Here's something that appears to have been overlooked:

The Commission also continues to actively investigate Google's conduct with regard to the other three concerns (copying of rivals’ web content (known as 'scraping'), advertising exclusivity and undue restrictions on advertisers). The sending of a Statement of Objections in relation to comparison shopping does not in any way prejudge the outcome of the Commission's investigation of the other three concerns.

This isn't a single issue problem for Google. The EC is moving on one aspect but there may be more to come.

Regards...jmcc

Here's something that appears to have been overlooked:

The Commission also continues to actively investigate Google's conduct with regard to the other three concerns (copying of rivals’ web content (known as 'scraping'), advertising exclusivity and undue restrictions on advertisers). The sending of a Statement of Objections in relation to comparison shopping does not in any way prejudge the outcome of the Commission's investigation of the other three concerns.

This isn't a single issue problem for Google. The EC is moving on one aspect but there may be more to come.

So Scraping (we'll assume this is KG) is about fair use FACTS where there is no creative expression protected under copyright? Since SERPS data or Adwords isn't scraping. As an example [google.com...] are fair use facts that the competitors or rivals have no claim to in any part of the world.

I'm simply pointing out that Google's "shopping comparison service" is paid advertising.

There isn't anyone, including the EC, that does not understand that.

Therefore, continually repeating it, over, and over...leads others to believe that you're trying to push an agenda. Like maybe implying that the EC does not understand that, or, in short, that they are inept.

Perhaps you're trying to say that anti trust laws should not be able to restrict the ability of a monopoly to insert advertising into a spot where competitor content *used* to exist, before they were demoted in the search results?

If so, sure...that's your viewpoint. The EC clearly feels they have that option.

Perhaps you're trying to say that anti trust laws should not be able to restrict the ability of a monopoly to insert advertising into a spot where competitor content *used* to exist, before they were demoted in the search results?

No, I'm saying what the average searcher would say: Search results shouldn't point to search results (whether organic search results or PFI results).

No, I'm saying what the average searcher would say: Search results shouldn't point to search results

When google tested internally, their quality raters really liked the comparison shopping engines in the organic results.

That's exactly why they had to keep changing the criteria to artificially create an environment to demote them.

The detail: [i.imgur.com...]

So Scraping (we'll assume this is KG) is about fair use FACTS where there is no creative expression protected under copyright? Since SERPS data or Adwords isn't scraping. As an example [google.com...] are fair use facts that the competitors or rivals have no claim to in any part of the world.

From what I remember of Computer/IP law, as a non lawyer, there is some protection on the content of databases in the EU ( [en.wikipedia.org...] ). It is a complex area. I'm not sure if this legislation has been superceded but there have been cases of scrapers being successfully prosecuted in civil cases. The US does not, I think, have this kind of database (a collection of facts) protection. The scraping issue could be a far deadlier one for Google but it may hinge on consent.

Regards...jmcc

[en.wikipedia.org...]

Just to cover the rebuttal there is a citation link to wikipedia as well.

[edited by: fathom at 4:18 pm (utc) on Apr 20, 2015]

After having read several comments about this around this around the web. It seems to me some people argue against the existing antitrust laws and then use that as a reason why Google will win. Unfortunately for them Google will have to answer withing the existing framework.

>So Scraping (we'll assume this is KG)

I don't think it'd be along the lines of wikipedia and the other Freebase sources. Perhaps more like [wsj.com...]

To bolster its own listings, Google sometimes copied, or “scraped,” information from rival sites. According to the FTC report, Google copied Amazon’s rankings of how well products were selling, then used that information to rank its results for product searches. Amazon declined to comment.

So Scraping (we'll assume this is KG) is about fair use FACTS where there is no creative expression protected under copyright?

Fair use is not a simple topic. Using the "facts" is one thing, but the KG is regularly taking not just the facts, but large, verbatim passages of copyrighted text.

There are situations where lifting large verbatim passages of text is considered fair use. There's no exact formula for determining fair use. There are four factors that are generally used within the US:

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The nature of the copyrighted work

The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

Google would perhaps not fare well under the first two.

In short, if Google lifts verbatim text, whether or not they are "just facts", it's no slam dunk to say they could get away with "fair use". Especially in instances where the KG entry reduces traffic to the original website and/or the KG entry is surrounded by paid ads.

Edit: As mentioned above, only applies when the scraped content is not "creative commons" or other licenses that allow open use.

Brotherhood of LAN & rish3 not arguing but trying to understand.

Can you both post an example for review.

If Google scraped a news website for what "news" and published it in SERPS ... (not just a headline and snippet of content and didn't link to the story) which isn't KG in any case.

or

Lifting large verbatim passages of text which OK would be/could be KG but I can't find an example of that. I realized if they did this and stopped that is likely still infringement but saying this and proving this are two different things.

<added>this is very important to me as I have registered copyright to be transferable to clients in the US to protect my rights which could eventually be the client's rights and EU is an emerging market for my version of SEO... but the copyright law there are worse than Canadian Law and the US leads the world in COPYRIGHT PROTECTION which is a good reason for FTC to back down... not because Google did anything wrong but because existing laws protected the competition/rivals... clearly the burden of proof is much lower in the EU which means - be careful what you wish for.</added>

Lifting large verbatim passages of text which OK would be/could be KG but I can't find an example of that.

The "Answer Box" is the piece that is constantly, and obviously, lifting people's text and republishing it. Like this: [i.imgur.com...] - That is verbatim text from a copyrighted source. No ads, so Google isn't monetizing that one, but they may be affecting the source's traffic, and therefore revenue. Here's a better example where Google is both monetizing, and potentially affecting traffic: [i.imgur.com...]

It could be the the KG (assuming that's the thing on the right that's mostly wikipedia) is doing that as well, but less obviously. Most of the text and images seem to come from Wikipedia, but not all of it. Some I assume comes from freebase.com. But there is other stuff that is clearly scraped. Like current baggage fees for all the airlines.

Lastly, the kind of scraping that the FTC report alluded to was of two different types:

1) Straight up scraping things they were not licensed to use, and using it anyway. Like Tripadvisor ratings and reviews within Google's search results. Other companies pay non-trivial fees to use Tripadvisor's content.

2) More "behind the scenes" market research type stuff. Like scraping competing product comparison sites, amazon, etc in a deep way and using the results to improve their own comparison shopping. Including information that has inherent value, like Amazon's "people who bought X bought Y".

Sources differ on whether fair use is fully recognized by countries other than the United States. Google was likely on solid footing as fair use is well defined here within each of your suggestions.

Might be different there.

Although making a case using US companies subject to US Copyright law and not EU companies stuck with lame copyright law of that country to fend off a foreigner invader (like Google) seems odd.

As flatfile noted:

Unfortunately for them Google will have to answer withing the existing framework.

... and so will EC!

Danny Sullivan has written an in-depth article that analyzes ...
In the end, the results are likely to be cosmetic changes to save face for the EC

Danny Sullivan is a US based SEO. Not sure I'd bet the farm on his analysis, as his background doesn't seem to have much to do with either the EU or antitrust.

There's also an article [nytimes.com] on the New York Times, written by someone with a law degree, and many years of experience covering antitrust cases. It's not nearly as flippant about the potential consequences.

Course this complete thread is based on what US companies didn't do for themselves in the US because of the laws, what the FTC didn't seem to see the need to do based on existing laws with US news agencies publishing US conspiracy theories instead of looking at the underlying US Copyright laws and how fair use applies to all the previous claims...

...and clearly all the examples you posted are US-based which fail to exhibit a minimum violation of UK Law, Germany law or any other EU country laws where a company that operates in these countries are powerless to defend against because the jurisdictional legal system isn't as mature as the US system... to show EU Antitrust you have to provide EU based evidence... can they do that?

I'm sure Google will need to adjust things (like they did in the US) to match any face-saving settlement but damages?

I don't always agree with Danny but his ability to dig for the truth is impressive.

It is an EU case. It is alleged that Google has infringed EU law. The EC will provide the evidence to Google. The focus on US law is not relevant. The problem with Danny O'Sullivan. EditorialGuy, the SEO heads and the bloggers is that they just don't understand the situation. In terms of scraping, EU copyright law is stricter and more defined, (the Database Directive mentioned earlier). Arguably, Google's reuse of scraped data could constitute a derivative work. That's a whole world of hurt for Google and its maggotising KG.

Getting back to the aspect about which many pro-Google commentators in the media seem to be clueless, those EU directives are typically transposed into the national legislation of every EU member country.

The existing framework is EU legislation.

This is the text of the Database Directive. It could be a problem for Google.
[eur-lex.europa.eu...]

Regards...jmcc

It is an EU case. It is alleged that Google has infringed EU law.

I concur.

The EC will provide the evidence to Google.

I concur.

The focus on US law is not relevant.

I concur.

The problem with Danny O'Sullivan. EditorialGuy, the SEO heads and the bloggers is that they just don't understand the situation.

Sure OK ... I can buy that ... Danny Sullivan has some great content but as far as I can tell never registered it (that I can find a public record of), not even a single page which means he cannot file a lawsuit in the US until he does and cannot collect statutory damages nor legal fees if the infringing activity occurred before filing. All there is left is actual damages and you can't prove that without the infringing company sales receipts and you'll never get anyone to give those without a court order.

Then to file a preliminary injunction to prevent the infringing party from continuing to benefit from their infringing activity you need to post a bond in the amount the alleged infringer will lose if the court battle takes a year or two and the court sided on the wrong side (should not have granted the preliminary injunction).

That might be worth doing over some major linkbait project but with stuff that could be fair use. Even a database if it wasn't protected by an issuance claim with the Copyright.gov office first - the law does not help you. Antitrust takes ever more proof then a single copyright claim which with all the posted examples suggest there was enough to file ... course the conspiracy theory works here as well. Pay off the government - but I don't buy it. I'm sure it can happen but seriously.

In terms of scraping, EU copyright law is stricter and more defined, (the Database Directive mentioned earlier).

That would be a great debate.

Arguably, Google's reuse of scraped data could constitute a derivative work. That's a whole world of hurt for Google and its maggotising KG.

Concur... but EU courts have no jurisdiction over US databases and since the FTC failed to file any claims of US wrong doing to bolster an EU case is likely inadmissible. With that in mind and Google has very solid legal team that likely counselled them on EU law (all the countries) so while I agree with you here and I don't access uk.,de., etc. to seek if Google has indeed used even a sliver of database from there... I can only review what you all post and you all seem to be making bleeding heart US claims... why not UK claims or Germany claims. Are there any?

Getting back to the aspect about which many pro-Google commentators in the media seem to be clueless, those EU directives are typically transposed into the national legislation of every EU member country.

The existing framework is EU legislation.

This is the text of the Database Directive. It could be a problem for Google.
[eur-lex.europa.eu...]

Sorry, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not pro-google or pro-EC or pro-EU I'm pro-me.

Posting legislative gibberish is meaningless. Where does it say that EU law overrides US Law ... I would be extremely interested in that.

Or unless you can show (not you but anyone) a non-US database infringement done by Google I don't see where this is going...

Just my opinion.

[edited by: fathom at 9:07 am (utc) on Apr 22, 2015]

(1) Whereas databases are at present not sufficiently protected in all Member States by existing legislation; whereas such protection, where it exists, has different attributes;

I could see if Amazon hosted their UK databases in UK ... that might be a problem for Google but Amazon hosts at 204.74.115.1 in Arizona, thus under US law.

Concur... but EU courts have no jurisdiction over US databases and since the FTC failed to file any claims of US wrong doing to bolster an EU case is likely inadmissible. With that in mind and Google has very solid legal team that likely counselled them on EU law (all the countries) so while I agree with you here and I don't access uk.,de., etc. to seek if Google has indeed used even a sliver of database from there... I can only review what you all post and you all seem to be making bleeding heart US claims... why not UK claims or Germany claims. Are there any?

In terms of scraping, the EU attempting to apply its legislation to a company outside the EU is possibly ultra-vires (essentially outside its jurisdiction). It would depend on where the offence was committed. The EU would probably seek to apply it to EU companies that have had their data scraped.

Google also has companies within the EU so this complicates matters. If Google has scraped UK or German sites or sites from any other member country then the Database Directive might be applicable.

Sorry, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not pro-google or pro-EC or pro-EU I'm pro-me.

Not you, Fathom. I meant that most of the pro-Google media do not understand that this is an EU case (the Antitrust one) and that the a scraping case would also be an EU one.

Posting legislative gibberish is meaningless. Where does it say that EU law overrides US Law ... I would be extremely interested in that.

It is not legislative gibberish. Within the EU, EU legislation overrides US law. The legislation cited shows that an EU case over scraping may be far easier for the EU to win because there is so much standardised legislation protecting copyright and databases within the EU.

Or unless you can show (not you but anyone) a non-US database infringement done by Google I don't see where this is going...

It is up to the European Commission of the EU to state which companies have been affected by Google's activities. Again it will, if the EC goes ahead with a case on scraping, probably rely on the financial aspect. Google operates in the EU and also makes money from advertising thus it could be argued that it is making money from the scraping activity.

Regards...jmcc

Concur... but EU courts have no jurisdiction over US databases and since the FTC failed to file any claims of US wrong doing to bolster an EU case is likely inadmissible. With that in mind and Google has very solid legal team that likely counselled them on EU law (all the countries) so while I agree with you here and I don't access uk.,de., etc. to seek if Google has indeed used even a sliver of database from there... I can only review what you all post and you all seem to be making bleeding heart US claims... why not UK claims or Germany claims. Are there any?

In terms of scraping, the EU attempting to apply its legislation to a company outside the EU is possibly ultra-vires (essentially outside its jurisdiction).

Google right? I have no problem understanding that. Googlebot did the "alleged crime" from where ever it was launched.

It would depend on where the offence was committed. The EU would probably seek to apply it to EU companies that have had their data scraped.

This is the problem as I see it. The "alleged crime" occurred where ever the database was hosted. The long arm of EU courts can only reach their EU borders. IMHO

All the quoted US scraping are likely inadmissible if hosted in the US and even EU companies where their databases are hosted in the US would fall under US Laws.

Google also has companies within the EU so this complicates matters. If Google has scraped UK or German sites or sites from any other member country then the Database Directive might be applicable.

If Googlebot crawled from these EU headquarters that would complicate matters. The fact that the headquarters are in EU is immaterial. IMHO

Posting legislative gibberish is meaningless. Where does it say that EU law overrides US Law ... I would be extremely interested in that.

It is not legislative gibberish. Within the EU, EU legislation overrides US law. The legislation cited shows that an EU case over scraping may be far easier for the EU to win because there is so much standardised legislation protecting copyright and databases within the EU.

That was my way of being funny with the post hoc, ergo propter hoc details of law.

Or unless you can show (not you but anyone) a non-US database infringement done by Google I don't see where this is going...

It is up to the European Commission of the EU to state which companies have been affected by Google's activities. Again it will, if the EC goes ahead with a case on scraping, probably rely on the financial aspect. Google operates in the EU and also makes money from advertising thus it could be argued that it is making money from the scraping activity.

I concur.

This is the problem as I see it. The "alleged crime" occurred where ever the database was hosted. The long arm of EU courts can only reach their EU borders. IMHO

The legal rights exist for the database.

If Googlebot crawled from these EU headquarters that would complicate matters. The fact that the headquarters are in EU is immaterial. IMHO

No. The main thing for the European Commission to prove would be that the rights of the database owners have been infringed by Google. This is a very messy thing and the EC will spend a lot of time getting it right before moving (if they do). Google has companies in the EU and they are, via Adwords, potentially profiting from this, as yet hypothetical, activity. It is always about the money.

Regards...jmcc

This is the problem as I see it. The "alleged crime" occurred where ever the database was hosted. The long arm of EU courts can only reach their EU borders. IMHO

The legal rights exist for the database.

I agree but you seem to imply the EU has no jurisdictional boundaries because a database has rights. I disagree with the latter part or rather my interpretation of your comment.

If Googlebot crawled from these EU headquarters that would complicate matters. The fact that the headquarters are in EU is immaterial. IMHO

No. The main thing for the European Commission to prove would be that the rights of the database owners have been infringed by Google.

Yes I concur.

This is a very messy thing and the EC will spend a lot of time getting it right before moving (if they do). Google has companies in the EU and they are, via Adwords, potentially profiting from this, as yet hypothetical, activity. It is always about the money.

I understand IF the crimes occurred in the EU.

But drawing a line from scraping databases not in the EU (or only those in the EU) to award damages based on the use of that data. This is where I'm confused about your understanding.