Google wins copyright case
p2p news / p2pnet: A lawsuit filed by Philadelphia writer Gordon Roy Parker, aka Ray Gordon, claiming Google infringed his copyright by archiving a Usenet posting of his, and providing excerpts from his site in search results, has been thrown out.
The US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled today that under case law, "Google’s activities, akin to those of an Internet Service Provider, do not constitute infringement," says ZDNet.
"When an ISP automatically and temporarily stores data without human intervention so that the system can operate and transmit data to its users, the necessary element of volition (willful intent to infringe) is missing," the court ruled, citing a decision in Field v Google in Nevada that, "concluded that cached versions of Web pages Google stores and offers as a part of many search results do not infringe copyright".
This latest decision follows another last month when a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled, "portions of Google’s image search feature, which displays thumbnail versions of images found on adult photo site Perfect 10 and others, likely violate U.S. copyright law," adds ZDNet.
Also See:
ZDNet – Google wins a court battle, March 16, 2006
March 17th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
this does make one wonder if they’ll win against the gov.
I think this win against the little guy will wind up with them finally giving up those files the gov wants after all.
March 18th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
“the necessary element of volition (willful intent to infringe) is missing,”
This only shows how courts play with words to justify the decision they have made for reasons other than the one stated.
First, the words
“volition”
“willful intent”
are not even mentioned in the Copyright Act. I just did a search.
So, what the judge is saying is the Google did not know what it was doing, since if they had known, there was “volition”.
Maybe the judge read, not the law, but the Justice Department guide on infringement. I include it here as a footnote.
Then here we have an question: Do kids that download songs know that they are infringing copyrights even though they do not even know the meaning and significance of the words “infringing” and “copyrights”? Ifthe answer is no, then there is no “volition”. Right? Will someone please explain this the judge in the Santangelo case. The judge should be explained what the justice Department says, that to prove infringement it is needed to “demonstrate a “voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty.” Since kids, housewives and plumbers do not know their legal duties regarding copying (a subject too complex for non copyright lawyers) then they cannot possibly be accused of the act of infringement.
Actually the judge’s decision is sound but for a reason other than the one stated. When a search engine makes available text a copyright owner has posted on the Internet, it is only showing what the poster wants to show on the Internet. The same logic applies to the thumb images that Google image search engine shows. The rule should be simple: If you do not want your stuff to appear on a search engine search, do not put it on the Internet.
Search engines are too important to culture and freedom today to put copyright chains on it. Obsolete laws and legal dogmas cannot simply understand this, just like it cannot undestand the concept of file sharing and copying.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas
Footnote: Justice Department Guide
1850 Copyright Infringement — Third Element — Willfulness
To establish criminal intent, the government must prove that the defendant willfully infringed a holder’s copyright. See 17 U.S.C. ยง 506(a). Courts are in general agreement that a willful act must be “an act intentionally done in violation of the law.” United States v. Wise, 550 F.2d 1180, 1194 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 929 (1977). But when defining willfulness, courts have differed in their interpretation of which of the two acts –copying or infringing — requires willful intent. The minority view, endorsed by the Second and Ninth Circuits, holds that “willful” means only intent to copy, not intent to infringe.The majority view, however, looks for an intent to infringe rather than intent to copy, thus, requiring the government to demonstrate a “voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty.”
March 22nd, 2006 at 6:03 am
Do you know who this “little guy is” Google Ray Gordon. This isn’t a little guy. This is one of the most well known USENET trolls.
March 22nd, 2006 at 6:05 am
Go and actually look up the judge’s ruling. This case has no bearing on any pending action. Primarily tossed because it was a rambling mess.
March 27th, 2006 at 12:41 am
“Primarily tossed because it was a rambling mess.”
The story seems clear in giving the judge’s reasoning. It said nothing about “rambling mess”.
btw, what does “rambling mess” mean?
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com