剛剛從http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/27/will_google_survive_.html 看到的消息

Monday, June 27, 2005

Will Google survive Grokster?


Siva Vaidhyanathan’s editorial on the Grokster decision is up on Salon, and it considers the fallout from the vague new "inducement" standard that the court invented:

What about Google? Consider this: 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.

很好笑的消息，之前最高法院判 Grokster 敗訴。現在依照同樣的邏輯，Google也有侵權的危機。是要把Google一起拉下水呢？還是重新判決？這樣看來，Google跟Grokster的確 是有相似之處，而且Google 未經授權Cache別人的網頁也是事實，而且他還公開散播，任何搜尋的人都可以看到它Cache的網頁。

那就看看後續發展吧，看看這樣子的界是有沒有辦法扳回P2P軟體的使用一程。