Bing shows Google you can do the decent thing and not steal content!

[Clinton]

I've often argued that Google's helping itself to our pages and showing them in cache without our prior permission is ....theft.

That we can opt out isn't really a valid argument. The responsibility has to be at the other end because ... how many bots are you going to opt out of, and is each new one going to notifiy you before it starts scraping your site for "free" reproduction elsewhere? If not, then why is Google a special case? Simply because of its size?

Now Bing has shown Google a way you can use other people's content without stealing it.

B.I.N.G! From Micro$oft!

[JJMcClure]

Now Bing has shown Google a way you can use other people's content without stealing it.

What's the difference between 'use' and 'steal', I'm a little confused about that.

[Clinton]

It's a little thing called asking permission first.

...content licensed and paid for by Bing

[JJMcClure]

It's a little thing called asking permission first.

What about the rest of Bing's content, they stole that?

[Clinton]

Yes.

Google gets mentioned first because Google is the world's biggest offender in the sheer volume of stolen content, the reach, the numerous and devious methods used ... I could go on.

Bing didn't reproduce my definitions directly in SERPS, provide current weather, flight arrival news etc., directly in SERPs and take other steps to steal my visitors using my content (i.e. stop them visiting my site by giving them directly the answers they were looking for). That's just website content and before we go on to Google books and other stuff.

What do you think about the OP? Is Bing a good example for Google to follow?

[JJMcClure]

What do you think about the OP? Is Bing a good example for Google to follow?

Sorry, didn't realise I was digressing. (For the record though, I've come to think that our entire outlook on this issue is determined soley by our attitudes towards privacy and I'd like nothing better than to live in a world where all information is freely available to anyone, even if achieving that means acting contrary to current accepted beliefs, that's how things change ultimately, you have to buck the trend and even if Google's motives are self serving, it's headed in a direction I support.)

I need to mull over what Bing are doing a bit more, there are some big implications there, not least for SEO and ranking well on Bing. My initial feeling is that I'd rather have a snippet shown on a search engine so that people have to visit my site for the full article, than have the full article shown so they don't. I'm going to make more money from the visits than the licence fee, especially if my revenue is Ad based.

Also, are bing not doing exactly what you've accused Google of trying to do and cutting out the need for their users to actually visit your site? I'd have thought you'd be against that.

EDIT: I'm not seeing that feature on Bing, it just looks like a copy of Google, have they withdrawn it?

[Clinton]

I've mentioned elsewhere about the attitudes in India towards intellectual property rights and the history behind them. In short, in ancient India, kings encouraged authors, artists etc., to bring their works to a big annual durbar. The creator of the work received honours from the king or a purse, but the work then belonged to the nation. Anybody could reproduce the play, story or other work of art and freely use any idea or invention presented at the durbar.

That's in stark contrast to how such works developed in the west where it was all about protecting your "property" and making as much money out of it as you could. Systems evolved for registering patents, protecting copyright etc., and there were financial and other penalties for using somebody else's property without permission.

Without the IP protection afforded by the systems in the west the industrial revolution wouldn't have happened, most modern drugs wouldn't have been invented and nobody would have invested huge sums of money to further our knowledge, understanding and exploitation of the world around us.

Personally, I prefer the former system - a world devoid of selfishness, a world where everybody shares everything. But that's not the world we live in. We live in a world where I have to honour your intellectual property. I don't see any wrong with others affording me the same courtesy. If Google wants to shape the world to be like the durbars of old, that's fantastic. They can start by releasing all rights to all the patents they've ever registered and the patents they've acquired over time (at the cost of billions of dollars).

[JJMcClure]

Personally, I prefer the former system - a world devoid of selfishness, a world where everybody shares everything. But that's not the world we live in. We live in a world where I have to honour your intellectual property. I don't see any wrong with others affording me the same courtesy. If Google wants to shape the world to be like the durbars of old, that's fantastic. They can start by releasing all rights to all the patents they've ever registered and the patents they've acquired over time (at the cost of billions of dollars).

Me too, and I agree they should release the patents. Of course if they did that there'd be hundred more google's over night, what impact would that have?

You didn't answer my question about the new Bing feature removing the need for their users to visit your site.

Without the IP protection afforded by the systems in the west the industrial revolution wouldn't have happened, most modern drugs wouldn't have been invented and nobody would have invested huge sums of money to further our knowledge, understanding and exploitation of the world around us.

Yes, terribly sad isn't it. It's almost as bad as the fact that so many of our technological advances come from when we're doing our best to exterminate each other. But that's a different discussion.

[Clinton]

Also, are bing not doing exactly what you've accused Google of trying to do and cutting out the need for their users to actually visit your site? I'd have thought you'd be against that.

If the purpose of my site is to make money, it's up to me to decide how I make that money. I could choose to sign up with Bing and make that money from syndication or not sign up with Bing and make that money directly from advertisers. It's nice to have the choice.

[JJMcClure]

not sign up with Bing and make that money directly from advertisers.

So if you decided not to sign up, you wouldn't have a problem with Bing stealing your content but sending users to your site, as long as you have the choice?