Slashdot Mirror
Old Media Says Google Will Destroy Film & Music
SirWinston writes "A Daily Mail editor has written perhaps the most Luddite attack on Google ever, reading just like a 19th-century manifesto against looms and factories. 'Google has become a global predator ruthlessly gobbling up potential rivals such as YouTube and 'stealing' the creative work of writers, film makers and the music industry... Google has granted these piracy sites a licence to steal... It undermines investment in the very creative industries that have become such an important part of our national prosperity, and employ hundreds of thousands of people.' The article lionizes brick-and-mortar business and traditional media, and reads as a funny anachronism--except that these may be the attitudes of European regulators now shaking down Google and new media."
Yeah, troll article referring to "old media".
Anyway no tears shed for dying newspapers and broadcast stations.
"pop sensation Adele" -- who the fuck is 'Adele'?
After all the effort and money spent on perverting copyright law worldwide, how DARE someone come along and defy them! Have they no respect for TRADITION!
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Film at elevenish on Hulu.
She's now holding the record of longest stay at number 1 in the album charts by a female artist in the UK, having spent 11 consecutive weeks (so far) at number 1. This beats Madonna's record from 1990.
The Daily Mail is worse than trash, but people could be forgiven for having heard of Adele.
Be sure to get off my lawn!
Over the past few years Rupert Murdoch has been on an international roadshow telling everyone in politics that will listen that his major competitor for the advertising dollar - Google - will destroy jobs etc.
All we are seeing here is influence being used to turn people against a business competitor.
If you really want to see a "global predator" take a look at Newscorp. Most of the newspapers bleed money anyway but are kept because they are a good source of political influence and can be used as pawns in the paywall game of trying to make Google look like thieves.
Good riddance.
If patriotism is racist, is racism patriotic?
That's funny.
I'm a content creator, and Google and YouTube have done wonderful things for me. I've gotten a few shows and jobs from YouTube videos that have gone semi-viral.
For the independent artist, the potential these services unlock is simply too important to lose.
-I only code in BASIC.-
It's the world's smallest violin, & it's playing the musical scores of CNN & Fox News just for you 3
Having seen a lot of the creativity out of Hollywood and what people consider to be modern, popular music, nowadays, I would argue that Google may assist in the downfall of Film and Music, but I think honestly they are doing plenty on their own to destroy themselves. The stuff they put out nowadays and to call a lot of it entertainment is a stretch.
They might point to Google as the cause of ruin, but they are doing plenty themselves. They ought to look in the mirror.
Its probably the reason I don't pirate much at all-its not worth pirating. And I surely wouldn't pay for that kinda junk.
The book copying industry used to put a lot of people in jobs. The Printing press destroyed the book industry!
Its stealing the work of creative people-who-copy-books-for-a-living.
-
Technology moves forward. Deal with it.
Its about time sites like Google 'took out' old timer media. Old timer media was real nice for a long time, and maybe at some point it might become viable again, but right now, its dying. Its not Google's fault its dying either! Old timer media has an old timer business model. Google is a million times faster, and a billion times cheaper, and in many cases Google isn't even responsible, its just the index. There are a million sites on the net that are killing old-timer media. Its not Google, its a million times bigger than Google.
Technology wipes out whole industries?! Oh no! Whatever will horseshoe makers do!
Woosh. You've missed the point and potential just like the RIAA and MPAA.
The daily mail says all sorts of things. It's not news when they write it, and it's definitely not news that they wrote it.
That is what it reads like. They forget to mention the numerous videos on YouTube that have helped give greater exposure to talented individuals who were never seeing the light of day. The forget the indie musicians whom never got to see the inside of recording studio. But, apparently, this is 'stealing' and stifling creative expression.
With cold, heartless indifference, Google deprived the founders of a whole year's worth of labor; cynically stripped them of eleven and a half million dollars of hard-won venture capital and left them with nothing but 1.65 billion dollars of Google stock.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Old Media is dead.
...
I am sick of seeing this argument
I predict that there will be a lot of fair comments in this thread modded down as flamebait, and I guess this will be one of them.
My personal experience of Google: I do photographs for newspapers. Google have used several of my photographs as part of Google News without permission or payment. I sent them an invoice, and a long time later they contacted me to say that they weren't going to pay AND would only take down the photos if I filed a DMCA complaint.
Even if you disregard the (valid) parasite claims in the Daily Mail article, I would say that Google simply doesn't respect copyright. (Or, more accurately, doesn't respect other people's copyright. I'm quite sure they would jealously protect their own.)
As the supply approaches infinity, the price approaches 0.
So if supply is infinite, the price is 0 and thus music should be free.
Basic economics.
Also, since the music industry violates the law of supply and demand, it messes up the entire economic system. Blame them for the recession!
I'm guessing that link is to Goatse. Not clicking.
I keep telling you all that Google is Skynet. I know. I am a Google Borg. ;o)
One thing everyone seems to forget is that change is inevitable.
It is human nature to change or we would all still be riding donkeys and wearing tow-sacks.
Damn near everything that has been done in the name of progress has also been bemoaned as the death of mankind and humanity.
The audio cassette killed the record.
The CD killed the audio cassette.
The video cassette was the end of the movie industry.
The DVD killed the video cassette.
Streaming and downloads are killing the DVD industry.
The sky is falling once again and it is now Google's fault.
...as a business model: http://artificialscarcity.com/
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation
(my writings)
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
First rule of journalism: The Daily Mail is Utter Rubbish.
Don't worry, Mr. Alex! Everyone can find your article since Google News already indexed it...
http://www.google.com.br/search?q="Google has become a global predator"&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wn
--- Illogical Spock
One of the nice things about Firefox 4 is that the icon of Goatse man on the tab is large enough to identify, but small enough not to actually have any detail at all. Plus you can open and close the tab without actually viewing it.
At least for music, it's simple, it has become an over abundant commodity. As such, ergo, yadda yadda, the supply and demand curvy thingy says cheap prices!!! Get over over it, move on, yadda yadda. The only thing creative in that industry these days is the accounting.
This article is a lot of things, but Luddite is not one of them. Claiming google is too powerful, too intrusive, are not uncommon complaints. If I, as a Mac user announce my disgust of Microsoft, am I a luddite too?
Luddite is generally synonymous with technology-phobia and hatred of labor-saving devices. Does the author claim we shouldn't use search engines or get rid of smartphones? No. He's just saying Google is malignant and malicious, not opining on tech in general.
It's like when Bon Jovi said Steve Jobs killed the music experience. No, and that also wasn't luddite.
the current music and film system stifles good music and films. The sooner this system dies the better.
Look, if you want me to be afraid of Google, you should point out that they know an incredible amount of information about most people using the internet. Google should be extremely easy to scaremonger about--they're always watching what I do! They've got pictures of my house! They're freaking spying on everyone, and you expect us to get worked up because of intellectual property? Because they're messing up your business model? I mean, if you want people to panic about Google, maybe you should use the word "privacy" at least once?
Choice one: Join discussion which is just more of the same?
Choice two: Stay out of discussion which will just ride on the same rails as previous discussions?
*flip coin*
Ok, I'm out of here.
"Nine out of the first ten websites which pop up on Googleâ(TM)s search engine are run by pirates who have downloaded Adeleâ(TM)s output and offer it online far more cheaply than official copyrighted sites and High Street retailers."
This isn't the only piece of fiction in this article but this is so damingly wrong I'm in disbelief that an editor of a newspaper could make such a error. Anyone can easily type in Adele into Google to reveal this piece of fiction. As evidence I offer: http://www.google.com/search?&q=adele
Non of the first top ten results I get are "pirated" even by the Dailymail's most loose definition of the term, most are official or 100% legit.
So I stopped reading and got on with my life.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Yes, I did find the article a very enjoyable read. Why? Because it's clearly written in panic mode. There's so much frothing at the mouth, so much pure emotional drivel. I'm quite happy to see this person, and those whom he represents, so distressed. Clearly, Google is doing something right if they're pushing so many buttons at the same time!
Unfortunately, I don't think this will work quite as well for movies.
Don't be so sure. We're already seeing the rise of series such as Felicia Day's The Guild and Joss Whedon's Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog , which has been free online in various official capacities. Also, Google has started producing full-length movies, such as Girl Walks Into a Bar . (The latter of which even features some semi-big names, like Carla Gugino, Josh Hartnett, Danny DeVito, and a bunch of other names you'd probably recognize.) Also, Hulu is producing a show, The Confession , starring Kiefer Sutherland and John Hurt, both big names in the business.
I honestly think--and hope!--that the times of big television networks being the gateway to what we can and can't see are soon to be over.
"Old Media Says Google Will Destroy Film & Music" [industries] Can't believe I agree with them, but here's to hoping they're right. The music industry is the worst thing to happen to music since... well.. ever.
FYI for slashdot moderators and readers. Someone who does not like new technology or some facets of new technology is not a Luddite. Someone who does not go along with the current fashion that newer is better is not a Luddite. Just because someone doesn't want the kids on their lawn doesn't make them a Luddite. Please kids, look up what the word means.
It undermines investment in the very creative industries that have become such an important part of our national prosperity, and employ hundreds of thousands of people.
That alone makes the whole article not worth reading. Yes, they employ hundreds of thousands of people, no, they are not only not important to our national prosperity - they are an utter hindrance thereto. Look at every issue we face with fine grain detail and you will see it's roots in the social dysfunction from ego through sexual tension that has been inspired by these very people complaining about "new media". Yes, its only proper people be compensated for their work, but within the exact same thought process it is only proper for a provider of a service, entertainment or otherwise, not to screw their customers for their own benefit and amusement. I'll be glad when "old media" dies and everyone without a talent otherwise currently employed by them starves to death - it's evolution, and it's good for the species - the saddest thing about this is that in all likeliness they won't actually starve, or perhaps that even if they do, we won't all get to watch (though I'll be checking YouTube for it).
Yeah, the UK's recording companies and newspapers are busy self-destructing, and Google is getting rich. The article fails to make a connection between the two.
...(or possibly destroying the current business models under which the bulk of today's entertainment is delivered) would not be the same as destroying music and film.
- TWR
I don't go to Google News very often, but when I do the images I see are always 80 pixels by 80 pixels.
Now, I know that doesn't change the fact that the photographer had to be there and Did Work to take that photo and that it would be nice if there was some compensation if it's going to be used on a commercial site like Google.
But (anecdotal time) if I see that image and it looks vaguely interesting, I will click on it to see the full size image. I won't just look at that 80x80 image and go "strewth, great photo, glad I saw it!" because there's nothing to see in a photo of that size.
That small image then becomes total linkbait for me - I'll click through to the full article to the site that (presumably) /is/ paying you for the content. Which, I assume, is good for them and then good for you, because my click-through counts as a view.
So that's just my 2c. I can see your point, but I strongly feel that those small thumbnails encourage more people to look at your work. (Of course I'm working under the assumption they only have those 80x80 versions and that there's not a separate Google News thing that does capture the full size photo somewhere.)
Don't know about other countries, but over here the HMV stores charge about 20-30% more for the same CDs and DVDs compared with other retailers. If they go bankrupt and die it will be because of their uncompetitive pricing, not because Google stole their wares.
Google news puts up tiny thumbnails of photos, and provides links to the newspaper that (presumably) paid you. What, precisely, is your issue? Google news has driven *more* traffic to the newspaper. It isn't like your photo has any value in a 1.5x1.5cm format, which is all the google news thumbnail shows, other the possibility that someone will click on it and go to the newspaper site in order to see the larger photo.
Why is this a bad thing?
If you don't want to deal with Google, there's a simple solution for you - and Rupert Murdoch. Make them go away!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots_exclusion_standard
Of course - there are ramifications with doing this, but thats what you're chasing, isn't it ??
Dear Slashdot. Both the article you link to and the summary itself are clearly uninformed flamebait. You can do better. I would post a much longer comment disputing both the claim that Google will destroy Film and Music and the counter-claim that defending copyright makes you a "luddite". However, the summary text certainly doesn't invite reasoned discussion, and I'm not going to bother feeding the trolls.
Solaleya
This isn't news, this is just "Old Man Yells At Cloud."
"Nine out of the first ten websites which pop up on Googleâ(TM)s search engine are run by pirates who have downloaded Adeleâ(TM)s output and offer it online far more cheaply than official copyrighted sites and High Street retailers."
This isn't the only piece of fiction in this article but this is so damingly wrong I'm in disbelief that an editor of a newspaper could make such a error. Anyone can easily type in Adele into Google to reveal this piece of fiction. As evidence I offer: http://www.google.com/search?&q=adele
Not that I disagree with the conclusion, but are you in Britain? You need to remember that although Google is global, their search results are biased by region and it's possible that the top 10 results in one country will be different from the top 10 in another (I think it depends on Google Trends' interaction with PageRank). That said, if the top 10 sites are actually all pirated then I'll eat broken glass, in all likelihood they probably added extra keywords that the aren't bothering to mention (intentional confusion with misleading statements is one of the most common weapons in the inflammatory editorialist's arsenal).
What happened is that the geeks took over marketing. Honestly.
In the past marketing was run by a lot of "creative" types who used their social intuition and some conventional wisdom about what worked to appeal to the consumer. The marketing department preferred hired people who majored in marketing (obviously) but also psychology, comparative literature, communications, sociology, etc. The thought was that these were the sort of people who understood what makes people tick, and so were better qualified to persuade (or manipulate, if one is feeling uncharitable) people.
In just the past 5 years thats changed completely, though, and Google played a big part in that change - though the Internet played a large part too. The hottest major in big marketing organizations is a hard science: Stats. The analytics revolution means that marketing is now about precisely targeting your demographic and producing quantifiable results on a lots of fine-grained metrics. (The only metric we had 20 years ago - did sales go up? - was helpful, but obviously the tools we have today are far more precise). As the ubergeek Google is obviously the top dog here, and smaller companies basically outsource all of their stats requirements to Google, but larger companies also like to have in-house talent with stats and algorithms to help them break down their analytics.
Right now marketing is a collaboration between "creative" types who come up with campaigns, and then geeks who run the numbers and tell us if those campaigns worked or not. Marketing needs to meet quarterly benchmarks on hard, quantifiable numbers of customer engagement such as click-throughs, impressions, leads generated, CPM, etc. If we have a question about whether strategy A or B will better resonate with the consumer, we don't try and come up with some BS psych theory. Instead, we tell IT to load up some A/B tests, and empirically we can PROVE which one is better. For now, the people in charge of marketing still tend to be creative types (or, higher up, your typical MBA types), but that's only because the creative types have been around longer. But everyone can see where the future is headed. Right now "creatives" generate content and then geeks crunch the numbers and tell us whether that content is any good or not. It's pretty clear where the division of authority will lie 20 years from now.
It isn't like your photo has any value in a 1.5x1.5cm format
If the photo has no value, why is Google using it? If Google's ad-selling news area doesn't benefit from using the photo, why are they using it?
Google makes an unlicensed copy of the photographer's image, and makes money selling ads along side of their display of that pirated image. They use the fact that they've collected a lot of pirated images as a way to attract visitors to their news area. It's mysterious to you, somehow, why the people who create the content find that to be contrary to copyright law, and otherwise basically douchebaggery on Google's part?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Their regulators can do a lot of damage.
In Germany, if an artwork is sold through auction and the artist is still living, they get a cut of the sale regardless of past ownership or transactions of the piece. It's a distasteful fetishism to me, to elevate this type of worker above others as if their efforts are supreme compared to us simpletons.
Basically, an elitist's georgism.
Thumbnail images may skirt a muddy area of copyright law but they definitely add value to any site using them. Without the interest of an image it's unlikely the "service" Google provides would be as useful or profitable as it is. If that weren't true then it's not a big stretch to dismiss random graphics furniture on a page. Hey, why pay artists to design fancy buttons or other design elements because it adds no value, right? So what if a service that uses other peoples photographs is provided "free"? Doesn't mean you can hijack other peoples work for nothing.
More like they are scared shitless of new media decentralizing the old media's way of doing things. They used to decide if anyone got to see your material, now a simple upload to Youtube or some other videosharing site, and you can be quite rich if your idea is novel enough. The piracy vs. fair use is laughable, but the real threat is new talent skipping the good ol boys in smoke filled rooms who may never pay up is what they are shitting themselves over, but can't bring themselves to say it.
Long live the next big thing!
It's fair use... get over it.
I'd actually love it if Google just completely delisted these assholes from all of the databases for their whining. What they really want is for the service only to direct people into their hands, without providing any sort of benefit to the reader (Like a summary and thumbnail image so they can decide whether or not they actually want to waste their time going to the sites. That's what it's all about, isn't it?). If they really wanted to keep Google from indexing their content, they would use robots.txt directives, which Google most certainly honours.
As for "the photographer" he's already been paid for the image to be used on the original news site that is being indexed. I doubt that's even his problem anymore. (only in his own mind) Of course Google is going to flip you the bird when you demand money for their thumbnails instead of using existing remedies. They probably do it far more politely than deserved, too.
Any photo posted on the web is copied many times. It's the very nature of it. Any content (including images) posted to the web is going to get indexed, unless the sites tell the bots not to. That's just how it works. If you don't like it, go find another sandbox to play in.
In the future, all cultural production will be the work of googlezens who voluntarily enrich the collective (“the Goog”) with videos of their pets, cover versions of favorite songs and similar forms of personal expression. There will be no need for for-profit enterprises in the Goog, as all industries will be more efficiently managed by Google Industries. Google Food and Google Housing will provide for googlezens in exchange for their creative work and good behavior, and the Goog will be kept secure by the vigilance of the robot soldiers of Google Defense and the algorithms of Google Security. Outside the Goog perimeter various luddite terrorists may threaten the peace and stability of the collective, but in with solidarity and faith in the Founders the Goog will prevail!
Google has granted these piracy sites a licence to share... It undermines investment in the very controlling monopolistic industries that have become such an important part of our MAFIAA's prosperity, and enslave hundreds of thousands of people.
This is all very interesting, but what effect will it have on the price of my house! I'm also sure that illegal immigrants are to blame - somehow.
Won't even comment on the rest, but since when are British representative of what European think?
In which case maybe they'd like to compensate me for a photo of mine, which they used on their site without permission or attribution.
"Nine out of the first ten websites which pop up on Googleâ(TM)s search engine are run by pirates who have downloaded Adeleâ(TM)s output and offer it online far more cheaply than official copyrighted sites and High Street retailers."
This isn't the only piece of fiction in this article but this is so damingly wrong I'm in disbelief that an editor of a newspaper could make such a error. Anyone can easily type in Adele into Google to reveal this piece of fiction. As evidence I offer: http://www.google.com/search?&q=adele
Not that I disagree with the conclusion, but are you in Britain? You need to remember that although Google is global, their search results are biased by region and it's possible that the top 10 results in one country will be different from the top 10 in another (I think it depends on Google Trends' interaction with PageRank). That said, if the top 10 sites are actually all pirated then I'll eat broken glass, in all likelihood they probably added extra keywords that the aren't bothering to mention (intentional confusion with misleading statements is one of the most common weapons in the inflammatory editorialist's arsenal).
This is true, however you can get the regional difference by going to the regional domain directly:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=adele
http://www.google.com/search?q=adele
For me (in Australia), I get slightly different results for those two links. That said, not one pirated song in either list, at least the first page.
I took the comment about pirated music results in the same spirit I took the rest of the article: witless prattle from someone who hasn't the slightest clue regarding their chosen subject matter.
> I would say that Google simply doesn't respect copyright.
And I would say: you don't respect copyright, since fair use is an integral part of it (well to be more generous, what's probably true is that you just don't understand copyright). When Google sells your photos to newspapers, or uses them to create their own news media, rather than using them in what seems to be a valid, legal, way, let me know so I can get angry at them.
Cash money? You sure they didn't pay check money? Electronic funds transfer money? Gold money? Stock money? ...I really despise the phrase 'cash money'. It belongs in that special circle of hell reserved for PIN numbers and ATM machines.
Exactly, I am sorely tempted to read the article but I know it will just piss me off. The daily dose of horseshit from the Daily Mail.
Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
Your posts show a distinct lack of understanding of the legal (or even social, or philosophical) issues involved. Perhaps you should try to learn about them before spouting off? Take your time, I've been doing this for, what, over seven years now (as a hobby), and I still don't have simple answers to many fundamental questions about copyright.
"This isn't the only piece of fiction in this article but this is so damingly wrong I'm in disbelief that an editor of a newspaper could make such a error."
That's the Daily Mail for you, to even call it a newspaper is really stretching the definition of the word.
Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
It won't show up on your invoices. This was all authorised when your newspaper opted to publish this content to the web and allowed it be crawled by search engines including Google. People don't realise you agree to terms and conditions when you submit content to Google that allows them to copy your content for the purposes of providing search and directing traffic.
I don't think your post is flamebait, and others don't think so either, they modded it informative. It's important perspective and having copyrighted content copied and published massively without being asked first is bound to piss anyone off.
This is what was agreed to, however indirectly, when your content was put up on the web in view of the all seeing eye of Google:
11. Content license from you 11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services. 11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services. 11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions. 11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.
I would completely agree that Google is highly invasive in hunting down content to index in it's search. But it's copying arguably ammounts to fair use depending on the interpretation, but otherwise but copyright is respected... vaguely... and paid for... indirectly.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
The Daily Mail is a trashy tabloid. Anything written in there isn't worth the paper it's printed on. If you like headlines like "Aliens stole my face", this is the paper for you!
She's currently at number one in the country the newspaper is published in.
There was a similar article yesterday.
"Old media says New Media will destroy Old Media, looks for people to blame"
There, fixed it for you...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
is an article in a Murdoch newspaper, enough said. Murdoch always has been and will be a Faschist whose political agenda is contra democracy and pro his own pocket. News at eleven at Fox News...
s/Destroy/Fucking Kill/
Yours in Ballmerism,
Kilgore Trout
Google is destroying the Old Middlemen who are destroying Film & Music.
"reading just like a 19th-century manifesto" mwahahah!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2213108719 the Anti-Daily Mail Coalition is on Facebook
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Daily_Mail
How much are you paying Google for the advertisement you get? Have you stopped to consider how many people have ever seen your photos just because Google news pointed it to them? You are like a movie star that complains when a poster of one of his films is used to promote it. Stop being childish, it's unprofessional.
Besides, it's not your photos Google is using, it's thumbnails created from those photos. Extreme case: if they publish a single pixel that's the average of one of your photos, would you still have reason to complain? Where would you draw the line?
... where all those homeless people carrying around signs saying "The End Is Nigh" in 80's movies ended up. They moved up into the FUD department. Not sure whether they started bathing regularly or not.
You'd think an RSS feed of Google news would only drive more people to it, but that didn't stop Google taking them down when people set them up.
I am trolling
It's fair use... get over it.
No, it's not. You obviously don't know the law on the subject. A finding of Fair Use involves some pretty specific critieria. Running an advertising-oriented service that scrapes images from others' content is sure as hell not one of them.
As for "the photographer" he's already been paid for the image to be used on the original news site that is being indexed. I doubt that's even his problem anymore.
Another nice display of not knowing what you're talking about. Photographers frequently retain the copyrights on images they shoot as stringers/contractors, and they license the images to a publication for use. A photographer licensing an image for editorial use to Some Daily Newspaper is not also licensing Google to run it as a revenue generating source of eyeball-collecting content for Google's users.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Big Media: Wahhhhh. Not fair. It's our monopoly, not Google's.
There's something delicious about watching someone who cares that much fail so utterly and so we watch
Speak for yourself, not "society" (which is merely a collection of unique thinking individuals). I'm really getting sick of this blatant abuse of the word "we", as if one individual could ever possibly have the god-like ability to speak for millions. I feel pleasure in seeing others suffer about as much as I took part in the bombing of Hiroshima (hint: not in the slightest). Grow up and realize that human beings think for themselves, even when they blindly choose to accept the majority viewpoint which is so often dead wrong.
A newspapper so utterly *awful* that there exists a firefox extension to prevent you clicking on it's pages.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/kitten-block/
Now we just nee an addon for our tv's to stop us flicking past Jermey Kyle.
Lifesigns: Present Hair: Escaped Age: Increasing
The more agitated they get, the more it is clear that we have them on the run. Another ten years or so and the DMCA will be irrelevant.
I don't think google is solely responsible for distributing internet content.
I'm surprised it didn't claim Google causes cancer.
but my hotdog's name is also Bartworst.
WTF! "think Michael Jackson" Is that an argument for something! OMG
One-click Daily Mail headlines - I just got ARE WORKING MOTHERS GIVING MIDDLE BRITAIN CANCER?. But apparently that's too many caps, /. just doesn't get good journalism.
Should read...., troll tries to ensue google blasting rant on /. and gets modded down...
and cmdtaco fails to catch yet another useless story, more news at 11...
Yes, it is. The act of posting those pictures on a site that allows free transmission via unsolicited, unauthenticated HTTP request grants google or anyone else a defacto right to index your content. You can't put up your content in a place where it's freely available an expect to make money based on some arbitrary boundary that you can define whilly-nilly. You don't get to extract value wherever you can simply because you feel like it. You don't get to benefit from google funneling your traffic, and enjoy getting paid by them for the privilege.
Either wall your content with an authentication mechanism or stop complaining. If you can't exist in these bounds you don't deserve to make money.
That said - Legally, technically, you have a case. Morally and ethically you don't. The law just hasn't caught up yet.
Google violates more ownership rights than any other entity on the internet. They are also the largest aggregator of pornography in the history of the universe.
The do no evil motto is a joke, because Google IS evil incarnate.
I obviously don't care what the law says, but I do know what I'm talking about. It's not so much what the law says at this point, but what it doesn't say. The photo was licensed to the original news site and if anything, it is they who made the image available to the public and allowed Google to index it. Find a judge that's going to award royalties to the photographer [i]again[/i] because Google used a low res, scaled down thumbnail image to essentially promote the site, which is considered fair use by all but the likes of you. When you find a court that will take you seriously, then we'll get the letter of the law straightened out.
Be careful what you wish for... we're all getting tired of this sense of entitlement from copyright holders who expect to be paid again and again for the same work, forever.
If Google's ad-selling news area doesn't benefit from using the photo, why are they using it?
The "ad-selling news area" that doesn't feature (or sell) ads? Is that the "ad-selling news area" you're referring to? You might have a valid argument if it weren't for the simple fact that you plainly don't. Obviously Google derives some benefit from their ad-free news aggregator, but mainly because the cost is so low, since they're already crawling the web. If you imagine that their use of (a thumbnail version of) your one little oh-so-precious pic really makes that much of a difference to their bottom line, then do what they suggested and file a goddamn takedown notice, rather than engaging in useless, misguided, and inaccurate whining on slashdot. That'll show 'em!
...companies"? I thought that was the funniest line in the whole article, as if we have fond memories of culling through a plethora of directories.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Evolve or die is the bottom line. Streaming media is here to stay. They did the same crap with VHS/Betamax then DVD burners.
Let's suddenly trust what 'old media' says.
It's the Daily Mail!!!! Tintin is more factual...
once more these dreaded teenagers with their taperecorders will become the end of the beatles and the whole art - industry (everytime i read that combination i ponder on the contradiction) , damn those taperecorders !
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
unsecuredfinance
http://www.unsecuredfinances.com
Unsecured Finance .Com is a trusted partner for the businessmen and the
people who are badly in need of financial support. It gives different
types of loans such as Unsecured Business Loans, Unsecured Business Lines of
Credit, Unsecured Start UP Business Loans, Business Equipment Loans, Home Equity
Lines of Credit, Unsecured Personal Loans, Home Improvement Loans, and Debt Consolidation Loans.