7 ms·

IANAL: 1. Google doesn't show in-line'd data box with Net worth 2. Google asks site (CNW) for access, is denied. 3. Google then shows site's data in data box

IANAL: 1. Google doesn't show in-line'd data box with Net worth 2. Google asks site (CNW) for access, is denied. 3. Google then shows site's data in data box (with CNW site proof of theft with canary tokens being the fake celebrity's net worth) that are now presented as Google's data (no source or fake source), without license from original site. If that isn't theft of data, what is it? From the PDFs, there is no license for free re-use ;-) While I'm all-in for freedom of information and open source documentation license or open data licenses, I fully understand the need of businesses to protect their intellectual property and rights.

teddyh 6y ago
You keep calling it “theft”. It is obviously not literally theft, since no physical object has been taken. The only thing you could possibly mean is “copyright infringement” (which is commonly called theft in imprecise and inflammatory language), but copyright does not apply to a simple fact like a dollar amount, no matter how much research lies behind it. You might be of the opinion that it should, but that is a different argument, which you did not make.
- philprx 6y ago
  Ok, sorry sir ;-) Copyright infringement. What's the difference really here? IANAL means this precisely (and on a side note, I'm here for open exchange and debate, not for claiming to be right ;-) Interestingly, depending on jurisdictions, there are places on the globe (EU, FR) where I think the terminology is theft not copyright infringement ("theft of database"), even if it does not apply to this US National dispute. Now let's see how this goes with the US gov.
  - thedevilslawyer 6y ago
    There is a significant difference, and an entire activism movement in ensuring this is recognized. Thanks for calling out (and I hope realizing) the difference.
  - teddyh 6y ago
    > Copyright infringement. What's the difference really here? Upthread, the user “errantmind” asked you to provide your legal basis for it being “theft”. It’s obviously not legally speaking theft, since no physical object has been taken. But let’s be a bit charitable and assume that you meant “copyright infringement” instead. However, you have not made the case for it being copyright infringement either, since Google’s copying (which you do describe in detail) did not, AFAIK, infringe copyright (at least in the US, which is where the investigation referred to in the document is being held). If you want to argue that what Google did is illegal, then please specify what actual law was broken. On the other hand, if you instead want to argue that what Google did should be illegal, then please, go ahead and present your case, but this was not the original topic.
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
actually this is interesting right here, because if Google takes CNW's fake celebrity, then that is definite copyright infringement - the fake celebrity was created by CNW and as such is not a fact so Google can't argue that it's not copyrighted because facts are not copyrighted.
- lalaland1125 6y ago
  That's not how the courts view these issues. Fake facts hidden within real facts have been litigated many times and has always been shown to be uncopyrightable. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street#Legal_issues https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street#Legal_issues.
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    You are correct, about Trap Streets. I'm not sure if the language is fake facts hidden in real facts, or fake streets in maps. Because it seems pretty specific to trap steets. If the language is indeed not general beyond trap streets - if I create a fake celebrity and data regarding them, I would argue that is more like making a story. A trap street is a small line on the map (generally hidden somewhere unimportant) and a couple words. A fake celebrity requires much more content. From the PDF "I added fivecompletely conjured celebrities to the site. I used stock photos with entirely made up names, biographies and net worth numbers. I published the pages backdated several yearsso they were nearly invisible to the world." Now, let's look at a real celebrity on their site https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors/simon-cowell-net-worth/ https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors... It seems reasonable to assume from the pdf that they put the kind of effort into an article on the fake celebrities to make them indistinguishable from real celebrities, it may be decided that this is the same as a trap street. But I don't think it is just a foregone conclusion. Aside from all that - https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/06/andrewclark https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/06/andrewclark they might be able to sue in some other place than the U.S and find a more sympathetic court.
lalaland1125 6y ago
This isn't theft of data or copyright infringement because you can't copyright facts in the US.
- mthoms 6y ago
  These aren't facts though. They are researched estimates. Different researchers will come up with different numbers.
  - lalaland1125 6y ago
    All facts are well researched estimates. Our number for the speed of light didn't come out of the ether: someone came up with a very sophisticated experiment to get a highly accurate estimate and different experiments get different estimates. Do you think the speed of light should be copyrightable?
    - mthoms 6y ago
      The speed of light is absolutely not an estimate. It's a mathematically provable fact. Facts (in this context) are numbers that are not reasonably disputable. The value of pi, the speed of light and my current phone number are all facts. What I happen to think the net worth of someone else is, is certainly not a fact. You might think it's something else. It would be difficult to prove either one of us right.
      - lalaland1125 6y ago
        If you don't believe that the speed of light is a physically measured quantity, then replace that question with whatever physical constant you prefer (charge of an electron, gravitational constant, current mass of the earth, etc, etc). Do you think those numbers should be copyrightable? The charge of the electron is particularly interesting as there was actually a lot of debate over that number because some of the original experiments were flawed.
        6y ago

teddyh 6y ago

You keep calling it “theft”. It is obviously not literally theft, since no physical object has been taken. The only thing you could possibly mean is “copyright infringement” (which is commonly called theft in imprecise and inflammatory language), but copyright does not apply to a simple fact like a dollar amount, no matter how much research lies behind it. You might be of the opinion that it should, but that is a different argument, which you did not make.

philprx 6y ago
Ok, sorry sir ;-) Copyright infringement. What's the difference really here? IANAL means this precisely (and on a side note, I'm here for open exchange and debate, not for claiming to be right ;-) Interestingly, depending on jurisdictions, there are places on the globe (EU, FR) where I think the terminology is theft not copyright infringement ("theft of database"), even if it does not apply to this US National dispute. Now let's see how this goes with the US gov.
- thedevilslawyer 6y ago
  There is a significant difference, and an entire activism movement in ensuring this is recognized. Thanks for calling out (and I hope realizing) the difference.
- teddyh 6y ago
  > Copyright infringement. What's the difference really here? Upthread, the user “errantmind” asked you to provide your legal basis for it being “theft”. It’s obviously not legally speaking theft, since no physical object has been taken. But let’s be a bit charitable and assume that you meant “copyright infringement” instead. However, you have not made the case for it being copyright infringement either, since Google’s copying (which you do describe in detail) did not, AFAIK, infringe copyright (at least in the US, which is where the investigation referred to in the document is being held). If you want to argue that what Google did is illegal, then please specify what actual law was broken. On the other hand, if you instead want to argue that what Google did should be illegal, then please, go ahead and present your case, but this was not the original topic.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

actually this is interesting right here, because if Google takes CNW's fake celebrity, then that is definite copyright infringement - the fake celebrity was created by CNW and as such is not a fact so Google can't argue that it's not copyrighted because facts are not copyrighted.

lalaland1125 6y ago
That's not how the courts view these issues. Fake facts hidden within real facts have been litigated many times and has always been shown to be uncopyrightable. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street#Legal_issues https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street#Legal_issues.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  You are correct, about Trap Streets. I'm not sure if the language is fake facts hidden in real facts, or fake streets in maps. Because it seems pretty specific to trap steets. If the language is indeed not general beyond trap streets - if I create a fake celebrity and data regarding them, I would argue that is more like making a story. A trap street is a small line on the map (generally hidden somewhere unimportant) and a couple words. A fake celebrity requires much more content. From the PDF "I added fivecompletely conjured celebrities to the site. I used stock photos with entirely made up names, biographies and net worth numbers. I published the pages backdated several yearsso they were nearly invisible to the world." Now, let's look at a real celebrity on their site https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors/simon-cowell-net-worth/ https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors... It seems reasonable to assume from the pdf that they put the kind of effort into an article on the fake celebrities to make them indistinguishable from real celebrities, it may be decided that this is the same as a trap street. But I don't think it is just a foregone conclusion. Aside from all that - https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/06/andrewclark https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/06/andrewclark they might be able to sue in some other place than the U.S and find a more sympathetic court.

lalaland1125 6y ago

This isn't theft of data or copyright infringement because you can't copyright facts in the US.

mthoms 6y ago
These aren't facts though. They are researched estimates. Different researchers will come up with different numbers.
- lalaland1125 6y ago
  All facts are well researched estimates. Our number for the speed of light didn't come out of the ether: someone came up with a very sophisticated experiment to get a highly accurate estimate and different experiments get different estimates. Do you think the speed of light should be copyrightable?
  - mthoms 6y ago
    The speed of light is absolutely not an estimate. It's a mathematically provable fact. Facts (in this context) are numbers that are not reasonably disputable. The value of pi, the speed of light and my current phone number are all facts. What I happen to think the net worth of someone else is, is certainly not a fact. You might think it's something else. It would be difficult to prove either one of us right.
    - lalaland1125 6y ago
      If you don't believe that the speed of light is a physically measured quantity, then replace that question with whatever physical constant you prefer (charge of an electron, gravitational constant, current mass of the earth, etc, etc). Do you think those numbers should be copyrightable? The charge of the electron is particularly interesting as there was actually a lot of debate over that number because some of the original experiments were flawed.
      - 6y ago