Although most of our email was supportive of my recent article titled “The New Google Toolbar: Just say NO!” which I suggest you open in a new window, Sean does present an interesting argument and properly points out some omissions in my original entry.

The email:
“Your recent rant on the Google toolbar prompted me to install it. After trying it out, I get the impression that you didn’t.
When I went to a page containing an address the “AutoLink” button in the toolbar changed to “Look For Map”. The page didn’t change at all. I had to click on the autolink button to change the address to a hyperlink to Google maps. Same went for an ISBN. And as I moved my mouse over the hyperlink, the hand changed to a different icon, and a tooltip telling me this was a Google AutoLink was attached.
You can also turn it off if you want, or set it to use Yahoo! maps or MapQuest rather than Google Maps. Granted, I don’t see an option to change the book provider from Amazon to something else, maybe we’ll see it in another version.
Comparing this toolbar to the likes of Gator is outright irresponsible.
Sean
–
Sean A. Walberg – http://www.ertw.com (Permission granted for use)
Our response:
Sean,
Thank you for the email. You have raised some interesting issues which I should have documented in the original entry. Of course I installed the Toolbar and tested same before I wrote my article.
The original fair use extraction clearly stated: “…and click the AutoLink button” which changes it’s name as you note to help focus the users attention on the button. You are certainly correct that a user of this Toolbar may in fact change the default site from Google to other sites such as Yahoo or MapQuest. Actually, Google uses the same flawed argument when they state:
“Google, the world’s most widely used search engine, denied that the AutoLink feature is an attempt to control which destinations Web surfers visit. People can already choose between several map services, including Yahoo and MapQuest, and choices for book retailers may be added in the future, a company representative said on Friday.” Source
Both your statement and that of Google miss the real issue, which I failed to properly state in my original entry. In Google’s case, it’s a flawed attempt to justify the functionality of the Toolbar.
The REAL ISSUE that matters
Regardless of the fact that the link (and Tooltip display) points to Google, Yahoo, MapQuest, Amazon, or any other site on planet earth, the fact remains that the content of the Publisher’s site has been altered by a surfer who clicks the AutoLink button while using the Toolbar, which Google provides. The content of the Publishers site is altered without their prior approval and the Publisher does not share in any revenue generated by the hijacking of a visitor to another site. The Publishers looses revenue via this hijacking procedure. Please permit me to explain this another way:
Sally and Jim build a Web site. They use the revenue from the site to support their family. It’s taken them years of hard work and dedication to generate revenue. They also pay money to advertise the site so new visitors continue to arrive and purchase their product or service. They may also use Affiliate programs to generate revenue. These Publishers are the only ones who have the authority to determine exactly how their site displays in a browser and exactly which links they have chosen to insert which earn them revenue. They are protected from hijacking/alteration and the unfair loss of revenue by the Toolbar hijacking users via the following federal Laws:
The DMCA (The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998) is designed to protect the content of Web sites and prevent others from unilaterally altering the content of a third parties site. If the site has also obtained a Trademark then this introduces another serious legal issue. A Trademark is designed to protect the owner of the site from folks who see fit to create confusion in the marketplace, steal images/content, and unfairly profit from the Trademark holders hard work by hijacking traffic. These same two issue are central to the numerous law suits which Gator/Claria/Kazaa and other Spyware players have been involved with as defendants. In some cases the courts have sided with the Web Site owners as I documented in this article and in other cases the courts have sided with technology and the Publisher lost the case. Given the fact that the same two legal issues are involved in these cases, I think it’s fair to paint Google as a member of the Gator/Claria/Kazaa club, even though the courts have moved in two different directions and the Toolbar is not Spyware/Adware.
Final thoughts
A few years ago, Microsoft tried a somewhat similar thing with its Smart Tags feature and fortunately for Web Publishers, subsequently removed it because of adverse publicity, Publisher outrage, and Copyright/Trademark concerns. I’m the first to admit that the legal principals involved in this issue have not been universally interpreted by the courts and the fact remains that I’m not an attorney. Thus, I have chosen to call Google an enabler: they provide the Toolbar and I respectfully consider the actions of Google to be morally and ethically reprehensible.
If Publishers don’t voice their concern and objection to the new Toolbar, the hijacking door is left wide open for Google to continue to add new features which inflict additional damage on hard working and dedicated Publishers. Will Google decide to implement AdWords advertisers inside the functionality of the AutoLink feature of the Toolbar? Will Google find itself in court for these actions just like the Gator/Claria/Kazaa crowd. These are real concerns of many hard working Publishers.
Thanks again for your email and pointing out areas of concern and facts which I failed to properly document.
This article is a response to my original entry titled: “The New Google Toolbar: Just say NO!”

Comments are closed.