Eric Goldman has posted his notes from the Google-sponsored conference “The Law and Economics of Search Engines and Online Advertising” at the George Mason University School of Law. It includes a lot of insight into Google search, how it works, and why Google make some of the choices it does in formulating search results.
Posts Tagged ‘Google’
A soccer player who is famous in the United Kingdom, Ryan Giggs, apparently obtained a “super-injunction” to force the press to not reveal his name in connection with ongoing litigation involving an extra-marital affair he allegedly had with UK reality-television star Imogen Thomas. He has now apparently sued Twitter and Twitter users for revealing his identity.
The so-called super-injunction is one that not only gags the press and others with regard to the sensitive subject matter (such as allegations of an extra-marital affair), but also prohibits the press from even reporting about the injunction itself, thus shielding the identity of the person who took out the super-injunciton.
As your author of Blog Law Blog, based in the United States, I am confident that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects my ability to identify the person. And regardless, free-speech sufficient to discuss the use and potential over-use of judicial power ought to be considered a universal human right.
I actually looked through several news stories looking for the athlete’s name. All the sites I read, all of which were UK-based, were very cheeky, refusing to name Griggs, but dropping lots of hints, implying that the reader must then know who it was.
I’m sorry, but for me, on this side of the pond, if it’s not David Beckham, then I’m not going to know who it is unless you give me a name.
I eventually was able to get Griggs’s name through Google’s auto-complete feature, by typing in “superinjunction footballer …”
And now Griggs is suing Twitter, which was apparently where his identity broke.
Good luck with that, buddy. You’ll need it.
Twitter, based in San Francisco, U.S.A., has not only the First Amendment protecting it, but also the super-safe-harbor of section 230.
And now, here’s my commentary on the law: The super-injunction is a rank abuse of judicial power. It’s especially disappointing, to me, since the United Kingdom is one of the few countries on Earth that places the sort of premium on free speech that the United States does.
Imogen Thomas, Griggs’s ex-squeeze, who has been accused of blackmail in this whole thing, had this to say in the UK’s Daily Mail, which I think shows quite nicely what is wrong with the super-injunction as a legal institution:
“Yet again my name and my reputation are being trashed while the man I had a relationship with is able to hide.
“What’s more, I can’t even defend myself because I have been gagged. Where’s the fairness in that? What about my reputation?
“If this is the way privacy injunctions are supposed to work then there’s something seriously wrong with the law.”
What a buzz kill, huh? This is why people don’t love lawyers. You’re all excited about your company’s social media debut, and then all of a sudden you remember, OH YEAH, I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE LAW!. And then you have to pay by the hour, and all of a sudden you are really grumpy.
But, of course, Michelle is right. Any business going into social media as a way to win customers and make money ought to learn something about the law before they do. There are a lot expensive mistakes you can make.
And why, you may ask, why has the law thrown up a bunch of hurdles that make for those potentially expensive mistakes? It’s because there are a lot of people who want to use social media to rip off customers. So, basically, the unscrupulous folks out there ruin it for everybody. Next time you’re grumpy about legal bills, pause for a moment to send some bad juju the way of the sleazes out there who are the reason so many laws exist.
Anyway, Michelle’s post contains a nice rundown of the FTC v. Twitter lawsuit (settlement recently finalized) and the FTC v. Google Buzz settlement.
On Saturday (March 5, 2011), I noticed for the first time a feature called “realtime results” coming up in response to a Google search query. The feature raises interesting legal questions because it appears to be re-publishing whole tweets from Twitter.
You can see what I saw in the window grab below.
This is different from what Google has done in the past with reproducing snippets of a page. They are now reproducing whole works, albeit small works that are 140 characters or fewer.
What Google is doing arguably goes beyond “search” and becomes just “skim”. Indeed, watching realtime results float by on Google might well constitute a final destination for many internet users. All the results I saw, by the way, were from Twitter.
Is this copyright infringement? Maybe. Arguably a phrase that is only 140 characters or less is not copyrightable. You could write a whole 50-page law-review article analyzing the copyrightability of tweets. The thing about a suit for copyright infringement is that it would need to be brought by the copyright owners, which are the tweeters, not Twitter. And that seems unlikely to happen.
Is this unfair competition? Maybe. That would be a cause of action that Twitter could possibly use. There’s another law-review article.
There’s also a doctrine known as “hot news misappropriation,” which is a quasi-intellectual-property/quasi-tort cause of action that is rarely used. This doctrine is often applied – more in theory than in litigation – to things like realtime stock quotes. Could Twitter sue for that? There’s another long law-review article you can write.
My short answer is, I don’t know. But Google’s realtime results do strike me as being a lot less “fair” than regular search results. This all continues to fit into Google’s pattern of act first and determine legality later. It’s the whole “better to ask for forgiveness than for permission” thing, of which examples are Google book search, Google street view, Google image search, viewable cached pages, and Google’s road testing of its self-driving car.
A few weeks ago, Google lost a lawsuit over its Street View feature. The reporting about the case was generally off the mark, so let me try to clear things up.
In the federal lawsuit, Aaron and Christine Boring of Franklin Park, Pa. won $1 in damages against Google, Inc. for trespassing.
Press coverage (e.g., this not-very-well-written story) made it sound as if Google incurred liability by taking a picture of private property and displaying it on the internet. That’s not the case. The reason Google was liable for trespassing is because Google drove its Street View car onto private land, going up a private road that was marked with a “No Trespassing” sign.
In other words, the case doesn’t say it’s trespassing to take a picture of private property and display it on the internet. (Indeed it’s not.) What the case means is that it’s trespassing to trespass.
So, if you are a blogger, this case shouldn’t make you nervous about posting pictures of private property – unless those pictures serve as evidence of your having done something unlawful.
And that’s what Google did. By posting the pictures, they proved that they committed a civilly actionable trespass. It also would appear that Google violated Pennsylvania criminal trespass statute at 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3503.
It was absurd for Google to fight this in court. They should have respected the law, and they should have respected private property rights. It’s too bad they only had to pay a dollar. I personally think a small measure of punitive damages would have been in order.
It’s another case of Google doing whatever Google gets ready to do – regardless of the law.
And they keep getting away with it.
The Sun Times of Owen Sound, Ontario reports that the town of Meaford, Ontario has obtained the identity of a person behind www.francisformayor.blogspot.com, an anonymously authored blog that was critical of the incumbent mayor during a recent election.
The mayor, Francis Richardson, managed to get re-elected despite the blog supposedly having interfered with the election.
The town of about 11,000 people was able to get the identity from IP addresses turned over by Google.
The town is still pressing Google for more information so it can get the identity of anonymous commenters.
Richardson wants to publicly reveal the blogger’s identity “for the main reason of having that kind of thing stopped.”
Richardson claims it wasn’t attacks on him that pushed the city to use legal process to find the blogger’s identity. It was, he says, the material critical of his staff.
“It was the attack on the staff that council responded to. It requires us to get very, very, very serious to get people to realize they can’t take those kinds of shots at our staff without the corporation doing something about it,” Richardson told the Sun Times.
The article doesn’t say what the blogger or commenters said that is allegedly civilly actionable. Supposedly a defamation lawsuit is in the offing.
Winemaker Charles Smith and K Vintners LLC has filed a libel suit against anonymous commenters to a post on wine blog The Gray Market Report. The post that pulled in the allegedly defamatory comments is Charles Smith is a wine cartoon. Really.
Taylor Eason has blogged about the lawsuit at wineloverspage.com.
The Gray Market Report was not sued, nor the blogger W. Blake Gray, nor Google, the host via Blogger. Instead, it’s a suit targeting John Does 1-10. Google has been served with a subpoena to turn over identifying information.
Gray Market Report has published the complaint and some details in a post headlined Attention readers: Charles Smith may be suing you.
The complained of comments accuse Charles Smith of being a “promoter” and “marketing-whiz” and not the winemaking brains in the operation. There’s also accusations of verbal harassment of employees.
The statements are good ones for exploring the issue of fact/opinion dichotomy in libel law. They are all somewhat close to the line, and you can bet it will be an issue as to whether the statements are factual assertions capable of defamatory meaning or unactionable expressions of opinion.
“Net neutrality” means that internet traffic is all treated equally. On a non-neutral internet, some webpages will download faster if the host of those pages has paid a special fee to your internet service provider.
If you are a blogger, should you care about net neutrality? Yes, you should care about it dearly. It’s a complicated issue, involving complicated technology, complicated economics, and complicated industrial models. That’s all true. But it comes down to something quite simple. Right now, a lone blogger is on an equal footing with the New York Times in terms of the being able to deliver content to end-users across the internet. Without net neutrality, that could change.
What will happen to blog readership in a non-neutral world? Imagine you have a choice between reading a blog or reading news from a big media company. The blog downloads at a glacial pace. You’re waiting. And waiting. And waiting. Meanwhile, the big media company’s content goes ZIP! and it’s all there. Readership of traditional blogs will plummet.
The political picture on a postage stamp is this: Big telecom companies generally don’t like net neutrality, because they would like to charge for non-neutral carriage of data. Little guys without a lot of political clout like net neutrality. The one mega-sized corporate friend that net-neutrality supporters had was Google. That’s why Google made such big news when it announced recently that it had struck a deal with Verizon to support non-neutral carriage for wireless services and other tweaks on net-neutrality.
Learn about it:
Ooooh. Very interesting. Techdirt asks:
Two things I would add:
1. This is especially interesting since the Field v. Google case came out of the District of Nevada. That means it’s real precedent in federal court in Las Vegas.
2. The Field v. Google case was in my view wrongly decided. But not real surprising. Bad facts + silly plaintiff => bad reasoning + silly precedent. The Righthaven case may force the issue.
Searching for news on Righthaven on Google a couple days ago, I was greeted with a keyword ad from the Las Vegas law firm of Lewis and Roca, who is looking for some of the ever-expanding multitude of Righthaven defendants to come on as clients. Lewis & Roca’s landing page says:
Lewis and Roca has represented defendants in a substantial number of the cases filed by Righthaven to date in settlement negotiations and litigation. Lewis and Roca has formed a team to handle these cases in an efficient and effective manner.
THR, Esq. reports that Google has grabbed star public-interest copyright lawyer Fred von Lohmann from the Electronic Frontier Foundation to join up as senior copyright counsel.
Previously, I linked to one of von Lohmann’s posts on the EFF Deep Links blog about how music bloggers can keep from getting into trouble with litigious record companies.
Google is usually on the public-interest side of copyright battles. Indeed, in my opinion, Google has done more than anyone else in contemporary times to push back against the unceasing expansion of copyright entitlements. But it’s a mistake to think that Google is a charitably minded do-gooder. Google pushes back against copyright because it’s usually in its interest to do so. But make no mistake, Google is ready to assert copyright in dubious ways when doing so is in itself interest. (See, e.g., the Google Books settlement, my takes here and here.)
In 2005, von Lohmann wrote a blog post for EFF in which he described his “conversion moment.” It was in 1994 when he read John Perry Barlow’s essay, The Economy of Idea, which includes this passage, quoted by von Lohmann: “The greatest constraint on your future liberties may come not from government but from corporate legal departments … ”
Google’s a fantastic company, and I congratulate von Lohman on his new job. There’s no shame in working for a for-profit company – I’ve done a lot of that myself. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with moving from public-interest work to for-profit work. None at all. But von Lohmann is the latest in a string of public-interest-minded IP lawyers that have been hired by Google. And that gives me pause. They can’t all go. We still need great public-interest copyright lawyers. Now more than ever.
[Cross-posted from Pixelization.]
YouTube has triumphed in a grand copyright battle against media companies and content owners led by Viacom. The case is important not just for YouTube, but for all websites with user-generated content, including blogs allowing automatically posted comments.
Judge Louis L. Stanton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, granted Google’s motion for summary judgment against Viacom for all claims for direct and secondary copyright infringement. The opinion is available as an image-based pdf and in an html document format. Google, which owns YouTube, has posted the news of its victory on the Official Google Blog.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act says that an internet service provider with “actual knowledge” of infringement loses the protection of the DMCA’s safe-harbor provisions. That makes the case seem pretty easy for Viacom. Everyone knows that YouTube hosts tons of infringing video clips. And of course Google knows it too. So doesn’t that mean that it’s a slam dunk and Viacom should win? Nope.
The court said, “Mere knowledge of prevalence of such activity in general is not enough.” An ISP’s immunity evaporates only when it has “knowledge of specific and identifiable infringements of particular individual items.”
The court explained what was at stake in the big picture: “To let knowledge of a generalized practice of infringement in the industry, or of a proclivity of users to post infringing materials, impose responsibility on service providers to discover which of their users’ postings infringe a copyright would contravene the structure and operation of the DMCA.”
That means that going forward, the Viacom and other content providers, if they want their content scrubbed from YouTube, will have to do the policing themselves, sending DMCA take-down notices, at which point it will be YouTube’s responsibility to remove it.
The court continued, “The DMCA is explicit: it shall not be construed to condition ‘safe harbor’ protection on ‘a service provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity….’ Indeed, the present case shows that the DMCA notification regime works efficiently: when Viacom over a period of months accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass take-down notice on February 2, 2007, by the next business day YouTube had removed virtually all of them.” (citations omitted)
Viacom has vowed to appeal.