3 ms·

> That said, it is absolutely theft for Google to source data from your site, then use that to add value to their site, without giving you any click-through tra

by labawi 7y ago

> That said, it is absolutely theft for Google to source data from your site, then use that to add value to their site, without giving you any click-through traffic. Would you be OK, if Google didn't show images from your site on their site? If so, I believe a simple robots.txt statement should be sufficient. > This would mean that you would get paid to have good SEO, or to be a central hub. The websites that comprise the entire web should negotiate better terms with central data brokers like Google. I don't really get the logic by which someone letting people find you, should pay for that privilege. (have not used Google search in a long time)

leereeves 7y ago
> Would you be OK, if Google didn't show images from your site on their site? If so, I believe a simple robots.txt statement should be sufficient. Giving people a way to opt out doesn't absolve Google. They need to get permission to use the property of others, not default to using it unless told not to. They're acting as if everything that isn't locked up, and doesn't have a note on it saying otherwise, is free for anyone to borrow. > I don't really get the logic by which someone letting people find you, should pay for that privilege. Google can let people find sites without copying the content of those sites. In fact, when Google copies your content, people are less likely to go to your site, the very opposite of "letting people find you".
- judge2020 7y ago
  Letting Google crawl your page and not telling it to stop via robots.txt is implied consent, and a german court case confirmed this[0]. 0: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/german-federal-court-rules-on-google-s-40287/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/german-federal-court-rules...
  - leereeves 7y ago
    That's not what that article says. According to that article, that decision was based on the idea that a hyperlink cannot infringe copyright, not on implied consent: > The court in Karlsruhe does not regard the display of the preview images as an act of making available a copyright work in the sense of the copyright law. ... Since the decision handed down in the “Svensson” case in 2014, it is common ground that, in principle, the use of a hyperlink is not a copyright-relevant act.
    - judge2020 7y ago
      My bad - I was looking at a published book that referenced the case and wanted to link an article that was more easily available, but it was for the wrong case. My original comment is also uneditable now. The case I meant to reference is "Vorschaubilder I", see the press release[0] > [translated] The plaintiff has made the content of its website accessible for search engines without making use of technical means to exclude the images of her works from the search and display by image search engines in the form of preview images. 0: http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&Datum=Aktuell&anz=1&pos=0&nr=51777&linked=pm&Blank=1 http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/doc...
  - stiray 7y ago
    Offtopic: I am using entry page that brute forces password for accessing other pages. It takes a 30 seconds max on phone, but will raise cpu to 100%. Later it is stored to cookie. I havent seen any crawler get past that.
lyjackal 7y ago
> I don't really get the logic by which someone letting people find you, should pay for that privilege. Images ends up being more of a media platform than search engine. I'm rarely looking for a site. Doesn't seem too weird that they could pay for some of the content
- labawi 7y ago
  I don't really understand. Are you saying Google is creating a media platform based on image search and they should somehow find a way to pay for the images in it? If you want to use an image that is not free, you should go pay for it, no? You have a link for the site. You can even go visit the site as a courtesy for free images. Are you saying Google should be paying for the images? If you want to be mad at someone, look at getty - they take² people's images and charge for them, even managing to file DMCA takedowns on the author[1]. As a consolation, at least they host the images themselves. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12180039 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12180039 ² Quick skim says they may merely let other people do the uploading of effectively stolen images.

by labawi 7y ago

leereeves 7y ago

> Would you be OK, if Google didn't show images from your site on their site? If so, I believe a simple robots.txt statement should be sufficient. Giving people a way to opt out doesn't absolve Google. They need to get permission to use the property of others, not default to using it unless told not to. They're acting as if everything that isn't locked up, and doesn't have a note on it saying otherwise, is free for anyone to borrow. > I don't really get the logic by which someone letting people find you, should pay for that privilege. Google can let people find sites without copying the content of those sites. In fact, when Google copies your content, people are less likely to go to your site, the very opposite of "letting people find you".

judge2020 7y ago
Letting Google crawl your page and not telling it to stop via robots.txt is implied consent, and a german court case confirmed this[0]. 0: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/german-federal-court-rules-on-google-s-40287/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/german-federal-court-rules...
- leereeves 7y ago
  That's not what that article says. According to that article, that decision was based on the idea that a hyperlink cannot infringe copyright, not on implied consent: > The court in Karlsruhe does not regard the display of the preview images as an act of making available a copyright work in the sense of the copyright law. ... Since the decision handed down in the “Svensson” case in 2014, it is common ground that, in principle, the use of a hyperlink is not a copyright-relevant act.
  - judge2020 7y ago
    My bad - I was looking at a published book that referenced the case and wanted to link an article that was more easily available, but it was for the wrong case. My original comment is also uneditable now. The case I meant to reference is "Vorschaubilder I", see the press release[0] > [translated] The plaintiff has made the content of its website accessible for search engines without making use of technical means to exclude the images of her works from the search and display by image search engines in the form of preview images. 0: http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&Datum=Aktuell&anz=1&pos=0&nr=51777&linked=pm&Blank=1 http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/doc...
- stiray 7y ago
  Offtopic: I am using entry page that brute forces password for accessing other pages. It takes a 30 seconds max on phone, but will raise cpu to 100%. Later it is stored to cookie. I havent seen any crawler get past that.

lyjackal 7y ago

> I don't really get the logic by which someone letting people find you, should pay for that privilege. Images ends up being more of a media platform than search engine. I'm rarely looking for a site. Doesn't seem too weird that they could pay for some of the content

labawi 7y ago
I don't really understand. Are you saying Google is creating a media platform based on image search and they should somehow find a way to pay for the images in it? If you want to use an image that is not free, you should go pay for it, no? You have a link for the site. You can even go visit the site as a courtesy for free images. Are you saying Google should be paying for the images? If you want to be mad at someone, look at getty - they take² people's images and charge for them, even managing to file DMCA takedowns on the author[1]. As a consolation, at least they host the images themselves. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12180039 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12180039 ² Quick skim says they may merely let other people do the uploading of effectively stolen images.