MESSAGE
| DATE | 2007-02-17 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Google Loses Copyright Case In Belgium
|
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 09:05:31AM -0500, David Sugar wrote:
> There are a number of implications to consider. At least in the
> American tradition, the special privileges the press enjoys are based in
> part on the idea of their special role in providing information to the
> public and in serving the public interest. When the fundimental right
> and ability of the public to be informed is held hostage to copyright
> holders in this way, citizens are reduced to sharecroppers in their own
> society (yes, I am paraphrasing from Ruben ;). Hence, I see it as a
> much larger issue than simply that of copyright overreach.
>
There are two things about this. First, google doesn't copy the news
content. They use excerps and links. If that is not fair use, we are
indeed is serious trouble. I doubt this case is going to be allowed to
seriously define news distribution and if it does, then we have a serious
opening for political work with a well funded contributor.
Secondly, this news agency is dumb as a rock, and its stock holders
should be abandoning ship. I google delists from from their news and search
engines, they are damaged a great deal as they will virtually disapear from
the net.
Ruben
> einker wrote:
>
> > Now it seems News content can be copyrighted ......
> >
> >
> > Google Loses Copyright Case In Belgium
> > A court ruled that Google violated the law by publishing copyrighted
> > content without permission on Google News and ordered the infringing
> > articles, pictures, and links removed.
> > http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=197005871
> >
> > By *Thomas Claburn*
> > InformationWeek
> >
> >
> > Feb 13, 2007 04:00 PM
> >
> > A court in Belgium ruled Tuesday that Google violated the law by publishing
> > copyrighted content without permission on
> > GoogleNews
> > and ordered the infringing articles, pictures, and links removed.
> >
> > Google expressed disappointment with the judgment and promised to appeal.
> >
> > "We believe that Google News is entirely legal," a
> > company spokesperson says. "We only ever show the headlines and a few
> > snippets of text and small thumbnail images. If people want to read the
> > entire story they have to click through to the newspaper's Web site. Search
> > tools such as Google Web
> > Searchand
> > Google News are of real benefit to publishers because they drive
> > valuable traffic to their Web sites and connect them to a wider global
> > audience."
> >
> > Google may have a point: According to
> > statisticsprovided
> > by Amazon's
> > Alexa.com, *Le Soir* and *La Derniere Heure* -- two of the Belgian papers
> > represented by Copiepresse, the group of 18 French- and German-language
> > publications that brought the suit early in 2006 -- show a slight decline in
> > traffic over the past year.
> >
> > It's not clear, however, whether the drop in traffic is coincidental or is
> > the result of efforts by Google to remove the disputed content and make it
> > unavailable to searchers.
> >
> > Copiepresse told *Le
> > Soir*that
> > it expected the ruling would have significant international impact
> > because the Belgian legislation in question corresponds to broader European
> > rights. Google could thus face similar claims in other E.U. countries.
> > Copiepresse already has indicated that it might pursue similar cases against
> > Microsoft and Yahoo.
> >
> > The decision represents a setback for Google and its ambitions to expand
> > information access. "I think it's a serious wake-up call to Google that says
> > you've got a very aggressive approach to copyright," says Lee Carl Bromberg,
> > co-founder of Bromberg & Sunstein, a law firm specializing in intellectual
> > property issues. "This is a significant ruling against them saying not only
> > have you gone too far, but it's going to cost you."
> >
> > The ruling will cost Google, though less than the initial proposed penalty
> > of 1 million ($1.3 million) per day. The court reduced a retroactive daily
> > fine imposed for noncompliance last September to 25,000 ($32,470) per day.
> > Google says it complied with the order that same month, but Copiepresse
> > claims infringing material was still available through Google three weeks
> > ago. Bernard Magrez, a lawyer for Copiepresse, estimates that Google is
> > currently liable for 3 million ($3.9 million), down from 130 million
> > ($168.84 million), according to *Le Soir*.
> >
> > More broadly, the ruling may send the message to other potential
> > litigantsthat
> > Google's dominance online doesn't carry over into court. Even though
> > the decision in Belgium isn't binding in the United States, Bromberg says,
> > "I wouldn't be surprised to see people fighting Google elsewhere cite the
> > decision in their legal briefs."
--
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Interesting Stuff
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://fairuse.nylxs.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"
"The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming sharecroppers to our own cultural heritage -- we need the ability to participate in our own society."
"> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the job, politics be damned.<
You must be a stupid engineer then, because politcs and technology have been attacted at the hip since the 1st dynasty in Ancient Egypt. I guess you missed that one."
|
|
