Google Asks Booble To Cease And Desist 445
cosmodemonic writes "The folks at Search Engine Journal have the low-down on a cease and desist order that Google has sent to the porn search engine/Google parody Booble. It seems that, although Booble is claiming to be a parody (which is protected under law), Google is flexing its muscle because of the marketability of the parody." Search Engine Journal makes the reasonable suggestion: "Recent rulings may favor Google in the case, since Booble may be trying to profit from the marketability of the parody."
Can't Beat 'em, don't wanna buy them... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can't Beat 'em, don't wanna buy them... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can't Beat 'em, don't wanna buy them... (Score:2)
Re:Can't Beat 'em, don't wanna buy them... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Can't Beat 'em, don't wanna buy them... (Score:5, Informative)
(Posted Anonymously, of course
Re:Can't Beat 'em, don't wanna buy them... (Score:2, Funny)
Good riddance anyway (Score:5, Informative)
What, an "adult search engine" that returns exactly 0 matches for the word "bondage [booble.com]" ?
I mean, come ON ! Even altavista picture search [altavista.com] does better !
(Uh, hope my supervisor doesn't read slashdot too much...)
Thomas Miconi
Re:Good riddance anyway (Score:5, Funny)
Why?
Afraid he might get ideas?
Re:Good riddance anyway (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can't Beat 'em, don't wanna buy them... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Can't Beat 'em, don't wanna buy them... (Score:2)
If this is the law now... (Score:5, Funny)
Shame, I liked Even Worse a lot when I was a boy...
Re:If this is the law now... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:If this is the law now... (Score:2)
Not trying to start a war over Amish Paradise, although that vid rocked.
Re:If this is the law now... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:If this is the law now... (Score:2)
I wouldn't expect him to have to get permission, as it is a parody. Other parodies (to show it's ridicules to force them to ask for permission): Political cartoonists, cartoonists, The National Enquirer, The Daily Show, 75% of acts and skits on Comedy Central (Chappell's show (sp?)), every other skit on SNL/MAD and one in ten The Simpsons episodes/scenes for starters.
Was Schwarzenegger consulted on Hanz and Franz?
No, it looks like he likes to get permission. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:If this is the law now... (Score:4, Informative)
Amish Paradise was the one where Coolio publicly stated he hadn't given permission, whereas Weird Al said that they had worked it out up front with his label, and had been sending in royalty checks. Apparently Coolio's label hadn't let him in on that.
Re:If this is the law now... (Score:5, Informative)
He only does that to be nice and polite. He's not legally obliged to.
Pete.Re:If this is the law now... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If this is the law now... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:If this is the law now... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:If this is the law now... (Score:2)
In all fairness, Google might have a case. I doubt if the Hustler ad would have been protected speach, if the ad was for a real service which Hustler was trying to make money on, but used the "form and style" of someone else's copyrighte
Re:If this is the law now... (Score:5, Funny)
Q: Hey Al!!!!! What do u think about Napster? I just want to know if you approve.
A: I have very mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I'm concerned that the rampant downloading of my copyright-protected material over the Internet is severely eating into my album sales and having a decidedly adverse effect on my career. On the other hand, I can get all the Metallica songs I want for FREE! WOW!!!!!
Where do you draw the line? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's another thing to do a 5 minute knock off of a popular website and stick a giant adult store behind it.
Re:If this is the law now... (Score:2)
Spaceballs, Bored of the Rings, Barry Trotter, etc.
Re:If this is the law now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Now you're forbidden from telling jokes for money?
Re:If this is the law now... (Score:2)
Overall look and feel is not a valid claim. See the old Apple vs Microsoft issue. I like google, but I'm not sure I'd like it if they win this. Is "Booble" likely to be confused with "Google"? Not likely.
Movies (Score:5, Interesting)
--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor? [colingregorypalmer.net]
American Weblog in London [colingregorypalmer.net]
Re:Movies (Score:5, Insightful)
The Booble people hope to capitalise on the marketability of the name; to claim that the name is a parody is a sad excuse. I could, for example, start manufacturing cars, call the company Dorkswagen, and claim that it's 'only a parody of Volkswagen' when challenged about the similarity of the names.
Re:Movies (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Movies (Score:3, Insightful)
Legally, I believe you'd have a strong case. Financially you'd be dead in the water. Only a DORK would drive a Dorkswagen.
It follows that people looking for BOOBS would use BOOBLE!
LK
MikeRoweSoft (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Movies (Score:2, Informative)
It' just consumer protection, and defending their good name. People might find Booble a poor quality site, and this would affect Google negatively.
Re:The stupid people (Score:2)
After all, Google does a lot of specialty searches, and Google does a specialized search under a similar-sounding name (Froogle). The only reason to believe that they wouldn't do a specialty porn search is the assumption that "respectable" companies don't deal in porn.
Which is perhaps a reasonable assumption, but it's certainly not a law of nature; after all, popular children's cartoons are made by the same company that delivers pay-per-v
Re:The stupid people (Score:2, Flamebait)
Up until you're stupid enough to vote republican, you're still a person.
Re:Movies (Score:3, Insightful)
For a work to constitute a parody, it must use some elements of a prior author"s composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on the original author"s works. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569. Your website does not comment on the Google website at all; it merely uses the Google look and feel and a similar name for a search engine.
SpaceBalls clearly is a new work, and, in part, comments on the original author's works. Does the Booble website make jabs a
Re:Movies (Score:2)
did you see the link at the bottom of booble labled 'sense of humor'
Re:Movies (Score:3, Insightful)
Labeling the site a parody does not make it so.
This case is fairly cut and dry, but Booble is trying to nudge it into a gray area because of the legal protection and goodwill afforded parodies that they otherwise wouldn't receive.
Unfortunately, this arbitrary label doesn't change the fact that they are a business, looking to profit, and doing so by taking advantage of Google's good name and trademarked logo and design.
If you think Bo
Re:Movies (Score:2, Informative)
And as a slashdotting attempt to punish Google for suing people, here's a regarding the Star Ballz lawsuit. [google.se]
Bummer. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm feeling Lucky (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm feeling Lucky (Score:3, Informative)
var prompts = ['I am feeling animated!', 'I am feeling cheap!', 'I am feeling confused!', 'I am feeling lucky!', 'I am feeling nostalgic', 'I am feeling playful'];
Re:I'm feeling Lucky (Score:3, Funny)
From the C&D (Score:3, Insightful)
That doesn't seem right. It's no more pornographic than google is.
Marketable Parodies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Marketable Parodies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when was making money off of a parody such a bad thing, as long as there is no mistaking it for the original?
The point of the C&D letter, as I read it, is that Google's lawyers don't believe that Booble is a parody - but rahter that they use the "look and feel" of Google on their searchengine. To qoute: "We have recently become aware of your website at http://www.booble.com (the Domain Name). This Domain Name is confusingly similar to the famous GOOGLE trademark. Your web site is a pornographic web site. Your web site improperly duplicates the distinctive and proprietary overall look and feel of Google's website, including Google's trade dress and the GOOGLE logo." and "We note that you have given interviews to the press in which you state that you intended booble.com to be a parody. We dispute your assertion that your website is a parody. For a work to constitute a parody, it must use some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on the original author"s works. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569. Your website does not comment on the Google website at all; it merely uses the Google look and feel and a similar name for a search engine.". So, if the Booble site _isn't_ a parody, it's perfecly allright to send them a C&D-letter. If it _is_ a parody, they are protected under free speach.
Question is... who decide if something is a parody or not?
Re:Marketable Parodies? (Score:2)
First the domain can not even be thought of a simular booble and google
The graphic having a color pattern makes a trademarked logo. Remember google changes that graphic all the time. They are trading marking each image, so... they have already diluted the graphic.
Look and Feel as been the issue of many law suits between MS and others... guess who has won?
Wrapping in a parody flag may be the best way to
Re:Marketable Parodies? (Score:2)
The equivalent here would be me creating, not Spaceballs, but a ordinary SF action-adventure flick and titling it "Star Trek Wars: Rise of Darth Kirk".
Sure, my title is a parody, but my movie isn't, and I'm using Star Trek/Wars IP to promote my non-parody movie. That isn't the same thing as what Spaceballs does.
And there is plenty of room for confusion, anyway. Google uses a slight variant of its name fo
No permanent slashdot link? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No permanent slashdot link? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No permanent slashdot link? (Score:3, Funny)
reminds me of the Fox News vs. Simpsons tiff (Score:2)
No, it doesn't remind you of that, for one simple (Score:3, Informative)
Groening came out and said his comment was just a joke [zap2it.com]; Fox News never complained about the Simpsons parody, much less threaten to sue.
Re:reminds me of the Fox News vs. Simpsons tiff (Score:2)
I hope they lose (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I hope they lose (Score:2, Funny)
Step away from the computer...
Re:I hope they lose (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless there is some very subtle joke here, I think that Google have a point. If Booble were using its revenues to say, fund free speech sites which are suppressed (allegedly) by Google in China, then that would represent some sort of statement. I don't see that Booble is making a statement, except that they are cheekily borrowing someone else's artwork to make money. Not exactly mass murder, as crimes go, but trademarks are legally protected for a reason.
Joke. (Score:2)
The government should not be in the business of judging jokes. The joke is not subtle and it's not very creative. So what?
Copyright is an exacting thing so that people CAN build on the work of others - that's the whole point of copyright to begin with. As for Trademark, yeah the site is misleading, but Booble is not Google.
Re:I hope they lose (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a thread about this in a webmaster forum frequented by adult webmasters, where someone who seems to represent Booble [gofuckyourself.com] writes:
heh (Score:5, Funny)
New user to booble (Score:3, Funny)
No pr0n. (Score:4, Informative)
I think they're on solid ground here. (Score:5, Funny)
IWTKAL, but I think Booble is on pretty solid ground here. This is clearly, clearly a parody site (in fact, it's pretty bad parody if you ask me) and nowhere near functional.
I mean geez, a porn search engine that doesn't return any hits for "Jenna Haze," "Cherry Rain," or "Belladonna" is a long way from "marketable."
We put the Spring in Springfield (Score:4, Funny)
We just learned this place existed...
The Simpsons has an answer for everything
Number 2 (Score:2, Interesting)
2. Take steps to transfer the Domain Name to Google;
Now what could google do with this...
Marketability of parody vs. marketability of use (Score:5, Interesting)
Money can be made off of a parody, such as Spaceballs, because of the intent behind it - to make money directly from reaction to the parody.
Booble isn't doing that. Booble is using the name parody as an advertisement. They're trying to make money by using that as a pull, a gimmick, a trick.
Too bad Google probably has the name trademarked. Google now can use fair litigation to shut them down.
In other words: Google uses dark magics for good purposes, such as self-defense!
Google is a dick (Score:2, Interesting)
I've already lost all confidence in Google, they're just another ecompany who's lost their way.
Value (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Value (Score:2)
The movie Spaceballs was a parody of Star Wars and its purpose was to entertain.
The search engine Booble is a parody of Google, but it's real purpose is not to entertain, but to provide search results for porn sites.
Do you see the difference now?
Booble be Damned (Score:2)
You're better off just going to the hun for your porn.
Why this isn't bad (Score:5, Insightful)
The comments that I've seen so far have been quick to point out that parodies such as Spaceballs and Hot Shots! made money and were protected, but the analogy falls down quicky, in my opinion. The Booble site looks exactly like Google, and the only indication (from the front page) that you're not dealing with the same company and the same search technology is the fine print at the bottom of the page that Joe Internet User couldn't read and understand if he wanted to. Going back to the film parody analogy, Booble's parody of Google would be akin to Mel Brooks casting Mark Hammill, Carrie Fisher, and Harrison Ford in Star Wars Episode VII: Spaceballs and creating a film that looked and felt like it fit in the series, while providing a small disclaimer at the beginning that it wasn't affiliated with the franchise.
Most litigation and "big guy ordering little guy to C&D" that we see is bad and hurts everybody, but there are still times when it's legitimate. I submit that Google has done what it had to do in this case, and that we shouldn't all immediately run to back the little guy without considering the situation.
This was brought up... (Score:2)
Well...looks like he was wrong...
Best thing that ever happened to that site (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that the publicity brought by the C&D letter will probably increase Booble's bottom line to the point where they'll be able to fight it in court. A court fight would bring substantial media attention, and Booble's traffic would increase a hundred-fold.
$$Parody (Score:4, Insightful)
Parody's are allowed to make money, there is no problem with that. The distinction lies in whether the parody makes money (attention, whatever) due to it's own content or due to the content of it's predecessor. A successful parody uses it's predecessor as a starting point but, in order to be successful paradoy, must have it's own message, generally humor.
Example: Song x makes a few million dollars. As a form of art another artist creates song y based on the original song x. People hear song y on the radio (stream, etc) and decide to buy (download, etc) song y because they like it. Or in simplest terms, they purchase/download/acquire song y due to it's own merits, not necessarally due to the merits of the original.
In the case of the site in question, they have used the notoriety of the original to create business for themselves. They are not creating a commentary or derived work to be successful or not on it's own two feet. The goal of Booble is not to make a commentary/etc on Google, but to use the image of Google to sell their own product. The fact that it is Porn meens nothing, it would be no differant than if I started up a searchsite called Wooble, used a very similar front-end, etc. to search for Small Furry Animals.
I would submit that the closest I have seen to an actual google paradoy would probably be elgoog, though even that would be stretching the definition of parody as I see no real commentary in Elgoog, only nifty "See what I can do"-ity.
Google slips in status (Score:2)
If this article is true, then they can go to hell, like all the other legal-driven asshat corporate tools I have to deal with on a regular basis.
Way to destroy that brand loyalty. For the first time in years, I'm going to go and see what other search engines exist, because web searching just became a commodity in my min
Re:Google slips in status (Score:2)
Google does not need to defend themselves from Booble - Google is big enough that they can absorb a considerable amount of uncomfortability, and Booble is well within that threshold.
Google is pulling the trigger here because they have reached a "critical legal mass" where it has become easier to destroy another organization than to reasonably deal with the possibility of some futire percieved competition. That's the symbol that all of the humanity has b
Re:Google slips in status (Score:2)
Please, stop bitching and read some of the intelligent comments posted. The following are two excellent examples:
Here [slashdot.org]
Here [slashdot.org]
So you only allowed ot parody if it's unsuccessful (Score:3, Interesting)
It's obviously a parody. Google's basic argument is that it's a successful parody. So you're not allowed to parody a website unless no one visits it?
What a stupid viewpoint. Do that mean it's only ok to make jokes about corporations as long as no one laughs? After all, funny jokes are marketable, crappy one aren't. (Except here on slashdot.)
Love Hate (Score:3, Insightful)
One decision since then has vilified them, and suddenly they are the bad guys trying to restrict our rights and freedoms.
Re:Love Hate (Score:2)
Booble Replies (Score:5, Informative)
January 28, 2004
Dear Trademark Enforcement Team,
We are intellectual property counsel to Guywire, Inc. This letter responds to your e-mail message of January 20, 2004 to our client via domains by proxy.
As your communication recognizes, our client adopted and uses the BOOBLE and booble.com designations to parody the Google web site. Our client's web site is in fact a successful parody, which simultaneously brings to mind the original, while also conveying that it is not the original. See, e.g.,Jordache Enters., Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd., 828 F.2d 1482, 1486 (10th Cir. 1987) (finding no likelihood of confusion between LARDASHE for oversized jeans, despite its obvious similarity with, and parody of, the well-known JORDACHE mark for jeans). Cf. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F. 3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001) (finding a domain name parody was unsuccessful because Internet users had to view the web site before they were able to discover that it was not the original). Obviously, the Booble web site brings to mind the Google web site, at the same time that it underscores its unique identity as a parodic adult search engine.
In trademark law, parody is a defense to trademark infringement. Eveready Battery Co. v. Adolph Coors Co., 765 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (holding that a commercial advertisement of a well-known actor in a bunny outfit, banging a drum, was an effective parody of the plaintiff's mechanical toy rabbit advertising character). In the present case, consumers are highly unlikely to be confused as to the source of services for several reasons, including the following:
the domain names are entirely different;
the BOOBLE web site searches only provide content related to Adult web sites, including TGP sites, Adult stores, and Adult-related products like browser cleaners, pop-up filters, etc.; and
the BOOBLE mark is distinct from the GOOGLE mark in that it differs in sound, appearance, commercial impression, and other relevant aspects:
it features a woman's chest;
it uses the phrase, 'The Adult Search Engine;'
it posts a warning that the web site contains explicit content; and
it disclaims any association with Google.com.
Neither does the Booble trademark dilute Google's mark. First, the capacity of the GOOGLE mark to identify and distinguish its services is unchanged by Booble's use of its mark. See, e.g., Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 US 418 (2003) (requiring proof of actual dilution). In addition, Booble does not tarnish the Google mark. See, e.g., L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1987) (finding that a sexually explicit parody of appellee's catalog did not constitute tarnishment). Moreover, Booble's web site is an adult search engine, not 'a pornographic site,' as referred to in your letter. In fact, entering the terms "porn" and "sex" in the Google search engine return 98,400,000 hits and 269,000,000 hits, respectively, while entering these same terms in the Booble adult search engine return 268 hits and 291 hits, respectively. Therefore, the Google mark - which has a longstanding association with pornographic terms and material - is obviously not tarnished.
In your letter, you refer to the Supreme Court decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (holding that a commercial parody may qualify as a fair use and is not presumptively unfair). As you may have recognized, this is a copyright case. Although some analytic similarities exist between copyright and trademark parody cases, Google neither claims copyright infringement in its letter, nor is any relevant portion of its web site copyrightable. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 815 (1st Cir. 1995) (holding that literal copying of a computer command hierarchy does not constitute copyright infringement because it is an uncopyrightable method of operation). Therefore, while we feel that Campbell adequately supports the legality of Booble's paro
Re:Booble Replies (Score:3, Funny)
If by "entirely different" they mean "80% identical", then I guess they have a point...
?oo?le.com
Buy 'em! (Score:2)
Parody doesn't apply to trademark law (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, Google really doesn't have much choice but to go after Booble, even if they had enough sense of humor to tolerate it. If they fail to "defend" their trademarks like this, their trademark protection would lapse, and every other sound-alike or look-alike variation on their trademark would also be availble for anyone to use.
Autoparodics (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this Google defense demonstrate a new defense from satire fair use? If my website also publishes a weak self parody, can't I just claim that any otherwise legit mockery is unfair competition for my satire customers, and an illegal dilution of my brand? This is better than a "poison pill" to thwart a hostile equity takeover: it's an acid tab to thwart journalists!
Google has no case, here's why. (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey, Google, I use a userContent.css client-side stylesheet in Mozilla to override aspects of your distinctive layout, including suppression of all your Sponsored Links, creating an unauthorized derivative work visible only to me. Wanna sue me?
Anyway, to the story: Booble is only confusingly similar to Google because Google itself is confusing their own trademark with Froogle and other alterations of their trademark. If you mangle your own trademark, you have less grounds to object when someone else does. (This is the reason one of TiVo's representatives gave when TiVo eliminated the "Sad TiVo" logo in their Blue Screen of No Signal (BSoNS).)
They've weakened their own trademark by their own actions. They should be serving cease & desist orders on themselves first before going after other sites.
As to their objection that the pornographic searches of Booble damages Google's reputation, perhaps then Google should discontinue Google Image searches that allows searches for boobies [google.com] which turns up bare female human breasts at all three levels of their Safe Search settings.
And the site does parody Google as it comments upon Google's own dilution of their trademark, such as Froogle. Google opened the door to parody with Froogle. Google has no case. (At least, so long as Booble doesn't sell real Sponsored Links or otherwise accept advertising money.)
They do however have the money to pay lawyers through lengthy litigation. Booble will need to solicit aid from EFF and/or other sources willing to foot their legal bill.
is it really a search engine (Score:3, Funny)
However, the "I am feeling lucky" button changes. Sometimes it says "I am feeling lucky", sometimes it says "I am feeling playful", and sometimes it says "I am feeling nostalgic". Each of these buttons takes you to a different adult site.
So, booble is more of a portal than a search engine.
Now, we know that we can have software called "Firebird" and "Thunderbird" without the car industry dropping engine blocks on us. However, I think "portal" and "search engine" are close enough, in the eyes of the courts and lawyers, for this to be trademark infringement (after all, they thought the Phoenix browser infringed on Phoenix BIOS!)
Google, say it isn't so! (Score:4, Funny)
Is someone _really_ going to mistake the booble site for google? C'mon, it's pretty obvious that it's not google. I guess they're pissed that booble knocked off the look of the google page or something. But then they should just have booble chagne it so it's obviously different. Taking down the site name is just too much... I've always though booble was kinda funny
I guess google is just trying to protect their trademark or something, but really... is it that confusing?
I guess nobody's told Yahoo about yourmom.com yet... that site is organize pretty much like yahoo.com... they even mimic the logo. Hmmm, hope yahoo doesn't read slashdot, cuz I may have just alerted them... dammit!
Re:Come on now... (Score:4, Interesting)
If you think about it, we (and by we, I mean, the Europeans, Americans and Antipodeans among others) enjoy a standard of life far higher than our African/Aisan/South American counterparts. Why is this so:
Certainly oil and other natural resources play a significant role, but, I think the main thing that maintains the imbalance is patent and copyright law. People in third world countries can produce things for the same prices as we can - or even cheaper, market them in much the same way and can attain similar standards of education (the privileged few initially).
What keeps them "down in the hole" is the constant flow of money back to the aforementioned "lucky countries" who hold the patents.
So, if we start to let even the hint of trademark, copyright or patent violation start to occur, we risk a slow steady slide away from out massive privilege. Governments and courts must be aware of this and I believe that in certain cases they act accordingly.
I am not casting moral judgement here, beyond to say that most cultures tend to vehemently (and often brutally) protect their privileges.
Just an interesting sociological phenomenon methinks.
Re:Come on now... (Score:3, Interesting)
What keeps these countries "down in the hole" are the repressive regimes that spend billions on their own comfort while the masses go barefoot. It's the crippling multi-trillion dollar debts that make it impossible for them to invest in schools, houses and hospitals.
There is no such constant flow of money to patent holders, or if there is, it's a trickle compared to loan repayments. The third world doesn't have very many drugs manufacturing plants
Re:Come on now... (Score:3, Interesting)
Certainly the oppressive regime thing is another major factor. While lavish lifestyles of those at the tops of such administrational structure are undoubtably inequatable and morally reprehensible, I find it difficult to believe that they are a significant factor in the grand scheme of things. What certainly is a massive factor if we are talking standard of life for the general populace (and not the economy as a whole) is the overwhelming military spendi
Re:Come on now... (Score:3, Interesting)
Without having the time to do sufficient research on the details, there's a monarch/dictator in one of the many maligned African countries spending his nation's wealth on palaces for each of his 9 wives.
Now admittedly I don't know off the top of my head how much each of the
Re:Come on now... (Score:2)
Of course, IP is a form of capital, but in the current economy money still has a very important role - and that's what the countries in the thirld world really lack.
Re:Come on now... (Score:3, Funny)
Many poor countries simply ignore patents and copyrights. Why? Their economies are usually heavy on agriculture, natural resources or low-tech manufacturing, and not so much in knowledge industries. There simply isn't enough supply to warrant having the laws, and in many countries the demand is low enough that it is simply not worthwhile for first world firms to push the issue too hard.
There is one important caveat to this: sometimes d
Re:Come on now... (Score:2)
There does seem to be a dogmatic bandwagon in the OSS community that cannot distinguish between enforcement of those protections that help ensure competition and those that hinder it. When a company enforces its copyright, eve
Re:Come on now... (Score:4, Interesting)
What they dont have is a viable legal system.
Without enfoceable contracts of any form, whether social or business, life is a struggle, and large social structures collapse from lack of foundations.
However, a viable legal system depends on enforceable law, and that requires the law to be a concept supported by the people. It is democracy that makes the law "something the people did for themselves", and a legacy of dictatorships and colonialism that teaches "the law is something evil people do to us".
Most people in Europe know that without contract law, there would be no food in the shops by the end of the week, so law is defended. Most people in Africa know the law is there to exploit them, so they dont respect it.
Its easy once you know ...
Re:Come on now... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is Really Bad, people (Score:4, Insightful)
The website is quite clearly designed to look like the google site, and additionally may look like it is affiliated in some way to google (eg froogle and similar google tools). Add that to the nature and content of the site its pretty easy to see that google would be rather annoyed about it.
Contrary to what you are saying I believe people while they may not accidentally go to booble, I do think that the design is so similar it could easily be assumed that it was part of the google repertoire.
nick...
Re:4 Steps to Profit (Score:2)
Or at least amoral. There are only two options for a corporation: amoral or immoral.
When I see a company like google taking steps like these, then damnit, they step over the line, and they deserve what they get. That's the price they pay for the "invented status" we give corporations in America. They get the benefit of being an entity and massive tax cuts, without the negative aspects like being sued or jailed, and th