6 ms·

Napster also made users happy. And bittorrent. And libgen. Why the double standard?

telotortium 7y ago
I like all the things you listed :) More seriously, from a moral standpoint, I would argue that what's at most a short paragraph extract from a website falls under fair use. I don't believe any site is entitled to clicks from Google's search results page, certainly not for such short snippets, which I believe don't exhibit the level of creativity that deserves denying the right to copy to others. By contrast, the other sites you listed provide copies of significantly longer and more creative works. (Googler, though not in search or ads)
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
  A dictionary is a collection of short snippets. I find it hard to believe that showing those snippets for whatever word you search falls under fair use. The people doing the hard work of making a dictionary deserve to serve those definitions under their own terms. Or at least some combination of their terms and the user's terms, instead of just google's terms.
  - telotortium 7y ago
    > The people doing the hard work of making a dictionary deserve to serve those definitions under their own terms. This depends on the country. In the EU, this may be the case. However, the US Supreme Court rejected the "sweat of the brow" copyright doctrine in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co%46 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R.... For a creative expression to be copyrightable in the US, it must have some minimum threshold of originality. The wording of dictionary definitions themselves may be copyrightable if sufficiently unique. But the question of fair use should be considered as well. If Google as a matter of policy always consulted a particular database for a particular class of searches, without permission from the copyright owner, perhaps one could argue that crosses the line of fair use. But for isolated results, it doesn't appear much different than the current practice of putting snippets of the page below the links in the search results. For more extensive databases, Google often has an explicit agreement with the database owner. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I don't know anything about the implementation of the answer box, and certainly don't know the law in multiple jurisdictions.
    - mthoms 7y ago
      It sounds like you're looking for legal loopholes. Which is absolutely fine for a business to do. Just don't use phrases like "from a moral standpoint..." when you really mean "from a legal standpoint...". Moral and legal aren't the same thing.
      - telotortium 7y ago
        I don't believe Google has a moral obligation to send traffic to the sites that appear in its search results, any more than a book has an obligation to be bought or borrowed from the library by the readers of a short quote from that book in another book. So, for me, it is a moral question as well.
        buboard 7y ago
        > don't believe Google has a moral obligation to send traffic Bizzare. The only reason google gets traffic is because of those sites. Your comparison is also off, google is not another book (they dont create content), it's the librarian telling people which book to borrow.
        6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
        In your analogy of books, google is a book too. If google as a book dictionary was just a copy of your book dictionary, that would be illegal and wrong. You the reader are only looking at a single definition, which could be a plausible fair-use quote. But when google's entire dictionary is just fair-use quotes of your book, then they've just copied your book.
- mthoms 7y ago
  Indeed, one of the four criteria in determining fair use is "how much" was copied. You know what another one is? Whether the usage affects the originators ability to make money from their work. A legal determination of Fair Use is subjective and can only be decided in court. But, citing only one of the four pillars as moral justification while blatantly ignoring the other (equally important) ones is a little rich. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/
  - telotortium 7y ago
    I agree that there are other factors to be considered, including the ability of the originator to make money from their creative expression. However, from the page you linked, "[b]ecause the dissemination of facts or information benefits the public, you have more leeway to copy from factual works such as biographies than you do from fictional works such as plays or novels." In many cases, Google's knowledge box comes from sources such as this. In the US at least, given the short length of most snippets in the knowledge box, you'd have to argue that the particular expression of the fact in the search box is both sufficiently creative and sufficiently central to the work. Even in the case of a snippet reflecting human judgement, such as the box displayed for "best nail for cedar wood", the short snippet appears to be considered fair use, at least in the US. Google Books has been considered fair use, for example: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/fair-use-prevails-as-supreme-court-rejects-google-books-copyright-case/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/fair-use-prevail... In the case of artistic works, the criteria for fair use outside of parody are more limited (although see the Google Books case). For example, the display of a stanza of a poem, or a section of song lyrics, might not be seen as fair use (I'll leave my personal opinions out of this). However, in the case of song lyrics, Google has permission from the rights owners to reproduce them in their search results.
gumby 7y ago
Indeed!

I like all the things you listed :) More seriously, from a moral standpoint, I would argue that what's at most a short paragraph extract from a website falls under fair use. I don't believe any site is entitled to clicks from Google's search results page, certainly not for such short snippets, which I believe don't exhibit the level of creativity that deserves denying the right to copy to others. By contrast, the other sites you listed provide copies of significantly longer and more creative works. (Googler, though not in search or ads)

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
A dictionary is a collection of short snippets. I find it hard to believe that showing those snippets for whatever word you search falls under fair use. The people doing the hard work of making a dictionary deserve to serve those definitions under their own terms. Or at least some combination of their terms and the user's terms, instead of just google's terms.
- telotortium 7y ago
  > The people doing the hard work of making a dictionary deserve to serve those definitions under their own terms. This depends on the country. In the EU, this may be the case. However, the US Supreme Court rejected the "sweat of the brow" copyright doctrine in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co%46 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R.... For a creative expression to be copyrightable in the US, it must have some minimum threshold of originality. The wording of dictionary definitions themselves may be copyrightable if sufficiently unique. But the question of fair use should be considered as well. If Google as a matter of policy always consulted a particular database for a particular class of searches, without permission from the copyright owner, perhaps one could argue that crosses the line of fair use. But for isolated results, it doesn't appear much different than the current practice of putting snippets of the page below the links in the search results. For more extensive databases, Google often has an explicit agreement with the database owner. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I don't know anything about the implementation of the answer box, and certainly don't know the law in multiple jurisdictions.
  - mthoms 7y ago
    It sounds like you're looking for legal loopholes. Which is absolutely fine for a business to do. Just don't use phrases like "from a moral standpoint..." when you really mean "from a legal standpoint...". Moral and legal aren't the same thing.
    - telotortium 7y ago
      I don't believe Google has a moral obligation to send traffic to the sites that appear in its search results, any more than a book has an obligation to be bought or borrowed from the library by the readers of a short quote from that book in another book. So, for me, it is a moral question as well.
      - buboard 7y ago
        > don't believe Google has a moral obligation to send traffic Bizzare. The only reason google gets traffic is because of those sites. Your comparison is also off, google is not another book (they dont create content), it's the librarian telling people which book to borrow.
      - 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
        In your analogy of books, google is a book too. If google as a book dictionary was just a copy of your book dictionary, that would be illegal and wrong. You the reader are only looking at a single definition, which could be a plausible fair-use quote. But when google's entire dictionary is just fair-use quotes of your book, then they've just copied your book.
mthoms 7y ago
Indeed, one of the four criteria in determining fair use is "how much" was copied. You know what another one is? Whether the usage affects the originators ability to make money from their work. A legal determination of Fair Use is subjective and can only be decided in court. But, citing only one of the four pillars as moral justification while blatantly ignoring the other (equally important) ones is a little rich. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/
- telotortium 7y ago
  I agree that there are other factors to be considered, including the ability of the originator to make money from their creative expression. However, from the page you linked, "[b]ecause the dissemination of facts or information benefits the public, you have more leeway to copy from factual works such as biographies than you do from fictional works such as plays or novels." In many cases, Google's knowledge box comes from sources such as this. In the US at least, given the short length of most snippets in the knowledge box, you'd have to argue that the particular expression of the fact in the search box is both sufficiently creative and sufficiently central to the work. Even in the case of a snippet reflecting human judgement, such as the box displayed for "best nail for cedar wood", the short snippet appears to be considered fair use, at least in the US. Google Books has been considered fair use, for example: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/fair-use-prevails-as-supreme-court-rejects-google-books-copyright-case/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/fair-use-prevail... In the case of artistic works, the criteria for fair use outside of parody are more limited (although see the Google Books case). For example, the display of a stanza of a poem, or a section of song lyrics, might not be seen as fair use (I'll leave my personal opinions out of this). However, in the case of song lyrics, Google has permission from the rights owners to reproduce them in their search results.

gumby 7y ago

Indeed!