Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google The Internet Government The Courts Businesses News

Adult Site Sues Google, Google Compared To MS Again 411

Posted by Zonk
from the when-you're-on-top-you-make-a-nice-target dept.
daria42 writes "It looks like Adult magazine publisher Perfect 10 is suing Google to stop the search engine giant from using images of models in the images part of its search engine. The publisher has alleged Google is in breach of its copyright by displaying more than 3,000 photos." From the article: "Perfect 10 first became aware of Google serving up text links to other Web sites that allegedly carried copyright images of Perfect 10 models back in 2001, Zada said in an interview on Thursday. The company then sent notices to Google, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, asking the search giant to discontinue linking to the other sites." Additionally, with users writing to mention that that Google has changed their 10 Things statement recently, yet another article comparing them to Microsoft was bound to turn up. From the Sydney Herald article: "The question is whether the young upstarts who have built a hugely profitable business on Google's anti-corporate image are on the way to following Gates's path from bright young turk to monopolistic behemoth." Update: 08/26 13:27 GMT by Z : xmas2003 points out that the requested injunction is part of the suit Perfect 10 brought against Google last November, which we have previously reported on.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adult Site Sues Google, Google Compared To MS Again

Comments Filter:
  • Publicity (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dsginter (104154) on Friday August 26, 2005 @07:43AM (#13406448)
    This looks like a publicity stunt if I ever saw one. No, I won't provide a link, thankyouverymuch.
    • Re:Publicity (Score:5, Insightful)

      by KDan (90353) on Friday August 26, 2005 @07:58AM (#13406569) Homepage
      Is anyone else getting the feeling that this whole "Google is actually evil like Microsoft" theme could easily be the beginnings of a FUD campaign organised by - who else - Microsoft?

      So far Google hasn't don't anything worthy of being called "evil". Seems like some people are just digging for anything at all that can be said against them.

      Daniel
      • Re:Publicity (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Alex P Keaton in da (882660) on Friday August 26, 2005 @08:03AM (#13406617) Homepage
        It would be interesting to see the breakdown on people who are starting to dislike google. What percent are genuinely upset about their business practices, and what percent are upset that they are doing well (sort of like when a new band gets big, and the "original" fans say they have "sold out") No man! I heard of them first! Let me show you this receipt for a band t-shirt dated THREE days before the new song charted, dude!
        There is a group of people who will never like any company or group that is succesful. And there will always be people who attack the leaders just because they are leading, whether it is the NY Yankees (I try not to be one of them, but alas, I live in Ohio and I am a Cleveland fan) or google.
        • I hate google (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          I remember I was such a dejanews junky and really really made use out of that website. I was really jazzed when google took over and brought up older archives and then they went and generally trashed the interface and search capabilities.

          Whats the worst part about it is that if people had known that google was going to trash dejanews, they wouldn't have deleted their own usenet archives.

          • Google Groups 2 has improved substantially, but I'll agree that they really fscked it up, and pushing what was clearly not ready for prime time was a big mistake,
        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26, 2005 @08:47AM (#13407002)
          You are indeed correct, sir.
          Large is Evil.
          Any organization bigger than a jazz combo is, by its inherent nature, Satanic
        • There is a group of people who will never like any company or group that is succesful. And there will always be people who attack the leaders just because they are leading, whether it is the NY Yankees (I try not to be one of them, but alas, I live in Ohio and I am a Cleveland fan) or google.

          You are of course correct, and it is a very unhealthy way of thinking, generally speaking.

          That said, I will never stop hating on the L.A. Lakers.
        • Re:Publicity (Score:5, Informative)

          by mav[LAG] (31387) on Friday August 26, 2005 @02:09PM (#13410117)
          You just need to look at a list of people quoted in the previous "Google is Evil" story [slashdot.org].

          • Max Levchin, a founder of PayPal who stands to lose quite a bit if Google Wallet takes off
          • Steven Lurie, an ex-Microsoft employee
          • Joe Kraus, who founded Excite
          • Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn
          • Craig Donato, the founder and chief executive of Oodle, a site for searching online classified listings more quickly (nice original name there Craig)
          • Brian Lent, the president of Medio Systems, a start-up in Seattle working on mobile-phone-based search.


          I mean, could the journalist have chosen a more biased sample?
      • Re:Publicity (Score:5, Insightful)

        by russotto (537200) on Friday August 26, 2005 @08:04AM (#13406622) Journal
        Yeah, it's pretty rich for someone using the DMCA to accuse the receipient of such notices of being evil.
      • Re:Publicity (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pootypeople (212497) on Friday August 26, 2005 @08:05AM (#13406639)
        I'm completely with you. I went to the fuckedgoogle site that /. posted yesterday, and the guy who's writing that is just a crackpot. In one post he accused google of manipulating their stock price while SIMULTANEOUSLY saying they were going to have the biggest point loss in the history of the company. I'm sorry, but I fail to see why they'd manipulate their own stock price down.
        And the privacy concerns? So they keep a record of searches. I don't care. They do so many that it's impossible for anyone to come up with useful data from google. All you'll be able to tell is that lots of people search for porn.
        Microsoft earned its title of "most evil" because they single-mindedly destroy all of their competition through FUD and other BS. Google hasn't really gotten rid of any of their competition (Yahoo and MSN are still there--I can't really think of a "large" web portal that's not there anymore) and that doesn't seem to be their goal. Just to do what they do best. I certainly have heard more reporting of this than I've heard anyone I know complain about google. Usually when the media outlets are pushing something, it's a good idea to take it with a grain of salt.

        offtopic- Kos at dailykos said yesterday that he thinks dailykos could become larger than slashdot, hits per day wise, before the end of the year--people called pullshit, but I'm really kind of interested now.
      • Re:Publicity (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TrueBuckeye (675537)
        Agreed. Considering their market penetration, try to imagine how evil they COULD be and compare that to the rather mild things they are doing. You can't compare them to MS. They aren't trying to forcibly take over your computer. They aren't trying to dictate what you can and can't do on your computer. They may not be angelic, but they sure as hell are far from evil.
      • by pieterh (196118) on Friday August 26, 2005 @08:30AM (#13406860) Homepage
        So Microsoft's latest strategy for smearing its competitors is to launch a FUD campaign in which... wait for it... their competitors get called "as evil as Microsoft?"

        Hmmm. Something not quite right here. What could the MS spindroids be thinking?

        "Hey, I just had an excellent idea for a fudwave..."
        "Yeah?" (puts down bimbo and cigar for a second)
        "Look.. we're evil, right?"
        "Damn right! I mean, unfortunately, yes...?"
        "I mean, we tried to fix that - the Foundation, pocket money for Africa, Bill even visited some schools..."
        "People always want a villain, I guess that's us..."
        "So, since Google refuse to compete fairly with us, here's the plan... We're going to redefine the meaning of 'evil'..."
        "uh?"
        "Lots of PR about 'Google is evil too, just like MS'"
        "Solid! And then, 'IBM is evil'"
        "Yup. Then, 'Linux is evil' and so on. Eventually people gonna start associating 'evil' with 'cool', and then we'll be there"
        "Sigh. Been a long time since we were cool."
        "OK, call in some favours. I think Perfect-10 still owe us for that time with the Senator."
        "Trollboys online?"
        "Yup. Ready to go!" ...

        It might just work.
      • Re:Publicity (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Displaced Cajun (20400) on Friday August 26, 2005 @09:24AM (#13407385)
        And here, I present your evidence, straight from Bill Gates himself: Relax, Bill Gates; it's Google's turn as villain [com.com]

        Quoted from the article: Bill Gates certainly sees similarities between Google and his own company. This spring, in an interview with Fortune, Gates, Microsoft's chairman, said that Google was "more like us than anyone else we have ever competed with."

      • Re:Publicity (Score:4, Informative)

        by French Mailman (773320) on Friday August 26, 2005 @09:29AM (#13407421)
        The several "Google is becoming evil like Microsoft" articles that have popped up in the recent days contain a lot of the exact same ideas:

        - Google is also attracting unfamiliar epithets such as "arrogant"
        - Its sheer financial power has sent salaries in Silicon Valley rocketing
        - Dotcom start-ups are also finding it difficult to persuade potential financial backers that their prospective markets will not be squashed by the might of Google

        This looks a lot like the works of a PR company working for one of Google's competitors (Probably Microsoft, perhaps Yahoo). The articles show a lot of the patterns described by Paul Graham in his "Submarine" essay [paulgraham.com] (April 2005).

        If the media did some actual research, instead of just printing whatever content the PR firms feed them, we'd have some more interesting content in the news.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Google pisses off their competetitors, who can't compete because, well, they suck at competing. Their users all love them.

        Microsoft pisses off their competetitors because they use illegal, immoral, unethical tactics to forgo competition, even with companies that are far better ethically and technologically.

        Microsoft's customers hate them because their products suck.
      • Re:Publicity (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Donny Smith (567043)
        >Is anyone else getting the feeling that this whole "Google is actually evil like Microsoft" theme could easily be the beginnings of a FUD campaign organised by - who else - Microsoft?

        Riiight. And Microsoft's interest in comparing Google's badness to ... Microsoft is...?

        >So far Google hasn't don't anything worthy of being called "evil".

        Their cookie expires in 2038, they block freedom-related sites in China, they never delete your email and they pirate other people's contents (without consent) using th
    • by crovira (10242) on Friday August 26, 2005 @08:49AM (#13407014) Homepage
      Show me a porn site that doesn't want people's browsers sent its way. Half of spam sent is trying to achieve that effect (okay and infect you with spayware and other creepy crawlies.)

      They must be be getting their money some other way than by earning it.

      So who are the players here? What links are there to some competition. (And there must already be a way to tell search 'bots' to ignore subdirectories so this suit is nothing but a legal annoyance, not a valid suit.)
    • Image theft (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Alien54 (180860) on Friday August 26, 2005 @09:30AM (#13407432) Journal
      Sound like their website is not configured to keep people from stealing their images.

      So why aren't they suing the image thieves?

      that's right, google's got deep pockets.

  • by nvlass (705494) on Friday August 26, 2005 @07:45AM (#13406461)
    to just remove themselves?? They could just read http://www.google.com/remove.html [google.com] or google for "remove website from google"... But then again, lawyers have got to make a living...
  • No privacy (Score:3, Informative)

    by kevin_conaway (585204) on Friday August 26, 2005 @07:46AM (#13406472) Homepage
    If they're putting these images out on a public website, how can they be upset when people view the images? It doesn't matter if they're found in a search engine or if someone browses to the site, they're out in the open.

    Smells like someone is up to some clever [wikipedia.org] marketing.
    • Re:No privacy (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ReformedExCon (897248)
      Isn't the problem that other websites are displaying the content in violation of the original website's copyright? Google's automatic crawling is indexing these "stolen" images and redisplaying them in its search results. So when someone clicks on one of those links, they go to the violating website instead of the original website.

      I'm not sure that Google ought to be held liable for this. They only provide an indexing service which is just happening to find copyright violations. There is a case to be ma
    • Re:No privacy (Score:3, Insightful)

      If they're putting these images out on a public website, how can they be upset when people view the images? It doesn't matter if they're found in a search engine or if someone browses to the site, they're out in the open.

      Displaying something publically doesn't waive copyright. It doesn't work that way.

  • Perfect Dupe (Score:5, Informative)

    by xmas2003 (739875) * on Friday August 26, 2005 @07:47AM (#13406479) Homepage
    as can be seen here ... [slashdot.org]

    Concrete Cam [komar.org] is up and running ... ;-)

  • by OwlWhacker (758974) on Friday August 26, 2005 @07:49AM (#13406489) Homepage Journal

    Perhaps google should completely remove all references to the site from its search engine database, and ensure that it never gets listed again?
  • by metalmaniac1759 (600176) on Friday August 26, 2005 @07:49AM (#13406494) Homepage Journal
    It seems they're in a habit of getting free publicity. From TFA:

    Perfect 10's lawsuit against Google is similar to one it filed against Amazon.com in July. In that suit, Perfect 10 makes similar allegations against Amazon's A9 search engine.

    If they're so damn pissed with their images turning up on search engines, why don't they just pull them off 'public' access. I mean put them under an area accessible only after someone logs in.

    Heck, there's robots.txt...

    Nandz.
    • by Spad (470073) <slashdot@noSpam.spad.co.uk> on Friday August 26, 2005 @07:59AM (#13406587) Homepage
      It's more stupid than that.

      They're suing Google for indexing images off *other* sites that are hosting their copyrighted images without permission. They basically want Google (and A9) to police their copyright for them.
    • Please, read the article. Then comment.

      Perfect 10's product is photographs
      Someone rips off their photos and puts them on their website - www.scammingpirates.com.
      Google indexes scammingpirates and displays the images in their index.

      How is Perfect 10 going to use robots.txt to stop Google indexing scammingpirates? How will Perfect 10 removing the pictures from their website stop google displaying the results from another website?

      What course of action can Perfect 10 take to remove their photos from Google's in
      • I probably understood it incorrectly. But, if your understanding is correct, Perfect 10 is expecting Google to police copyright for them. Instead of suing the people who're ripping their photos and placing them on their websites, they're suing Google - a search engine, whose basic job is to index *all* the content available publicly on the net.

        I think Google took the right decision by not acceding to their request. It's not their job to evaluate whether copyrights are being violated or not. They might start
      • by budgenator (254554) on Friday August 26, 2005 @10:23AM (#13407966) Journal
        • perfect10 to Google, scammingpirates is infringing our copyrights, please de-list.
        • Google to scammingpirates, perfect10 claims copyright infringement and wants you de-listed
        • scammingpirates to Google, no way we bought exclusive rights to those images from mega-pron-wholesalers, de-list them
        • Google to perfect10, scammingpirates claims copyright infringement and wants you de-listed
        • perfect10 to to Google, no way we bought exclusive rights to those images from mega-pron-wholesalers, de-list them


        • The only way around this would be for Google to
          1. develope a sophisticated image recognition software, one that wouldn't be fooled by scaling, brightness and contrast changes, color shifts or cropping.
          2. Scan the index for matches
          3. de-list everbody who has images that match untill all parties agree.
          4. posibly cross-reference with the copyright dept, and a photographer's guild.
          5. liciense the technology to the USG to spot terrorists in video survalance images
          6. profit

          Another interesting idea would be to use such software to compare the images on the web, with images that a company sent in and wanted protected for a fee, when matches were found, the protection purchaser could be sent a notice.

          This software would be very difficult and bleeding edge to produce, a worthy challenge for a company like Google
  • The question is whether the young upstarts who have built a hugely profitable business on Google's anti-corporate image are on the way to following Gates's path from bright young turk to monopolistic behemoth.

    Sure it's possible. It's also possible that they'll become a gentle giant, and that's the outcome I'm rooting for.

    When they start threatening computer makers for letting the users go to any search engine other than theirs, then we can start worrying about the "monopolistic behemoth".
  • Hehe, so an article comparing Google to MS is akin to a version of Goodwin's Law [tripod.com]?
  • by LocalH (28506) on Friday August 26, 2005 @07:54AM (#13406538) Homepage
    You really didn't read the article, did you? And this makes it much worse than just Perfect 10 not being indexed:

    "Perfect 10 first became aware of Google serving up
    text links to other Web sites that allegedly carried copyright images of Perfect 10 models back in 2001, Zada said in an interview on Thursday. The company then sent notices to Google, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, asking the search giant to discontinue linking to the other sites.


    In other words, they are suing Google for not policing Perfect 10's copyright. Not for indexing Perfect 10's sites, but rather for indexing other sites who happen to have stolen Perfect 10's images. And they're not suing the other sites - they're suing Google. This would be like if the *AA immediately started suing all ISPs as if they were knowingly involved in large-scale copyright infringement.

    This is scary, and I hope Perfect 10 falls flat on their ass. It's not Google's job to police everyone else's copyright and make sure that they don't index images in such a manner.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      It's not Google's job to police everyone else's copyright and make sure that they don't index images in such a manner.

      Well, according to the DMCA, it is.

    • This is scary, and I hope Perfect 10 falls flat on their ass. It's not Google's job to police everyone else's copyright...

      With luck, the law will (ultimately) distinguish between enterprise and infrastructure. Suing Google makes as much sense as suing your post-office for mail fraud.

      Moreover... beyond images, what about copyrighted phrases like "Things go better with Coke"? Should Google not search for them?

    • by LurkerXXX (667952) on Friday August 26, 2005 @08:48AM (#13407009)
      Of course they aren't going to win any lawsuit against Google. They aren't planning to.

      Had you ever heard of Perfect10 before? I hadn't. The company just spent $1,000 on lawyer bills and got themselves $1,000,000 worth of publicity. Exactly what I think they were shooting for.
  • How about... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by trevordactyl (908770)
    How about instead of suing Google, they sue the people who are actually displaying the copyrighted images on their sites and simultaneously give Google a big pat on the back for making it so easy to find these people using GIS?
  • pr0n.google.com (Score:3, Insightful)

    by c0l0 (826165) on Friday August 26, 2005 @07:56AM (#13406548) Homepage
    It really is about time now. Why not just create a free (as in beer) pr0n-service while holding up "Don't be evil" moral standars, and watch the competition be washed away?
     
    ;-)
    • Re:pr0n.google.com (Score:3, Informative)

      by poot_rootbeer (188613)
      Why not just create a free (as in beer) pr0n-service while holding up "Don't be evil" moral standars, and watch the competition be washed away?

      Usenet binary groups already exist!

      Incidentally, I'm pretty sure Perfect Ten used to (or still does?) post its own images to Usenet, as a form of marketing. I have to wonder why they're surprised that content they were giving away for free found its way onto other web sites.
  • Bullshit (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Search Google Images for "site:perfect10.com" [google.com] and see for yourself. Even with SafeSearch turned off there are only 112 softcore pictures (mostly non-nude, naked breast on very few of them, a lot of logos and other website design elements). I Call bullshit.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26, 2005 @07:59AM (#13406584)
    ... a bitchy supermodel is to an organized crime ring

    ... an annoying starlet is to a child pornographer

    ... an overpriced piano is to the RIAA



    IN other words, what the fuck is the comparison? Wake me up when I'm NOT ALLOWED to switch away from their products and they've managed to muzzle the regulators despite clearly illegal monopolistic behavior!

    Doesn't anybody get it? MS doesn't have to do anything for their customers and they automatically get billions every month. Google has to satisfy customers to get revenue. Does Google try to go over your head if you don't want to use their products?

    • Umm.. You actually *can* switch away from Microsoft's products. Ever heard of any of the following?

      Browsers:
      - Firefox
      - Netscape
      - Opera

      Operating Systems:
      - Linux
      - OS X

      Office Suites:
      - Open Office

      Media Players:
      - iTunes
      - WinAmp
      - QuickTime
      - RealPlayer

      Dev Environments:
      - Eclipse

      I'll go ahead and get you another copy of that memo, mmm'kay?
      • The slashdot population has a large percentage of IT administrators; people who administer software for some wealth-producing collective. They are "forced" to use Microsoft because in order for the members of their collective to collaborate, they all must use the same software.

        In the case where it's INTERNAL collaboration (i.e. members of the admin's collective collaborate together), there is some flexibility. But for EXTERNAL collaboration (the admin's boss sends data to another collective's boss), there
  • by Vo0k (760020) on Friday August 26, 2005 @08:02AM (#13406611) Journal
    They complain not that Google indexes and displays their site. They complain that people copy pics off their site, then display them on their own sites, and google indexes these sites.
    IMHO bullshit. Google is not a police to check whether images they index infringe on someone's copyright. All they host are thumbnails which can be easily proven to be "fair use" for informative purposes. Then they LINK to pages that infringe on the site's copyright - and from then on, admins should send out C&D, sue and do all kinds of nasty things to admins of these sites. Once they remove the infringing content, Google will make its own indexes expire automatically, with next update. Of course assholes think it's easier to make Google remove the links, removing all traffic to the competing sites at once, instead of hunting each of them separately, but it seems all they can get is waste a lot on lawyers and have the case thrown out of court.
    If I make a photo of a pile of CDs, with purpose to put it in a newspaper, I don't copy them, and in no way I'm responsible about finding out whether they are pirated or original. Same with thumbnails of images found on various sites. Google states the fact: "This site has these images". Determining legal status of that site having these images is completely offtopic.
  • by llamalicious (448215) on Friday August 26, 2005 @08:04AM (#13406621) Journal
    Archive.org's cache of Google's Ten-Things list:
    http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.google.com /corporate/tenthings.html [archive.org]
  • by Steev (5372) <steve@[ ]vedinn.com ['ste' in gap]> on Friday August 26, 2005 @08:07AM (#13406651) Homepage
    Google is helping them by allowing them to easily find sites that have said copyrighted images on them.
    How would the magazine know about these infringements if it weren't for google?
  • by HuguesT (84078) on Friday August 26, 2005 @08:09AM (#13406669)
    What is happening is that some random people took some "Perfect 10" images, either from P10's publicly available previews, or by any other means. Then these same random people have put up their own web site with these selfsame images, without permission from P10.

    Finally these sites were harvested by Google and indexed.

    So who is committing copyright infrigement again?

    If anything Google should be thanked for providing a link to the people's website who took the images without permission, allowing them to be perhaps identified. P10 should be suing *them*.

    But no, it's too much work and they probably are just a bunch of amateur with little to no money, so P10 is choosing to sue Google instead. Guess why.

    How this has anything to to with Google's alleged "arrogance" we'll never know.

    "Arrogant" is another term for successful people who are onto a good thing and they know it. Many can't take somebody else's success. So Apple, Microsoft and now Google are "arrogant".

    Personnally I'm delighted that Google is doing so well. So far everybody benefits, including mere users. At least we have Microsoft running scared a little. In the past this meant they react intelligently and fast (like in the case of the web browser for win95) but these days they take the PR approach a bit more.

    We'll see what happens.
     
  • I would think that Perfect 10 magazine would be enthralled to know that there is an easy, simple way to find out who is sharing their copywritten material. Without Google and other search engines, these photos would still be shared, but now Perfect 10 can be aware of the majority of those stealing their content. Google has handed them a list of sites who are infringing on their copywright, and now they're pissed off? I don't get it. If I were Norm Zada, I'd be sending Google a stripper gram for their ef
  • Why do I see so many articles on Slashdot about "Google being like Microsoft"?

    They aren't -- sure, maybe they'll wind up that way, but they aren't at the moment. The only people that I've really seen full of hate for Google are "SEO" (spam) people -- I'm wondering if those are the people who keep submitting anti-Google articles.
  • Google (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mr_Silver (213637) on Friday August 26, 2005 @08:12AM (#13406708)
    Whilst everyone else bar a select few are completely misunderstanding the reasoning behind Perfect 10 sueing Google (hint: robots.txt wouldn't solve it and yes, it's still dumb) I notice with interest that although Google has updated their page, they have the decency to point out that they have:

    * Full-disclosure update: When we first wrote these "10 things" four years ago, we included the phrase "Google does not do horoscopes, financial advice or chat." Over time we've expanded our view of the range of services we can offer -- web search, for instance, isn't the only way for people to access or use information -- and products that then seemed unlikely are now key aspects of our portfolio. This doesn't mean we've changed our core mission; just that the farther we travel toward achieving it, the more those blurry objects on the horizon come into sharper focus (to be replaced, of course, by more blurry objects).

    Far better than just changing it on the sly and hoping no-one will notice.

  • What happened to Robots.txt to start with? And authentication?

    If google can crawl more than 3,000 Perfect 10 photos why wouldn't non-members be able to view these pictures?

    This is an indicative that there's something wrong with their setup.

    Case overruled!

    ty.

  • by jellomizer (103300) * on Friday August 26, 2005 @08:17AM (#13406739)
    Basically Googles "do no evil" slogan is slowly whipped away with every lawsuit it gets. Because the more you sue a company the more protective it will get to preserve its own rights. The more protective it gets the more likely it will strike back. If we knew how to properly boycott companies that do evil things until they stop vs. trying to sue them but still purchase their stuff. Companies will probably be a lot less "evil" because their bottom line is based on their goodness.
  • by Saggi (462624) on Friday August 26, 2005 @08:21AM (#13406773) Homepage
    This is a tricky question. Here we have two systems, with different targets and goals that collide. Much like when two cultural societys meets each other.

    Google aims to provide the best possible search engine on the internet. This requires certain methods that are optimized in regard to provide the users with the content they need. This engine has not been designed to violate copyrights. Should it be held liable when it happens? It's the same as being able to make a law suit against a baseball bat manufacturer, as their bats might be used as weapons.

    Perfect 10 deliver porn to its users. Most of this content is in images, and therefore the value (the product) is the images them self. This is the reason copyright laws were made. If their content is "stolen" and "sold" through other channels than their own site, they lose money.

    The problem is that both arguments make reason.

    It would be difficult if a company like Google should integrate a filter to lockout individual cases, like Perfect 10. In a sense such a filter would work against the Google product.

    Technically the real case will probably end with discussions about caching of images on the Google servers and displaying content outside their context... time will show. The winner will probably be the company with most muscle, as it usually is, and this will unfortunately deprive us of knowing the best solution to the problem.
  • Extending this logic, we should be able to sue Microsoft for allowing virus writers execute code on My Computer.... looks like when it comes to pubic interest, frivolous lawsuits are okay ;-)
  • by twocents (310492) on Friday August 26, 2005 @08:38AM (#13406922)
    Feel free to compares Google and M$ when Google requires all PC OEMs to include a browser that will only display their Web site and Google penalizes these companies if they attempt to provide a browser that will display non-Google pages. Oh, and when Google builds and operating system and only provides their services/apps to that OS. Oh yeah, and when they use their marketshare to rebrand technologies that will only work with their upcoming OS.

    Let's make an effort here to make the point that there might be some similar aspects to Google and Microsoft, but this bland statement of comparision is silly.

  • Frivolous (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DroopyStonx (683090) on Friday August 26, 2005 @09:52AM (#13407659)
    These lawsuits should be thrown out.

    We've seen this before with the lawsuits that took place against companies who developed p2p networks because the plantiffs had a misconception that the developers knowingly allowed this material on their "network".

    They just want someone to blame as an easy way to get money. Google has lots of it, so their next logical step is to blame them.

    Google is not responsible. They are merely a search index. You know this, I know this, but the technologically illeterate morons we have for judges don't see this.

    Instead they see in black and white, and without knowing the truth about how the technology works and who's to blame/not to blame, they blindly dish out decisions - and a lot of times they aren't in favor with real justice.

    I wonder if they could countersue for these companies trying to manipulate the system.
  • by joshsnow (551754) on Friday August 26, 2005 @10:00AM (#13407755) Journal
    If this "Perfect 10" found a publisher illegally using their images was advertising in a local newspaper, they'd sue the newspaper rather than the publisher, right?

  • by polyp2000 (444682) on Friday August 26, 2005 @12:00PM (#13408972) Homepage Journal
    Firstly - you can insert tags into your website that prevent search engines from spidering your pages.

    If the website in question has not added these tags into the pages well its there own darned fault.

    But honestly the only loser in this game is the porn site Google should just remove them from the results entirely then watch their visitor logs go right down. I dont see how there can ever be a case for a a website to sue google succesfully on these kinds of grounds. That is provided Google are going by the book and parsing those "dont spider this site" tags.
  • by 5n3ak3rp1mp (305814) on Friday August 26, 2005 @02:17PM (#13410168) Homepage
    1) mark their site with a robots.txt file which would prevent Google from indexing it and have Google take down the content they've already indexed, yet...
    2) still leave some pages index-able as a teaser to the bulk of their content

    idiots...

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." -- Howard Aiken

Working...