4 ms·

from a user perspective that seems like a complete win. I'm not quite convinced the marginal value of offering that data is worth any kind of compensation. Movi

from a user perspective that seems like a complete win. I'm not quite convinced the marginal value of offering that data is worth any kind of compensation. Movie times seems like something movie theaters would want to give out for free and that ideally there would be a standard feed format for that data. News blurb also seems rational to me. If I only need the headline I shouldn't have a go to the site. The headlines will be all over twitter and Facebook as people share with their friends so it's hard to see how Google is doing any harm here. If I want to read the details then I'd click through to the site. Heck i come to HN and scan the headlines and only occasionally click through to the actual article. This topic for example I have not clicked through. Does that make HN evil?

Fnoord 8y ago
> Heck i come to HN and scan the headlines and only occasionally click through to the actual article. This topic for example I have not clicked through. Does that make HN evil? No, because copying titles is a very normal way to refer to something. Heck, even quoting is, as long as its done in proportion. But caching entire websites (such as Google Cache)? Copyright infringement. If it weren't for the fact that it is caching and therefore OK. Usenet providers attempted to argue usenet servers are also just caches, but I'm not sure if/how far that one has flied.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  Google cache is not infringement, because Google respects robots.txt and because it only caches content made freely available by the publisher. Advertising is a business model, not part of the license agreement of a non-consentwalled website.
Angostura 8y ago
Don't get me wrong, from a user point of view it is. Nonetheless, it impacts the business, no-doubt. A movie theatre may want to embed adverts for other films down the side of its listings, it may have other reasons for wanting people to actually visit its site. Google isn't doing harm from a user perspective, but it palpably is doing harm from a content provider's point of view by screen-scraping the content and repackaging it as its own.
- gumby 8y ago
  Yes, but at the end of the day it should be all about the user, right? For example when considering the cost of water pollution we don't try to balance the interests of the owners of paint factories with the interests of people who drink water. Instead we consider if the cost of compliance with new antipollution laws will be worse for people who use paint then the cost to them of drinking polluted water.
  - mijamo 8y ago
    It is all about the user in the long term. Google dominating and closing the internet is very problematic. In the long term, we could have users that do not go out of Google and just accept whatever Google give them as THE answer. Maintaining a healthy ecosystem and competition is good in the long term. There are many things that are forbidden even though the consumer might like them in the short term (ex: selling lower than the cost for retailers to kill all attempt of competition).
    - throwaway37585 8y ago
      > selling lower than the cost for retailers to kill all attempt of competition Which specific law are you referring to?
      - 18pfsmt 8y ago
        Anti-dumping laws vary by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
  - Angostura 8y ago
    It should be about facilitating a sustainable long-term balance. In your analogy, Google is the owner of the paint factory, yes? If not, why not?
- isostatic 8y ago
  I walk into the shop, I see some newspapers with headlines on them, I decide to buy the paper, or I don't. If I don't I'm not 'stealing' anything. If a publisher wants to show the headline story to prospective customers in the shop, it can -- google will display the headline, and if people are interested they'll click, just like they'll buy the newspaper in the shop if they want to read below the fold. If the person isn't interested they won't click / won't buy the paper. If the publisher doesn't want people in the shop seeing the headline, they put it inside their publiccation. Online they simply mark it as unavailable to google (robots.txt or whatever). Now if the argument is that search engines have no right to read your site and display the headlines without explicit invitation, I'd argue that operating a web server is the invitation to all, and robots.txt is the bouncer saying "you aren't allowed in". Google and other search engines obey robots.txt / the bouncer. User-agent: Googlebot Disallow: /belowthefold/

Fnoord 8y ago

> Heck i come to HN and scan the headlines and only occasionally click through to the actual article. This topic for example I have not clicked through. Does that make HN evil? No, because copying titles is a very normal way to refer to something. Heck, even quoting is, as long as its done in proportion. But caching entire websites (such as Google Cache)? Copyright infringement. If it weren't for the fact that it is caching and therefore OK. Usenet providers attempted to argue usenet servers are also just caches, but I'm not sure if/how far that one has flied.

fjsolwmv 8y ago
Google cache is not infringement, because Google respects robots.txt and because it only caches content made freely available by the publisher. Advertising is a business model, not part of the license agreement of a non-consentwalled website.

Angostura 8y ago

Don't get me wrong, from a user point of view it is. Nonetheless, it impacts the business, no-doubt. A movie theatre may want to embed adverts for other films down the side of its listings, it may have other reasons for wanting people to actually visit its site. Google isn't doing harm from a user perspective, but it palpably is doing harm from a content provider's point of view by screen-scraping the content and repackaging it as its own.

gumby 8y ago
Yes, but at the end of the day it should be all about the user, right? For example when considering the cost of water pollution we don't try to balance the interests of the owners of paint factories with the interests of people who drink water. Instead we consider if the cost of compliance with new antipollution laws will be worse for people who use paint then the cost to them of drinking polluted water.
- mijamo 8y ago
  It is all about the user in the long term. Google dominating and closing the internet is very problematic. In the long term, we could have users that do not go out of Google and just accept whatever Google give them as THE answer. Maintaining a healthy ecosystem and competition is good in the long term. There are many things that are forbidden even though the consumer might like them in the short term (ex: selling lower than the cost for retailers to kill all attempt of competition).
  - throwaway37585 8y ago
    > selling lower than the cost for retailers to kill all attempt of competition Which specific law are you referring to?
    - 18pfsmt 8y ago
      Anti-dumping laws vary by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
- Angostura 8y ago
  It should be about facilitating a sustainable long-term balance. In your analogy, Google is the owner of the paint factory, yes? If not, why not?
isostatic 8y ago
I walk into the shop, I see some newspapers with headlines on them, I decide to buy the paper, or I don't. If I don't I'm not 'stealing' anything. If a publisher wants to show the headline story to prospective customers in the shop, it can -- google will display the headline, and if people are interested they'll click, just like they'll buy the newspaper in the shop if they want to read below the fold. If the person isn't interested they won't click / won't buy the paper. If the publisher doesn't want people in the shop seeing the headline, they put it inside their publiccation. Online they simply mark it as unavailable to google (robots.txt or whatever). Now if the argument is that search engines have no right to read your site and display the headlines without explicit invitation, I'd argue that operating a web server is the invitation to all, and robots.txt is the bouncer saying "you aren't allowed in". Google and other search engines obey robots.txt / the bouncer. User-agent: Googlebot Disallow: /belowthefold/