Google's own medicine
Paul says:
Related Posts
* Google's Autolink
* Google Autolink Opt Out Meta Tag
* Scroogle
So you've probably heard about Google's new features in it's toolbar, which allow google to add links to certain words on pages you visit. For example, addresses will link to maps of the address. Eventually, google could use this technology to place ads inside pages it doesn't own. Since google doesn't seem to think this is a bad idea, I guess they will have no problem with butler. [via](Thanks, Paul!)
Basically, butler allows firefox to strip google pages of ads and adds links to google's competition.
On a somewhat related note, is it just me, or has epinions and bizrate fallen off google search results now that froogle is launched?
Related Posts
* Google's Autolink
* Google Autolink Opt Out Meta Tag
* Scroogle
3 Comments:
Kevin,
Whether using "butler" or Google's AutoLink, it makes sense that the user should be able to modify whatever he/she receives as long as the modified version is for his/her personal consumption.
Copyright law clearly prohibits a third party from taking copyrighted material, modifying it (even just framing it) and republishing it.
However, the pragmatic reality is that the user isn't usually doing this modifying completely on his/her own. There is often a very interested party involved, "helping" him/her with a tool to assist with the modifications (which usually "just happen" to be in the interests of that 3rd party).
Thus, you can look at this situation and view it as a kind of distributed aggregator, which effectively violates copyright without (arguably) doing any thing illegal.
I'm not in favor of overly strict copyright enforcement, but this situation bothers me in that it might conceivably form the basis of bypassing copyright entirely by allowing an infringer to become a distributed rather than centralized re-publisher (while reaping all the 'benefits' of infringement in a completely legal manner).
Thoughts?
Terry
Terry,
I think you make several excellent points in this comment. As I said in my prior autolink post, to me this seems like less of a copyright issue and more of an unfair or anti-competitive business practice. If we approach it from that standpoint than we avoid having to extend copyright.
This is also why I advocate the creation of an Opt Out Meta Tag that content producers can include in their pages if they do not want google making modifications.
Kevin,
I don't see it as anti-competitive at all. Why does the content producer have competitive rights, while the content interpreter doesn't (allegedly) have any?
As I said, I think the truly strategic issue is whether or not this practice has the potential to completely *bypass* copyright altogether. If so, that's very serious.
Best regards,
Terry Steichen
Post a Comment