3 ms·

Really interesting comment at Reddit about what Google might be thinking: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fd3g9/google_bing_is_cheating_copying_ou

by kj12345 16y ago

Really interesting comment at Reddit about what Google might be thinking: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fd3g9/google_bing_is_cheating_copying_our_search_results/c1f1bvx http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fd3g9/google_bi... Apparently by creating fake results they've published something "creative" and thus potentially able to be copywrited. Just speculation but interesting.

msbarnett 16y ago
The Reddit commentator appears to be operating on the idea that trap streets and the like are copyrightable under US law, which is a fairly common urban legend. In reality adding a fake "fact" to a collection of real facts does not allow you to sue someone if they copy the fake fact along with the real facts; from the decision in Nester's Map & Guide Corp. v. Hagstrom Map Co., treating "'false' facts interspersed among actual facts and represented as actual facts as fiction would mean that no one could ever reproduce or copy actual facts without risk of reproducing a false fact and thereby violating a copyright ... If such were the law, information could never be reproduced or widely disseminated"
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  In Europe there are specific database IP rights. Re the decision you cite it seems to be spurious. The notion of whether the data is factual or not is irrelevant. Was the presentation copied? >would mean that no one could ever reproduce or copy actual facts without risk of reproducing a false fact Unless they actual did some work and checked the facts rather than making a slavish, infringing, copy of someone else's work. >If such were the law, information could never be reproduced or widely disseminated" For limited terms of never (not limited enough mind you but nonetheless limited). This is interesting though - if you can copy facts with impunity then can't I copy the "fact" of the score for Katy Perry's Firework for example?
tzs 16y ago
The guy's phone book example is wrong, though. Putting fake entries in a phone book does not make it subject to copyright. Google or Bing for "Feist vs. Rural Telephone" for the leading case in the US on this.
recoiledsnake 16y ago
>Apparently by creating fake results they've published something "creative" and thus potentially able to be copywrited. Just speculation but interesting. And then given Bing explicit permission to copy it by accepting the terms and conditions of the Bing toolbar while installing it. If you repeat the experiment with 2 made up results instead of just one but clicked on only the 2nd one, only the 2nd one would show up and not the first. They are copying the user action(for which they got permission), not the results directly.

by kj12345 16y ago

msbarnett 16y ago

The Reddit commentator appears to be operating on the idea that trap streets and the like are copyrightable under US law, which is a fairly common urban legend. In reality adding a fake "fact" to a collection of real facts does not allow you to sue someone if they copy the fake fact along with the real facts; from the decision in Nester's Map & Guide Corp. v. Hagstrom Map Co., treating "'false' facts interspersed among actual facts and represented as actual facts as fiction would mean that no one could ever reproduce or copy actual facts without risk of reproducing a false fact and thereby violating a copyright ... If such were the law, information could never be reproduced or widely disseminated"

pbhjpbhj 16y ago
In Europe there are specific database IP rights. Re the decision you cite it seems to be spurious. The notion of whether the data is factual or not is irrelevant. Was the presentation copied? >would mean that no one could ever reproduce or copy actual facts without risk of reproducing a false fact Unless they actual did some work and checked the facts rather than making a slavish, infringing, copy of someone else's work. >If such were the law, information could never be reproduced or widely disseminated" For limited terms of never (not limited enough mind you but nonetheless limited). This is interesting though - if you can copy facts with impunity then can't I copy the "fact" of the score for Katy Perry's Firework for example?

tzs 16y ago

The guy's phone book example is wrong, though. Putting fake entries in a phone book does not make it subject to copyright. Google or Bing for "Feist vs. Rural Telephone" for the leading case in the US on this.

recoiledsnake 16y ago

>Apparently by creating fake results they've published something "creative" and thus potentially able to be copywrited. Just speculation but interesting. And then given Bing explicit permission to copy it by accepting the terms and conditions of the Bing toolbar while installing it. If you repeat the experiment with 2 made up results instead of just one but clicked on only the 2nd one, only the 2nd one would show up and not the first. They are copying the user action(for which they got permission), not the results directly.