(And, really, in this case, they're including the essays in the body of the searchable text for the future, and selling access to that body. One could make a fairly convincing point that this is conversion of the students' work to their own purposes *as their own* since they claim this massive database is their own.
Which would be plagiarism, in an academic context.)
#1: Google indexes information, it does not claim that information as it's own product.
#2: Google indexes only information that is made freely available on the web. Just as proxy servers and local caching is not a violation of copyright, neither is Google recording where publicly available information can (or could, in the past) be found. In this case, the writers of the work are neither publishing it on the web nor giving permission for the site to use it.
I'm afraid the Devil's Advocate will need a better comparison if he's to make progress in this case.
On a sidenote, did I read correctly? Did it say they were seeking $150,000, and then later in the page, the father says they don't expect money out of it? And that's not what they are suing for? *confused*
Important thing with many lawsuits in the states: the suers don't want money; they want an apology/a change in policy/something-or-other from a corporation, and they are trying to hold the corporation for ransom with the lawsuit. "Apologize and I call off the lawyers and save you a lot of money".
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-30 04:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-30 04:35 pm (UTC)(And, really, in this case, they're including the essays in the body of the searchable text for the future, and selling access to that body. One could make a fairly convincing point that this is conversion of the students' work to their own purposes *as their own* since they claim this massive database is their own.
Which would be plagiarism, in an academic context.)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-30 06:53 pm (UTC)If they charged money to use the search, would that violate copyright?
And how much money is that question worth?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-30 07:01 pm (UTC)#2: Google indexes only information that is made freely available on the web. Just as proxy servers and local caching is not a violation of copyright, neither is Google recording where publicly available information can (or could, in the past) be found. In this case, the writers of the work are neither publishing it on the web nor giving permission for the site to use it.
I'm afraid the Devil's Advocate will need a better comparison if he's to make progress in this case.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-02 01:13 pm (UTC)Maybe the question I should ask is, how likely are the US courts to figure out what you just said, given their well-known understanding of technology?
Of course, I hope it doesn't happen that way. Just sayin', though.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-30 06:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-30 06:53 pm (UTC)On a sidenote, did I read correctly? Did it say they were seeking $150,000, and then later in the page, the father says they don't expect money out of it? And that's not what they are suing for? *confused*
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-31 12:31 am (UTC)