

Your IP: does Google care? - hachiya
http://bertrandmeyer.com/2013/01/28/your-ip-does-google-care-2/

======
pedrocr
No, and it shouldn't. Google Search's mission is to show relevant results to
queries. Clearly it's doing that here as it found the full content of a highly
relevant book by the author. The fact that the site pointed to is a copyright
violation is a problem with the website not with Google. The avenues for
enforcement may suck but that's not Google's fault.

The author doesn't even mention Bing, DuckDuckGo, or any other search engine.
Those could also probably be used to find this website. Google Search just
happens to be very good and very popular. Forcing it to be the IP police
because of that would be a tax on innovation and success.

------
pygy_
Yes, it does, and the link has been removed. At the bottom of the Google
Scholar page linked in the article[0], you find the following notice:

 _> In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you
may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at
ChillingEffects.org._

It leads to [1], which has been filed by Bertrand Meyer, and corresponds to
the "kms" file he referenced in his post.

That being said, there are five other links to his book in pdf form in the
results.

[0]
[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=115252680840168408...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=11525268084016840825&hl=en&num=20&as_sdt=0,5)

[1] <http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=775089>

~~~
drostie
That last point deserves underlining, so I'm just going to post a separate
comment about it. Even though this _particular_ link has been removed from
this _particular_ page, the first result on Google Scholar is still "Object
Oriented Software Construction" and if you click on Google's helpful "all 95
versions" link, you will still find PDF versions of the document.

I skipped the first one (which was an FTP url) but ran an HTTP HEAD request
against the second PDF listed there (from stttelkom.ac.id) to determine that
it was 16.6 MB long, presumably that is also the whole work. The same file was
also available a few links below that from uettaxila.edu.pk and then on the
next page from fs1.bib.tiera.ru . (There are other things labeled as PDFs with
wildly-too-small file sizes to be a 1000-page book; I'm not sure what they
are.)

So saying that 'Yes' Google really cares seems too simple. They've never cared
enough to, for example, store a database of hashes of forbidden files. Their
efforts on YouTube are significantly more extensive, where any audio or video
which remotely resembles some registered property can be taken down
automatically.

~~~
pygy_
They followed the DMCA takedown notice. They are not supposed to know who is
or isn't authorized to distribute a version of a document. Even if they are
identical, some, but not all links may be infringing.

You can signal several infringing links per request, I don't know why the OP
didn't do so.

I checked all the PDFs present in the "all 95 versions", five of them lead to
a copy of the book, the others are either 404 or slides for courses that use
the book as reference material.

------
dlisboa
Google has little to do with it, but as much respect I have for Meyer I can't
feel bad for him in the slightest:

> You can buy it at Amazon [5] for $97.40, a bit less for a used copy.

People would still pirate it if it cost $0.97, but why are you even pursuing
that kind of exorbitant pricing? If it was your publisher that made that
price, why personally complain if you don't agree? If I'm an educator, my
calling is to teach. It isn't to make exorbitant amounts of money from my
words, it is for my words to reach as many people as they can and maybe help
someone.

He has a (I imagine) highly well-paid job and could get an even more
financially rewarding one anytime he wants in an industry that'd be pining to
hire him. If this was his publisher making the post I'd understand. But
personally complaining about how someone in Indonesia is stealing your
overpriced textbook to try to pass on that intellectual knowledge to others
who are (most likely) less privileged is just impossible to sympathize with.

Were they misrepresenting his work or something similar? If it's that I can
understand protecting your IP. If it's merely redistributing it then no, I
can't.

I'm biased because I don't agree with nearly any part of Intellectual
Property, but my problem here isn't ideological, just material: pricing it out
of reach for 80% of the world's population and then complaining when people
want access to it.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
I picked up a legal copy for about < $5 in 1999 at a book store near Peking
University. They do (or did) price the book for the market; it was in English
(back then), and was a crappy printing, but hey...it was cheap! These days,
they've translated the cheap copy into Chinese, but its still reasonably
priced.

I guess my point is: books are like drugs and are priced according to local
market conditions. So the rich Americans pay more (they get nicer binding, but
still...) and subsidize the rest of the world.

I doubt Bertrand makes that much money on being an author (who does?), and if
he wrote the book in today rather than 20 years ago, things could be very
different: self published, e-copies, whatever. But he made that deal back
before any of this was an option.

But thar be pirates in those waters: in countries where IP is not respected
this will happen. Piracy is quite wrong and its not weird that people have a
problem with it. We should respect property rights, we don't have to buy it
unless we are Dr. Meyers students.

Pity: its not a bad book, but is definitely dated and is probably no longer a
must read, definitely not worth $90. Cutting the cost to make it more
consummate with its value would be better.

~~~
dlisboa
> I guess my point is: books are like drugs and are priced according to local
> market conditions. So the rich Americans pay more (they get nicer binding,
> but still...) and subsidize the rest of the world.

Absolutely not, and I think your idea of global and local market conditions
are completely unfounded. "Rich Americans" don't subsidize the rest of the
world.

An example for this particular setting: I'm from Brazil where a copy of this
book simply does not exist. It needs to be imported, which will be the precise
price of the book in dollars, converted to reais, plus shipping and the local
library's fee (if you don't buy from Amazon).

If I could buy a copy of it for R$50 I would right now. But as it stands it'd
cost me ~R$200 for a new copy. People who don't have that kind of money to
spend on a technical book are simply priced out of knowledge.

> I doubt Bertrand makes that much money on being an author (who does?)

I agree, he probably gets a very small percentage.

But he's not just an author, he's a PhD professor and a software consultant.
Writing books isn't his only job and he probably makes more money in a single
year of his other activities than he did in the sale of all of his books
combined. If we were talking about someone who is a pure writer I'd agree
somewhat. But if he _wasn't_ a professor and a software consultant he would
never have written that book, so it's just an offshoot of his other
professional activities.

> We should respect property rights, we don't have to buy it unless we are Dr.
> Meyers students.

We don't have to buy anything. Not even his students do. But if we want to
acquire knowledge we must. The point is, to those who are producing this
knowledge, do you want to enhance people's intellect or do you want to make
money? If it's the latter, and you are already handsomely paid, I won't shed a
tear when your intellectual property rights are ignored.

I wouldn't have a problem if it wasn't him, personally, complaining.

~~~
nonamegiven
For those on a budget, search for this book's ISBN on Abe Books. This edition
looks like it's available for around $30, plus or minus. I suppose shipping
would make this somewhat less attractive in Brasil, but probably still better.

Abe Books sells used books, as well as international editions. YMMV on the
legality of the international editions.

~~~
greenyoda
Amazon is selling a used copy in good condition for $15.

------
peterkelly
Wait, so search engines are now supposed to be responsible not just for
indexing the web and providing relevant results, but also ensuring that all
links they display are compliant with copyright laws?

Seems to me that the (legitimate) claim of copyright infringement should be
targeted at the website hosting the infringing material, not a search engine
that happened to index it.

------
ezequiel-garzon
Here is an almost too obvious idea... which I'm confident my fellow HNers will
debunk in minutes!

Why doesn't Google allow, indeed encourage, a pre-publication process? As I
see it, this registration would allow me to "predict" that my 5000-word essay,
which can't be found anywhere on the Internet right now, will appear on
example.com/article within a day. Almost beyond any reasonable doubt that
should bring lots of credibility to my allowed site(s) and accurately destroy
the credibility of unscrupulous sites that simply copy and paste. By the way,
this could also apply to works placed in the public domain [1], and
copyrighted material that will not (or should not) appear freely on the web,
as is the case with the OP's book.

A refined API would speed up the process and allow authors to attach copyright
restrictions to the resource in question. Needless to say, this process could
be extended to other search engines, but it's safe to say right now that if
Google alone allowed something like this it could rectify many problems in
SEO.

I guess pre-registering heavy data such as images or video may not be
reasonable yet, but plain text (even excluding HTML and CSS) could be a great
beginning.

Thoughts?

[1] Even if a work is placed in the public domain, it would be reasonable to
give the author's original version due prominence in the search results.

~~~
lukesandberg
The bigger problem would be abuse. Google couldn't verify that you actually
own what you say you do. So people could easily spam the system to get content
they don't like removed. This is currently a problem with the DMCA, but at
least with the DMCA there is legal recourse for bad faith requests. The worst
punishment that could be done with your proposed system would be account
cancellation, which would not be a deterrent.

~~~
ezequiel-garzon
_Google couldn't verify that you actually own what you say you do._

OK, but then Google already has that problem now. If they receive a DMCA
notice against your pre-registered content they must act. But I'm sure their
algorithms would prove that pre-registered content _that is not available
elsewhere_ to be extremely reliable. Keep in mind that Google's index probably
has basically everything that is out there.

I believe a downside to my proposal is that, if it went into effect, honest
publishers would in essence be forced to pre-register, just to be safe. I can
imagine some would complain about that.

~~~
lukesandberg
But with the current laws verification of ownership is not Googles
responsibility (nor should it be). If google recieves a valid DMCA it has to
act on it. Honestly I wouldn't want a private company to be the arbiter of
copyright ownership on the internet. Many copyright issues are very
complicated and it would be an undue burden (not to mention against the public
good) to have a private part control it.

The DMCA has issues but at least disputes end up in court, how do you think an
ownership dispute would play out if private companies were in charge of making
decisions.

~~~
ezequiel-garzon
Thanks for your answer, and sorry for my late thoughts... I understand your
position, and surely there would be many challenges, but if publishers adopted
this proposed API, Google's results would be fairer and, potentially, their
crawling could become more efficient (unnecessary?). Clearly they would carry
the burden of providing a way to report malicious registration... but again,
the moment badguy.example.com claims to host original content and it receives
20+ complaints... it's game over for that domain!

With regard to the notion of a private company controlling copyright issues,
I'm a first believer that Google, big as it is, is not the Internet. An honest
effort to clean up their index should not be confused with an attempt to
censor anything. Taking the flip side: prove (via a simple API) that your
content is indeed original, and _then_ you'll be welcome in our index.
Needless to say, only a dominant industry leader could take such a bold
attitude.

------
dchest
[https://www.google.com/search?q=Object-
Oriented+Software+Con...](https://www.google.com/search?q=Object-
Oriented+Software+Construction) gives:

"In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you
may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at
ChillingEffects.org."

Here's DMCA complaint:

<http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=775089>

------
DanBC
I'm not quite sure why this is a Google problem.

What are they supposed to do? What are they not doing in this specific
instance?

~~~
doe88
> What are they not doing in this specific instance?

Remove the link to the content of _his_ book he choose not to publically
share. I fail to see what's difficult to understand.

~~~
DanBC
> Remove the link to the content of his book

They have removed the link.

Google removes very many links every day. There's clear law about this, and
Google obeys that law. Are you suggesting that the need to do more than the
law says?

Whatever Google does, the content is still available. It's been posted to
Usenet news at least once.
([http://binsearch.info/?q=Object+Oriented+Software+Constructi...](http://binsearch.info/?q=Object+Oriented+Software+Construction&max=100&adv_age=1100&server=))

~~~
doe88
> Are you suggesting that the need to do more than the law says?

No, all I'm suggesting is that Google removes this link [1] as asked by the
author of the book. Again, I fail to see what's hard to understand.

> Whatever Google does, the content is still available. It's been posted to
> Usenet news at least once.
> (<http://binsearch.info/?q=Object+Oriented+Software+Constructi...>)

Google is not responsible for others indexing systems, I've never said
otherwise.

[1] <http://www.imagebam.com/image/e2e9df239055991>

~~~
packetslave
If you look carefully, you'll note that the link in your screenshot is not the
same as the one in Dr. Meyer's DMCA complaint.

------
doctorstupid
Google is a reflection of the web. What the author has is a problem with the
content of the web, not with Google. He's asking Google to censor the web,
which is very dangerous.

Instead of spoiling the reflection for everyone, he should change what is
being reflected.

I know that he can't really do that in this case, but who expects anything
worth reading to not end up online for free?

------
packetslave
Note that this blog post is from Jan 28, so it's entirely possible the DMCA
content removal hadn't happened yet when Dr. Meyer wrote it.

------
autarch
Let me simplify this title ...

"Does Google Care?" And the answer is a resounding no.

I like using many Google products, but as a company I find Google to be
somewhat despicable. They have enormous power and the sheer impossibility of
making human contact with anyone at Google seems like an abuse of that power.

