Is the Google cache an infringement of copyright? - Page 2

I, Brian · 12-26-2005, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jg_v7n

It's a moot point, true. But it's still infringement of copyright.

That has still to be tested - but as webmasters usually benefit very well from good listings, I really don't see many people looking to challenge Google on the issue. The relationship benefits both parties.

What'll be more interesting is when Gates recently mentioned about passing on ad revenues to searchers - if MSN implement such a policy of paying for search, it'll be interesting to see if there's a trickle down to the content generators (ie, webmasters).

minstrel · 12-26-2005, 12:21 PM

It isn't just Google, Ferre. What makes Google different from any other search engine? or DMOZ? They are all using other people's work. No search engine or directory could exist otherwise. And if none of those existed, no one would ever find the pages you object to Google indexing.

"Disallow: /", noindex, nofollow, nocache... problem solved.

**John Scott** · 12-26-2005, 12:34 PM

Mistrel, DMOZ doesn't serve up a copy of your copyrighted material.

I think this has been to court before hasn't it? I seem to remember some SE being sued for its caches of some website... A news website, if memory serves.

minstrel · 12-26-2005, 01:51 PM

John, Ferre indicated earlier that he wasn't talking about the viewable cache of the page, which Google could easily hide from searchers and which anyone can opt out of. I made the same assumption as you - but Ferre apparently objects to Google "caching" the page by spidering and indexing it at all (see his earlier post).

The visible cached page can also be easily disabled using a header tag anyone can put in their pages (I'd have to search for it to find it because I have no interest personally in preventing Google from indexing my pages but I know one exists).

Addendum
Here it is: http://www.google.com/webmasters/remove.html#uncache

Quote:

Remove cached pages

Google automatically takes a "snapshot" of each page it crawls and archives it. This "cached" version allows a webpage to be retrieved for your end users if the original page is ever unavailable (due to temporary failure of the page's web server). The cached page appears to users exactly as it looked when Google last crawled it, and we display a message at the top of the page to indicate that it's a cached version. Users can access the cached version by choosing the "Cached" link on the search results page.

To prevent all search engines from showing a "Cached" link for your site, place this tag in the <HEAD> section of your page::

<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">
To allow other search engines to show a "Cached" link, preventing only Google from displaying one, use the following tag:

<META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">

Note: this tag only removes the "Cached" link for the page. Google will continue to index the page and display a snippet.

Ferre · 12-26-2005, 02:59 PM

Correction minstrel, I don't object to Google cashing pages, I do wonder about it because it's the subject of this topic. Personally I don't object, I don't object to speeding too, but does that make it legal for the law?

Also, we all know that any webmaster can stop Google from copying their site on Google's servers, Question is, why should it be the site owners putting extra code in their sites to prevent a multinational from taking copies and put them on their servers?

The internet archives and other organisations do that too btw, and I see this as an interesting discussion. Funny also that they do not cache copyrighted mp3's from sites, they do cache text, so how is an mp3 more protected than text? Some sites have copyrighted song texts on their sites, if Google caches this, is Google illegal as well? or not?

As I sayd, it's an interesting discussion.

Michael Allison · 12-27-2005, 09:55 AM

You make a very good point about mp3s... They don't cache those, obviously, because the RIAA would sue them and win. That would open the door for makers of images and writers of content to do the same.

Not that they can't do it now, but if the RIAA were to lay down the framework, via a precedent, many might jump on the bandwagon.

One thing is certain: The game google is playing is for very high stakes.

-Michael

jg_v7n · 12-27-2005, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by minstrel

It isn't just Google, Ferre. What makes Google different from any other search engine? or DMOZ? They are all using other people's work. No search engine or directory could exist otherwise.

This isn't quite correct as people submit thier sites to DMOZ (amongst other directories) and therefore explicitly agree to the use of their material for their mutual benefit.

Google just assumes that you'll agree, which is fine now, as of course everyone will agree, but their success is based on this assumption, if they hadn't done it they would not be the position that they are now?

And it is still correct that regardless of the available cache the index still uses copyrighted material. You can't search a site without knowing it's content!?

minstrel · 12-27-2005, 11:46 AM

Quote:

This isn't quite correct as people submit thier sites to DMOZ (amongst other directories) and therefore explicitly agree to the use of their material for their mutual benefit.

Google just assumes that you'll agree, which is fine now, as of course everyone will agree, but their success is based on this assumption, if they hadn't done it they would not be the position that they are now?

Actually, many if not most of the sites listed in DMOZ are not submitted but are located and listed by editors. And as DMOZ editors are quick to point out, they do not even consider submitted sites to be submissions at all but merely "suggestions", which is one of the reasons they use for ignoring (as opposed to rejecting) many of the sites submitted.

Sites listed in that way are no different from the ones that Google indexes. Additionally, webmasters frequently submit their sites to Google for indexing and even go to great lengths (e.g., Google sitemaps) to ensure that Google doesn't overlook them.

Ask I, Brian about his recent experience with DMOZ when he tried to get the listing for his site removed. This was HIS site, remember. And the response that he got from editors was in essence, "This is our directory and we'll list whatever we want. We will not remove your site. It's none of your business." Fortunately, he did eventually get an editor who wasn't a moron to at least move his site to the correct geographical subdirectory but I don't thaink that was actually what I, Brian was requesting or objecting to.

Quote:

You can't search a site without knowing it's content!?

Presumably I can't recommend a book either without being at least somewhat aware of its content yet I do that on almost every page at the main www.Psychlinks.ca websote -- is that copyright infringement?

Buskerdoo · 12-27-2005, 12:32 PM

It's ok with me and probably a good thing for all. But, it's interesting to me that they can make money basically scraping peoples content and then tun around and tell you not to do it.

Johan007 · 12-28-2005, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

As far as the cache goes, it is .. close to infringement. Google doesn't need to cache stuff to index it. When they cache a page, it is coping a copyrighted page w/o explicit permission.

We know cached page serve the users with valuable information so I think Google is safe to ignore certain legal technicalities as long as Google does not serve ads on these cached pages. Unlike scraper sites Google are not claiming the content is from Groogle. The same goes for www.archive.org who don’t profit but are more like a public library.

sim64 · 12-28-2005, 10:24 AM

To those who think the Google cache feature might cause them problems with
copyright infingement one day, have a good close look at the "Similar Pages"
feature.
You can read about the problems it can cause here,

http://www.top-spot.net/google-trouble.html

This might sound trivial, but if Google started saying bigger businesses sites
are "similar to" and "related to" illegal porn sites it would be interesting to see
if they then take the problems it causes seriously.

minstrel · 12-28-2005, 10:33 AM

It's not that it's necessarily trivial - it's more that it's rather silly. The site owner in question got his answer from Google - he just didn't like the answer or perhaps didn't believe it. All the "Similar Sites" data tells anyone is that people who visited one site also tended to visit certain other sites. Note that like Alexa data this is based on people who do their surfing with the Google Toolbar active - that's far from everyone on the net, for starters. Note also that many people who have the toolbar installed never even look at similar sites - I rarely do because their is really no useful information there, beyond idle curiosity when I'm feeling bored. My guess is that most surfers have no idea it's even there or what it means and most don't care.

Quote:

My website has gone from my source of income and livelyhood to a tarnished site that is now worthless.

If that's all it took to render his site "worthless" -- a site or two appearing in "Similar Sites" -- all I can say is that his site must not have been worth very much to begin with. See comments above.