Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content

pi-datametrics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 80 posts

Re: Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content

#31

Post by alwaysdoit »

bpodgursky wrote: post #4

I think this is pretty fair on Google's part. How could you possibly figure out who owned content? What if I published a book, it was copy-pasted in blogs, and then later I put it somewhere crawlable by Google? You certainly can't just say "first time we saw it, that's the proper owner". It would either require a massive amount of manual QA to get right (and even then, there are going to be interminable copyright bat…

Also all of this is assuming that any duplicated content is inherently stolen, when it could in fact be public domain, fair use, legitimately licensed, distributed under Creative Commons, etc.

Re: Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content

#32

Post by 6stringmerc »

Is this any better/worse than Facebook actively trying to profit and win over users when people or organizations copy / upload / soak up views for material they did not create and don't have the rights to use? Because that's a hot-point of discussion in some creative circles as well.

Re: Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content

#33

Post by matt_morgan »

nkozyra wrote: post #27

Recognizing "stolen" content autonomously can only pivot on knowing when something was first published or visible to Google, which is a pretty dubious measurement.

But the weird thing is the stolen content, even when it's on a crappier site with no shares etc., knocking the original out of its slot. I.e., something (probably freshness) is causing the stolen content on the crappy site to be higher-ranked than the original content on the strong site. That seems avoidable (and in Google's best interest).

Re: Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content

#34

Post by smt88 »

jsizz wrote: post #22
smt88 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell if you're joking, but "infringe" means "to violate" which implies that there is a law or agreement that's being broken. That makes it sound like you agree with the idea that this is stealing.

I absolutely do not agree with the idea that this is stealing. How can it be stealing, when the owner still has the thing that was supposedly stolen? Different circumstances, different terminology. The correct terminology (see US Title 17 or CDPA 1988) is "infringing". Anyone who insists on using the word "stolen" is signalling their ignorance of the first, most basic fact of copyright law.

In my example, the specific crime may not have been stealing, but there was revenue stolen.

Re: Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content

#35

Post by magicalist »

smt88 wrote: post #14
hlmencken wrote: post #10

This is not stealing, and even if it is illegal that is a bad way to put it. Also, google's service is primarily to the searcher so this isn't a huge issue for them.

> google's service is primarily to the searcher You are very wrong. For many years, nearly 100% of Google's revenue was from AdSense. What if someone spends days writing an article and posts it on his blog. Then, someone else copies and pastes it onto BuzzFeed, which becomes the top search result for that topic. BuzzFeed is making money that the same blogger would have made from his own content. Now, also assume Goog…

> For many years, nearly 100% of Google's revenue was from AdSense

Google has always gotten a very large majority of its advertising revenue from ads on its own sites, not on third party sites.

Re: Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content

#37

Post by rustynails »

nkrisc wrote: post #25
johansch wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stolen implies that the original owner no longer has access to the data due to the actions of the perpetrator.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal See definition 1d.

A different angle is to look at what is accepted in a court of law. Laws do not consider copying/infringement to be stealing. I know some people who say gunna (I was gunna do it). However, that doesn't make it correct. So, usage is not a measure of validity either. Most online dictionaries exclude steal/theft being linked to infringement/copyright.

Re: Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content

#39

Post by rustynails »

smt88 wrote: post #34
jsizz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely do not agree with the idea that this is stealing. How can it be stealing, when the owner still has the thing that was supposedly stolen? Different circumstances, different terminology. The correct terminology (see US Title 17 or CDPA 1988) is "infringing". Anyone who insists on using the word "stolen" is signalling their ignorance of the first, most basic fact of copyright law.

In my example, the specific crime may not have been stealing, but there was revenue stolen.

The revenue was lost. Look at legal web sites. There is a specific vocabulary. The language you are using is from what I call "Mcadonalds Journalism" sites who have a vested interest in vilifying anyone who infringes. By politicising the language, these sites use emotive language to sway your views. I'm sure these are articles on this. It's similar to yellow journalism.

Re: Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content

#40

Post by dsp1234 »

smt88 wrote: post #34
jsizz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely do not agree with the idea that this is stealing. How can it be stealing, when the owner still has the thing that was supposedly stolen? Different circumstances, different terminology. The correct terminology (see US Title 17 or CDPA 1988) is "infringing". Anyone who insists on using the word "stolen" is signalling their ignorance of the first, most basic fact of copyright law.

In my example, the specific crime may not have been stealing, but there was revenue stolen.

but there was revenue stolen.

1.) If the item is being given away for free, there can still be infringement.

2.) If a person would never purchase an item at the available price (due to the law of supply and demand for example), that person might still infringe. No revenue was lost or gained since the transaction would never have completed at the existing price.

In either of those cases, no revenue was "stolen", but infringement still occurred. These are some of the many reasons that stealing isn't a good way to describe copyright infringement.

Post reply on HN