backtop


Print 36 comment(s) - last by CZroe.. on Aug 12 at 8:54 AM

With an already full plate, Perfect 10 sets its crosshairs at Redmond

Tasteful porn site Perfect 10, already in lawsuits with Google, Amazon, and others, announced that it has filed an additional complaint of copyright infringement against Microsoft over search results returned from MSN’s image search feature. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.


According to a press release posted today, Perfect 10 alleges that MSN illegally displays thumbnails and links to images that should only be available to Perfect 10’s paid subscribers; the results usually go to third party sites reposting Perfect 10’s -- as well as countless others' -- images without permission.

“Microsoft is showing tens of thousands of extremely valuable celebrity images, along with Perfect 10 images, without authorization, which it obtains from hundreds if not thousands of pirate websites,” says Perfect 10 president Norm Zada. “I’m shocked by Microsofts attitude in this matter. You would think that as a major copyright holder itself, Microsoft would be extremely sympathetic to concerns of other copyright holders … ironically, Microsoft has chastised Google for copying other peoples work without permission, but now Microsoft is doing just that.”

In addition to linking full-size versions of infringed images, MSN search also makes passwords available to the subscriber section of Perfect 10’s site, claims Zada, allowing surfers full access to the site’s paid offerings for free: “Microsoft has complained about entities that distribute unauthorized Microsoft software product codes on the one hand, while Microsoft makes our confidential passwords available to millions of online users. There is something very wrong about this.”

Zada claims he has an easy solution, but search engines refuse to implement it: “Search engines could greatly reduce infringement if they would simply delist obvious infringers upon receiving notice, and stop copying and linking to copyrighted works without permission,” but adds that doing so would “adversely affect their revenue.”

Perfect 10 is already involved in 28 lawsuits against other plaintiffs, according to Ars Technica. A nearly identical lawsuit filed against Google has seen courts side against the embattled porn site: in May the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a previous decision favorable to Perfect 10, rejecting almost all claims, including one that Google’s display of thumbnails cut into Perfect 10’s market for cell-phone-sized images.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

hummm
By PointlesS on 8/9/2007 8:11:05 PM , Rating: 5
passwords? full size images?

*goes to msn search for the first time*




RE: hummm
By Highbuzz on 8/9/2007 8:17:18 PM , Rating: 5
I ain't that type of... person..... *opens it up as well*

Don't judge me!


RE: hummm
By phatboye on 8/9/2007 8:28:01 PM , Rating: 5
why has no one ever told me that I could google passwords. I am always the last to know about things like this.


RE: hummm
By darkpaw on 8/9/2007 11:02:44 PM , Rating: 2
RE: hummm
By TomCorelis on 8/10/2007 1:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
The amount of fun I've had abusing the inurl: keyword may well be criminal...


RE: hummm
By AntDX316 on 8/12/2007 2:29:35 AM , Rating: 2
probably making this news public was a bad idea cause they will lose even more business


RE: hummm
By FITCamaro on 8/9/2007 8:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
Lies!

For the most part.... ;)


RE: hummm
By Zurtex on 8/9/2007 8:57:13 PM , Rating: 3
My understanding is that these "Full Size images" are thumbnails that Perfect 10 makes.

My understanding also is that the web designers at perfect 10 are fairly incompetent and have not heard of meta tags and bots and therefore don't realise that this could have all been prevented if they know how to correctly code a web page.


RE: hummm
By InternetGeek on 8/9/2007 9:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
It's called a robots.txt, http://www.robotstxt.org/, you gotta be real green in web design not to know that. Or you just don't care about keeping people away from your content.

There's also something wrong about the technical aspect of the suit as well. How can a search engine disclose a password unless it was published by the author in plain text?.

It seems to me some companies want search engines to do the job they are careless to do or just too cheap to pay for.


RE: hummm
By darkpaw on 8/9/2007 11:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
Preciously,

Search engines don't pickup things in protected parts of the site or parts with norobots files. They deliberately made the site searchable and then sue over it. Its a good thing their first suit got tossed on appeal. They are just hoping to get judges that don't have the technical knowledge to see what they are doing.


RE: hummm
By Spivonious on 8/10/2007 9:00:19 AM , Rating: 3
lol!

I think you meant "Precisely".

The Firefox spellchecker strikes again!


RE: hummm
By Gastrian on 8/10/2007 10:34:50 AM , Rating: 2
You LOL at the firefox spellcheck and not
"Its a good thing their first suit got tossed on appeal."?


RE: hummm
By Dactyl on 8/10/2007 12:11:46 AM , Rating: 3
This isn't about robots.txt

Its about third-party pirates who steal Perfect 10s pictures and post them on their own sites. They make money selling ad space based on the visitors who look at the stolen pictures.

Then MSN image search has the same business model. It catalogs those pirate sites, allowing users to search through and view the stolen images, and makes money by selling ad space based on the visitors who look at the stolen pictures.


RE: hummm
By InternetGeek on 8/10/2007 3:32:33 AM , Rating: 3
Make it a copyright issue again the offending sites. MSN's engine in this case is the messenger.


RE: hummm
By gss4w on 8/9/2007 11:26:10 PM , Rating: 2
Their web designers may well be incompetent, but I think the complaint is that the search engines are linking to pirated versions of their content, not content actually linked to their site.


RE: hummm
By Alexstarfire on 8/9/2007 11:55:32 PM , Rating: 2
But how is that Microsoft's, or any search engine for that matter, problem? Is Microsoft hosting the websites with pirated content? NO. Are the people who have done the actual pirating getting sued? NO.

I don't see why people keep blaming search engines for doing their job. It's not like the search engine is getting the pictures from the protected web pages. It's like everyone just wants to sue the people with all the money. Heaven forbid the porn industry doesn't make more money. I'm sure they are all SOOOOO broke.

There isn't going to be any way to completely fix the problem. At best they can only minimize the pirating, not flat out get rid of it.


RE: hummm
By peritusONE on 8/10/2007 8:40:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But how is that Microsoft's, or any search engine for that matter, problem? Is Microsoft hosting the websites with pirated content? NO. Are the people who have done the actual pirating getting sued? NO.

I don't see why people keep blaming search engines for doing their job. It's not like the search engine is getting the pictures from the protected web pages.

Agreed. If anything, this company should be working with Microsoft and Google, because apparently the search engines can help this company find the people pirating their images.

I guess if a guy robs a bank, then hops in a random car and makes the person drive, just shoot the innocent guy that's driving, and the bad guy won't get away! Brilliant! Oh, wait, that's right, he'll just hop out and run down an alley, and still get away.

/decent analogy IMO :)


RE: hummm
By anonymo on 8/10/2007 8:50:32 AM , Rating: 2
No...it was a horrible analogy. Microsoft is pulling in revenue with MSN search which has pirated websites in its database. That's it.

I agree, don't shoot the messenger but in this case the messenger is profiting off of your bad news, which is illegal.

No lawyer would accept a law suit in which the defendant had not yet contacted the accused about the situation. The first thing Perfect 10 would have done is ask MS to cease with the links to websites hosting pirated material.


RE: hummm
By peritusONE on 8/10/2007 9:49:29 AM , Rating: 2
No....the analogy was pretty decent, with only a couple of holes. I never said Microsoft or other search companies weren't somewhat responsible for having the links. My point was that Perfect 10 should be going after the people hosting the illegal pictures, not the search engines. They have their priorities wrong. Search engines aren't the problem here, it just that the companies who are responsible for the engines have the most money. Even if Perfect 10 can get the courts to side with them against the search engines, their pictures and content will still be pirated at the same rate. They will have wasted their time and energy for nothing.


RE: hummm
By d0gb0y on 8/10/2007 1:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
How about MS is a taxi cab driver assisting the bank robber, but the taxi driver has no knowledge the passenger is a thief.

Should we go after the thief, or the taxi cab driver?

Maybe the taxi cab driver should have all passengers fill out a questionnaire:

1. Have you robbed a bank in the last 2 hours?....


Super Mario Brothers
By Dactyl on 8/10/2007 12:05:23 AM , Rating: 3
Everyone knows Mario is a plumber and SONIC IS THE HEDGEHOG!

That image is pure ROFL.




RE: Super Mario Brothers
By sprockkets on 8/10/2007 12:14:07 AM , Rating: 2
uhhh, i guess you do not know who that is huh?


RE: Super Mario Brothers
By InternetGeek on 8/10/2007 3:30:20 AM , Rating: 5
Don't tell him. It's sad to spoil one of the very few 'untouched' minds left on the internet.


RE: Super Mario Brothers
By theprodigalrebel on 8/10/2007 9:45:33 AM , Rating: 4
Double Fail! Quad Damage!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Jeremy
quote:

Ron Jeremy (born Ron Jeremy Hyatt on March 12, 1953) is an American pornographic actor currently residing in Long Island, New York. Nicknamed "The Hedgehog" for his "spherical hirsuteness"

[...]

Margold's comments on seeing Jeremy after the shower were "You are a hedgehog, my friend. A walking, talking hedgehog."


RE: Super Mario Brothers
By peritusONE on 8/10/2007 9:51:17 AM , Rating: 2
A little math for ya:

sprockkets + InternetGeek = pwnd.


RE: Super Mario Brothers
By CZroe on 8/12/2007 8:54:09 AM , Rating: 2
I have the issue of Foul: Video Game Subculture that that image came from (cover).


Marketing
By motoxpress on 8/9/2007 9:51:00 PM , Rating: 2
This is a ploy.

Think about the marketing benefit they get from the news sites and all the 'curious' readers who will now look them up. Very effective, if diabolical, way of getting porn advertising in the mainstream.




RE: Marketing
By TurtleBay on 8/9/2007 10:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
Free advertising!!!!


RE: Marketing
By elpresidente2075 on 8/9/2007 10:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
That is exactly what it is. As much as I don't hope for the proliferation of porn (another whole subject entirely), I have to say that this was a stroke of genius, and frankly I'm surprised it hasn't been tried before.

However, if it is in fact a legitimate beef with these search engines, Perfect10's web developers are the worst programmers I've ever seen. To leave that sort of information on your website available to a web crawler should be punishable in the same way as an email server (yahoo, gmail, msn) would be punished if they sold off all the email addresses to spammers.

I dislike this turn of events.


kamilla18
By Crazyeyeskillah on 8/9/2007 9:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
God Bless Image Search

fap fap




RE: kamilla18
By gersson on 8/9/2007 9:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
'god'
'fap'

ewww, that's just wrong!


Isn't it their fault?
By psyph3r on 8/10/2007 2:00:59 AM , Rating: 3
Is it not their fault for being incompetent web designers? They should all blacklist his site so nothing ever gets through that has to do with his domain. let him kill himself business wise.




By chrispyski on 8/9/2007 8:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
It's going to give me nothing but nightmares.




Really?
By INeedCache on 8/9/2007 10:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
Tasteful porn? I don't think so.




They can protect thier content.
By Acid Rain on 8/10/2007 3:40:25 AM , Rating: 2
As a web-developer I can tell you it's fully possible to protect content such as images so it can't be found by search engine or crawlers or any other unauthenticated request.
It could possibly be a lot of work depending on how they implement it.
But in anyway - if a search engine can have access to those images - then anyone can - it would only make sense to protect it if it's exclusive paid for content. legally, they have rights for their copyrighted content. but It's fully possible the only reason they don't protecting their materials is just so they can sue multi billion dollar company's.




By JonnyDough on 8/10/2007 6:48:14 AM , Rating: 2
XNXX anyone? 13 year olds can access some pretty damn graphic free porn. I guess I don't get why anyone would pay to put viruses on their computer. I don't understand why women are dumb enough to allow men to make a profit off them either. Are these women too dumb to make the profit themselves? Here, I'll give you $5 to strip on camera. Nevermind I'll be making about a million bucks a year for the next 20 years off it.




"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki