Is the Google cache an infringement of copyright?

jg_v7n · 12-20-2005, 06:31 AM

Should Google really be able to provide a service based soley on the content of other peoples websites?

Ferre · 12-20-2005, 08:05 AM

Dunno, interesting question. They do provide the option not to be cached though. a simple robots "nofollow" tag will do that job.

It does require extra effort for the site owner to be left out, and not the other way around, which would have site owners add a google-cache tag to allow Google to cache a page. which would be giving Google the explicit right to cache.

**John Scott** · 12-20-2005, 08:19 AM

It's definitely an interesting question. How is it that Google makes billions dealing in other peoples' content?

Kind of unbelievable that a search algo is worth more than all the unique content the web has to offer.

minstrel · 12-20-2005, 08:54 AM

It's not exactly a service that benefits only Google, though. Personally, I am quite happy to have my pages indexed and cached by Google.

Also note that they are not plagiarizing - they give me full credit for every use of a page listing, a chache of a page, or even an image.

I have a special sign on the server that says, "Please wait in line. Someone will be here to serve you in a moment. If your name is Googlebot, please go straight through..."

jg_v7n · 12-20-2005, 08:55 AM

Yeah, you shouldn't need to actively protect your copyright, the onus falls on others to check your copyrights and to not infringe them. In that way surely Google should actively seek permission first?

Obviously Google has now manouvered themselves into such a position that pretty much everyone would want to be listed anyway, but that may not have been the case when they started up? Google are only now in this position because they have been allowed to exploit the information from the start.

What if all website owners got together and said: "Right, you make money from allowing people to search MY content, therefore you need to pay me, not the other way around?".

I think that maybe people have been slow to appreciate the value in their online content; unlike where there is a physical entity, as the book search furor is now causing. Because the words are written there seems to be a much bigger attempt to protect the copyright, but to my mind there is no difference.

Imagine a single book store whereby every single book is available; you'd always go there because you know that you'll find what your looking for (if you look long enough!). You can't remove the books from this store or buy them, but you do have to pay $1 to go in and browse. Imagine that this book store doesn't pay the authors any commission, they use the their books simply as "bait" for the secondary purpose of collectin the dollars...

Google surely deos the same? They use "Stolen Information" with which they bait their line?

minstrel · 12-20-2005, 09:29 AM

I just don't buy that argument, jg_v7n.

If you don't WANT Google to index your site, all you have to do is say so via a robots.txt file or the "noindex" meta tag - Google honors those (see the recent WebmasterWorld shooting-of-the-foot tantrum for an example).

I see search engines as more like the telephone directory: The default is to have your number listed. If you prefer not to, all you need do is let the directory publisher know and your number isn't listed.

If there were not an opt-out option, you'd have more of a case.

Quote:

Imagine a single book store whereby every single book is available; you'd always go there because you know that you'll find what your looking for (if you look long enough!). You can't remove the books from this store or buy them, but you do have to pay $1 to go in and browse. Imagine that this book store doesn't pay the authors any comission, they use the their books simply as "bait" for the secondary purpose of collectin the dollars...

Don't they call such places "libraries"?

jg_v7n · 12-20-2005, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by minstrel

Don't they call such places "libraries"?

Not really, libraries buy the books first and so the author gets paid. Like DVD or video rental shops, there are agreements in place for the correct fees to be paid. Like a radio station paying fees for playing songs, as the songs attract the listeners.

Books are the value in a library, DVD's in Blockbuster, Songs on the Radio and Websites in Google?

All pay except Google, and is it a coincidence that Google is by far the richest?

I see what you mean about opt-out, but technically thats not correct, you shouldn't have to opt-out. How about if I scrapped your site and used some of your content on my site, and then left instructions for how you could opt-out in an FAQ somewhere if you didn't like it?

Should artists opt-in to be paid commission when their song is played on the radion, or a studio opt-in to be paid when someone rents their movie?

With the phone directory, firstly you agree to be listed when you sign up for the service and secondly your telephone number isn't copyrighted.

I know it's kind of a mute point now because Google does what it likes, but I think that it's a point worth bearing in mind...

minstrel · 12-20-2005, 09:50 AM

I guess my point mainly is that, considering how much effort most of us put into trying to get sites indexed by and ranking well in Google, it seems odd to say the least to complain that Google shouldn't be allowed to make money from it.

They're not making money directly from your site - they are making money by providing a service. They don't even charge the webmaster for providing that service. Instead, they make money from advertising based on the large numbers of people who find their service useful... which of course is also why most of the rest of us want to be listed by that service.

jg_v7n · 12-20-2005, 10:07 AM

Well that is exactly the case now that they have got away with it for so long, in that respect you are certainly correct. No point opting out now.

But you are incorrect that they're not making money directly from my site, mine is one of billions, but if you remove them all from Google then Google goes bust.

Each site contributes to users visiting Google. And Google's cache is inherently where Googles value lies. Without the cache, without coppies of everyones sites Google is worthless...

minstrel · 12-20-2005, 10:18 AM

We may have to agree to disagree on most of it. But this part I definitely would dispute:

Quote:

And Google's cache is inherently where Googles value lies. Without the cache, without coppies of everyones sites Google is worthless...

Webmasters look at the cache for evidence of recency or to check for cloaking, etc. I rarely use it myself unless it's an article or something of interest that serves up a "server down" or "page not found" type of error. Otherwise, I never use the cache feature - if it disappeared from Google tomorrow, I doubt that it would affect my use of Google appreciably at all. I also suspect that the majority of Googlers have no idea the cache feature even exists and wouldn't know what it was if they saw it.

jg_v7n · 12-20-2005, 10:25 AM

Hold on, we have a missunderstanding here.

Google uses it's cache to perform searches, when you search for "blue widget" it needs the cached data to find sites that are relevant to "blue widgets".

If the cache did indeed disappear from Google tomorrow then your use of Google would be affected in that Google would no longer work.

I'm not talking about the ability to view the cached pages - thats next to useless. I mean the actual cached data, from where it creates the index.

Fundamentally it comes down to this: if you remove all copyrighted material from Google then it has somewhere near to zero pages indexed.

minstrel · 12-20-2005, 10:34 AM

OK, I see you point. But it is moot. I certainly don't want my pages ignored by Google and I doubt you'd find many webmasters who feel that way. As I said, those who do can simply opt out.

**John Scott** · 12-20-2005, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jg_v7n

Fundamentally it comes down to this: if you remove all copyrighted material from Google then it has somewhere near to zero pages indexed.

It's a good point though. I mean, we scorn all those crap "article regurgitator" sites that are popping up ten a day, using other peoples' content to fake their own content, but that's essentially all Google does.

jg_v7n · 12-20-2005, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by minstrel

OK, I see you point. But it is moot.

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

Ferre · 12-20-2005, 11:55 AM

Funny that. Bill Gates recently in an interview said that the search engines earn a lot of money on the surfers by presenting them ads, and wanted to have some of these revenues flow back to the surfer. In relation to this topic, I now wonder why those search engines don't flow some of that money to the sites that provide the date in the first place.

I do know that Google is experimenting some sort of (Google Grants) service for non profits, but I don't know if they let the non profits pay for that 'Google Grant' service.

Johan007 · 12-25-2005, 07:25 AM

The nature of the internet is inherently information and access for all. If you don’t want your information given to the public then simply make a private website where users have to register or as said robots exclude protocol.

What the world needs is another Google minus the ads to re-address the balance and power base... imo.

minstrel · 12-25-2005, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johan007

The nature of the internet is inherently information and access for all. If you don’t want your information given to the public then simply make a private website where users have to register or as said robots exclude protocol.

You know, that's actually an excellent point, the more I think about it. I mean, there are other ways to publish and distribute your works. The advantage of the net is that it's a way to reach potentially thousands or millions of people almost instantaneously -- that's the reason new bands are building websites and offering free downloads of their recordings, for example. It's why sites now exist to publish scientific articles, since getting them published in traditional journals these days can take months or years.

Search engines like Google are one of the main reasons this aspect of the net works. Without them, we could publish all kinds of stuff but if no one could find it what good would it be to put it out there on the net?