|
|
|
They wanted 30 days extra to respond to the Complaint
(http://www.cybersheet.com/google.html).
Seems they just retained outside counsel and are still in the process of
retaining local counsel.
I told them that wouldn't be a problem and to send me the stipulation, so it
looks like nothing will be happenning on their end for at least another
month, though one never knows.
|
| |
| |
As you know, Flash, I think you have a number of very valid points in your
lawsuit this time (as someone who has taken the time to read it). It's
certainly a lot more sensible than the rather laughable RICO II.
I am puzzled though that you didn't simply make this a copyright
infringement lawsuit - it seems to me there is little question around
whether you gave them permission to copy your work. You could even use that
newsgroup posting pointed to the cached links of evidence of damage to your
business.
But why, oh why, did you link it with all the RICO #@($? You will get your
ass whipped on the RICO because of a number of different reasons - primarily
the proliferation of different advertising methods on the internet. You
might get slagged off (quite rightly most of the time) for most of the
hateful #@($e you post.
You had a clear case of copyright infringement, but your idiotic desire to
have a McLibel-like trial which drags on for months has sabotaged your
chances of success.
PS. Three pop-up windows on exiting the cybersheet.com/google page? Amateur.
PPS. Your site has #@($e design and navigation. It needs updating and fast.
--------------------------------
Ray wants Google to stop archiving his USENET posts.
But he said to me about something I wrote,
"The truth is that people get sued pretty harshly for what you've been
pulling on me. You also have called yourself a shill, and like it or not, I
can quote that with impunity."
Can Google also quote his USENET posts with impunity?
<snicker>
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
They wanted 30 days extra to respond to the Complaint
(http://www.cybersheet.com/google.html).
Seems they just retained outside counsel and are still in the process of
retaining local counsel.
I told them that wouldn't be a problem and to send me the stipulation, so it
looks like nothing will be happenning on their end for at least another
month, though one never knows.
You goddamn little prick! I do NOT need to see ten f**king extra pages
popping up because of your goddamned mousetrapping.
And the PDF file wouldn't download. Screwed that up also, I'll bet!
And as for Google needing 30 extra days, it's probably because the
lawyers can't stop laughing at your pinheaded case.
Just my own opinion, but anyone who mousetraps a website should have
their butt kicked up around their head.
Now Gordon, that's NOT a threat aimed at you in particular, but at
anyone who mousetraps.
--
Carl cfb01@earthlink.net
Research is a formalized curiosity. It is poking
and prying with a purpose.
Zora Neale Hurston
Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never
regains it's original dimension.
Oliver Wendall Holmes
Only a fool tests the depth of the water with
both feet.
African Proverb
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Albert Einstein
What would life be if we had no courage
to attempt anything?
Vincent Van Gogh
|
| |
| |
And the PDF file wouldn't download.
It would not download for me either. If anyone has a copy of the
lawsuit, could you e-mail it to me or let me know where I can find one.
Thanks.
|
| |
| |
And the PDF file wouldn't download.
It would not download for me either. If anyone has a copy of the
lawsuit, could you e-mail it to me or let me know where I can find one.
Thanks.
Why waste your time reading a load of #@($ from USNET's biggest asshole.
|
| |
| |
So legal genius, who is the outside counsel?
Ray Gordon wrote:
They wanted 30 days extra to respond to the Complaint
(http://www.cybersheet.com/google.html).
Seems they just retained outside counsel and are still in the process of
retaining local counsel.
I told them that wouldn't be a problem and to send me the stipulation, so it
looks like nothing will be happenning on their end for at least another
month, though one never knows.
|
| |
| |
In article <41364EAA.4060209@earthlink.net>, CFB01 <cfb01@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ray Gordon wrote:
They wanted 30 days extra to respond to the Complaint
http://www.cybersheet.com/google.html).
Seems they just retained outside counsel and are still in the process
of retaining local counsel. I told them that wouldn't be a problem and
to send me the stipulation, so it looks like nothing will be
happenning on their end for at least another month, though one never
knows.
You goddamn little prick! I do NOT need to see ten f**king extra pages
popping up because of your goddamned mousetrapping.
My web browser is a wonderful web browser. I can prevent Javascript from
opening up new browsers and from accessing "referrer" and from accessing
"history." I can also prevent it from downloading images that originate
from a different server (which prevents most advertising banners).
And the PDF file wouldn't download. Screwed that up also, I'll bet!
And as for Google needing 30 extra days, it's probably because the
lawyers can't stop laughing at your pinheaded case.
Just my own opinion, but anyone who mousetraps a website should have
their butt kicked up around their head.
Or be silently subjected to people who use a browser that prevents this
from happening.
--
Visit the official Ray Gordon website at http://www.raygordonbooks.co.uk
|
| |
| |
So legal genius, who is the outside counsel?
I hoep they find someone to match Ray's outstanding intellectual knowledge
of law and understanding of its process.
Now, who could a likely candidate be?
Deranged, Smith, Smith, Netloon and Jones LLC of CA, perhaps?
|
| |
| |
Internet Cockroach wrote:
And the PDF file wouldn't download.
Why waste your time reading a load of #@($ from USNET's biggest asshole.
That's funny. I give you two points.
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 00:51:12 GMT, "Takahesi Ogamori"
<takahesiogamori@hotmail.com> wrote:
I hoep they find someone to match Ray's outstanding intellectual knowledge
of law and understanding of its process.
Now, who could a likely candidate be?
Deranged, Smith, Smith, Netloon and Jones LLC of CA, perhaps?
More likely - Juste, Norfolk & Waye, PLLC
Falc
|
| |
| |
Takahesi Ogamori wrote:
...
I am puzzled though that you didn't simply make this a copyright
infringement lawsuit - it seems to me there is little question around
whether you gave them permission to copy your work. You could even use that
newsgroup posting pointed to the cached links of evidence of damage to your
business.
He's never taken the time to officially copyright his work with the Library of Congress.
Therefore, it means the most he can sue for is an injunction at best (cessation of
indexing, archiving, and caching, and/or republishing), presuming he can prove that he
didn't intend for people to actually visit his freely-accessible web pages in the first
place (retarded) and that somehow Google does not do enough to inform webmasters how to
keep them from indexing, archiving, or caching their pages. Presuming this even gets
before a judge, the court will ask him why he didn't just simply indicate to Google's
crawler how to process his pages, if at all - like every other webmaster with at least 2
brain cells can figure out.
--
Form <formhandle@fastseduction.com>
Fast Seduction 101 - http://www.fastseduction.com/
Class is now in session...
Say goodbye to trolls, newsloons, and spam.
Gain (FREE) access to the moderated ASF newsgroups at:
http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/
|
| |
| |
Formhandle wrote:
Takahesi Ogamori wrote:
He's never taken the time to officially copyright his work with the Library of Congress.
Not completely relevant. He can't sue BEFORE filing, but the material
is still under copyright.
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
Formhandle wrote:
Not completely relevant. He can't sue BEFORE filing, but the material
is still under copyright.
But since it's been published more than three months ago, Ray can't get
statutory damages or attorney's fees. Since Gordo was giving the work
away for free, he has no economic losses. So again, all he can get is
an injunction against future misuse IF he files a copyright registration
before trial. And that presumes Google doesn't qualify under the
library / archive exemption, which I think they do.
|
| |
| |
Formhandle <formhandle@fastseduction.com> wrote in message news:<h7adnYqtxMDp4KvcRVn-rg@giganews.com>...
Takahesi Ogamori wrote:
He's never taken the time to officially copyright his work with the Library of Congress.
Therefore, it means the most he can sue for is an injunction at best (cessation of
indexing, archiving, and caching, and/or republishing), presuming he can prove that he
didn't intend for people to actually visit his freely-accessible web pages in the first
place (retarded) and that somehow Google does not do enough to inform webmasters how to
keep them from indexing, archiving, or caching their pages. Presuming this even gets
before a judge, the court will ask him why he didn't just simply indicate to Google's
crawler how to process his pages, if at all - like every other webmaster with at least 2
brain cells can figure out.
--
Form <formhandle@fastseduction.com>
Uh, Formhandle, there are SEVEN pieces registered to him with the U.S.
Copyright Office. At least one of them is named in his pleadings.
Sorry to disappoint. Much as I hate to admit it, he may have
something with the copyright infringement portion. The rest of it...
well, we'll have to wait and see.
Lee Darrow, C.H.
http://www.leedarrow.com
|
| |
| |
Uh, Formhandle, there are SEVEN pieces registered to him with the U.S.
Copyright Office. At least one of them is named in his pleadings.
Actually I'm using the anti-Napster argument, that the infringement is so
pervasive that individual warnings are pointless. There are also Lanham Act
issues because they are deriving revenue from the infringment, since the
only way to compete against Google right now is to risk this lawsuit. If
the court decides that "archiving" is okay, that opens the floodgates to do
what Google is doing.
You can always get injunctive relief even if a copyright is not registered.
Sorry to disappoint. Much as I hate to admit it, he may have
something with the copyright infringement portion.
Why bother with x-no-archiving if what they do is legal?
The rest of it...
well, we'll have to wait and see.
I believe that "googling" someone is an invasion of their privacy.
I mean, I could always change my name to John Smith to frustrate the system,
but that's rather drastic.
Regardless of the outcome of this suit, at least the law will be laid down.
Right now, it's not. That alone is reason to bring the case.
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
Formhandle wrote:
Not completely relevant. He can't sue BEFORE filing, but the material
is still under copyright.
I think you might have missed my point. Although all original works are copyright by
default, he neither officially registered for a copyright on his work, nor charged money
to access it and, beyond all that, made it accessible to the public.
I used to be a creative artist by trade, so I know what I'm talking about in regards to
copyrights. Copyrights can be protected from mis-use but in order to sue for DAMAGES,
one has to actually register the work and/or show some kind of loss of income due to the
infringement. Since the nutbag filing the case against Google neither officially
registered his work nor charged access to it (but, rather, offered free access to it on
his web site), the absolute most he can possibly gain is to injunct others from
re-publishing the work. So, EVEN IF he were to magically win his current complaint
against Google, all he would be able to achieve is getting them to remove cache copies
of his web pages and stop crawling his pages. But, that is something he could have
accomplished outside of a legal complaint. Which means he's abusing the legal process.
Under the most extreme situations, if someone in Parker's position had requested a party
he belives to be infringing on him to stop yet that party knowingly continued to
infringe, then perhaps there is a chance of a receiving compensation for indirect
damages. But Parker has made no indication that he did anything on his end to stop
Google from crawling/archiving his pages and has not indicated that he officially
informed Google of what he believes (*cough* claims he believes *cough*) to be an
infringement.
--
Form <formhandle@fastseduction.com>
Fast Seduction 101 - http://www.fastseduction.com/
Class is now in session...
Say goodbye to trolls, newsloons, and spam.
Gain (FREE) access to the moderated ASF newsgroups at:
http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/
|
| |
| |
Lee Darrow wrote:
...
Uh, Formhandle, there are SEVEN pieces registered to him with the U.S.
Copyright Office. At least one of them is named in his pleadings.
So that makes him even stupider. If that's true, he took work of his that he officially
registered, made it available publicly (no cost) and also knowingly made it accessible
to Google for archiving/caching.
Where are his damages? And, even if he could claim damages, preventing them would have
been as simple as either:
1) Not providing access to his copyrighted works cost-free.
2) Controlling Google's access to his web site (something every commercial webmaster
knows how to do).
He's clearly abusing the court system.
--
Form <formhandle@fastseduction.com>
Fast Seduction 101 - http://www.fastseduction.com/
Class is now in session...
Say goodbye to trolls, newsloons, and spam.
Gain (FREE) access to the moderated ASF newsgroups at:
http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/
|
| |
| |
Paul Robinson <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in message news:<PguZc.163$HY1.128@trnddc02>...
Internet Cockroach wrote:
That's funny. I give you two points.
I think that ALT.SEDUCTION.FAST should be renamed as
ALT.RAY-GORDON.LEGAL.BORING
....because, lets face it, Ray's legal shenannigans are FUCKING TEDIOUS
AND BORING......
|
| |
| |
Uh, Formhandle, there are SEVEN pieces registered to him with the U.S.
Copyright Office. At least one of them is named in his pleadings.
So that makes him even stupider. If that's true, he took work of his that
he officially
registered, made it available publicly (no cost) and also knowingly made
it accessible
to Google for archiving/caching.
Registering a work makes it "knowingly unavailable" for archiving. Google
uses an opt-out permission system which has never held up in any other legal
context.
Why didn't the court require a notice of each infringment where Napster was
concerned and instead just shut it down?
There are also larger issues in this suit, such as when third parties put
stuff on sites that can't be removed by anyone but the third party. I have
no control over those sites.
|
| |
| |
They wanted 30 days extra to respond to the Complaint
What is your reason for posting this here? So we can laugh at your
shenanigans? This is a seduction forum, not your personal diary, GORK.
Oh, by the way, delaying tactics by your opponent are not a sign of
weakness - they're a sign that they're marshalling forces against you. Get
it?
Vince
--
8===
|
| |
| |
Why waste your time reading a load of #@($ from USNET's biggest asshole.
Perverse curiosity. Like watching a really bad reality TV show.
Since posting, I have received a copy. Thank you to the fine gentleman
who sent it.
|
| |
| |
Formhandle wrote:
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
I think you might have missed my point. Although all original works are copyright by
default, he neither officially registered for a copyright on his work, nor charged money
to access it and, beyond all that, made it accessible to the public.
I used to be a creative artist by trade, so I know what I'm talking about in regards to
copyrights. Copyrights can be protected from mis-use but in order to sue for DAMAGES,
one has to actually register the work and/or show some kind of loss of income due to the
infringement.
Fair enough. I thought that the other party's gain could be used as an
indication of damages, so he might be able to get a few pennies, even
if there's no loss of income, but I could be wrong.
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
...
Registering a work makes it "knowingly unavailable" for archiving. Google
uses an opt-out permission system which has never held up in any other legal
context.
How about the phone company that lists your # in the phone book but requires you to "opt
out" by charging you to be unlisted? Go sue a big bell why don't you? You want other
examples?
Why didn't the court require a notice of each infringment where Napster was
concerned and instead just shut it down?
There are also larger issues in this suit, such as when third parties put
stuff on sites that can't be removed by anyone but the third party. I have
no control over those sites.
Of course you do - you can sue those sites directly, idiot. It's not Google's
responsibility to verify that every page made available publicly is guaranteed to be
clear from copyright. Just like it's not the court's responsibility to serve your
subpoenas for you.
I'm seeing a regular trend with you - the expectation that everyone but yourself should
be spoon-feeding you the very things you should be taking responsibility for yourself.
Mommy never gave you the kind of attention you craved growing up so now you spend a
large amount of your time trying to get the world to be your mommy.
--
Form <formhandle@fastseduction.com>
Fast Seduction 101 - http://www.fastseduction.com/
Class is now in session...
Say goodbye to trolls, newsloons, and spam.
Gain (FREE) access to the moderated ASF newsgroups at:
http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
...
Fair enough. I thought that the other party's gain could be used as an
indication of damages, so he might be able to get a few pennies, even
if there's no loss of income, but I could be wrong.
The act of Google crawling, indexing, and caching Parker's web pages most probably is a
loss for Google, not a gain. They should seek damages from him for tricking them into
wasting valuable CPU cycles, electricty, and bandwidth on his crap.
--
Form <formhandle@fastseduction.com>
Fast Seduction 101 - http://www.fastseduction.com/
Class is now in session...
Say goodbye to trolls, newsloons, and spam.
Gain (FREE) access to the moderated ASF newsgroups at:
http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/
|
| |
| |
Registering a work makes it "knowingly unavailable" for archiving.
Google
uses an opt-out permission system which has never held up in any other
legal
context.
How about the phone company that lists your # in the phone book but
requires you to "opt
out" by charging you to be unlisted? Go sue a big bell why don't you?
You want other
examples?
This man is equating a telephone number (which people can request be
unlisted under the right to privacy) with a copyrighted original work of
writing.
Why didn't the court require a notice of each infringment where Napster
was
concerned and instead just shut it down?
There are also larger issues in this suit, such as when third parties
put
stuff on sites that can't be removed by anyone but the third party. I
have
no control over those sites.
Of course you do - you can sue those sites directly, idiot.
Forgive the weakness that compels his mouth to insult.
That aside, 150 years of libel law says you can sue republishers or
distributors of libelous content. In many cases where Google is concerned,
the defamation is either anonymous or in another country so suit is
impractical or impossible.
Google is also the one inflicting 99 percent of the harm from any defamation
because they are the one moving it to within a mouseclick of anyone,
including those who had never seen the original sites or message boards and
would otherwise not have found the material.
It's not Google's
responsibility to verify that every page made available publicly is
guaranteed to be
clear from copyright.
Napster said it wasn't their responsibility either. They lost. Oh yeah,
don't forget Kelly v. Arriba, where Arriba lost.
Just like it's not the court's responsibility to serve your
subpoenas for you.
I'm seeing a regular trend with you - the expectation that everyone but
yourself should
be spoon-feeding you the very things you should be taking responsibility
for yourself.
Mommy never gave you the kind of attention you craved growing up so now
you spend a
large amount of your time trying to get the world to be your mommy.
This man is engaging in a pathetic ad-hominem argument.
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
Registering a work makes it "knowingly unavailable" for archiving.
Google
uses an opt-out permission system which has never held up in any other
legal
context.
requires you to "opt
You want other
This man is equating a telephone number (which people can request be
unlisted under the right to privacy) with a copyrighted original work of
writing.
Wrong. People can request their phone number be unlisted, but it
has nothing to do with the "right to privacy". It's a service provided
by the phone company. I agree there's little comparison, though.
....
That aside, 150 years of libel law says you can sue republishers or
distributors of libelous content.
Oddly enough, not in the 9th Circuit, on Usenet.
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon (Gordon Roy Parker) wrote:
...
This man is equating a telephone number (which people can request be
unlisted under the right to privacy) with a copyrighted original work of
writing.
So go sue some anonymizing HTTP proxy services. They have to COPY your web pages in
order to serve them to web surfers. Hey, next sue Cisco, because most of the Internet
uses their router hardware and they have to copy the stream of data from your web site
before passing it through the Internet to eventually get to recipients. Next you can
sue caching proxies put in place by ISPs which cache content so that it's only fetched
once but served multiple times to clients downstream.
Oh, wait, you don't know about HTTP CACHE headers, do you? You're not a real webmaster.
They are headers which can be iserted into HTTP headers or the HTML file itself if
server configuration access is not available. They are independent of search engines
and how search engines operate yet allow webmasters the ability to define cache
responses which can effectively tell search engines (and proxies) to not cache the content.
So, here you were/are, a @$#*head who takes his copyrighted work and KNOWINGLY publishes
it on a web site with no restrictions to access, no notices whatsoever that accessing
the page might be restricted in any way. You fail to make use of robots.txt files, fail
to make use of the META ROBOTS tags on your pages, fail to set up cache responses for
the pages. You also are aware that Google, the largest search engine in the world,
regularly crawls web pages and can't possibly not be aware of the minor things to do to
keep it's crawlers from doing anything with your pages. Google also probably very well
has the fair use rights under archival laws which protect such things as libraries and
education centers. Yet, after all of that, you choose to sue Google for $10 billion
dollars on a loss of - $0?
The rest of your bull#@($ is just babble and fodder for a laugh.
...
This man is engaging in a pathetic ad-hominem argument.
It can't be ad-hominem if the other person is barely a man.
--
Form <formhandle@fastseduction.com>
Fast Seduction 101 - http://www.fastseduction.com/
Class is now in session...
Say goodbye to trolls, newsloons, and spam.
Gain (FREE) access to the moderated ASF newsgroups at:
http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/
|
| |
| |
Formhandle wrote:
Fair enough. I thought that the other party's gain could be used as an
indication of damages, so he might be able to get a few pennies, even
if there's no loss of income, but I could be wrong.
You're not wrong. There are three measures of damages for copyright
infringement:
Either statutory damages, or,
Infringer's gross profits less cost of sales and copyright owner's lost
sales.
|
| |
| |
PTRAVEL wrote:
...
You're not wrong. There are three measures of damages for copyright
infringement:
Either statutory damages, or,
Infringer's gross profits less cost of sales and copyright owner's lost
sales.
1. Google was not providing access to anything that Parker wasn't already allowing free
access to.
2. Google does not place advertisements on their cache pages.
3. It costs Google money to crawl, index, and provide access to such a cache and I
seriously doubt Google sells any advertising for the words "gordon roy parker". I just
checked that query with & without quotes - no ads. Therefore, Google is in the red when
it comes to his name being searched on in their search engine.
4. Parker was not selling the material in question.
The most Parker could sue Google for is to stop indexing his web pages and stop making
cache copies of his pages available through their search engines. Either of those
things can be done by notice to Google without involving the court system. Thousands of
webmasters daily take the 5 minutes of effort to do just that. But Parker chose to sue
over his own ignorance.
As far as his complaint about Google indexing & providing cached pages of other people
defaming him:
1. First he has to prove there was defamation (he's yet to prove that in any other case)
2. Then, even if he can get a court to agree to defamation, the court must question why
he didn't first go through the process to successfully sue his alleged defamers.
3. Given #'s 1 & 2, he then has to prove that Google is dually aware of such proven
defamation and somehow knowingly republished.
Parker hasn't even gotten to step 1 yet. Therefore, between the copyright & defamation
issues, he has no case. The mere fact he's suing for $10 billion should get the whole
thing thrown out quite quickly.
--
Form <formhandle@fastseduction.com>
Fast Seduction 101 - http://www.fastseduction.com/
Class is now in session...
Say goodbye to trolls, newsloons, and spam.
Gain (FREE) access to the moderated ASF newsgroups at:
http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/
|
| |
| |
This man is equating a telephone number (which people can request be
unlisted under the right to privacy) with a copyrighted original work of
writing.
Wrong. People can request their phone number be unlisted, but it
has nothing to do with the "right to privacy". It's a service provided
by the phone company. I agree there's little comparison, though.
Six of one.....
That aside, 150 years of libel law says you can sue republishers or
distributors of libelous content.
Oddly enough, not in the 9th Circuit, on Usenet.
The 9th circuit will likely defer to the CA Appellate court's ruling in
Grace v. Ebay.
My case is in the third circuit anyway.
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
Fair enough. I thought that the other party's gain could be used as an
indication of damages, so he might be able to get a few pennies, even
if there's no loss of income, but I could be wrong.
No, without actual damages there's no money available.
In order to get statutory damages it must have been registered before
the infringement or within 3 months of first publication. Otherwise all
you can get are actual damages. Since he was giving the stuff away he
has no damages; no economic loss to him was in any way sustained.
"Nothing from nothing leaves nothing" - Billy Preston
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
Registering a work makes it "knowingly unavailable" for archiving. Google
uses an opt-out permission system which has never held up in any other legal
context.
I think Google would qualify as a library or archive and thus be subject
to the exemption. Beyond which, it is common practice for indexers to
seach the web, and I believe there's already been a case holding such
practice to be fair use.
Why didn't the court require a notice of each infringment where Napster was
concerned and instead just shut it down?
Actually, she did do exactly that. Judge Patel issued that as part of
her order. Google, in general, is scanning and indexing web pages where
the whole idea is to allow others to see and copy the material. Napster
was carrying indexes to material which it was not intended for those who
did so to copy the material in question.
There are also larger issues in this suit, such as when third parties put
stuff on sites that can't be removed by anyone but the third party. I have
no control over those sites.
As well you shouldn't. That's what a proper DMCA notice under the
notice-and-take-down procedure is for. If you're right and they refuse,
it's grounds for infringement. If you're wrong and it's not
infringing, the aggrieved party can sue you for damages. Not that you'd
have any money to pay them, but that's beside the point...
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
Napster said it wasn't their responsibility either. They lost.
See, e.g., A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004,
1015 (9th Cir. 2001) ("[C]ommercial use is demonstrated by
a showing that repeated and exploitative unauthorized copies of
copyrighted works were made to save the expense of purchasing
authorized copies.").
You're not selling your works, you were giving them away. Napster is
not on point here.
Oh yeah, don't forget Kelly v. Arriba, where Arriba lost.
The district court found that Kelly had established a prima
facie case of copyright infringement based on Arriba's
unauthorized reproduction and display of Kelly's works,
but that this reproduction and display constituted a
non-infringing "fair use " under Section 107 of the
Copyright Act. Kelly appeals that decision, and we
affirm in part and reverse in part. The creation and
use of the thumbnails in the search engine is a fair use,
but the display of the larger image is a violation of
Kelly's exclusive right to publicly display his works.
Okay, you may be partially right. Only problem is the appeals court
ruled the thumbnail (Caching) of the material to be permissible. So
that goes. The material on your website was available publicly and was
not being sold. It was indexed as part of Google's regular routine. in
fact, it is very likely that had Google not indexed your site, people
could not find your crapola.
[T]he extent of permissible copying varies with the purpose
and character of the use... although Arriba did copy each of
Kelly's images as a whole, it was reasonable to do so in
light of Arriba's use... It was necessary for Arriba to copy
the entire image to allow users to recognize the image and
decide whether to pursue more information about the image
or the originating web site. If Arriba only copied part of
the image, it would be more difficult to identify it, thereby
reducing the usefulness of the visual search engine...
4. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value
of the copyrighted work. This last factor requires courts
to consider "not only the extent of market harm caused by
the particular actions of the alleged infringer, but also
`whether unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort
engaged in by the defendant . . . would result in a
substantially adverse impact on the potential market for the
original.'
You were originally offering the item for free. In general, people
could find your works, with very limited exceptions, only by noticing
them in a seacrch engine's index. That you decided to change your mind
about offering it for free means you should have considered seeing to it
that it was no longer indexed. You could have chosen to not have Google
index your site at all in the first place. When you decided to change
the terms of access for your works, you could have asked Google to
remove it from their index and cache. You did not. Whether the courts
will decide that caching is infringement or a substantive transformation
that is not, is another matter. They have already ruled making
thumbnail copies of whole images is not. Caching might qualify under
the library exemption since it keeps works that otherwise would be
unreachable (say because of Slashdotting) or that have been lost (such
as when a personal site disappears because the hosting company drops it
due to low usage or goes out of business), still available, since the
site owner has the capacity to specify before the site is ever examined,
not to have it cached or indexed or both.
Google frightens you to the core of your being, because it leaves what
you have had to say as you said it, without your being able to spin it
away and disavow prior statements. Anything hateful, scandalous,
vicious, cruel or mean that you have said, is there in your own words
for everyone to read as you wrote it. This, of course, frightens you
because you cannot evade the lies | | |
