This DOJ subpoena of Google is getting a lot of press play, with coverage on the front page of newspapers across the country — an article on this issue appeared below-the-fold in The Washington Post. Having read DOJ’s request for a court order compelling Google to cough up the web site URLs, I’m even more chilled by what the government has asked.
Something in particular caught my eye; in the motion, the Justice Department rebuffs Google’s contention that the government is capable of getting a random set of URLs via other means aside from asking Google to turn over actual user search data (again, with the user identification removed). The DOJ states in response to Google’s totally reasonable argument:
In any event, as a matter of simple logic, given the Government’s stated purpose of evaluating a sample set of URL’s available to be retrieved from searches on the various search engines presently available, the most readily available source for those materials are the operators of the search engines themselves.
What the DOJ is saying is that it is simply easier to develop statistical data by issuing subpoenas to search engine companies than it is to design and conduct some other kind of research. In essence, the government would rather go down a very dangerous road, and freak everybody out, because it’s…lazy, unimaginative and, perhaps, cheap.
If for no other reason than to stop the government from viewing the Internet as a quick-and-easy evidence mining operation, I hope Google keeps up the fight against the subpoena.
Update: Once again, Danny Sullivan has a detailed summary and analysis of the documents in this case posted at Search Engine Watch. Worth a read. Danny thinks that Google’s real incentive in denying the government’s subpoena is that it doesn’t want to divulge data that is a trade secret, namely the total number of weekly Google searches, which could allow someone to calculate how big Google’s index is.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 3:52 PM | Print | Comments (0)
Reuters today has this piece on a little start-up called TVMyPod that sells iPods pre-loaded with movies and TV shows. The customer simply buys an iPod, and buys a DVD movie or TV show, and then TVMyPod will load up the content onto the player and ship both the iPod and the original DVD.
What the company is trying to capitalize on is the difficulty of transferring video to iPods - video, that is, that wasn’t originally purchased via iTunes. But, is this legal? TVMyPod founder Vijay Raghavan says that it’s a one-way transfer and that it doesn’t violate copyright laws since the customer is purchasing the DVD. Moreoever, he contends that TVMyPod doesn’t bypass the DRM technology embedded in the DVD.
TVMyPod isn’t making any money on this service yet, but hopes to start a subscription-based offering that performs the DVD-to-iPod transfer for films and TV shows.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 11:16 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
