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

Post by dang » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 12:08 AM UTC

WalterGR wrote: post #224

dang wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do know that when I confronted Cutts about the penalty here on HN he lied about it That's an extreme thing to say and crosses into personal attack. The thread you seem to be referring to ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5418864 ) doesn't seem to support what you've said here. At a minimum, you're breaking the site guideline which says: " Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someo…

I understand. Feel free to kill this thread. please don't let that boil over into accusations against specific people unless you can strictly demonstrate what you're saying. I realized that I’m using stronger verbiage here than in the article on my website. I haven’t updated the article in some time. If I recall correctly, it doesn’t contain any evidence/proof that explicitly contradicts specifically what he told me…

Post by scoopertrooper » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 12:58 AM UTC

SpelingBeeChamp wrote: post #228

scoopertrooper wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mere fact that he compiled the database isn't sufficient to qualify for copyright protection. He'll have to show that he used a sufficient level of creativity to arrive at the numbers he displayed. Based on his testimony, I suspect he'd have a reasonable case to argue, but he'd have to show that his researchers carefully weighed different sources and made other judgements for each individual celebrity rather than…

Why would that be necessary? Google copied celebrities the CNW founder invented out of thin air. Not just their net worth, but their very existence.

Post by throwaway189262 » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 2:18 AM UTC

Google234 wrote: post #29

throwaway189262 wrote: post #3

And yet I constantly get CAPTCHA's just from blocking tracking cookies. The biggest scraper of them all goes to incredible lengths to prevent scraping. How ironic. I hope the US govt demolishes these monopolies. It's not just in web either, the closest historical precedent I can think of is the Robber Barons of the 30's

There’s a thing called a robot.txt.

Post by onetimemanytime » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 4:45 AM UTC

SpelingBeeChamp wrote: post #227

onetimemanytime wrote: post #71

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

How do you know how much money they spend?

Post by 55555 » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 9:02 AM UTC

teddyh wrote: post #85

mfer wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking someone else's copy written content and presenting it as your own can be seen as content theft. Imagine if a book author did that to a chapter of a book. When the one doing it can essential present the case that they should be allowed to do it or they will destroy your business then it's an abuse of power. When they are in a position to actually do it because they have so much of the power in the space it can…

> Taking someone else's copy written content […] (You should read up a bit on this; it’s obvious you have not since you call it “copy written” when the term is “copyright” and a work can therefore be “copyrighted”. The term is about who has the right to copy a given work, and has nothing to do with “writing”.) Copying text someone else has written is indeed copyright infringement (commonly, but technically inaccurate…