Google sued for working too well, again

[MKTerra]

Adult magazine publisher Perfect 10 is seeking a preliminary injunction against Google to stop the search giant from allegedly displaying copyright images of its models. (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5843006.html)

Dammit, this is the sort of thing that makes me raise hackles when I hear the term "intellectual property" :mad: Why should Google be held responsible for the content of other websites? Even if they could pick out infringing websites from the bajillion they index, I wouldn't want them to give doctored search results*. Something in my ideology recoils from the thought. And if Perfect 10 is complaining about the thumbnails in Google's image search, those things are so damn tiny they're essentially worthless for viewing anyway. If thumbnails aren't fair use, they damn well should be.

*- I hear they actually did/are doing that for the RIAA and China (not linking to piracy sites and dangerous ideas, respectively). Definitely don't like it.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Odds are Google doesn't give a squat. Those guys are now worth Billions so odds are thier looking at this lawsuit and laughin.

[west3man]

It DOES sound like some of the arguments heard for and against Napster-ish applications.

"We just help them find and access it. It's not our problem what they do with it."

[Converge]

Well I'm not sure about this particular lawsuit, but I support intellectual property laws. If google is allowing people free access to copyrighted property then they should stop.

[MKTerra]

It DOES sound like some of the arguments heard for and against Napster-ish applications.

"We just help them find and access it. It's not our problem what they do with it."That thought did occur to me. But Google most certainly has "substantial non-infringing uses."

[west3man]

That thought did occur to me. But Google most certainly has "substantial non-infringing uses."
A strong point.

I'm reminded of the "boom-box" controversy, though.



What's that, you say? Recording directly from radio broadcasts? *gasp*
Shocking.

[Fenris]

An interesting sort-of- related issue (http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007417.php):

"Who gave Google the right to web publish photographs of my backyard so detailed that you can see the details of my landscaping? Or which side of the driveway I park my car on?....I am proposing a two pronged approach...

...establish that Google/Keyhole has the capability to modify individual images on request, and also create a legal requirement for them to do so. These are concurrent activities, and the first one begins today.

I hereby offer a $500 US Dollar reward...

...to the person who accomplishes the following, and can prove it:

-Create a logo for either MSN Search or Yahoo! large enough to be visible from space.
-Place this logo in the path of one of the image gathering satellites
-Submit before and after URLs from GoogleEarth showing the logo on the image, in the GoogleEarth system
-Once the GoogleEarth image bank contains enough ads for Google's competitors then Google will have to find a way to identify and alter images. Once that capability is in place we can demand it be used to preserve our individual privacy."


I don't know what the legal effect would be; but it amuses me to think of people mowing a Yahoo! logo into their front lawns.

õ
Why, yes: I am easily amused!