Mixtape Conundrum Exposes How The RIAA Is Protecting Bad Business Decisions, Not Artists

Japan Decides That Maybe It Should Make Search Engines Legal

from the not-a-bad-idea dept

Fri, Jan 19th 2007 2:05pm — Mike Masnick

There have been some questions lately about whether or not search engines today are actually legal. Some have expressed the opinion (as ridiculous as it may sound to some of us) that a search engine is effectively violating the copyright of every website it indexes. It seems dumb, but there are still some (such as a bunch of newspapers in Belgium) who feel otherwise. In the US, at least, Google has a pretty good fair use defense. However, it appears that under Japanese law, search engines technically are big time copyright infringers -- though, it doesn't seem like anyone has filed a lawsuit over this. Basically, as written, the law states that the search engine needs to first get permission from a copyright holder before indexing their site. Luckily, some in the Japanese government figured out that it's probably for the best if they amend the laws to allow search engines that can search without obtaining permission from every site. Nice to see some copyright laws changing in the proper direction (and doing so without ridiculous lawsuits first).

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

15 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Alex, 19 Jan 2007 @ 2:13pm

It's good that they are amending their law for the better, but I hope that when they do they take the time to make robots.txt legally enforceable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
misanthropic humanist, 19 Jan 2007 @ 2:24pm

this ones easy
Publication is implied permission.
For everything else there's robots.txt
or a goatse redirect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh Right Thanks!, 19 Jan 2007 @ 3:38pm

Great, thanks to YOU tomorrows headlines will read 'Large Japanese Company sues Google for Copyright Infringement'. Way to go slick!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryan, 19 Jan 2007 @ 3:52pm

but they have permission
If the site wants to deny permission, they can put up a robots.txt file that says so.

If they don't, they're effectively giving the search engine permission to index it.

Why is it that none of the courts have heard about robots.txt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
zeromus, 19 Jan 2007 @ 4:04pm

Why should a webmaster have to have heard of robots.txt in order to keep his website secure from malicious snooping infringers making money from a cheap rehashing of his content? Hey I can steal your purse unless you flash me the sign. You know, the one that goes like this: //\/|!!/ with your fingers. Generally followed by an enthusiastic hoo-wah! What are you talking about, you never heard of it? Everyone knows about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Beefcake, 19 Jan 2007 @ 4:17pm
  
  Re: zeromus
  If you carry a purse in public can you stop people from looking at it? That's a closer analogy than stealing it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2007 @ 4:23pm
    
    Re: Re: zeromus
    How about remotely scanning it with zany technology and listing the detailed contents, including photos of personal items, in a public website.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dosquatch, 19 Jan 2007 @ 4:48pm
  
  Re:
  Why should a webmaster have to have heard of robots.txt in order to [...]
  
  A webmaster not versed in the standard practices of his trade should be fired and replaced with one who is so versed.
  
  How about remotely scanning it with zany technology and listing the detailed contents, including photos of personal items, in a public website.
  
  A website, unless gated by user accounts and passwords, is an inherently public vehicle. A webmaster who does not understand this (blah, blah, see above).
  
  malicious snooping infringers making money from a cheap rehashing of his content?
  
  "Malice" indicates damage. Viewing a page as posted is using it for its intended purpose, not vandalism, not damage. And you mean "redirection to", not "rehashing of". Pointing viewers to your webpage, which presumably you want to be viewed, is a Good Thing. A webmaster who does not understand this... oh, nevermind.
  
  Basically, if you take your clothes off on a street corner, you have no expectation of privacy. If you have something you do not wish to be publicly viewed, I'd suggest the web is probably not the best place to put it. All clear?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2007 @ 5:51pm
  
  Re:
  Technically, it should be illegal to index any site unless it is specified in the robots.txt file in advance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jamaal Johnson, 21 Jan 2007 @ 6:07pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I agree that it should technically be illegal. Permission should be specifically granted before copy is indexed on another site.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beefcake, 19 Jan 2007 @ 4:28pm

zeromus
It was on a public website in the first place!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Obvious, 19 Jan 2007 @ 4:45pm

Google Card Catalogue
Every card card catalogue in every library in the world is effectively a rudimentary manual search engine for all works in the library
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeff, 19 Jan 2007 @ 5:57pm

..
ROFL, search engines violating copyrights of every site they index? Can we PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, FUCKING --> PLLLEEEEAAAASSEEE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
T Man, 19 Jan 2007 @ 8:23pm

Japanese Search Engine Law is Perfect -- For the M
It's amazing how one country can be so advanced in some areas (e.g. producing high tech gadgets and gizmos) and yet so backward in others, such as in the case of this silly law Japan currently has on its books. The thinking that produced such a law in the first place would be right at home in the Meiji Era (although come to think of it, the Emperor Meiji was a fairly progressive thinker, considering his role and the times in which he lived, so maybe he would have been a big fan and power user of search engines, although the average samurai probably would not have been).

T Man
"Private Jets Are Not Just For the Rich and Famous"
http://www.privatejetsalesandrental.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
|333173|3|_||3, 29 Jan 2007 @ 7:41pm

Re: Re: Re:
Why? it is a simple oup-out system. If you want it to be opt in, ban spiders from yuor entire site, and then, if you like, allow them to visit certaimn pages. I do not know what over-rides what, but the principle is there. Remember there is noindex as well, which could be put in the standard page templte.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]