General Discussions

**Learning Newbie** · 03-19-2007, 06:25 PM

Truth is stranger than fiction. It's also more entertaining. This is why people watch "fake news," personalities like John Stewart, Steve Colbert, and Bill O'Reilly. But this isn't limited to the garden variety - I love Fake Steve Jobs and get at least some of my analysis of what's going on in the IT world from his unusual but hilarious takes on things.

This one in particular raised my eyebrows:

"But let's guess that maybe Google finds it useful to fund academics who are trying to rewrite laws and social policy in such a way that would help Google further its efforts to line its pockets by raping copyright holders and selling ads against their content without sharing any of the loot."

From a post titled "Coin Operated Legal Expert." Now, I like playing devil's advocate, probably more than the next guy. The thing that gets me is, well, he's absolutely right.

Web search is dandy. They make their money from knowing about and pointing out the most relevant web pages to what you're looking for, and running ads. They really don't show much of your content, not more than a sentence or two, and this comes from your metadescr tag, or a directory. People who click your site might not even see that text. No harm, no foul, as Steve says.

But their book search, well, everyone remember the Author's Guild lawsuit? I remember the fuss, but I never saw what ultimately happened with it. What about image search? In both of these products, Google serves up other people's content, without permission ( even if just because of scale ), and makes money from it. Google Video still has complete television shows, the kind of stuff YouTube was forced to take down.

Now people have asked about any one of these products before, but Fake Steve seems to be making the point that, like mp3 file swappers, Google has a pattern of widespread copyright grabs.

We learned in another thread in the General Forum that small web sites can be sued for grabbing a picture they're not allowed to use - why are things different for Google? I'm guessing people will say "Well Google helps customers find me." But couldn't a site that grabs your content say the same thing, that they're only showing how popular you are online?

**ADAM Web Design** · 06:38 PM

Personally, I believe that Google's in the clear with most materials as far as copyright infringement is concerned because there are simple ways to keep Google from indexing said content if a webmaster so chose (robots.txt, password-protected directories, etc.) So if someone whines because their image got used in a way they didn't like and Google served it up, their complaint is weak at best.

One of the other things I've noticed that Google has never done with their image search is to serve ads alongside it (at least from the queries I've done). My thought is this is probably done to avoid getting caught in the "you're using my image to generate money" situation.

However, this is why I also believe that at some point, search engines will only be able to crawl with permission from site owners. With the number of "black bots" out there, content scrapers, etc., it only makes sense for there to be some sort of protocol eventually whereby bots can only crawl with the explicit permission of site owners. Eventually, there will too many book search/Euro newspaper-type complaints to avoid it.

**stOx** · 03-19-2007, 06:45 PM

Quote:

However, this is why I also believe that at some point, search engines will only be able to crawl with permission from site owners. With the number of "black bots" out there, content scrapers, etc., it only makes sense for there to be some sort of protocol eventually whereby bots can only crawl with the explicit permission of site owners.

Wouldn't that also mean users need individual permission to view the site? Otherwise a "black bot" would just have to appear to be a user to get access to the site.

**ADAM Web Design** · 03-19-2007, 06:49 PM

This is true, st0x. But a large percentage of bots appear as...well...bots, and that's what the idea was intended for. You'll never get rid of EVERY bot, but you should at least go after every bot that you can.

**Learning Newbie** · 03-19-2007, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

Personally, I believe that Google's in the clear with most materials as far as copyright infringement is concerned because there are simple ways to keep Google from indexing said content if a webmaster so chose (robots.txt, password-protected directories, etc.) So if someone whines because their image got used in a way they didn't like and Google served it up, their complaint is weak at best.

Some good points, and I'll admit to feeling a little better seeing at least some distinction between Google and, well, people who scrape other people's content and put up advertising on it. Again, just to play devil's advocate, though, if a new webmaster doesn't understand things, and later learns about robots.txt and content and searching and all of that, by this point isn't it too late? ( Save the Newbies! ) And don't people normally have to opt-in to something like this, instead of automatically being in and having to opt-out?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

One of the other things I've noticed that Google has never done with their image search is to serve ads alongside it (at least from the queries I've done). My thought is this is probably done to avoid getting caught in the "you're using my image to generate money" situation.

Hadn't noticed that, but it looks like you're right. That does make an argument against Google a lot weaker, doesn't it? I don't know if I believe huge companies do things for altruistic reasons, but it does seem like web search helps everybody. ( Not just the copyright owners, but the people who need to see pictures of a black bear, for whatever reason. )

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

However, this is why I also believe that at some point, search engines will only be able to crawl with permission from site owners. With the number of "black bots" out there, content scrapers, etc., it only makes sense for there to be some sort of protocol eventually whereby bots can only crawl with the explicit permission of site owners. Eventually, there will too many book search/Euro newspaper-type complaints to avoid it.

Very interesting prediction! I guess the same questions apply, about people who don't know how to give crawling permission, but maybe that's a natural sandbox. As time goes by, if they stick with it, they'll learn how, right?

I've finally started my own, personal site, and will announce it after I make a few more posts. I'm going to write one on search engines, not so much from an SEO standpoint, but what role they play in society. In general, I take a positive view, but keep reading things like this, below, and have to stop and really think about the issue:

Bottom line is this. The movie mobsters saw what Google did to the newspaper guys. Lure them online with some fear-mongering about how they can't afford to be late to the party, then sell ads against their content and wipe them out. Oh, and tell everyone, "Don't be evil." The movie guys really love the "Don't be evil" slogan. Every time they meet with Eric they bring it up and then burst out laughing. Schmidt sits there fuming.