he will consider this and other questions in his ruling.
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:03 AM | Permalink
Google "In Bed" With The CIA?Threadwatch spots a disgrunt article named Former Intelligence Agent Says Google In Bed With CIA. Robert David Steele, a former CIA agent, "confirmed from his contacts within the CIA and Google that Google was working in tandem with “the agency." Steele said, “I think that Google has made a very important strategic mistake in dealing with the secret elements of the U.S. government - that is a huge mistake and I’m hoping they’ll work their way out of it and basically cut that relationship off." Scary, very scary.
Postscript: Statement from Google on this, "The statements related to Google are completely untrue."
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:36 AM | Permalink
October 26, 2006
Google Helping Racism By Refusing To Take Down Hosted BlogsThe Inquirer reports that Google refuses to tackle racist blogs hosted on Google's Blogger platform. These blogs have racist and neo-Nazi content on them from organizations based in New Zealand and Australia. Brian Stokes, co-founder of FightDemBack!, said that most of the time when his organization reports these types of sites to Angelfire and Tripod, he gets a response. But Google has not responded to his requests and flags. There are more details on this at the Sydney Morning Herald.
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:38 AM | Permalink
Googling Google And Searching YahooThere is a strange feeling of deja vue with the Official Google blog entry 'Do you "Google"?' as we're once again looking at the way in which the word can be used. This last arose back in August over the apparent mis-use of the term by the Washington Post.
Apparently we're allowed to say "I googled him on the well-known website Google.com and he seems pretty interesting." since it's clear that I'm using the term in conjunction with the website, but I can't say "I googled him on Yahoo and he seems pretty interesting." Very bad apparently.
Does anyone but the lawyers care? Probably not, and even the Google Blog team appear less than interested given that their sign off comment on this one is "Thanks for your attention, and we look forward to serving your search-related information needs again soon."
Posted by Phil Bradley at 8:11 AM | Permalink
October 25, 2006
Amazon Turns Down Google's Request For Information On Book SearchBusiness Week reports that Amazon has turned down Google's request for information to help in it book scanning lawsuit. Amazon responded to Google's subpoena saying, that it would make Amazon's trade secrets public and it was "overly broad and unduly burdensome" on Amazon. In short, it is Amazon's way of telling Google to stop looking over their shoulder and work it out yourself.
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:29 AM | Permalink
October 23, 2006
Litigation, Google And CopyrightThe NY Times has an extensive article today on Google and those who would challenge it in the courts. It offers a broad overview of the legal issues surrounding Google, including those coming with the YouTube acquisition, and the company's attitude toward litigation, which is typically to fight rather than settle.
In addition, Charles Cooper at CNET writes what can only be described as an angry column about Google and "Web 2.0," content and copyright infringement. The article is entitled, "Web 2.0 as a metaphor for 'rip off'.
Posted by Greg Sterling at 12:22 PM | Permalink
Google's NetPAC Begins Donating MoneyMercury News reports that Google's NetPAC has begun handing out small $1,000 donations to three different Republicans. Google has given to Reps. Heather Wilson of New Mexico, Deborah Pryce of Ohio and Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. Google also gave two donations to Democrats, Rep. Anna Eshoo of Palo Alto and Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:15 AM | Permalink
October 19, 2006
Publishers & Authors Consolidate Lawsuits Against GoogleMarketWatch reports that a judge has consolidated two different cases against Google to make the process quicker and more "streamlined." Book publishers and book authors have joined together to battle Google on the legal from for copyright infringement allegations over Google's Book Search Project.
Postscript: Steve Bryant at eWeek reports that the Authors Guild v. Google case is postponed six months to January 2008. Steve said, "Doesn't that mean that Google, in the meantime, will continue to operate Google Books as normal, which is exactly what the Authors Guild wants to prevent?"
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 2:15 PM | Permalink
October 13, 2006
Google Wins Case Against Maughan Over Search Results SnippetsEric Goldman reports that Google has won the Maughan v. Google case where Mark Maughan filed a suit against Google for the content displayed in the snippets area under a search results listing in Google.com. A search on Mark Maughan Accountancy currently shows the number one listing from www.dca.ca.gov/cba/discipline/ma-me.htm. The snippet looks like:
The complaint was that a search like the above and other variations of it "generates a list of websites 'suggesting' he was disciplined by the California Board of Accountancy for 'gross negligence' and accepting a contingent fee for the preparation of tax returns, which he says are 'veritable scarlet letters in the accounting world'."
Google won the case, and was also rewarded $23,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 11:20 AM | Permalink
October 12, 2006
New Interview on Belgian Press vs. Google News (Microsoft Next?)Sean Daly, from Groklaw, interviewed Margaret Boribon of Copiepresse on September 28th about their copyright lawsuit against Google, which targets the use of Belgian news in Google News, and cached copies of those articles. He has posted their discussion, in English and French, as well as some commentary and analysis of the litigation, including some late breaking news involving demands made by Copiepresse for MSN, and a potential new plaintiff.
I've written a brief synopsis of some of the points she raises in the interview at SEO by the Sea. Danny also talked with Margaret Boribon earlier in September.
Posted by Bill Slawski at 12:32 PM | Permalink
October 11, 2006
Google's "False & Deceptive" Search AdsBen Edelman's False and Deceptive Pay-Per-Click Ads analysis looks at specific ads on Google.com that seem to violate Google's editorial guidelines and perhaps US laws over "free" services being offered.
Edelman reviews ads that use the words "free" or make other claims that are said to be false.
He looks at "charging for software that's actually free" here, then he looks at "the "completely free" ringtones that aren't" here, and then reviews some "ads impersonating famous and well-known sites" here.
Finally, Edelman reviews the law, ethics, and incentives Google is faced with specific to these ads. He views Google and the search companies as the ones that really profit from such ads and suggests that Google "expand the policy to prevent these scams."
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:55 AM | Permalink
October 10, 2006
Court Issues Notice To Google For Allegedly Spreading Hate In India Via OrkutThe Times of India reports that Google is in hot water over Orkut once again, this time for allegedly spreading hatred for India. The article says, "The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra government to issue notice to Google for the alleged spread of hatred about India by its social network service Orkut." The problem is over a "We Hate India" community in Orkut that posted a picture a burning Indian flag.
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:35 AM | Permalink
October 6, 2006
Yahoo Messenger Worm Targets Google AdSense Click FraudThe Register reports that a new malware worm has been discovered that targets Yahoo Messenger, sends those users to pages with Google AdSense ads and clicks on them. The Google ads are specifically high priced keywords such as mesothelioma, which is a cancer caused from exposure to asbestos. More details on this worm at the Spyware Guide.
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 3:40 PM | Permalink
October 5, 2006
Google To Subpoena Yahoo, Microsoft For Info To Help In It Book Scanning LawsuitJust in from Bloomberg, Google to Subpoena Yahoo, Microsoft on Book Scanning covers how Google hopes that gaining information from rival book scanning programs will help it defend itself in copyright lawsuits over its own scanning program. From the story:
Google, which doesn't disclose how many books it has scanned, also wants to know the title, authors and copyright status of books already offered through competitors' book projects, according to the documents.
The right to subpoena has been granted, but information is to be kept confidential and used only in the litigation.
Posted by Danny Sullivan at 8:09 PM | Permalink
Google Won Keyword Trademark Lawsuit: Rescuecom v. GoogleMercuryNews.com reported last week that Google won a major sponsored keyword trademark case against Rescuecom. Judge Norman Mordue of U.S. District Court, northern district of New York, went "against all four precedent rulings" on this case, said Eric Goldman. Specifically, the court said, "Defendant's internal use of plaintiff's trademark trigger sponsored links is not a use of a trademark...because there is no allegation that defendant places plaintiff's trademarks on any goods, containers, displays, or advertisements, or that its internal use is visible to the public." Eric Goldman explained that the court used the 1-800 Contacts precedent in this case to reject pretty much all of Rescuecom's claims. Bottom line is that this is a major win for Google and can be used in future cases as a precedent to those cases.
Postscript Barry: Here is a link to the court document as a PDF.
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 10:32 AM | Permalink
October 3, 2006
A Look At Google's Copyright BattlesNews.com has another great article named Copyright tussles for Google. It reviews some of Google's copyright cases and how Google is trying hard to win some of those cases for their current and future projects. From the Google Cache, to Google Images, to web search, book search and other indexing projects - Google needs to keep redefining the law to continue to build out their search engine. But you have to agree with the highlighted quote, "One of the challenges is, 'This is Google. What would the world be without Google?' We don't want the world without Google. We want the world without Google infringing our copyrights."
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:02 AM | Permalink
October 2, 2006
Copiepresse Upset Ruling On Google Wasn't Visible EnoughLast week, Google complied with a Belgian court order and posted the ruling against it in a copyright suit on the home page of Google Belgium and Google News Belgium, along with many other places including many search results pages. Now via Google Blogoscoped, news that the plaintiff in the case Copiepresse thinks the ruling should have gone at the top of the Google News Belgium page, rather than the bottom.
An article about the issue in Dutch is here. I don't speak Dutch, sadly, consigning me to AltaVista Babelfish, which translated a key part as:
That happened also, but on the start page of Google news, the topicality part of the site, stands the sentence entirely below. And that does not like Copiepresse.
Anyone hitting Google Belgium couldn't have failed to notice the beginning of the very long ruling, as the illustration above shows. But over at Google News Belgium, that ruling wouldn't have been seen unless you scrolled to the bottom of the page, past all the stories. That's what Copiepresse seems to be upset about.
The order did require that:
The defendant to publish, in a visible and clear manner and without any commentary from her part
Copiepresse might well be able to argue that on Google News Belgium, the ruling there wasn't clear and visible by being at the bottom of the page.
Of course, putting the long ruling at the top of the page would have been unworkable. The ruling itself didn't allow Google to put anything on the page directing people to see the notice at the bottom since that might have been deemed "commentary" about the ruling.
What next? If Copiepresse presses for more and wins, perhaps Google might have to run the ruling in a column alongside news content.
Frankly, Copiepresse comes across as petty in complaining here. Google already had a good argument that publishing the ruling was unnecessary given the wide press coverage the ruling had gained, though the court was not convinced and required the ruling to go up anyway. After that happened, coverage of Google's loss was only magnified. The point was made very publicly.
Posted by Danny Sullivan at 9:22 AM | Permalink
September 28, 2006
Google Not To Deliver Orkut Data To Brazil AuthoritiesGoogle won't hand data to Brazil judge from the Associated Press reports that Google will not be meeting the deadline to provide Brazilian authorities with the data they requested on specific Orkut users. This comes after Google saying they will hand over the data to Brazil. So the question is, will Google be fined $23,000 per day by the Brazilian judge until they comply? Google has promised to issue a court explanation as to why they cannot provide the data Brazil requested. The AP article also quotes Debbie Frost of Google saying, "We have and will continue to provide Brazilian authorities with information on users who abuse the Orkut service, if their requests are reasonable and follow an appropriate legal process."
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:55 AM | Permalink
September 27, 2006
Google Talks On Its Approach To Content & CopyrightOur approach to content at the Official Google Blog has Google explaining to the world how it works with content owners and its desire to respect their rights.
In terms of copyright, Google stresses that it generally sticks to what's known as fair use, though the post doesn't use those words. The idea is that it shows very short summaries of stories, pages, thumbnails of images but doesn't reprint this material, requiring people to clickthrough to the actual material from places like Google News.
Of course, in the case of cached pages, many including myself would argue that Google goes beyond fair use. Cached pages are an example where content can be viewed without clicking through to the original site, and the opt-out approach for that doesn't feel appropriate at all.
Google also notes there are cases when it wants to go beyond fair use, to make broader use of content where permission would be required. The deal with the Associated Press is cited as one of several examples here.
To me, this is also a way for Google to help defuse the idea that some publications have, such as the Belgian newspapers recently, that Google can be bought off to avoid lawsuits. To me, this is Google stressing that it will do content deals in some cases, but that these content deals aren't necessarily being done to avoid lawsuits, especially when it feels it is acting within fair use guidelines. That's my speculation and take on this, of course. Google didn't comment when I asked if this was the reason for raising the AP deals.
Moving past Google saying it respects copyright, it then stresses that it allows people to opt-out, even if it feels it has fair use rights. In general, I agree with this method, which Google along with the other major search engines generally follow. Trying to get permission from each web site to index it would be an impossible task, and one that's not necessarily even legally required. Opt-out through things like robots.txt is an effective way to protect rights holders plus benefit the public as a whole. I do hope they'll change cached pages to opt-in, however.
Google talked with me about the post shortly before it went live yesterday, to see if I had any questions. The main thing in my mind was if this was in response to the Belgian lawsuit. No, I was told. The post has been in the works for some time, apparently. Google's hoping it will help people better understand their approach to content.
Posted by Danny Sullivan at 7:56 AM | Permalink
September 25, 2006
Google Changes Mind, Posts Belgian RulingGoogle has now posted the text of a Belgian ruling finding it violated copyright on the Google Belgium home page. The ruling has also been posted to the home pages of Google Images Belgium, Google News Belgium but not Google Groups Belgium.
Last week, a court ruled Google had violated the copyright of several Belgium newspapers by listing them within Google News. The court ordered the removal of those papers from Google, which the company quickly complied with.
The court also ordered Google to post the ruling on its Belgian web site within 10 days or face a heavy fine. Google appealed that punishment, but it was upheld last Friday.
Despite losing its appeal, Google looked ready to defy the order to post the ruling and take the fines, until a second appeal could be heard in November. Now, the company has reversed course. The ruling went up on Saturday. The company gave no reason for the reversal to Reuters:
A spokesperson for Google declined to elaborate on the reasons that made the company change its mind but said it would seek to cancel the ruling.
"We are pleased that a judge has given Google the opportunity to appeal the substance of this case. This will be heard in November," the spokesperson said.
From Dow Jones newswire:
Google spokeswoman Rachel Whetstone told Dow Jones Newswires the company had agreed to publish the ruling on its Web site after studying the court judgment.
Technically, Google never failed to comply with the court ruling. It has 10 days from receipt of the ruling to act, and it has done so within that time, saving it exposure to fines. As noted, a second appeal on the ruling will happen in November.
Past coverage is below:
- Google's Belgium Fight: Show Me The Money, Not The Opt-Out, Say Publishers: Explains when the ruling happened, how Google reacted to remove the publications more than they were probably expected and why if the fight were really about copyright, the entire court case could have been avoided through the use of a simple robots.txt file.
- Google Loses Appeal On Posting Belgian Ruling: Covers Google losing the judgment on Friday about posting the text on its web site.
- Publisher Groups To Test New Search Engine Rights Management System (Updated): Covers a new system that publishers have proposed that some suggest would have avoided the Belgian case -- except that as my previous story explains, existing systems would have stopped that well enough.
Also, I note that Microsoft's Windows Live is now operating illegally under Belgian law. For example, site:www.lesoir.be shows how pages from Le Soir -- one of the publications involved in the lawsuit against Google -- has pages listed in Windows Live, as well as cached pages. In fact, here's an example of an article from Le Soir about the Belgian ruling against Google that I can read at Windows Live through its cached copy. To date, no news that Microsoft is about to be sued.
Finally, over at Threadwatch, an interesting comment points out that Google might have been OK in Belgium if it didn't show cached copies of pages:
The truly critical essence of this Belgian court ruling concerns Google's caching functionality. Here, protected content is being displayed a) in modified form; b) more often than not in its entirety (i.e. not restricted to mere snippets); and c) without copyright holders' permission. In most countries this would be viewed as a flagrant violation of copyright law - and obviously this is the stance the Belgian court has adopted. (And yes, there's been a contrary ruling by a US court, but that specific case seems to be rather more complicated on closer view; also, there's some indication that it was decided on arguably faulty assumptions, but that's another story.)
It is interesting to note that the Belgian ruling specifically acknowledges Google's right to store third party content (no mean concession, that, and far from self-evident) for search purposes only. But displaying it in the cache for everyone to see constitutes an act of re-publication which, like it or not, demands copyright holders' express permission.
This is a very important point. Search engines make copies of pages in order to make content searchable, as my Indexing Versus Caching & How Google Print Doesn't Reprint article explains in more detail. It's very difficult to argue this type of copying harms a site owner, especially when opting out is so easy.
Showing these actual copies through cached pages has long been disturbing for many people. While it's easy to opt-out of such display, it feels a step beyond what a content owner should have to do. With cached pages, content is literally being reprinted rather than made searchable. It seems absurd for the content owners to opt-out in that instance.
Within the US, cached copies has so far been upheld, something I disagree with. But if Google were to eliminate them -- along with picture thumbnails -- it sounds like it might have a better chance of winning in Belgium.
Posted by Danny Sullivan at 5:51 AM | Permalink
September 22, 2006
Google Loses Appeal On Posting Belgian RulingGoogle loses appeal on posting court ruling from Reuters covers Google losing an appeal that it should not be required to post the ruling of a Belgian court over a copyright infringement lawsuit on its Belgian web search and news sites. It now will be fined 500,000 euros per day for each day it fails to comply. Google has a further appeal on the entire case, including posting the ruling, that will be heard in November. My past article Google's Belgium Fight: Show Me The Money, Not The Opt-Out, Say Publishers has more about that and the entire case.
Posted by Danny Sullivan at 12:10 PM | Permalink
September 21, 2006
KinderStart Issues An Amended Complaint Against GoogleEric Goldman wrote that KinderStart has issued a 63 page second amended complaint against Google. KinderStart lost their first case against Google back in July of this year - that case was, in my opinion, ridiculous. This new complaint is even worse. The 43(B)log summarizes the complaints, calling many of them "incomprehensible." Eric Goldman says "I expect Google will file a motion to dismiss, which the judge will grant, at least in part (at minimum, to eliminate the Violation of Free Speech claim). I expect Google to go on the counter-offensive and renew its anti-SLAPP motions."
Posted by Barry Schwartz at 10:51 AM | Permalink
September 20, 2006
Google's Belgium Fight: Show Me The Money, Not The Opt-Out, Say PublishersI've had a long talk with the group that so far has successfully sued Google in Belgium over indexing, a talk that leaves me thinking they don't fully understand how search engines work and why their arguments over copyright infringement will ultimately fail. Then again, the case is really about trying to convince Google it should pay to carry their news content. A closer look at all this in the story below, as well as an update on the situation in general, including an appeal for Google that's been granted.
Let's go back to the beginning. In March, Copiepresse tells me it started legal proceedings against Google over its inclusion of Belgian news sources without explicit permission. The organization represents a number of publishers that were concerned over being indexed.
Information about the case, including a summons, was all set to Google in the United States, according to Copiepresse. A hearing was held in Belgium on September 5th, then the ruling came out last Friday, September 15. Google didn't take part in the hearings, for reasons it says it is still investigating.
The ruling required that Google do two main things within 10 days of receipt:
- Remove French and German-language content from the publishers from Google Belgium's web sites or pay a fine of €1 million per day
- Publish the ruling on Google Belgium and Google News Belgium or pay a fine of €500,000 per day
Over this past weekend, Google says it complied with the first part. It removed links to at least these news sources, Google told me:
dhnet.be grenzecho.be lacapitale.be lalibre.be lameuse.be lanouvellegazette.be laprovince.be lecho.be lequotidiendenamur.be lesoir.be pressbanking.com votrejournal.be
It's been noted that Google did more than remove these sites from Google News Belgium. They were removed from Google Belgium entirely. Here are a couple of searches that demonstrate this:
site:dhnet.be site:grenzecho.be site:lacapitale.be site:lalibre.be site:lameuse.be site:lanouvellegazette.be site:laprovince.be site:lecho.be site:lequotidiendenamur.be site:lesoir.be site:pressbanking.com site:votrejournal.be
Some have thought this is an example of Google getting revenge, robbing these publishers of regular traffic they probably assumed was safe in a fight over Google News indexing. For its part, Google said its reading of the ruling meant that the sites had to be dropped entirely from Google Belgium:
Order the defendant to withdraw the articles, photographs and graphic representations of Belgian publishers of the French - and German-speaking daily press, represented by the plaintiff, from all their sites (Google News and "cache" Google or any other name within 10 days of the notification of the intervening order, under penalty of a daily fine of 1,000,000.- € per day of delay;
I've bolded the key part. Google says it interpreted "all their sites" as being all sites that it views the court having jurisdiction over, anything using the Google.be domain. In addition, Google has removed the sites from Google News worldwide, saying it is treating the ruling as it would any request to be removed from Google News. In those cases, you're dropped entirely, not on a country-by-country basis.
The sites do still appear in a searches via Google.com or other Google editions not aimed at Belgium. While these sites can still be reached from Belgium, Google considers them outside Belgian jurisdiction.
That view is sort of laughable, though I understand the reasoning well. It's unlikely that Google Belgium is actually being served up out of Belgium, so artificially pretending that Google.com another other Google sites are somehow "outside" Belgian jurisdiction makes no sense. However, this type of pretending isn't that unusual. It's a nice way for search engines to act like they are following the ruling of a particular country by making changes on "that country's Google." It's also a convenient way for particular courts to feel they've exerted jurisdiction over sites that that they might really not be able to control.
Overall, Google has complied with the first part of the ruling. As for the second, it hasn't posted the required notices and says it will wait for a ruling due out Friday specifically about that issue. It argued yesterday in a hearing for appeal that posting the notice on the home pages wasn't necessary given all the publicity the case has now received.
An appeal for the case overall was granted. It will be heard on November 24, and the entire matter is largely in limbo until then. I hesitate to consider the case a victory for Copiepresse given that the first hearing -- for whatever reason -- had no defense from Google at all.
This leads me to Copiepresse's complaint with Google. In the group's view, Google has illegally copied material without permission. It feels that in some way, Google should get permission before indexing.
Indexing, of course, is not copying. Search engines do read pages in to make them searchable, as my Indexing Versus Caching & How Google Print Doesn't Reprint article explains in more detail. But indexing isn't reprinting pages, in the way some arguments try to make it. Google does show cached copies, something raised in the case. But cached copies aren't shown within Google News search, which was the main focus of this case (as an aside, one US court has ruled cached copies aren't an infringement, something I disagree with but something also easily rectified through no caching mechanisms).
I had a very long conversation about the permissions issue with Margaret Boribon, secretary general of Copiepresse, to try and better understand how they wanted Google to operate. Why not use commonly understood and effective mechanisms such as robots.txt files or meta robots tags to prevent indexing?
"If you do so, you admit that Google does what they want, and if you don't agree, you have to contact them. This is not the legal framework of copyright," Boribon said.
This is an age old issue in the search engine world. By default, search engines assume that permission is granted to index a document, in order to make it searchable. Technically, shouldn't they get explicit permission? Legally, that might make things safer. Logistically, it would never work. Many sites don't have clear contact details. Some domains themselves contain multiple sites. Moreover, there are millions of sites across the web. Contacting them all beforehand simply wouldn't work well.
I asked Boribon about this, how her group would propose search engines undertake such a task.
"I'm sure they can find a very easy system to send an email or a document to alert the site and ask for permission or maybe a system of opt-in or opt-out," she said.
Would it be OK for such a system to work automatically, I asked? Yes, that would be fine. A machine-to-machine connection would be OK, she said. So then, I asked, why not use the existing robots.txt or meta robots systems?
Both mechanisms are easy, automatic ways for publishers to declare if they grant indexing permission or not. In fact, I'd argue that both are a way for search engines to ask beforehand for the very permission that Copiepresse wants them to seek. Major search engines -- not just Google -- all request or check these blocking mechanisms.
Boribon rejected the existing solutions. One issue she had was that they weren't legally endorsed. That's true, but that's also something I think will change over time. In the US, we've had one case recently where opt-out solutions like tags have been accepted.
Outside the US, there have been some scatted cases, such as this one from 1997 in the UK involving news indexing. But none of these cases have seemed to stop the search engines.
The Belgium case could be different. What happens in one country isn't applicable to others. It may be that Copiepresse will prove its point that permission should be sought in advance. Alternatively, a court could endorse existing blocking mechanisms as having legal force.
That's what I think should happen. These systems pose an easy way for anyone who doesn't want to be in a search engine to stay out. If the issue with Copiepresse was really about not being indexed, all of the publications it represents could easily stay out through those solutions. Google -- like other major search engines -- doesn't index sites against their wills.
There's more at work here, of course. The publications DO want to be in Google. The action is simply an effort to force Google to the bargaining table and get paid for inclusion, from what I can see.
"Our purpose is not to be excluded. Of course, we want to be in the system, but on a legal basis," said Boribon. "We want to be remunerated."
Her group's view -- as is the view of the World Association Of Newspapers that she also referenced several times -- is that Google is exploiting sites. It is making money off these sites and giving them little or nothing in return.
Most search marketers hearing this have to stifle laughter or disbelief. That's because most search marketers want all the search traffic they can get. It's free, easy and converts well. They understand that search engines give them plenty of value and complain most when something happens to take that traffic away, as was the case with the Google Florida Update of 2003.
I'm not going to spin out the argument that search engines generate far more benefits from the indexing they do than harm. For one thing, I think this is self-evident given the sheer amount of concern of getting into search engines, rather than out of them. If you must have more argument, see my past post, Search Engines As Leeches, The Difference Between Paid & Free Listings & Keyword Price Rises.
The difference between most publishers on the web and those of Boribon -- or book publishers also suing over Google's scanning program -- is that they think they are special, in my opinion. They think they have content that is more important than other content on the web, content that is either entitled to more protection or that warrants payment for being included.
Several times, Boribon stressed that those who spent a lot of time and money on their works deserved to be compensated by Google. My response was that I don't care if content is worth €1 or €1,000,000. It is entitled to the same protections. To be fair, Boribon agreed when I made that point. Yet our talk still continued to be riddled with her references to the high value of some content or the concept that only some content had protected status.
I've been through this before. Why Don't Book Publishers Object To Web Indexing? covers how one book group, while admitting that copyright law should apply the same regardless of whether works are in digital or book form, still suggested that online works were somehow different:
I think the issue is much more acute where the content is not made freely available by its copyright owner - which is, of course, the case for all the in-copyright content Google are planning to digitise from libraries.
Skipping past copyright law, let's focus on payment for inclusion. Boribon said that Google had made special arrangements with Le Monde to include it in Google News, explaining that was one of many examples of Google targeting the most important sources for special treatment.
My response was Google has special arrangements with lots of publishers that have content that can't easily be indexed. If Le Monde required user registrations, Google couldn't spider the site without contacting them and being allowed in. Indeed, it's the same thing Google has done for the New York Times, as we've covered. It's something Google (and other search engines) does for even non-news sites, if they have important content that it thinks should be gathered.
Google is not paying Le Monde or the New York Times for these arrangement, however -- something that Boribon seemed to believe the case, and no doubt other publications do as well. Google confirmed with me it has no payment system like this with Le Monde. But such a belief highlights the huge education challenge Google faces, trying to help these publications that have mistaken notions of how it -- and all search engines -- operate.
Of course, Google does have one paid relationship with a news source that came to attention recently, the Associated Press. Google still hasn't explained exactly whether this was a relationship it did to prevent an AP lawsuit over being in Google News or a separate agreement to pick up some of AP's content for reuse.
Fair to say, AP's content is important enough and helpful enough to Google that it did decide to enter into an agreement to make use of it in some way. Boribon's group feels their content is important enough that it should obtain some type of agreement as well.
This is also an old story, in some ways. Tom Mohr in Editor & Publisher earlier this month was only the latest of those with the newspaper industry sounding a call for newspapers to band together to deny content in hopes of getting paid:
But what if 2/3 or more of the U.S. newspaper industry sits on one platform, managed by Switzerland Inc.? What if Switzerland Inc. decides to deny Yahoo! and perhaps Google access to newspaper industry content for three months, followed by a negotiation for better terms? That’s the power of a network.
The World Association Of Newspapers had a