Questions of legality: googly, genetic and Vulcan

Next up, a few people had some thoughts about the question mark we raised over Google's legal status. As regards posting snippets of news stories, that is.

Oh, yes, I want Google to pay me too for the privilege of allowing them to direct traffic to my website. Where do I sign ? “They have done it to punish us,” said Boribon, who didn’t want Google to go that far. “They have a bad attitude.” Dooooooh. What did she expect Google to do ? Send her a bunch of flowers and a huge check ??? It continues to amaze me how such stupid people find jobs as Secretary General, General Manager and so on ... Or is it when they get these jobs that they lose all sense of perspective and common sense means nothing to them ?!

Calin

"Again, newspapers could have stopped their pages being cached."

Now, I'm pretty neutral on this position, but that's not a very strong argument. If I burgle your house, can I say "Well, I was allowed to - he could have closed his windows."?

Alex

That is the best explanation I've seen so far of the situation between search engines and the press.

One thing that really bothers me about this suit and the WAN explorations: they want to be paid for indexing, or they will deny indexing altogether. It seems schizophrenic. They want it but they don't. They can't really decide.

My fear is that news organizations will use this to force search engines to only show news stories that are politically acceptable.

My hope is that if news associations decide that they're the final arbiters of what search engines can show without being excluded from indexing, that this will give rise to a large wave of people who want to get the news out - independently. Bloggers will fill the void like never before.

WAN and Copiepress are being irrational. Copiepress got what they wanted - Google stopped indexing. But now they are upset because they've been shut out.

One other thing they are not expecting: the search organizations could get together and start de-listing Copiepress as a whole. Perhaps then, Copiepress may see reason.

Scott

All I can say is its about bloody time! Nice to see someone grow a backbone to challenge Google's methods! Its not that I don't like google as a search engine...but they do not have any right to just grab anything and everything in site to cahce..... that isn't really cache!

Matthew

Google "NOCACHE" also kills your SERP posiition. Google's algorithm seems to preferentially present pages for which it has "cached" copies. In theory this is less likely to disappoint users - if it just happens that the target server is down, the user can click on the "cached" copy. I have a set of three pages with unique keywords.

Every month I change one to NOCACHE and the previous one that carried that word baco to normal. Google consistently demotes the NOCACHE page down at least 30 positions in the SERP. Once NOCACHE is removed, the page will recover its position during the next two index updates. Assuming, of course, that you can get the Googlebot to crawl it.

Phil

"Copiepresse could have stopped Google without going to court but chose not to. Instead, it wants Google to continue directing traffic to its sites – and it wants Google to pay for the privilege."

I'm glad you put that in. If it really was about copyright then Google should not be forced to redirect.

Also: "Copiepresse is using the law as leverage in a commercial argument: its content contributes to Google’s $10bn-a-year in revenue and newspapers want a cut." But Google's actions contributes to CP's revenue and Google should have a cut (otherwise CP wouldn't be requiring Google index them).

Mark

A reader takes issue with our own Orlowski's continued fun poking at Second Life:

What is it with this relentless Second-Life bashing spree?

I'm a big fan of The Register, but this constant bitching is getting on my tits. You're like some Jock caricature from an 80s teen-comedy who just can't resist having ago at 'The Nerds'. Were you one of those kids who'd trip up the geek in the canteen and shout "Hey NERD is that a UNIX book?? Haw haw haw..."???

Maybe you're just tired of mocking trainspotters or D&D enthuisiasts and want some fresh meat. Either way those so-called articles are such a puerile cheap-shot.

Get a (first) life!

Paul

And finally, another reader quibble. This time with our story about the possibility that Venus wasn't resurfaced in one big volcanic eruption:

"cataclysmic bout of vulcanism 500m years ago"

I don't believe you. Vulcan's aren't real. They were made up in Star Trek*.

*Which is the inferior of Star Wars in every way possible.

Tom

That is fighting talk, Tom...fighting talk...

And on that note, we must bid you farewell for another two days. Normal service, such as it ever is in Letters will be resumed next week. ®