Group items tagged

A search engineer at Google claims that Microsoft's Bing is copying their search results. She reached this conclusion after having toyed with the Google search algorithm and seeing that Bing was still displaying identical results. If interested, also see articles on engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/01/google-responds-bing-recycles-search-results-and-wed-like-it/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/01/google-accuses-bing-of-cheating-piggybacking-off-its-search-r/

Interesting, but I think Google realizes there's nothing it can really do to protect itself; sort of like Feist vs. Rural in that Google just provides an organized directory, the way Rural provides an uncreative list of organized information.

Viacom is maintaining its 2007 billion dollar lawsuit against Google (as it acquired YouTube in 2006), despite the latter continuous fervent denial. Though "Google argues that when YouTube promptly took down tens of thousands of videos after Viacom gave it notice, YouTube was within provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act." Viacom is stating that the infringement is taking the form of violating the 1998 Copyright Act. Which holds both content owners and systems operators responsible for the protection of copyrighted content online. After reading this article, a few questions come to mind: What can Google do to appease and keep the "integrity" of YouTube? and Isn't it interesting that Viacom only filed this $1 billion lawsuit AFTER Google had acquired YouTube? What can we say about interested parties possibly abusing copyright law?

NY federal judge ruled against google last week in their copyright case, having  "[tossed] out a 165-page settlement reached in 2008 between Google and authors and publishers groups". This article discusses Google's 2009 plan for a global digitized library and the lawsuits that have surrounded it.

The article is recent from March 25th (LA Times, Business Section). It's discussing Google's history regarding the e-book controversy. Judge Chin's decision forces us to think about what an online digital library might look like without infringing parties, like Google. As noted in the article, Google was attempting to use "orphan works," whose right holders could not be found. As a result, Google would be using the works without being held accountable under copyright law. Here's the original document, filed by the U.S. Supreme Court, on 3/22/2011: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/74854-chin-ruling

"The internet titan was found guilty of infringing a patent related to the Linux kernel and fined " "The software is used by Google for its server platforms and could also extend to its Android mobile platform.The kernel is at the core of the open-source operating system meaning this verdict could be far-reaching" "The implication here is really that there is a huge number of Linux users who will be required to pay royalties if this patent holder knocks on their doors in the US. This is definitely a major impediment to the growth of Linux and makes companies, including Google, that rely on open source code particularly vulnerable to patent threats.

Google worries that the 2009 ruling against isoHunt will affect its own services and services of its website, YouTube. While Google believes isoHunt is liable, they would like the court to be more precise. They would like to see isoHunt charged with only specific instances of inducing. Google is also pushing to see isoHunt protected by safe harbor under DMCA. "It's clear this court thinks the DMCA online safe harbors only insulate against direct infringement, not secondary infringement," writes intellectual property attorney Eric Goldman on his Technology & Marketing Law Blog. "The interplay between the safe harbors and secondary infringement remains a multi-billion statutory ambiguity."

It's really interesting to see how Google adapts to being an international corporation. The company clearly needs to comply with each country's laws. This is where people need to ask themselves the following question: do we WANT Google to be the same in every country? What are we saying about globalization/transnationalism at this point? People show concern towards homogenization (at least in a cultural sense), but putting ourselves in the shows of Belgian Google users who may find the links and excerpts useful or integral their research, where do we draw the line? Something to think about, I suppose. Here's another article on the matter, from PCWorld: http://www.pcworld.com/article/227379/google_busted_for_copyright_violation_in_belgium.html

Should Google have to pay for its content on Google News?

"Google provides the Android operating system free to handset makers, and allows them to tailor the open-source software somewhat, yet limits their freedom to tinker." It's interesting that this case brings up the question of the Android's compatibility, much like Apple's DRM dilemma.

Should Google be doing more to protect original content that is made available on YouTube?

I think the moms reason to get the picture down is interesting although I'm not sure how true it can be or how the actual argument would hold up. Also, this story is just kind of funny.

So the family owns copyright of the photo and the powerful Google is not obliged to submit? I wonder if there's anything poor Jack and his mommy can do short of tracking down this girl, finding concrete evidence that she did it and slapping her with an infringement suit... I'm with you Kristi, this IS kinda funny. Breaking up is so much scarier in the internet age.

The smart-phone is not only hardware, but software, which has already been patent-protected. In this competitive phone market, where Android takes the lead with 32% of the market, the onset of these legal battles began when Nokia accused Apple of infringing on its patents. The article maps out which companies are suing who and why.

Though this video is interesting, the comment thread gives a great look at people's thoughts on current copyright laws.