more on SiliconValley.com - Good Morning Silicon Valley

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "David A. Ulevitch" <davidu () everydns net>
Date: June 30, 2005 7:42:19 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] SiliconValley.com - Good Morning Silicon Valley


Dave,

Surely this must be a joke.  Any content publisher can block google  
from crawling and/or caching their site:

In robots.txt:
    User-Agent: Googlebot
    Disallow: /

If you simply don't want pages cached (but do what them crawled) then  
this is all that's needed on the page:
<META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">

If content publishers are concerned about this then the solution for  
them is not only trivial but also well published and directly listed  
on Google's FAQ.

Thanks,
david ulevitch

On Jun 30, 2005, at 2:17 AM, David Farber wrote:


> Begin forwarded message:
>
> Villians! How dare you induce people to read our content: It may be  
> that Google, more than even Grokster, has the most to lose from the  
> U.S. Supreme Court ruling  in the case of MGM vs. Grokster (see  
> "NBC bolsters fall lineup with 'Peer-to-Peer: Criminal Intent' ").  
> At least that's the opinion of New York University's Siva  
> Vaidhyanathan, who in an editorial over at Salon wonders how long  
> it will be before the publishing industry figures out it can use  
> the high court's inducement standard as a cudgel with which to  
> bludgeon the search leader.
>
> "Consider this," Vaidhyanathan writes. "Google, like Grokster, is  
> primarily a search engine. Its business model relies on  
> advertisements. And the more we use Google, the more money it  
> makes. Like Grokster, Google resolves communication queries. It  
> generates a link from an information provider to an information  
> seeker. And almost all of what it delivers is copyrighted. The fact  
> that no major copyright industry player has brought Google to court  
> so far is merely a function of the fact that most copyright holders  
> want Google to index and offer links to their materials. There is  
> no explicit contract. You have to opt out of the Google world. But  
> there is one major difference between Grokster and Google. Grokster  
> does no copying itself. It merely induces and enables. If anyone  
> infringes, it's Google: The company caches millions of Web pages  
> without permission (again, giving copyright holders the option of  
> protesting). And soon it will offer millions of copyrighted books  
> in electronic form without payment or permission. How would Google  
> fare in a post-Grokster world? The publishing industry no doubt  
> wonders. And it just might sue to find out."
> Comment on this post
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as davidu () everydns net
> To manage your subscription, go to
>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
> people/
>
> !DSPAM:42c3b900295018843927007!



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/