Reining in Google

CDPatten writes "The Washington Times has an op-ed piece by two writers typically on opposing sides of the isle, Pat Schroeder and Bob Barr. The article is brief, but overwhelmingly opposes the Google Print service. From the article 'Not only is Google trying to rewrite copyright law, it is also crushing creativity ...Google envisions a world in which all content is free; and of course, it controls the portal through which Internet user's access that content. It would completely devalue everyone else's property and massively increase the value of its own.'. It sounds to me like they might be slightly peeved that Google is resuming the scanning.

Comments

Re:Melinda Gates on Board of Directors

[jxs2151]

Good try at a paranoid swipe dipshit but this is the Times not the Post.

Go back and try again...maybe you could say something like: "I am not surprised at this coming from the conservative Washington Times" ... except the authors are Pat Schroeder and Bob Barr - left and right.

Your reflexive defense of ./'s favorite search engine company would be pathetic if we weren't all aware of the Slashbot effect.

Google parasite

[katorga]

Google provides zero payment to the content creators. If their is no content to search for their is no advertising revenue at Google. Google's business model depends on the un-compensated work of others.

At the end of the day, Google is nothing more glamorous than a direct marketing firm. That alone is enough to classify them as Evil.

Re:Is it always in the interest of content provide

[shanen]

Thank you for clarifying matters. You cannot read me mind, and you are lying to say that you can. Therefore you are a pseudo-intellectual Sophist and a liar. Apparently a stupid one, to boot.

Please do me one favor. Designate me as your foe, so I will more conveniently know to ignore any of your future posts that I stumble accross (though my settings make that rather unlikely once you have set the red dot in place).