Live data from Hacker News

Statement on Google’s conduct by founder of CelebrityNetWorth.com (2019) [pdf]

docs.house.gov

71–80 of 271 posts

Re: Statement on Google’s conduct by founder of CelebrityNetWorth.com (2019) [pdf]

#71
post #41

The primary case here made against Google might be questionable behavior from Google, but might not be illegal, since simple numbers like a dollar amount can’t be copyrighted, and AFAIK there is no other legal impediment to Google doing what they did (IANAL). What looks far more inculpatory to me is this, on the last page: […] Because it controls essentially the entire internet, Google has endless levers at its dispo…

>>but might not be illegal, since simple numbers like a dollar amount can’t be copyrighted, and AFAIK there is no other legal impediment to Google doing what they did (IANAL).

Forbes for one spends a LOT of money hiring people to try to estimate the net-worth. So it is a number--but one that someone paid a lot of money to get it. Illegal? Maybe. Not-ethical? Very much so IMO

Re: Statement on Google’s conduct by founder of CelebrityNetWorth.com (2019) [pdf]

#72

Information wants to be free, man.

Obviously it is not just about information, but anything they can scrape bucks out of.

If it were a service they could copy, they would. Meaning probably your job as well.

So fine, they copy it and you are fine with it, you still offer a premium and theirs is a cheap copy and you have a business.

But in addition, to maximize profits, they also somehow prevent you selling your service. Like they did here by hiding visibility.

Meaning that they don't just offer same kind of thing, but prevent anyone buying anything but their own product.

And you will keep thinking this will happen to someone else, until it happens to you. It just starts from artists, writers, etc. whose work happens to be easy to copy with the current technology.

Re: Statement on Google’s conduct by founder of CelebrityNetWorth.com (2019) [pdf]

#73
Anti-trust q: how is celebrity net worth "your" business if ~100% of your users came from Google in the first place?

Seems to me, you're entitled to lock up the data behind a paywall, and Google is entitled to not send you its users. Google's users can switch search engines.m and some do, e.g. I use duckduckgo for incognito.

More to the point, how would regulating Google change any of this? Who would determine a fair price for every piece of information?

My sense: to the extent you don't care about the privacy impassioned of CNW, they're a legit value- added service. The exact economic value is somewhere between $0.01 per year and $100B. The free market can be cruel, but it's the best mechanism we have for price optimization.

Personally, I'd have pushed back on Google researchers and told them that we know our content is unique, and if they want accurate results, to consider entering into a legit partnership... for example, publish N year old data for free but require captcha/ToS (excluding search engines) for current data. Individual users may not care, but search engines will want the fresh stuff as a competitive matter.

Of course, this all assumes there isn't a second CNW competitor with good-enough data, offering it for less than CNW... and if less=free, then too bad CNW...

This to me is the weakest link in the CNW business: too easy to gather good enough data cheaply and there's not enough value beyond the basic number e.g. what's the breakdown of CelebrityXs NW, NW over time etc etc - very little market for this premium content.

Put another way, i could create a website called "what's the current time in Minsk?" but its economic value would be closer to $.01/yr because it's undifferentiated and there's no premium value, so search engines can and should just display the time.

Now let's take weather: in some places the weather is pretty easy (see LA Story, with Steve Martin) and in others (cough nyc cough) the free feeds like NWS are crap and you never know whether to pack an umbrella. Accurate weather for NYC would be amazing value to millions of people and highly differentiated. The problem is that this data is super hard to get - even current data are often wrong! But if by some miracle you had this data, no way would i publish it - instead show that you've got the goods and license it. Google might play cheapskate but the weather apps would pay up and probably uber/lyft, the city of NY etc. Once you've got a few customers then approach Google: this data would be useful across the enterprise. You'd make a killing. But oh yeah, it's really freaking hard (unlike CNW).

Re: Statement on Google’s conduct by founder of CelebrityNetWorth.com (2019) [pdf]

#74
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure how delayed records would stop you working out disability status or any other sensitive status that affects tax paid. The tax regime for any given year is presumably public info. People are notified but that’s hardly going to stop someone seeking to upset you as in the example scenario. Though as I understand the press can do mass lookups with no notification. Don’t you find that disparity concerning? Th…

Everyone have pretty much unlimited access in practice so I dont see that the press have any special advantage. The press have guidelines that they should only publish the tax of public figures and I have not seen them abuse this so far. We are a country with a high degree of social trust, and that is what I believe makes our country great. I realize that our system is not for everyone and that is fair.

Sure, I've spent some time in Norway, I get it. It's definitely very different to societies like the UK or US.

I'm not fundamentally against open tax records like this, but even in Norway there are bad actors and if we are going to play a game of 'how can this be exploited', I think it's definitely possible to do so.

I can't really agree that a 500 limit with notification is 'in practice' the same as no limit with no notification. Data mining and other techniques are possible at scale but not with only 500 records. It also makes exploitation more profitable. Harvesting data for e.g. commercial targeting is not very appealing for n = 500. It's definitely appealing at n = 5 million.

Do the press abuse it in this way? Well, they don't publish stories about doing it. But how would you really know otherwise until some scandal breaks? Are lookups by press orgs also open to public inspection? Maybe you have some freedom of information laws that would let you request that data.

Re: Statement on Google’s conduct by founder of CelebrityNetWorth.com (2019) [pdf]

#75
post #41

The primary case here made against Google might be questionable behavior from Google, but might not be illegal, since simple numbers like a dollar amount can’t be copyrighted, and AFAIK there is no other legal impediment to Google doing what they did (IANAL). What looks far more inculpatory to me is this, on the last page: […] Because it controls essentially the entire internet, Google has endless levers at its dispo…

>> but might not be illegal, since simple numbers like a dollar amount can’t be copyrighted, and AFAIK there is no other legal impediment to Google doing what they did (IANAL). Forbes for one spends a LOT of money hiring people to try to estimate the net-worth. So it is a number--but one that someone paid a lot of money to get it. Illegal? Maybe. Not-ethical? Very much so IMO

Then protect it with a non-disclosure agreement and don’t make it public. But certainly you can’t copyright it.

Re: Statement on Google’s conduct by founder of CelebrityNetWorth.com (2019) [pdf]

#76
post #56
post #41

The primary case here made against Google might be questionable behavior from Google, but might not be illegal, since simple numbers like a dollar amount can’t be copyrighted, and AFAIK there is no other legal impediment to Google doing what they did (IANAL). What looks far more inculpatory to me is this, on the last page: […] Because it controls essentially the entire internet, Google has endless levers at its dispo…

> And what about those conjured celebrities I added as a precaution? All five were all scraped right into Google’s search result pages. It provided undeniable proof that after being turned down, Google simply went ahead and stole the entire database of content CNW took eight years and over a million dollars to build. A number might not be copyrightable, but what about a news article? What would happen if all the worl…

Databases have protection under EU law. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/protection-dat...

The EU is also interested in Google, and this looks like a slam-dunk case on the face of it.

Re: Statement on Google’s conduct by founder of CelebrityNetWorth.com (2019) [pdf]

#77
post #41

The primary case here made against Google might be questionable behavior from Google, but might not be illegal, since simple numbers like a dollar amount can’t be copyrighted, and AFAIK there is no other legal impediment to Google doing what they did (IANAL). What looks far more inculpatory to me is this, on the last page: […] Because it controls essentially the entire internet, Google has endless levers at its dispo…

The "it's not illegal" game is what every dominant company or powerful mobster wants you to play. Because it's their game and they spend a great deal of money to ensure they always win.

Re: Statement on Google’s conduct by founder of CelebrityNetWorth.com (2019) [pdf]

#78
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> but might not be illegal, since simple numbers like a dollar amount can’t be copyrighted, and AFAIK there is no other legal impediment to Google doing what they did (IANAL). Forbes for one spends a LOT of money hiring people to try to estimate the net-worth. So it is a number--but one that someone paid a lot of money to get it. Illegal? Maybe. Not-ethical? Very much so IMO

Then protect it with a non-disclosure agreement and don’t make it public. But certainly you can’t copyright it.

Databases do have copyright protection under EU law if they are original.

Re: Statement on Google’s conduct by founder of CelebrityNetWorth.com (2019) [pdf]

#79

I have Zero respect for the Google engineers and PMs who worked on this project, scraping content without attributing to the original source, and subsequent change in the search ranking of the original source. A very bad taste in the mouth indeed.

I am not trying to defend Google or its practices. But how is the activity of CNW researchers different from what is Google doing? Unless the author elaborates on their method, "Educated guess" sounds like scrapping content without sourcing the author in the first place.

Re: Statement on Google’s conduct by founder of CelebrityNetWorth.com (2019) [pdf]

#80
post #41

The primary case here made against Google might be questionable behavior from Google, but might not be illegal, since simple numbers like a dollar amount can’t be copyrighted, and AFAIK there is no other legal impediment to Google doing what they did (IANAL). What looks far more inculpatory to me is this, on the last page: […] Because it controls essentially the entire internet, Google has endless levers at its dispo…

> but might not be illegal, since simple numbers like a dollar amount can’t be copyrighted

It might be the case in the USA but there this thing called "Database right": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right

In the case of the business in question, they employed people and spent resources to create that database. It's only fair if they get compensated for their work if the numbers that they collected is to be copied.

Post reply on HN