Way to go stupid porn site.

Posted by: Michael

Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/22/06 05:05 PM

22 February 2006 - Google has lost a cou...n court cases. <br><br>So we all have to lose this great feature because some loser porn web site gets all bent about what was free publicity anyway. I hope Google blocks all links to this "Perefect 10" web site and their traffic becomes non-existant. <br><br>-Foxsports.com, My SB XL hi-lites
Posted by: steveg

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/22/06 05:13 PM

Oh ferkrissake cheapskate. Just pay the monthly fee at P10 and download all the porn you want. <br><br><br>Or ask Bryan to share his library. <br><br>
Posted by: Michael

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/22/06 05:20 PM

Errr I was referring to the image feature in Google not some stupid porn site. And anyone who doesn't know how to use the UseNet for free porn doesn't deserve it.<br><br>-Foxsports.com, My SB XL hi-lites
Posted by:

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/22/06 05:34 PM

"And anyone who doesn't know how to use the UseNet for free porn doesn't deserve it."<br><br><br>Shhhhhhh. We have to keep the general masses thinking that Usenet is useless.<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/22/06 05:39 PM

Am I missing something here? If perfect 10 does not want google then they put a norobot line on the default.html of their site? What is their problem? Do they want their cake and eat it too? As in, do they want their site come up in google searches but they don't want the thumbnails? OK, pinheads, there is a way to exclude pictures from the googlebot.<br><br>Something is missing.<br><br>Ah, I read to the end. The company was jiggy with the thumbnails until they figured out they could make money selling cell phone thumbnails but the already exposed google thumbnails were just as good. But the cat was out of the bag.<br><br>I'm judge Judy on March 8. You bunch of douchebags. You permitted google to farm the thumbnails and now you want them back. Boo-Hoo. They are gone. Take the googlebot permission off and then go make some perfect 11's. The 10's are gone.<br><br>They have no case. Certainly the judge will rule against. p10 has no option but to go shoot new beaver.<br><br>Now the really sad thing is that a bunch of pimple faced teens have read about this and the lighbulb goes off. They harvest all of the thumbnails today and sell them 10 cents per thousand. Double boo hoo p10 but there is a penalty for not foreseeing the future. It's called bankruptcy.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>(__*__)
Posted by: steveg

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/22/06 05:49 PM

Yeah yeah yeah... <br><br>Seriously, though, Google has been walking a tightrope with the image search, and P10 may have a real case here. However, P10 has to prove that there's been a harm caused. In other words, they have to prove that Google has caused them to lose money. A tough pece of evidence to come by when you're talking a/b cyberspace. The copyright issue is also real, but even if the court finds against Google, I'll betcha my chocolate covered bagel that it would be overturned on appeal.<br><br>In the meantime, Google needs to pay more attention to image rights so they don't put the image search feature in harm's way.<br><br>Now, about this usenet thing...<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/22/06 06:43 PM

i have instructional content that i put on a website. i protect this site from search engines and the general public. i have other materials that i hope the world finds and uses when teaching kids. this material is on websites that can be harvested by google's bots and the like. search engines have been around long enough that every webmaster knows their role. this just seems like a silly court case.<br><br>i didn't read the article (and, therein lies the problem, no doubt), but this process i use is incredibly simple for me to do and it works. when i search google, none of my protected stuff is there and all of my more public stuff is there. i have the control.<br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/22/06 06:48 PM

You got it right without reading the story. Every webmaster knows how to turn off and on the bots and where they can and cannot go. This is a silly case of a site wishing they did not leave the barn door open for something they now realize has value. The thumbnails downloaded to phones. (Whoda thunk?)<br><br>They would only have a case if the googlebot paid for a membership and then went in and harvested. Google cannot be that stupid. So there can be no merit to this at all.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>(__*__)
Posted by: carp

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/22/06 07:26 PM

[color:blue]They would only have a case if the googlebot paid for a membership and then went in and harvested</font color=blue><br><br>You have a good point there <br>If I remember correctly full nudity images on a Porn Site = you have to be a member right ? and 18 and over.<br><br>Soooo<br>If the porn site is coded in such a way as to allow search engines into the site who is to say a savvy 16 year old could not break in as well ? Along the same line , if those images came off the porn sites home page then those images are public domain <-- scary if you can view images that are full beavers before you hit the membership tag. <br><br>I have been to some news sites that you cannot even copy and paste text let alone right click to copy image to desktop.<br><br>Bottom line;<br>IMO that porn site is so poorly coded = not secure and should be shut down immediately <br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/22/06 07:44 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>If the porn site is coded in such a way as to allow search engines into the site who is to say a savvy 16 year old could not break in as well ?<p><hr></blockquote><p>What? You click, "yes I am" and so does the googlebot. As long as the googlebot serves up the images in "you should be 18" level then no problem.<br><br>Paying is completely different.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>IMO that porn site is so poorly coded = not secure and should be shut down immediately <p><hr></blockquote><p>What? Shutdown a site because it is poorly coded? The first amendment protects your right to write poor HTML code. If that became a crime I would hear crickets when I opened up my browser.<br><br><br><br><br>(__*__)
Posted by: carp

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/22/06 07:52 PM

Give me a break - I never went past the membership page.<br>Does your wife know about your surfing habits ? ? I can see parental controls in your future <br><br>
Posted by: MacGizmo

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/22/06 08:30 PM

Frankly, I'm surprised it has taken this long for someone to nail Google for the images. There are tons of copyrighted images available, many in high resolution. I was looking for a photo of the Quarterback for Notre Dame late last year and found an AP Photo, 9x12 at 300dpi. That's commercial print resolution. Obviously the image is/was copyrighted, and there's no way I would have gotten my filthy mitts on it without Google.<br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/22/06 08:46 PM

Okay Giz<br>But would you say that its the fault of the web site that did NOT properly protect its image ? ? after all that image was already being ripped off by cars loads of people , just that Google vehicle is by the Bus loads .<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/22/06 08:51 PM

i am wondering what angle you think would implicate google. they clearly add this when you click on a thumbnail: Image may be scaled down and subject to copyright.<br>Image Results Below is the image in its original context on the page:<br>----------<br>just because the image can be found, you can't legally use it whether you were linked from google or not. it's probably copyrighted regardless of where it turns up.<br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Posted by: carp

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/22/06 09:01 PM

Right Sean<br>The only "skinny dip" would be if Google busted a security from the host site.<br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/23/06 04:00 AM

The difference is commercial application. As in profitability. What you make available is for educational purposes, where porn is viewed as commercial. I buy stock art from half a dozen photo sites. Some of it rights protected, some royalty-free (which just means cheap, not free). But I only buy the rights if the piece I create is actually published. For concept work, I don't need the rights. And I sometimes use Google images the same way. If I used any of these images in a published ad without buying a licence, I could get sued by the stock house and the photographer. If I use an unpaid for image in a birthday card that I email to my daughter, there's no liability.<br><br>This is the basis of P10's claim. As Paul says, silly, frivolous, dumb... Yup. But unfortunately, based on a viable premise -- which is why the case was heard in the first place.<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/23/06 04:38 AM

i think this will be key in the future:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> The photo publisher says it's plagued by copyright pirates who pay its $25.50 monthly fee and then reproduce its copyright images on sites that are indexed by Google and incorporated in its image search feature.<p><hr></blockquote><p><a href="http://news.com.com/Nude-photo+site+wins+injunction+against+Google/2100-1030_3-6041724.html?tag=nefd.pop">news.com link for the story</a><br><br>the lawsuit should be against the thieves who repost the images in the first place. google can use thumbnail images as the judge ruled:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Google did win, however, on one key point. Matz said that the "framing" feature of the company's image search, which displays a thumbnail of the image above a rendering of the original page, did not directly infringe Perfect 10's copyright.<p><hr></blockquote><p>and, google will surely pursue a previous ruling that search engines won:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The Perfect 10 lawsuit has received a high level of public attention, not least because of the <a href="http://news.com.com/Court+backs+thumbnail+image+linking/2100-1025_3-1023629.html?tag=nl">2003 Arriba Soft decision</a> from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In that ruling, the court sided with an image search engine over a photographer who claimed the automatically generated thumbnails amounted to copyright infringement.<br><br>This case is different, Judge Matz ruled, in part because of a financial relationship with AdSense. Although Google claims its policy prohibits such Web pages from being included in its image search, the judge said "Google has not presented any information regarding the extent to which this purported policy is enforced."<p><hr></blockquote><p>that previous judge ruled that thumbnails are fair use. i think google finds a way to win this case in the long run. they just need to show better enforcement of a policy they already have.<br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Posted by: MacGizmo

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/23/06 05:26 AM

<p><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>But would you say that its the fault of the web site that did NOT properly protect its image ? ? <p><hr></blockquote><p>By that thinking, it would be OK if someone stole your car if you forgot to lock the door when you left it at the airport for a 3 week vacation!&#13;&#10;</p>&#13;&#10;<p>I'm not defending the porn site, as much as I'm saying that Google is walking a very fine line with this. Just because you put a disclaimer on the page that says the image *might* be copyrighted, doesn't release you from responsibility if you're putting copyrighted images on your Web site.&#13;&#10;</p>&#13;&#10;<p>I don't want to see this feature of Google go away, it has many uses, but I also think that Google needs to get smarter about which images it allows on its site or it WILL lose one of these court cases.&#13;&#10;
 &#13;&#10;</p><br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/23/06 07:19 AM

the courts have already ruled that the page that Google displays with the disclaimer (a thumbnail) in a frame above the original page with the image is okay fair use. so, these pages can exist and that's not being contested:<br><br><img src="http://homepage.mac.com/jayhawk/.Pictures/peas_a_chance.jpg" width="400" height="319"/><br><br>this only affects the main search results page that displays the thumbnail version along with many other thumbnail images. and, it will likely only affect P10 in that they can show that they're selling thumbnail versions. of course, other porn sites might follow suit, but the vast majority of sites online won't. there would have to be damages proven to have any legs to stand on. and, there's a good chance that nothing will even result from this particular case. in fact, the preliminary injunction might not even come to fruition. <br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/23/06 10:05 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>In the meantime, Google needs to pay more attention to image rights so they don't put the image search feature in harm's way.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>I think the laws should be re-written that if the image is placed intentionally on the internet, then it becomes public domain. :)<br><br>
Posted by: Michael

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/23/06 01:32 PM

I think any images should be allowed to be used as long as they do not profit from copyrighted material. If the image owner has a problem with that then keep it off the net or watermark it.<br><br>-Foxsports.com, My SB XL hi-lites
Posted by: carp

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/23/06 06:45 PM

[color:blue]By that thinking, it would be OK if someone stole your car if you forgot to lock the door when you left it at the airport for a 3 week vacation!</font color=blue><br><br>I don't think that is a fair analogy - better;<br>If I parked my car at the airport for 3 weeks while on vacation and someone came by and took a photo of the car. Later they posted a thumbnail image of the car - should I get pissed off ? ? at the image thief or at myself for not covering the car .<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/23/06 06:50 PM

Watch out or yoyo will be by to hand out odious analogy awards.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>(__*__)
Posted by: carp

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/23/06 06:53 PM

HuH ?<br><br>Did I miss something somewhere <br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/23/06 06:59 PM

No no no no no. It's comparisons are odorous.<br><br>And that's a Swan of Avon thing, not mine.<br><br>. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.
Posted by: Pete

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/23/06 07:35 PM

What about if you left your car at the airport, and some naked girls came along & posed for pictures next to your car- then those photos get uploaded to the internet somewhere and Google gets a hold of it....?<br><br>Any legal precedent? <br><br><br>....more importantly, any examples? <br><br><br><br> *cough* Biggerfoot *cough*<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/23/06 07:45 PM

Not the first time a mistook odious for odorous. Let me see if I can tell them apart. Yorick's skull may have been odorous but not odious to Hamlet because he really was glad to see his old pal's grin.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>(__*__)
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/23/06 07:59 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>What about if you left your car at the airport, and some naked girls came along & posed for pictures next to your car- then those photos get uploaded to the internet somewhere and Google gets a hold of it....?<p><hr></blockquote><p>If we are going to whack out with odorous analogies:<br><br>Your condo you're renting in Jamaica is broken into and all of your stuff is stolen. All except your toothbrushes. You enjoy the rest of your vacation as best you can and go home. Months later while googling for pictures of the resort you stayed at you find a series of pictures of two thieves in your condo ripping you off. The series ends with a picture of a an ass with your toothbrush handles sticking out.<br><br>Any precedent? Do you go to the bathroom and upon spying the very same toothbrushes, do you hurl? Is it google's fault? Is there an urban legend copyright?<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>(__*__)
Posted by: Pete

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/23/06 08:08 PM

So otherwise Jamaica was nice, Poly?<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 02/23/06 08:12 PM

It was OK, but something bothered me about the place but I forget what it was.<br><br><br>It's on the tip of my tongue.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>(__*__)
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Way to go stupid porn site. - 03/19/07 03:12 PM

I know! It's a small unit of measure.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>