1. Google Cache: Fair use or
copyright infringement?
The
plaintiff, Blake Field, took
a variety of affirmative
steps to get his works
included in Google’s search
results, where he knew they
would be displayed with
“Cached” links to Google’s
archival copy and he
deliberately ignored the
protocols that would have
instructed Google not to
present “Cached” links.
Google has long offered Web
publishers a way to opt out
of the caches if they don't
want archived pages to show
up in the Google caching
system. This did not stop
Blake Field from suing
Google.
Even more, the court
documents suggest that the
plaintiff had created
content for Google to cache
expressly for the purpose of
suing Google!
He
requested $2,550,000 in
statutory damages ($50,000
for each of fifty-one
registered copyrighted works)
along with injunctive relief.
Field contends that by
allowing Internet users to
access copies of his
copyrighted works, Google
violated Field’s exclusive
rights to reproduce copies
and distribute copies of
those works.
A Nevada federal court has ruled that
the cached versions of Web sites that Google stores and
offers as a part of many search results are not
copyright infringement, holding that Google’s use of the
copyrighted material was a fair use. The judge also
found that Google was entitled to the defence of "estoppel",
which stops a plaintiff from enforcing his rights if to
do so would be unfair on the defendant.
The ruling
potentially helps Google defend its library project "Google
Print" from a lawsuit brought by book publishers.
January 27, 2006:
Google cache not a breach of copyright, The Register:
"A US district court has ruled that Google’s cache feature, which allows
users to access snapshots of web pages taken when they were viewed by Google
robots, does not breach copyright in those web pages."
January 26, 2006:
US-Urteil: Google-Cache verstößt nicht gegen Copyright-Gesetze, Heise:
"Der US-Amerikaner Blake A. Field ist vor dem District Court von Nevada mit
seinem Versuch gescheitert, den Suchmaschinenbetreiber Google daran zu
hindern, Suchergebnisse seiner
Website im Cache zu speichern und verfügbar zu machen."
2. 1984 is now! Google fights US Government
Google, America Online,
Microsoft and Yahoo have received demands from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to turn over data on
exactly what words and phrases their users were typing into the companies'
respective search engines over a one-week period. According to the government,
the data —which does not include customers' names or their PCs' IP addresses—is
needed to help it fight a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) in an effort to stop the administration from reviving the controversial
COPA (Child Online Protection Act), which prohibits Web site operators from
posting sexually explicit content that could be harmful to minors, unless minors
cannot access the content. According to the DOJ, the records could bolster its
argument that a federal law is more effective than filtering software when it
comes to restricting access by children under the age of 18 to pornographic
content on the internet. Microsoft and Yahoo have admitted to complying,
at least in part, with the subpoenas, AOL has turned over a limited amount of
data. Only Google has decided to fight the DOJ's demands. Google Inc. co-founder
Sergey Brin said Google will fight the U.S. government for as long as it takes
to avoid handing over information on user searches.
The department's request to
force Google to comply with the subpoena is pending before a federal judge in
California. So now it is up to the U.S.
District Judge James Ware to rule over the privacy and civil
liberties concerns raised by the collection. A March 13 hearing has been set in
the case.
The government has not yet
requested or obtained any personally identifiable information from search
engines - at least to the knowledge of the public - but it might be only a
question of time, if Google does not prevail in court. Privacy concerns are not
the most important issues for the US government today. Just recently we saw the
disclosure that the Bush administration is using the National Security Agency to
eavesdrop on calls made by U.S. citizens—an action that many believe is in
violation of the Constitution. This is simply the latest in a long line of
morally and legally ambiguous efforts to investigate every little corner of
Americans' lives. Can users of search engines still expect privacy when they use
them?
Much is at stake for Google:
According to a poll a majority of those surveyed believe Google should not
release information to the government about its users' search habits, and more
than a third said they would even stop using the world's most popular search
engine if the company did so!
January 27, 2006:
Google won't give up in Justice Department case, CNet:
"Google plans to stand its ground against the Justice Department in its
request for the company's search data, co-founder Sergey Brin has promised.
January 26, 2006: McCullagh,
Declan,
Court date set for Google lawsuit, ZDNet:
"Google's attempt to fend off the government's request for millions of
search terms will move to a federal court in San Jose, Calif., on Feb. 27."
January 26, 2006: Kreye,
US-Regierung vs. Google, Süddeutsche Zeitung:
"Die amerikanische Regierung hat einen Drang zur absoluten Kontrolle."
January 19, 2006:
Google widersetzt sich US-Regierung, intern.de:
"In den letzten Jahren hat sich Google häufig sehr zugänglich für die
Wünsche und Bedürfnisse staatlicher Stellen oder auch ziviler Kläger
gezeigt."
Google accused BMW of manipulating search results by using so called "doorway
pages". Doorway pages can be used to trick search engines into sending users to
Web sites that are not directly related to the search terms they are searching
for. Google's quality guidelines forbid the use of doorway pages ("Don't deceive
your users or present different content to search engines than you display to
users."). Although BMW said that the pages had been created to direct people who
were interested in topics related to BMW -- such as used cars -- to the right
pages, the doorway pages were removed. Shortly after the BMW website could be
found again at Google.
The case once again rises the question if
search engines are completely free in deciding which website they include in
their index. A new article from me, that will presumably be published in the
April issue of the MMR, will adress this topic in more detail. A short
statement to the BMW / Google case has been published by Telepolis:
February 10, 2006: Ott, Stephan,
Google räumt auf, Telepolis:
"Warum der Kampf der Suchmaschine gegen Suchmaschinen-Spam leicht zum
Bumerang werden könnte"
Also see:
February 8, 2006:
BMW.de steht wieder im Google-Index, Heise:
"Der Suchmaschinenbetreiber Google hat die deutschen Webseiten des
Autobauers
BMW wieder in seinen Index aufgenommen."
February 8, 2006: Mills, Elinor,
BMW.de. Ricoh.de back in Google index, CNet:
"The German language Web sites of carmaker BMW and technology product vendor
Ricoh are back in the search results on Google's search site after they
stopped using a technique designed to artificially boost their search engine
rating, according to a Google engineer."
February 7,
Google Imposes a Ban on BMW Web Site, NY Times:
"Google
has removed the German Web site of BMW from its Internet search index,
saying that the company was redirecting users from requested information to
another page selling luxury cars."
February 6, 2006:
BMW sieht Google-Vorwürfe
gelassen, Heise: "Der Autobauer BMW hat
gelassen auf den Rauswurf
seiner deutschen Webseite
aus dem Suchindex der
Internet-Suchmaschine Google
reagiert."
February 5, 2006:
Google sperrt nun auch
deutsche Webseiten mit
versteckten Suchwörtern aus,
Heise: "Man kann es auch in den
deutschen Richtlinien des
Suchmaschinenbetreibers
nachlesen, dass Webseiten
mit versteckten Wörtern und
anderen Tricks zur Erhöhung
des Trefferrankings
unerwünscht sind."
4. CNG sues Google over
ads linked to Check 'n Go
CNG Financial Corp., which owns more than 1,300
Check 'n Go stores in 35 US states, has filed a lawsuit against Google Inc. in
the U.S. District Court in Cincinnati. The payday loans provider wants an order
preventing Google from selling ads linked to the Check 'n Go name.
A Google search for "Check 'n Go" provides 27 "Sponsored
Links" that direct users to websites of Check 'n Go competitors. "Because of the
fame of the Check 'n Go mark, these companies are willing to pay Google
handsomely to have links to their Web sites appear in response to a search of
that mark," the lawsuit says.
February 9, 2006:
Google sued for selling Check 'n Go keyword, The Register: "The company behind US cash-advance firm Check 'n Go has sued Google for selling
its trademarks as keywords in search advertising, according to the Cincinnati
Enquirer."
5. Traffic-Power sues blogger
for false and defamatory information
Aaron Wall, a Search Engine Optimization blogger has been
sued by the SEO company Traffic-Power.com. Traffic-Power offers a search engine
placement program, providing customers with keywords, meta tags, advertising
pages, directory submission, link building strategies, online tracking and free
customer support with the promise of higher search engine placement. Many
customers were quite surprised when their sites dropped from search engines
after signing up for Traffic-Power services instead (Here is what you should try
if your sites has been removed from the index according to Google: First, you
need to make sure that you've removed any redirecting/spammy pages that were on
your site. Make sure that every junky page like that is completely gone before
you write, then you can send an email to webmaster@google.com with the subject
line "reinclusion request" and give us as much detail as possible about the
situation.") Several internet
publications such as
WebProNews published articles about this story. The Better
Business Bureau has
received over 100 complaints about Traffic Power in the last 36 months.
There's even an official hate website -
http://www.trafficpowersucks.com/. Traffic-Power.com sued their webmaster
Aaron Wall for defamation and the disclosure of company trade secrets. The
charge comes after comments were posted to his blog criticizing
Traffic-Power.com.
According to the
lawsuit, the false and defamatory information includes
but is not limited to the following:
a. Claims that the
search engine giant Google has banned and is banning
from its search engine listings websites of
Traffic-Power.com clients because of the search engine
optimization strategies used by Plaintiff.
b. Claims that
clients of Traffic-Power.com run the risk of being
banned from Google search engine listings if they use
Traffic-Power.com services;
c. Claims that
Traffic-Power.com plagiarizes its web page optimization
work;
d. Claims that
Plaintiff has started several new businesses under
different names to hide its identity;
e. Claims that two
new businesses started by Plaintiff are under
investigation by several agencies;
f. Claims that
and/or innuendo that Plaintiff is engaged in extortion
of its clients because of the techniques used by
Plaintiff in optimizing search engine listings;
g. Claims that
Plaintiff's business constitutes a scam and that clients
of Plaintiff are "victims;"
h. Claims that
Plaintiff stole from defendants;
i. Claims that the
business practices of Plaintiff constituted some kind of
actionable violation of the rights of its clients and
that the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Plaintiff by its clients was imminent; and
j. Claims that
Plaintiff formed and operates fake Internet forums on
search engine optimization to promote its services.
In a
reaction to
the lawsuit,
Google (in
this case
Matt Cutts)
gave the
following
information:
"I can
confirm that
Google has
removed
traffic-power.com
and domains
promoted by
Traffic
Power from
our index
because of
search
engine
optimization
techniques
that
violated our
webmaster
guidelines
at
http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html."
August 31, 2005: Kesmodel,
David,
Blogger Faces Lawsuit Over Comments Posted by Readers, Wall Street
Journal:
"In a legal case being watched closely by bloggers, an Internet company has
sued the owner of a Web log for comments posted to his site by readers."
September 28, 2005:
Koprowski, Gene,
Search Engine Placement Lawsuit May Chill Free Speech, E-Commerce Times:
"The stakes are high for the lawsuit. Traffic-Power.com is seeking to
restore its reputation, and hopefully, one day, be allowed to work with
Google.com again."
6. Reed Executive v. Reed Business Information
Limited
And finally to a trademark related decision from
Great Britain from 2004, which I apparently missed at the time: In 1986 Reed
Employment registered the trade mark "Reed" for employment services. Reed
Business Information had paid the search-engine company Yahoo for a banner
advertisement for its website totaljobs.com to appear when a search was
conducted under the term "reed". Overturning the High Court, the Court of Appeal
ruled that the public would not be confused by the banner advert into thinking
that totaljobs was connected to Reed Employment: "The web-using member of
the public knows that all sorts of banners appear when he or she does a search
and they are or may be triggered by something in the search. He or she also
knows that searches produce fuzzy results – results with much rubbish thrown in.
The idea that a search under the name Reed would make anyone think there was a
trade connection between a totaljobs banner making no reference to the word
'Reed' and Reed Employment is fanciful. No likelihood of confusion was
established."