Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Adult Site Sues Google, Google Compared To MS Again

Zonk posted about 9 years ago | from the when-you're-on-top-you-make-a-nice-target dept.

Google 411

daria42 writes "It looks like Adult magazine publisher Perfect 10 is suing Google to stop the search engine giant from using images of models in the images part of its search engine. The publisher has alleged Google is in breach of its copyright by displaying more than 3,000 photos." From the article: "Perfect 10 first became aware of Google serving up text links to other Web sites that allegedly carried copyright images of Perfect 10 models back in 2001, Zada said in an interview on Thursday. The company then sent notices to Google, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, asking the search giant to discontinue linking to the other sites." Additionally, with users writing to mention that that Google has changed their 10 Things statement recently, yet another article comparing them to Microsoft was bound to turn up. From the Sydney Herald article: "The question is whether the young upstarts who have built a hugely profitable business on Google's anti-corporate image are on the way to following Gates's path from bright young turk to monopolistic behemoth." Update: 08/26 13:27 GMT by Z : xmas2003 points out that the requested injunction is part of the suit Perfect 10 brought against Google last November, which we have previously reported on.

cancel ×

411 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Publicity (4, Insightful)

dsginter (104154) | about 9 years ago | (#13406448)

This looks like a publicity stunt if I ever saw one. No, I won't provide a link, thankyouverymuch.

Re:Publicity (5, Insightful)

KDan (90353) | about 9 years ago | (#13406569)

Is anyone else getting the feeling that this whole "Google is actually evil like Microsoft" theme could easily be the beginnings of a FUD campaign organised by - who else - Microsoft?

So far Google hasn't don't anything worthy of being called "evil". Seems like some people are just digging for anything at all that can be said against them.

Daniel

Re:Publicity (4, Insightful)

Alex P Keaton in da (882660) | about 9 years ago | (#13406617)

It would be interesting to see the breakdown on people who are starting to dislike google. What percent are genuinely upset about their business practices, and what percent are upset that they are doing well (sort of like when a new band gets big, and the "original" fans say they have "sold out") No man! I heard of them first! Let me show you this receipt for a band t-shirt dated THREE days before the new song charted, dude!
There is a group of people who will never like any company or group that is succesful. And there will always be people who attack the leaders just because they are leading, whether it is the NY Yankees (I try not to be one of them, but alas, I live in Ohio and I am a Cleveland fan) or google.

I hate google (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406711)

I remember I was such a dejanews junky and really really made use out of that website. I was really jazzed when google took over and brought up older archives and then they went and generally trashed the interface and search capabilities.

Whats the worst part about it is that if people had known that google was going to trash dejanews, they wouldn't have deleted their own usenet archives.

Re:Publicity (4, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | about 9 years ago | (#13406622)

Yeah, it's pretty rich for someone using the DMCA to accuse the receipient of such notices of being evil.

Re:Publicity (5, Insightful)

pootypeople (212497) | about 9 years ago | (#13406639)

I'm completely with you. I went to the fuckedgoogle site that /. posted yesterday, and the guy who's writing that is just a crackpot. In one post he accused google of manipulating their stock price while SIMULTANEOUSLY saying they were going to have the biggest point loss in the history of the company. I'm sorry, but I fail to see why they'd manipulate their own stock price down.
And the privacy concerns? So they keep a record of searches. I don't care. They do so many that it's impossible for anyone to come up with useful data from google. All you'll be able to tell is that lots of people search for porn.
Microsoft earned its title of "most evil" because they single-mindedly destroy all of their competition through FUD and other BS. Google hasn't really gotten rid of any of their competition (Yahoo and MSN are still there--I can't really think of a "large" web portal that's not there anymore) and that doesn't seem to be their goal. Just to do what they do best. I certainly have heard more reporting of this than I've heard anyone I know complain about google. Usually when the media outlets are pushing something, it's a good idea to take it with a grain of salt.

offtopic- Kos at dailykos said yesterday that he thinks dailykos could become larger than slashdot, hits per day wise, before the end of the year--people called pullshit, but I'm really kind of interested now.

Re:Publicity (1)

hcob$ (766699) | about 9 years ago | (#13406653)

Waddya mean evil? Why right on their website they said they'd never do anything EeeeViallll.... *pinky in mouth"

Re:Publicity (2, Insightful)

TrueBuckeye (675537) | about 9 years ago | (#13406675)

Agreed. Considering their market penetration, try to imagine how evil they COULD be and compare that to the rather mild things they are doing. You can't compare them to MS. They aren't trying to forcibly take over your computer. They aren't trying to dictate what you can and can't do on your computer. They may not be angelic, but they sure as hell are far from evil.

what's that word again? (-1, Flamebait)

Mantorp (142371) | about 9 years ago | (#13406451)

So a porn publisher whose whole business is built on exploitation feels that google is exploiting them. My heart bleeds for them.

Exploited? Please (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406480)

"Sex is my job" [bbc.co.uk]

""I have never felt exploited. If anything it's giving you power over men. The only people exploited, if anyone is, are the men who go out and spend their money on porn," says..Michelle Thorne, who has worked in the porn industry for six years"

Re:what's that word again? (5, Insightful)

gowen (141411) | about 9 years ago | (#13406525)

So a porn publisher whose whole business is built on exploitation
Only if you take the axiom that "Porn = Exploitation". If you're not a social conservative, and believe that people should be allowed to show their tits for money if they want to, your analogy simply doesn't

I do things for money that I wouldn't ordinarily do. It's called "gainful employment".

Duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406735)

Sure it's exploitation.
They KNOW men can't help but reach for the nearest credit card in their wallet's (with their free hand) when they show those nek-ked hotties but they do it anyways.

I'm sure most of those guys feels a little exploited with that non-descript line on their visa statement for $20 shows up month after month.

Re:what's that word again? (1)

gavri (663286) | about 9 years ago | (#13406565)

Er...who exactly is being exploited by the Porn industry?

Re:what's that word again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406583)

Um. That's what capitalism is, exploitation.

Why is parent +5 Insightful? (1)

rbarreira (836272) | about 9 years ago | (#13406734)

exploitation
n.

      1. The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage: exploitation of copper deposits.
      2. Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes: exploitation of unwary consumers.
      3. An advertising or a publicity program.

Let's see:

1- Ummm, no, porn stars aren't used to the greatest possible advantage. If they were, they'd be turned into fuel sources after their time passed :)

2- If we interpret this definition strictly, no, since the model gains money too. And if we interpret it loosely, almost all (or all) of human relations are exploitative ones. So no luck here either.

3- Clearly not.

Evil? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406456)

Cool! Free prOn.

Who said Google was evil?

robots.txt (0)

Errtu76 (776778) | about 9 years ago | (#13406459)

Why don't these sites make use of the file robots.txt to stop googlebot from indexing these images? Isn't this much easier than to sue google? *shrug* Or perhaps they refuse to do this, in an attempt to create some free publicity for the site.

Re:robots.txt (3, Informative)

DoorFrame (22108) | about 9 years ago | (#13406477)

Because the images in question aren't on Perfect 10's website, but are on other websites that have stolen their content and are redisplaying it without permission. The robots.txt file doesn't allow you to force google to not index other people's websites... only the almight lawsuit can do that.

Re:robots.txt (5, Insightful)

NastyNate (398542) | about 9 years ago | (#13406514)

Then the suit should be filed against the websites illegally serving their copyrighted images, not Google.

Re:robots.txt (5, Insightful)

varmittang (849469) | about 9 years ago | (#13406564)

Yeah, and I'm sure google can help Perfect 10 find them and help put the people away since they have the pictures cached with the URL. Case closed, but no, go after the one that has more money is always the way people go these days. Not after the real criminals.

Re:robots.txt (5, Insightful)

ciroknight (601098) | about 9 years ago | (#13406577)

Then.. uh... shouldn't Perfect 10 be going after the real offenders, and not the index server which simply aggrigates all of the images that fit the searched terms?

To me, it looks like everyone and their mother is trying to cash in on Google. They're such a huge target that they're easy to attack with lawsuits. This actually does make them like Microsoft, but unlike Microsoft, Google doesn't have a legal department the size of Kentucky to back it up... give it time though.

Who knows, I might sue Google for aggrigating my slashdot comments! That's about as frivilous as this lawsuit is.

Re:robots.txt (5, Insightful)

DoorFrame (22108) | about 9 years ago | (#13406652)

Are they asking for money, or just asking Google to take down the links once they've been notified of the offending content? I wouldn't call it "cashing in" if they're just asking for the links to be taken down. I have other problems with it, but it's not "cashing in."

Re:robots.txt (2, Insightful)

ciroknight (601098) | about 9 years ago | (#13406692)

Well, lawsuit tends to have the word "settlement" attached to it, which usually has a monitary value either in time, lawyer's paychecks, etc. And it's free publicity for Perfect 10, at the cost of Google's shining 'Do no evil' image.

So it may not have financial value, but it definitely has value. If it were a sane company/person, they would have emailed Google and said "hey, look. please, please take down those links, they're hurting our business and violating our copyright".. instead of waving around the DMCA and getting the media involved, which I'm sure Perfect 10's gonna use to their advantage in trying to get a bigger settlement.

Re:robots.txt (2, Insightful)

gowen (141411) | about 9 years ago | (#13406712)

Then.. uh... shouldn't Perfect 10 be going after the real offenders
Yes, of course they should. But those people are
i) harder to track down than Google
ii) probably much poorer than Google,
so it's really not a tricky decision for Perfect 10's lawyers as to who they go after.

Re:robots.txt (0, Troll)

ciroknight (601098) | about 9 years ago | (#13406729)

Kuroshin.org : stating the bleeding obvious in the most pretentious way possible

Oh the irony of this signature in the context of your post...

Re:robots.txt (5, Insightful)

pootypeople (212497) | about 9 years ago | (#13406493)

Strangely enough, these people are suing google for the actions of others. They are suing google because google's webcrawler doesn't automatically block sites containing their copyrighted works. They're basically saying it's Google's job to police the entire web to enforce their copyrights. They have no case, because they would have to prove under the DMCA that Google was built to facilitate the copying of copyrighted works. Not only that, but it'd be difficult to say that they are circumventing a copyright protection scheme because the pictures are not protected by anything more elaborate than password protection on the website. They'll lose and they're dumb for wasting the time filing the suit. This is a real good example of a frivolous lawsuit.
James

Yeah AND, Re:robots.txt (1)

doorbender (146144) | about 9 years ago | (#13406646)

Google is providing the suers with a service. The service of finding the people that are infringing on thier copywrite.

EEEEdiots

Re:robots.txt (1)

digidave (259925) | about 9 years ago | (#13406718)

Exactly. In any civilized justice system, you go after the people who actually break the law and not the conduit by which they do it.

They can sue the Internet next.

Re:robots.txt (4, Insightful)

bedroll (806612) | about 9 years ago | (#13406769)

Strangely enough, these people are suing google for the actions of others. They are suing google because google's webcrawler doesn't automatically block sites containing their copyrighted works. They're basically saying it's Google's job to police the entire web to enforce their copyrights.

Replace Google with Napster and Perfect 10 with the RIAA. Is this really such an open and shut case in favor of Google?

robots.txt is the do not copy bit for robots. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406500)

It's a de facto standard. If they're not using it then they're allowing search engines to index their site. Google should just blacklist idiots who use lawyers instead of robots.txt.

Re:robots.txt (4, Interesting)

n0-0p (325773) | about 9 years ago | (#13406545)

The images aren't from Perfect 10 directly. They wants Google to stop linking to other sites that have (potentially illegal) copies of their copyrighted images. So to put it in really simple terms, Perfect 10 wants Google to enforce their copyrights for them. Seems to me that the burden of copyright enforcement is on the owner of said rights and Google isn't doing anything to aid in misappropriation of copyrighted material. Throwing the DMCA claim on top just adds to the absurdity. Personally, I hope these guys get crushed in court for trying to pull a stunt like this.

Re:robots.txt (1)

Momoru (837801) | about 9 years ago | (#13406571)

That philosophy has always bugged me....it's like "Well if you don't want me robbing your house, why don't you just lock the doors?". The point is I shouldn't HAVE to lock my doors...you're the one robbing my house, why should I have to go to an extra step to keep you from displaying my copyrighted material against my wishes?

Re:robots.txt (1)

jandrese (485) | about 9 years ago | (#13406661)

Because the implicit assumption when you POST SOMETHING TO THE WEB is that people can see it whenever they want. This isn't like tacking something up to the wall in your house, it's like putting it up on a billboard. That's why you need to take special measures if you don't want people to do the obivous.

Re:robots.txt (2, Interesting)

NickCatal (865805) | about 9 years ago | (#13406672)

Yes, because robbing your house and having a search spider index your site are one in the same.

Oh come on, get off your high horse. Search engines facilitate people connecting with content. If it is on the web, and I can view it, then Google's web-engine has every right to view it. They are giving you the option.

This case is nuts. I'm not going to 100% back Google, it IS a gray area, but having Google protect your own copyrights for you is crazy!

Re:robots.txt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406677)

You know, if you really don't want anybody to see your work, you could save yourself a lot of trouble by not going through the effort to put it on a frigging world wide web server. You know, that software daemon whose job is to send a copy of your content on demand to anybody on the internet.

Re:robots.txt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406586)

I think the problem here is that other sites are showing Perfect 10s stuff... so my guess is that prefect 10 doesnt have the time or ability to track down those sites properly and get them to stop showing their content... so they are going after google to shut down those sites (by removing them from the search engine and therefore killing a lot of the traffic to those sites)
Easier to go after one than many... still a move I don't endorse... because then google would be forced to check the copyright infringement of any site on the internet...

Re:robots.txt (1)

newsiness (890082) | about 9 years ago | (#13406629)

In addition, why dont they sue Yahoo! Image search? They index more adult images compare to google. http://www.googleyahoonews.com/ [googleyahoonews.com]

Re:robots.txt (1)

StarvingSE (875139) | about 9 years ago | (#13406747)

Of course they're doing it for the free publicity. They now have 1000's of /.ers searching perfect 10's site for pr0n...

I'm sure perfect 10's IT crew knows that if they get into a story involving google, it will eventually end up on /.

Would it not be easier... (3, Insightful)

nvlass (705494) | about 9 years ago | (#13406461)

to just remove themselves?? They could just read http://www.google.com/remove.html [google.com] or google for "remove website from google"... But then again, lawyers have got to make a living...

Re:Would it not be easier... (1)

EvilMonkeySlayer (826044) | about 9 years ago | (#13406517)

They're probably just attention seekers hoping to get a bit of free publicity, they'll drop their case after a short while most likely.
If I were in the position of Google i'd make an example out of them, sue them for tortious interference or somesuch (IANAL). To prevent this kind of thing happening in the future.

Re:Would it not be easier... (1)

nvlass (705494) | about 9 years ago | (#13406568)

You are right... Seems everyone seeking attention just files a sue against some big, well known company and hopes for the best... O tempora, O mores...

Re:Would it not be easier... (1, Troll)

Steve_Jobs_HNIC (513769) | about 9 years ago | (#13406535)

But then again, lawyers have got to make a living...

why should Perfect 10 be responsible for monitoring ALL webservices/search engines/etc from ALL companies and look for abuse of their property? And when they find such abuse, Perfect 10 must read this page, got here, do that, type these letters in the boxes, shiggle you winkydink, etc, etc.

I could understand if this was Opt-IN, BUT IT'S OPT-OUT!!

Re:Would it not be easier... (2, Insightful)

GizmoToy (450886) | about 9 years ago | (#13406638)

why should Google be responsible for monitoring ALL the internet for ALL companies looking for abuse of their property?

Re:Would it not be easier... (1)

nvlass (705494) | about 9 years ago | (#13406650)

I see your point, but that's exactly what search engines are for, right? I mean, after all, if you 've got an adult site, you want traffic, don't you? If such a site is indexed in a search engine it means profit for the owners... On the other hand, If they wanted to protect copyrighted material, they should just read the manuals and find out how to do it... Search engines, just crawl the web... They don't know anything about copyrights... I think the owners of the copyrighted material should know how to protect it...

Re:Would it not be easier... (1)

russotto (537200) | about 9 years ago | (#13406730)

They can just use Google Image Search. Google tells them the site it got the image from, at which point they can go after the site which did misappropriate their images.

Going after Google, which is merely showing thumbnails of publicly available (whether legitimately or otherwise) is missing the point entirely.

Re:Would it not be easier... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406575)

Uhhh, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those instructions for removing some or all of you own site from Google? What good would that do if someone stole their images and posted them on their own site? McFly?

Re:Would it not be easier... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406608)

I knew it would be modded insightful... Except you don't normally expect "infringer" to provide a mechanism for them to stop infringing... It's like Google infringes by default but it's your job to tell them to stop. In a way that's exactly the way it's happening except google/remove is probably not a legally recognized mechanism. So they go the normal route, with the courts, the way it's written in the law.

Stupid DMCA (1)

metalmaniac1759 (600176) | about 9 years ago | (#13406466)

It seems the real issue would be the (ab)use of the DMCA... it seems to be the weirdest and most destructive of laws I have ever seen!

Nandz.

Number 2? (0, Troll)

Momoru (837801) | about 9 years ago | (#13406469)

2. It's best to do one thing really, really well. (From Google's 10 things)

They should listen to their own philosophy...because they seem be trying to do 100 things "ok", and maybe 3 or 4 things really really well. When was the last time they made an innovation in search?

how would we know? (2, Insightful)

bratboy (649043) | about 9 years ago | (#13406682)

the thing about the web is that you really have no idea how things are happening under the hood. i find it pretty unlikely that google is simply letting their search technology rot on the vine, instead of continuing to improve it. or perhaps you'd prefer more press releases? ("Google search v10.3.5.2.1.1.9a released!")

Re:Number 2? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406683)

"The question is whether the young upstarts who have built a hugely profitable business on Google's anti-corporate image are on the way to following Gates's path from bright young turk to monopolistic behemoth."

All it takes is someone being successful for all of you to take a shot at them...That comment and yours was worthy of a slashdotter any day!

No privacy (3, Informative)

kevin_conaway (585204) | about 9 years ago | (#13406472)

If they're putting these images out on a public website, how can they be upset when people view the images? It doesn't matter if they're found in a search engine or if someone browses to the site, they're out in the open.

Smells like someone is up to some clever [wikipedia.org] marketing.

Re:No privacy (3, Insightful)

ReformedExCon (897248) | about 9 years ago | (#13406522)

Isn't the problem that other websites are displaying the content in violation of the original website's copyright? Google's automatic crawling is indexing these "stolen" images and redisplaying them in its search results. So when someone clicks on one of those links, they go to the violating website instead of the original website.

I'm not sure that Google ought to be held liable for this. They only provide an indexing service which is just happening to find copyright violations. There is a case to be made that by redisplaying thumbnail versions of the images, that they are also in violation of copyright, but it's nowhere near as clear cut as with the actually infringing websites.

Re:No privacy (2, Insightful)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | about 9 years ago | (#13406656)

If they're putting these images out on a public website, how can they be upset when people view the images? It doesn't matter if they're found in a search engine or if someone browses to the site, they're out in the open.

Displaying something publically doesn't waive copyright. It doesn't work that way.

Whoa... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406476)

Does anyone have a fake login for that site?

Didn't try google, yet...

Remove the site completely from the database! (2, Insightful)

OwlWhacker (758974) | about 9 years ago | (#13406489)


Perhaps google should completely remove all references to the site from its search engine database, and ensure that it never gets listed again?

Re:Remove the site completely from the database! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406748)

Perhaps google should completely remove all references to the site from its search engine database, and ensure that it never gets listed again?

And then? Google will still display the copyrighted material that other sites stole from the original copyright holder, so nothing won.

Tired of BS Lawsuits (1, Informative)

Evil W1zard (832703) | about 9 years ago | (#13406490)

Simple fact is that the site needs to fix its security to disallow images it doesnt want shared to anyone from being displayed via search engines. Another reader said to block the robots.txt which would stop the problem right there. There are just too many lawsuits wasting the time of the US judicial system nowadays. Sorry just annoyed once again that the laziness of the site owners seems to warrant them suing someone who isn't really the root cause of the problem. (Can't you sue yourself!)

If you'd RTFS... (1)

SeekerDarksteel (896422) | about 9 years ago | (#13406561)

not even the article, just the summary, you'd see that the images in question are on OTHER PEOPLE'S WEBSITES. Apparently not only have 90% of the posters here not even read the summary, neither have the mods.

Re:Tired of BS Lawsuits (1)

geoffspear (692508) | about 9 years ago | (#13406579)

And then others of us are annoyed at the laziness of people who don't bother to read the article summary, let alone the article, but still take the time to comment.

The issue is with the indexing of other sites that have infringed the plaintiff's copyright. I don't think they have a legitimate case against google, but your "solutions" address a problem that doesn't exist, ehich you'd know if you'd take the time to read. Maybe you should sue yourself for wasting everyone's time, since we can't sue you for it.

Re:Tired of BS Lawsuits (1)

plusser (685253) | about 9 years ago | (#13406625)

The lawsuit will probably be a "miserable failure". Perhaps they should look up miserable failure on Google.

Re:Tired of BS Lawsuits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406732)

Simple fact is that the site needs to fix its security to disallow images it doesnt want shared to anyone from being displayed via search engines.

And just how do you do that? Is there some super-secret evil bit I can place in my JPEGs that will thwart anyone from attempting to save the images (or doing a screen capture, if you like) and post them on their own site? Sounds interesting...

Another reader said to block the robots.txt which would stop the problem right there.

Cool, now humans are following Robots.txt rules too? I think I need my brain upgraded.

Or maybe they're just putting a big comment in the robots.txt file:

# PLEASE DON'T STEAL OUR SHIT AND PUT IT ON YOUR OWN SITE. PLEASE?

Bad habits die hard... (3, Insightful)

metalmaniac1759 (600176) | about 9 years ago | (#13406494)

It seems they're in a habit of getting free publicity. From TFA:

Perfect 10's lawsuit against Google is similar to one it filed against Amazon.com in July. In that suit, Perfect 10 makes similar allegations against Amazon's A9 search engine.

If they're so damn pissed with their images turning up on search engines, why don't they just pull them off 'public' access. I mean put them under an area accessible only after someone logs in.

Heck, there's robots.txt...

Nandz.

Re:Bad habits die hard... (4, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | about 9 years ago | (#13406587)

It's more stupid than that.

They're suing Google for indexing images off *other* sites that are hosting their copyrighted images without permission. They basically want Google (and A9) to police their copyright for them.

Re:Bad habits die hard... (1)

pmc (40532) | about 9 years ago | (#13406710)

Please, read the article. Then comment.

Perfect 10's product is photographs
Someone rips off their photos and puts them on their website - www.scammingpirates.com.
Google indexes scammingpirates and displays the images in their index.

How is Perfect 10 going to use robots.txt to stop Google indexing scammingpirates? How will Perfect 10 removing the pictures from their website stop google displaying the results from another website?

What course of action can Perfect 10 take to remove their photos from Google's index? It seems like a reasonable request, but it would seem that Google still has the photos despite the owner's objections. It is a shame that it takes a lawsuit, but if Google is being stubborn...

it started (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406504)

here come the google sackriders defending Google no matter what

Behemoth? (1)

Qzukk (229616) | about 9 years ago | (#13406523)

The question is whether the young upstarts who have built a hugely profitable business on Google's anti-corporate image are on the way to following Gates's path from bright young turk to monopolistic behemoth.

Sure it's possible. It's also possible that they'll become a gentle giant, and that's the outcome I'm rooting for.

When they start threatening computer makers for letting the users go to any search engine other than theirs, then we can start worrying about the "monopolistic behemoth".

MS Public Relations Firm doing well! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406528)

Microsoft's public relations firm is really doing a great job with this. What a skillful move, so typical of Microsoft, to unleash the FUD campaign on Google. It will be interesting to see if Google can survive this.
    I think they will survive, actually, because I know I don't feel any ill will at all toward Google as a well-connected technical person. And your average Joe isn't likely to read any articles like this (and it didn't stop them from using Microsoft when they were the big bad of the media either.)
    Yawn.

well duh! (1)

StuckInAFridge (734941) | about 9 years ago | (#13406529)

"The question is whether the young upstarts who have built a hugely profitable business on Google's anti-corporate image are on the way to following Gates's path from bright young turk to monopolistic behemoth."

well i don't know any bright young turks who wouldn't mind becoming monopolistic behemoths.

Goodwin's Law (1)

seanmcelroy (207852) | about 9 years ago | (#13406530)

Hehe, so an article comparing Google to MS is akin to a version of Goodwin's Law [tripod.com] ?

Every one of you people are fucking stupid (5, Informative)

LocalH (28506) | about 9 years ago | (#13406538)

You really didn't read the article, did you? And this makes it much worse than just Perfect 10 not being indexed:

"Perfect 10 first became aware of Google serving up
text links to other Web sites that allegedly carried copyright images of Perfect 10 models back in 2001, Zada said in an interview on Thursday. The company then sent notices to Google, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, asking the search giant to discontinue linking to the other sites.


In other words, they are suing Google for not policing Perfect 10's copyright. Not for indexing Perfect 10's sites, but rather for indexing other sites who happen to have stolen Perfect 10's images. And they're not suing the other sites - they're suing Google. This would be like if the *AA immediately started suing all ISPs as if they were knowingly involved in large-scale copyright infringement.

This is scary, and I hope Perfect 10 falls flat on their ass. It's not Google's job to police everyone else's copyright and make sure that they don't index images in such a manner.

Re:Every one of you people are fucking stupid (1)

kellererik (307956) | about 9 years ago | (#13406599)

This would be like if the *AA immediately started suing all ISPs as if they were knowingly involved in large-scale copyright infringement.
Based on your comparison: they simply try to do the same thing as the *AAs. Both parties will keep trying until they find someone in power, lacking the knowledge about the linking system in the Internet, who pushes this behavior into law.

Re:Every one of you people are fucking stupid (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406614)

It's not Google's job to police everyone else's copyright and make sure that they don't index images in such a manner.

Well, according to the DMCA, it is.

Re:Every one of you people are fucking stupid (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406770)

Not for indexing Perfect 10's sites, but rather for indexing other sites who happen to have stolen Perfect 10's images.

Oh baloney. You can't find pictures of Perfect 10's models in Google, or at least it's really hard. Believe me, I've been looking for them for years.

I mean.... uh....um....

How about... (2, Interesting)

trevordactyl (908770) | about 9 years ago | (#13406542)

How about instead of suing Google, they sue the people who are actually displaying the copyrighted images on their sites and simultaneously give Google a big pat on the back for making it so easy to find these people using GIS?

pr0n.google.com (3, Insightful)

c0l0 (826165) | about 9 years ago | (#13406548)

It really is about time now. Why not just create a free (as in beer) pr0n-service while holding up "Don't be evil" moral standars, and watch the competition be washed away?
 
;-)

Re:pr0n.google.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406605)

(sound of scuttling feet hurrying to the USPTO papers in hand to patent free pørn)...

Bullshit (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406572)

Search Google Images for "site:perfect10.com" [google.com] and see for yourself. Even with SafeSearch turned off there are only 112 softcore pictures (mostly non-nude, naked breast on very few of them, a lot of logos and other website design elements). I Call bullshit.

Not sure what the issue is... (1)

Zunni (565203) | about 9 years ago | (#13406580)

A quick Google search (in the images area) for "Perfect ten" doesn't provide me with much except for a pic of this [fugly.net]

So I guess this is what all the fuss is about.

google is to microsoft as (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406584)

... a bitchy supermodel is to an organized crime ring

... an annoying starlet is to a child pornographer

... an overpriced piano is to the RIAA



IN other words, what the fuck is the comparison? Wake me up when I'm NOT ALLOWED to switch away from their products and they've managed to muzzle the regulators despite clearly illegal monopolistic behavior!

Doesn't anybody get it? MS doesn't have to do anything for their customers and they automatically get billions every month. Google has to satisfy customers to get revenue. Does Google try to go over your head if you don't want to use their products?

It Morons (1)

PacketScan (797299) | about 9 years ago | (#13406589)

So because their techs don't know how to impliment robots.txt this is googles fault? Besides being a giant Crock of crap this is nothing more than a publicity stunt.. And for some INSANE reason they are granted an injuction this would be the worst decision ever made.

MMmmm google images..

Young Turks? (0, Offtopic)

Elektroschock (659467) | about 9 years ago | (#13406591)

The Young Turks were and are a faschist movement, also responsible for the Armenian democide. The West liked them as anti-clerical modernizers. It is really sad this use of language which supports foreign extremists.

Infinite Monkeys (1)

reclusivemonkey (703154) | about 9 years ago | (#13406602)

If an infinite amount of monkeys submitted an infinite amount of FUD about Linux/Google to Slashdot, would anyone actually believe they are the same as MS? Come on this is getting ridiculous now.

It's not that simple. (5, Informative)

Vo0k (760020) | about 9 years ago | (#13406611)

They complain not that Google indexes and displays their site. They complain that people copy pics off their site, then display them on their own sites, and google indexes these sites.
IMHO bullshit. Google is not a police to check whether images they index infringe on someone's copyright. All they host are thumbnails which can be easily proven to be "fair use" for informative purposes. Then they LINK to pages that infringe on the site's copyright - and from then on, admins should send out C&D, sue and do all kinds of nasty things to admins of these sites. Once they remove the infringing content, Google will make its own indexes expire automatically, with next update. Of course assholes think it's easier to make Google remove the links, removing all traffic to the competing sites at once, instead of hunting each of them separately, but it seems all they can get is waste a lot on lawyers and have the case thrown out of court.
If I make a photo of a pile of CDs, with purpose to put it in a newspaper, I don't copy them, and in no way I'm responsible about finding out whether they are pirated or original. Same with thumbnails of images found on various sites. Google states the fact: "This site has these images". Determining legal status of that site having these images is completely offtopic.

passwd protected websites? (-1, Offtopic)

tomstdenis (446163) | about 9 years ago | (#13406620)

If you don't want google crawling your porno website then

1. Don't put it on the web
and/or
2. Password protect the content

I'm sure these people weren't complaining when their poisoned websites were polluting search engine databases to get more hits.

Now the engines are "too good" and they're complaining...

TOO FUCKING BAD!

Tom

Changelog (1)

zoefff (61970) | about 9 years ago | (#13406637)

that Google has changed their 10 Things statement recently,

As a 'no evil high tech company', they should provide a changelog, shouldn't they? ;-)

Google is HELPING them! (3, Insightful)

Steev (5372) | about 9 years ago | (#13406651)

Google is helping them by allowing them to easily find sites that have said copyrighted images on them.
How would the magazine know about these infringements if it weren't for google?

Google is sued because they have the money (4, Informative)

HuguesT (84078) | about 9 years ago | (#13406669)

What is happening is that some random people took some "Perfect 10" images, either from P10's publicly available previews, or by any other means. Then these same random people have put up their own web site with these selfsame images, without permission from P10.

Finally these sites were harvested by Google and indexed.

So who is committing copyright infrigement again?

If anything Google should be thanked for providing a link to the people's website who took the images without permission, allowing them to be perhaps identified. P10 should be suing *them*.

But no, it's too much work and they probably are just a bunch of amateur with little to no money, so P10 is choosing to sue Google instead. Guess why.

How this has anything to to with Google's alleged "arrogance" we'll never know.

"Arrogant" is another term for successful people who are onto a good thing and they know it. Many can't take somebody else's success. So Apple, Microsoft and now Google are "arrogant".

Personnally I'm delighted that Google is doing so well. So far everybody benefits, including mere users. At least we have Microsoft running scared a little. In the past this meant they react intelligently and fast (like in the case of the web browser for win95) but these days they take the PR approach a bit more.

We'll see what happens.
 

And another thing.... (0, Redundant)

tomstdenis (446163) | about 9 years ago | (#13406673)

I thought Google DOES honor robots.txt files ...

If they do then it takes all of three seconds to tell Google to leave your site.

Tom

Why is Perfect 10 happy about this? (1)

wizarddc (105860) | about 9 years ago | (#13406696)

I would think that Perfect 10 magazine would be enthralled to know that there is an easy, simple way to find out who is sharing their copywritten material. Without Google and other search engines, these photos would still be shared, but now Perfect 10 can be aware of the majority of those stealing their content. Google has handed them a list of sites who are infringing on their copywright, and now they're pissed off? I don't get it. If I were Norm Zada, I'd be sending Google a stripper gram for their efforts.

Why all the Google-hate? (1)

typical (886006) | about 9 years ago | (#13406700)

Why do I see so many articles on Slashdot about "Google being like Microsoft"?

They aren't -- sure, maybe they'll wind up that way, but they aren't at the moment. The only people that I've really seen full of hate for Google are "SEO" (spam) people -- I'm wondering if those are the people who keep submitting anti-Google articles.

good way to get people to your site.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406707)

Doesn't make sence to let people see whats on your site through a search engine to get them to actually come to your site?? I know I dont go to sites (not jut pr0n either) that I have no idea whats on them.

Google (4, Interesting)

Mr_Silver (213637) | about 9 years ago | (#13406708)

Whilst everyone else bar a select few are completely misunderstanding the reasoning behind Perfect 10 sueing Google (hint: robots.txt wouldn't solve it and yes, it's still dumb) I notice with interest that although Google has updated their page, they have the decency to point out that they have:

* Full-disclosure update: When we first wrote these "10 things" four years ago, we included the phrase "Google does not do horoscopes, financial advice or chat." Over time we've expanded our view of the range of services we can offer -- web search, for instance, isn't the only way for people to access or use information -- and products that then seemed unlikely are now key aspects of our portfolio. This doesn't mean we've changed our core mission; just that the farther we travel toward achieving it, the more those blurry objects on the horizon come into sharper focus (to be replaced, of course, by more blurry objects).

Far better than just changing it on the sly and hoping no-one will notice.

Robots.txt (1)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | about 9 years ago | (#13406720)

What happened to Robots.txt to start with? And authentication?

If google can crawl more than 3,000 Perfect 10 photos why wouldn't non-members be able to view these pictures?

This is an indicative that there's something wrong with their setup.

Case overruled!

ty.

The more you sue a company the more "Evil" it gets (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 9 years ago | (#13406739)

Basically Googles "do no evil" slogan is slowly whipped away with every lawsuit it gets. Because the more you sue a company the more protective it will get to preserve its own rights. The more protective it gets the more likely it will strike back. If we knew how to properly boycott companies that do evil things until they stop vs. trying to sue them but still purchase their stuff. Companies will probably be a lot less "evil" because their bottom line is based on their goodness.

Thanks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13406766)

/me fires up google images and searches for "Perfect 10"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>