Privacy vs. Crawling: Digging Deeper into "Newspapers vs. Google"

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Date: April 7, 2009 3:36:42 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Privacy vs. Crawling: Digging Deeper into "Newspapers vs.  
Google"



      Privacy vs. Crawling: Digging Deeper into "Newspapers vs. Google"

                http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000538.html


Greetings.  Lots of strong reactions arrived in response to
yesterday's "AP Declares War on Google and Others, But the Collateral
Damage Will Be Ours" ( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000537.html ).

These covered quite a range, but among the most interesting, were:

 -- The assertion that Google and Yahoo ignore "robots.txt" (this is
    clearly an inaccurate claim when robots.txt is used properly)

 -- Several declarations amounting to "It's a violation of a site's
    privacy if a search engine crawls it without explicit permission --
    (My response: such material should not be exposed in non-password
    protected areas of publicly accessible Web sites in the first
    place.)

and finally a whole bunch of:

  -- Please explain more about the battles between newspapers and
     Google -- it's still too confusing.

I feel your pain.  When a system is under stress the way that all
manner of media and content are today in the Internet world, simple
explanations can only take us so far.

Here's one example.  We know (see yesterday's piece for details) that
there's a great deal of animosity being directed toward news
aggregators (like Google News) by newspapers, media moguls, and other
organizations.

But the battle lines aren't always clear.  Google News not only
indexes newspaper sites and the AP articles on those sites, but also
displays full text (for limited periods of time, as far as I know) the
full text of many AP items.  Does Google do the latter without
explicit permission from AP?

Of course not.  In fact, the agreement that permits this apparently
started back in 2006 ( http://tinyurl.com/google-ap-agreement ).

So what's all the yelling about?  There are a couple of factors in
play.  One is that except for locally generated content, Internet
access to newspaper sites renders much of the materials on these sites
largely fungible -- that is, interchangeable.  A national or
international AP item on newspaper A's site will ordinarily be exactly
the same as, or very similar to, that same item over at newspaper B's
site -- both of which are equally accessible over the Net.

This (among other issues, such as wire service subscription costs)
have triggered increasing friction between wire services such as
Associated Press and their client newspapers.  And from a local
newspaper's standpoint, an AP article that can be viewed stand-alone on
Google News is one that a potential reader no longer needs to view at
a newspaper site, where they'd be exposed to other materials that the
site offers.

Since AP itself makes this scenario possible, something of a love/hate
relationship becomes inevitable, and the result is not only
considerable confusion, but a lot of angry finger pointing as well.

I suspect we can all agree that if a Web site displays significantly
large or complete versions of copyrighted materials from newspapers
(whether wire service related or not) without explicit permission,
it's likely a copyright violation.

But attempting to marginalize the validity of "fair use" -- as some
participants in this debate are apparently doing -- is also wrong.
Likewise wrong-headed are various other arguments being made against
the propriety of search engine indexing, certain forms of "deep
linking," and assorted other Internet-specific methodologies.

History tells us that these sorts of technology-based disruptions are
nothing new, and in fact are to be expected.  What's more, the
initial, knee-jerk reactions to these situations are often proven to
be highly counterproductive and in retrospect sometimes just plain
silly.

Television, we were told, would destroy both radio and the motion
picture industry.  Free commercial television broadcasting, the
warnings came, would be rendered a mere memory by the rise of "Pay TV"
services (I still remember anti-pay-TV ads with a drawing of an old TV
set attached to big hoses, leading to a coin collection box).  Now
we're blasted with "The Internet is destroying the newspaper
industry."

To be sure, none of these media forms have stayed unchanged in the
face of technological advancement and competitive alterations, but
they have all survived, largely because they've continued to bring
value to their readers, listeners, and viewers -- a structural dynamic
that can persist so long as we will it -- with our eyes, ears, and
wallets -- to do so.

It would be exceedingly helpful if instead of "mad as hell"
pronouncements from the newspaper industry, we instead worked toward a
mutually beneficial future where access to information would continue
to expand, rather than be artificially constrained on the heels of
protectionist rhetoric.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren () vortex com
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
  - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
  - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, GCTIP - Global Coalition
  for Transparent Internet Performance - http://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: LW1




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com