UGN InfoManager

Edward Wyatt, for News-dot-com writes:
[Quote]
In the recent case, Judge Howard Matz of United States District Court for the Central District of California, said Google's use of thumbnail-sized reproductions in its image search program violated the copyright of Perfect 10, a publisher of X-rated magazines and Web sites, because it undermined that company's ability to license those images for sale to mobile phone users ... [End Quote]

Litigators intentionally fog the issues between proprietary data and freely searchable content on the web. They also seem to be using the "Perfect 10" case to confuse the issues between this suit and Gooble's Book Search program. One is valid, the other is not.

You can bet that porno publisher Perfect 10 wanted all the links and all the traffic they could gain via the search engines. If you read the underlying code of many of their pages you'll see intentional search engine padding. Unfortunately, as in several law cases we've been directly involved with, the judges are too uninformed about the way the internet works to make an intelligent decision -- and attorneys know this.

Wyatt's article points out:
[Quote]
A recent federal court decision in California might undermine a pillar of defense for Google in its dispute with publishers and authors who are challenging the company's right to scan books that are still under copyright (clip) Representatives of publishers and authors who have filed lawsuits against Google over its Book Search program said they believed that the decision raised questions about a case that Google had cited in its defense of the Book Search program.

Read detals about the former Book Search Lawsuit.