This small lawsuit brought by a single individual has large implications. Author and attorney Blake Field served Google
with an infringement claim over the Google's cache feature, which makes, stores, and distributes copies of Internet
pages, without permission. This issue has, for year, been ripe for testing. The implications for the Google Print
Libraries project (currently under seige by two major lawsuits) is direct. If Google were ever prohibited from
continuing its caching practice, it would certainly be prohibited from "caching" books--which is what Google
Print amounts to.
Blake Field lost, in a summary judgment. According to the EFF, the court's decision contained four
major points. Rather than risk making errors in describing these lawyerly distinctions, I'll quote from the EFF and add
commentary. I am not a lawyer, but many years of following new-era copyright struggles have given me a fair layperson's
understanding of the issues.
Serving a webpage from the Google Cache does
not constitute direct infringement, because it results from automated, non-volitional activity by Google servers (Field
did not allege infringement on the basis of the making of the initial copy by the Googlebot). I'm astonished to
hear Google's cache described as "non-volitional," simply because Google's volition is carried out by
automated software.
Field's conduct (failure to set a "no
archive" metatag; posting "allow all" robot.txt header) indicated that he impliedly licensed search
engines to archive his web page. This is the most amazing of all, and related directly to Google's attempt to
copy books belonging to publishers who have not opted out of Google Print. The idea of implied licensing on
this scale is new, I think, and indicates that we might be moving into a new definition of fair use.
Traditionally, it is the user who must opt in to a licensing agreement with the owner; not the owner needing to opt out
of the user's willy-nilly copying.
The Google Cache is a fair use.
It is a judge's prerogative to rule fair use; that decision is always made case-by-case. But, predicated on the
previous two points, I feel the question has remained relatively unexplored.
The Google Cache qualifies for the DMCA's 512(b) caching "safe harbor" for online service
providers. This part of the ruling is entirely agreeable. (Check here for a
description of this DMCA clause.) Wouldn't it have been sufficient without questionable fair use judgments?
Google Cache Escapes Prosecution
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. Actually, the way it typically works in the United States is that everything is legal unless explicitly prohibited. As an American company, Google would be subject to American laws. Look at illegal drugs. They all start as legal until someone passes a law making them illegal. Look at commercially available chemicals. Their packages all contain the statement "it is a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling". That statement changes the use from an "allow by default" mode to a "deny by default" mode. Without such a statement being explicitly spelled out, it would be legal to do anything with the product.
A book or movie must be marked as copyrighted, otherwise they may be freely copied. Taking credit for someone else's work is an entirely different idea and would constitute falsifying information.
What Google did was simply making a copy of the information. They never represented the information as their own and were very clear about what the true source of the information was. This is no different than a photocopy of a non-copyrighted document that is provided with the statement "This is a copy of waht I received at such and such an event".
Posted at 12:59PM on Jan 29th 2006 by Jason
3. It is interesting to note that in Australia everything is copyright (even if it is not specifically spelled out) although "it is advisable to attach a copyright moniker".
Much of this is destined to change to bring our laws in line with US laws since the Free Trade Agreement was reached. Already the copyright period in Australia has been upped from 50 years to 70 years in line with US laws.
Posted at 1:19AM on Jan 30th 2006 by HarryC
4. >The Google Cache qualifies for the DMCA's 512(b)
>caching "safe harbor" for online service providers.
>This part of the ruling is entirely agreeable.
>(Check here for a description of this DMCA clause.)
I disagree with that. The DMCA caching "safe harbor" clearly covers only proxy-caching. The so-called Google’s "cache" is a completely different thing. Just take a look, to begin with, to the refreshing condition. It's obvious that Google doesn't meet it.
Google cache doesn't qualify for the caching safe harbor; this had been already pointed out:
http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-1024234.html
Posted at 1:38PM on Feb 4th 2006 by Miquel
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
1. hi
do u know how google search us
we found it with math solution and publish it in http://mathcom.blogfa.com
Posted at 9:32PM on Jan 28th 2006 by esmailifar