IANAL, but I don't see how a settlement of a class action suit AGAINST Google can actually transfer rights to them from class members.
Yeah, that would be like a class-action suit against for a car defect where part of the settlement entitles the car manufacturer to the class members' first-born.
Erm, the author's guild is taking the 64%, the 36% is what is going to the author's themselves. Looks like the RIAA has some competition in the "fuck the artists as hard as possible" department.
Basically, Google was able to settle a class action lawsuit in such a way that it was given rights to works from all members of a class (including the right to sell access to full texts for out of print books).
Out of print or out of copyright? There is a very important difference. I thought Google Books was only giving full text for books that are out of copyright, and therefore they can do whatever they want and there is no consent required. I know the legal case was regarding google having a full-text searchable index, but they were only providing "previews" to end users. This is from Google Book's about page:
If the book is out of copyright, or the publisher has given us permission, you'll be able to see a preview of the book, and in some cases the entire text. If it's in the public domain, you're free to download a PDF copy. Learn more about the different views.
Are you saying the "if the author has given us permission" part is covered by the settlement for full-text viewing?
Erm, not even Microsoft's own site is normally opened by default with the IE enhanced security enabled. All it does is severely lock down the ability to run scripts. It is also trivially easy to disable (remove it from add/remove windows components). Then again, why the hell are you browsing the web from your server? Do that from your workstation with a Remote Desktop/VNC/network KVM connection open to the server for any work that needs to be done on the server. I know its an extra step to download something from your workstation and then transfer to the server to install.
Err, are you asking if all of these copypasta trolls come from the same person? Or are you asking if all Anonymous Coward posts come from the same person? I guess either one is pretty laughable. Welcome to the internet, my friend.
And my point was that dancpsu's logic didn't hold water because a doctor that performs abortions isn't the same as as a serial killer that keeps escaping jail to kill again. Abortions are legal, but obviously there is disagreement about whether it should be or not. Murder and escaping prison are both illegal and you would be hard-pressed to find someone that disagrees. Anyway, I think we are both arguing about different things and missing each other's points. Agree?
Actually, according to some other responses above, the Australian government did purchase a bunch of licenses to some blocking software that they were giving away to citizens. Apparently some people don't think that is good enough (read: they are too fucking stupid and/or lazy to install it themselves) and wanted the whole country filtered.
Anyway, I am sorry if it looks like I am condoning the filter. I am not, and I now realize that I should have worded my subject differently. I would be furious if my country were doing this. My point was only to point out that it was likely that the page wasn't blocked to silence opinions about abortion, but because of the content (confirmed by you to be some nasty pictures). I'd bet they block goatse and tubgirl as well.
Is masturbation murder? Some people believe it is. Should those people go and kill those that masturbate? That was my point. Murdering others because you believe they are murderers themselves just makes you another murderer.
I understand that you are not defending them, but how does your logic follow? Abortion doctors aren't serial killers escaping from prison. They are certified physicians performing a legal, albeit controversial, practice. If one does not agree with the law of the land, then they should work to get it changed or leave. Vigilantism of this kind is just not acceptable. Besides, it seems to me that one of the major foundations of many religions is the 10 Commandments. "Thou shalt not kill" is a statement that in no uncertain terms people should not kill other people. Not at all. Never. Under no circumstances is this acceptable. Yet many are killing others in the name of God. Can anyone make sense of this?
Ideally, you are right. Even the best web-filtering tools cannot be perfect. It would probably be easier to stop spam reliably than to filter web content. I do work for schools and they are forced by law to implement web-filtering. While probably a vast majority of "inappropriate" sites are blocked, there is always some new proxy or a site that hasn't yet been categorized. It would be far more effective if the teachers watched the students better and if parents would teach their kids not to look up porn at school.
My point in saying they should provide tools to parents is to try to appease the people pushing for the filtering while not promoting censorship on a mandatory government level. Plus, maybe if the parents were forced to put a little more effort into enforcing this themselves, they might become better parents.
Good point, and I agree wholeheartedly. If they are really worried about children being affected by content on the web, then they should provide tools for the parents and let it be voluntary. Protecting children from themselves should be the parents' responsibility, not the government's. My point was that there might be a reason it was added to the filter list other than just the fact that it is anti-abortion. Going by the types of things they are blocking, those pictures would probably be considered "offensive" and "prohibited".
Why don't we just take you out back, then kill you and rape your corpse for hours? What? I'm not advocating that we do it, just asking _why_. It was a question.
In case you are still having trouble reading, they put the magnets on their head during the relocation to disorient them. Then, when they are brought to their new location, the magnet is removed. Since they were disoriented during the move, they won't be able to find their way back.
I love the h1'd "My brother is getting married" part. Also, this guy's a terrible HTML coder - he vacillates between using quotes and not, doesn't keep a consistent case in his tags, missed the body end tag, etc., etc.
Now, I'm not saying being against abortion is wrong, you have the right to your beliefs, but if the web page they blocked was like the signs they posted on the roads when protesting the Planned Parenthood going up in the Aurora/Naperville IL area, I can understand why it went on the filter(note that I am against the filter in general, just playing devil's advocate on why that specific page may have been blocked). They would post shit like pictures of cut-up late stage abortions and dead fully developed babies (as in, unlikely to have come from a legal abortion anyway). Now, I've never seen a pro-choice campaign smear ads everywhere with pictures of crack-babies, kids with fetal alcohol syndrome, and other abused children, so why do anti-abortion campaigners have to basically troll shock pictures to get their point across?
Even assuming someone was a programmer and wanted to spend time making an add-on for chrome (or chromium), they would need to first create a plug-in architecture for chrome. I haven't written a program since a PASCAL class I took in college, but my guess would be that it would be very difficult to develop a plug-in architecture from the ground-up and integrate it into chrome. This is something that Google supposedly has in the works, so chances are it will never be accepted by Google's developers and merged back into chrome, and will forever live on as a fork. Then, after all of that work building the plug-in interface, they would need to program plug-ins for it. It seems pretty doubtful that Firefox plug-ins could be made compatible, as I would assume those are heavily integrated with XUL and Gecko, neither of which are used by chrome.
Second we have the childish one that likes to play these silly things called "games".
Yes because heaven forbid people do something they enjoy with their free time. It would be childish of them to not work like a drone 24/7. Although, I personally do not agree with being an MS apologist just because most PC games are Windows only. That would be similar to defending Walmart's business practices because your favorite brand of shoes is only sold there. (Sorry, I couldn't think of a good car analogy for that)
I think audio book rights are sold at a higher percentage than e-books. Could be higher than regular books too. So their argument is that the authors only licensed the right to publish an e-book, not an audio-book. However, TTS is not an audio-book. And the publisher is not doing the conversion, the consumer's device is.
While I agree with much of what you say, the issue is not with publishers but with authors demanding more money. When an author sells publishing rights, they receive different amounts for different rights. For the sake of argument, lets say they sell dead-tree book rights for 10%, e-book rights for 5%, and audio-book rights for 15%. What the author's guild is saying is that Amazon and the publishers are paying for the ebook rights but selling as audiobooks. In my opinion (bear in mind that IANAL), these ebooks are still being sold as nothing but a DRM encoded text file. The customer's device (the Kindle) is using software to render the text as speech, which should be a form of fair use. For example, if a computer can make visualizations from a song on a CD, does that mean that the CD publisher or the developer of the media playing software should pay for music video rights?
Mostly its because many do not have as much time as they would like to read. If you have a long commute, you can get audio-books so that they are read to you as you drive. I personally have a hard time listening to most audio-books that I have heard, usually for the same reasons you stated. Probably the only audio-book I really enjoyed was the one for World War Z, which had a full cast (including Alan Alda and Mark Hamill) acting out the characters being interviewed, with the author providing the voice of the interviewer.
That would be age discrimination, which the state may have a law against. However, with "at will" states, they just need to say you were fired for another reason. It basically creates a loophole for discrimination, because you just have to hide it.
Re:"Wasn't So Long Ago?!"
on
Jurassic Web
·
· Score: 1
Hah, AOL Broadband. For only $5 a month you get:
-AIM (free otherwise)
-AOL email (free otherwise and crap compared even to other free webmail providers)
-AOL browser/AOL explorer (some shitty Trident-based browser)
-some anti-virus app (crap antivirus, probably the only thing they provided that wasn't free otherwise. At $5 dollars a month, that comes out to 60 bucks a year, more than most decent AV programs cost)
I wouldn't be surprised if you could be held under suspicion for keeping your passport in a mylar ziploc. Much like people are concerned about encrypting their hard drives putting them under suspicion. It's very scary that just the act of protecting one's reasonable privacy could label them as a terrorist.
I'm not a Mac user, but this is how backwards compatibility should work. Instead of including hacks to make the software run in the kernel, they created a compatibility layer to run the older software. Sure, that means the older stuff doesn't run at native speeds, but that just seems like a good way to sell newer software to me.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but I don't see how a settlement of a class action suit AGAINST Google can actually transfer rights to them from class members.
Yeah, that would be like a class-action suit against for a car defect where part of the settlement entitles the car manufacturer to the class members' first-born.
Erm, the author's guild is taking the 64%, the 36% is what is going to the author's themselves. Looks like the RIAA has some competition in the "fuck the artists as hard as possible" department.
Basically, Google was able to settle a class action lawsuit in such a way that it was given rights to works from all members of a class (including the right to sell access to full texts for out of print books).
Out of print or out of copyright? There is a very important difference. I thought Google Books was only giving full text for books that are out of copyright, and therefore they can do whatever they want and there is no consent required. I know the legal case was regarding google having a full-text searchable index, but they were only providing "previews" to end users. This is from Google Book's about page:
If the book is out of copyright, or the publisher has given us permission, you'll be able to see a preview of the book, and in some cases the entire text. If it's in the public domain, you're free to download a PDF copy. Learn more about the different views.
Are you saying the "if the author has given us permission" part is covered by the settlement for full-text viewing?
Erm, not even Microsoft's own site is normally opened by default with the IE enhanced security enabled. All it does is severely lock down the ability to run scripts. It is also trivially easy to disable (remove it from add/remove windows components). Then again, why the hell are you browsing the web from your server? Do that from your workstation with a Remote Desktop/VNC/network KVM connection open to the server for any work that needs to be done on the server. I know its an extra step to download something from your workstation and then transfer to the server to install.
Err, are you asking if all of these copypasta trolls come from the same person? Or are you asking if all Anonymous Coward posts come from the same person? I guess either one is pretty laughable. Welcome to the internet, my friend.
This, along with alphamerik's post below, really needs to be put in an update to the story. Misinformation is bad.
Also, offtopic, but if your nick was tildeslash, your user page would be "H T T P colon slash slash slashdot dot org slash tilde tildeslash slash".
And my point was that dancpsu's logic didn't hold water because a doctor that performs abortions isn't the same as as a serial killer that keeps escaping jail to kill again. Abortions are legal, but obviously there is disagreement about whether it should be or not. Murder and escaping prison are both illegal and you would be hard-pressed to find someone that disagrees. Anyway, I think we are both arguing about different things and missing each other's points. Agree?
Actually, according to some other responses above, the Australian government did purchase a bunch of licenses to some blocking software that they were giving away to citizens. Apparently some people don't think that is good enough (read: they are too fucking stupid and/or lazy to install it themselves) and wanted the whole country filtered.
Anyway, I am sorry if it looks like I am condoning the filter. I am not, and I now realize that I should have worded my subject differently. I would be furious if my country were doing this. My point was only to point out that it was likely that the page wasn't blocked to silence opinions about abortion, but because of the content (confirmed by you to be some nasty pictures). I'd bet they block goatse and tubgirl as well.
Is masturbation murder? Some people believe it is. Should those people go and kill those that masturbate? That was my point. Murdering others because you believe they are murderers themselves just makes you another murderer.
I understand that you are not defending them, but how does your logic follow? Abortion doctors aren't serial killers escaping from prison. They are certified physicians performing a legal, albeit controversial, practice. If one does not agree with the law of the land, then they should work to get it changed or leave. Vigilantism of this kind is just not acceptable. Besides, it seems to me that one of the major foundations of many religions is the 10 Commandments. "Thou shalt not kill" is a statement that in no uncertain terms people should not kill other people. Not at all. Never. Under no circumstances is this acceptable. Yet many are killing others in the name of God. Can anyone make sense of this?
Ideally, you are right. Even the best web-filtering tools cannot be perfect. It would probably be easier to stop spam reliably than to filter web content. I do work for schools and they are forced by law to implement web-filtering. While probably a vast majority of "inappropriate" sites are blocked, there is always some new proxy or a site that hasn't yet been categorized. It would be far more effective if the teachers watched the students better and if parents would teach their kids not to look up porn at school.
My point in saying they should provide tools to parents is to try to appease the people pushing for the filtering while not promoting censorship on a mandatory government level. Plus, maybe if the parents were forced to put a little more effort into enforcing this themselves, they might become better parents.
Perhaps, but the idea is sure making me hungry...
Good point, and I agree wholeheartedly. If they are really worried about children being affected by content on the web, then they should provide tools for the parents and let it be voluntary. Protecting children from themselves should be the parents' responsibility, not the government's. My point was that there might be a reason it was added to the filter list other than just the fact that it is anti-abortion. Going by the types of things they are blocking, those pictures would probably be considered "offensive" and "prohibited".
Why don't we just take you out back, then kill you and rape your corpse for hours? What? I'm not advocating that we do it, just asking _why_. It was a question.
In case you are still having trouble reading, they put the magnets on their head during the relocation to disorient them. Then, when they are brought to their new location, the magnet is removed. Since they were disoriented during the move, they won't be able to find their way back.
I love the h1'd "My brother is getting married" part. Also, this guy's a terrible HTML coder - he vacillates between using quotes and not, doesn't keep a consistent case in his tags, missed the body end tag, etc., etc.
Maybe he used Frontpage?
Now, I'm not saying being against abortion is wrong, you have the right to your beliefs, but if the web page they blocked was like the signs they posted on the roads when protesting the Planned Parenthood going up in the Aurora/Naperville IL area, I can understand why it went on the filter(note that I am against the filter in general, just playing devil's advocate on why that specific page may have been blocked). They would post shit like pictures of cut-up late stage abortions and dead fully developed babies (as in, unlikely to have come from a legal abortion anyway). Now, I've never seen a pro-choice campaign smear ads everywhere with pictures of crack-babies, kids with fetal alcohol syndrome, and other abused children, so why do anti-abortion campaigners have to basically troll shock pictures to get their point across?
Even assuming someone was a programmer and wanted to spend time making an add-on for chrome (or chromium), they would need to first create a plug-in architecture for chrome. I haven't written a program since a PASCAL class I took in college, but my guess would be that it would be very difficult to develop a plug-in architecture from the ground-up and integrate it into chrome. This is something that Google supposedly has in the works, so chances are it will never be accepted by Google's developers and merged back into chrome, and will forever live on as a fork. Then, after all of that work building the plug-in interface, they would need to program plug-ins for it. It seems pretty doubtful that Firefox plug-ins could be made compatible, as I would assume those are heavily integrated with XUL and Gecko, neither of which are used by chrome.
Second we have the childish one that likes to play these silly things called "games".
Yes because heaven forbid people do something they enjoy with their free time. It would be childish of them to not work like a drone 24/7. Although, I personally do not agree with being an MS apologist just because most PC games are Windows only. That would be similar to defending Walmart's business practices because your favorite brand of shoes is only sold there. (Sorry, I couldn't think of a good car analogy for that)
I think audio book rights are sold at a higher percentage than e-books. Could be higher than regular books too. So their argument is that the authors only licensed the right to publish an e-book, not an audio-book. However, TTS is not an audio-book. And the publisher is not doing the conversion, the consumer's device is.
While I agree with much of what you say, the issue is not with publishers but with authors demanding more money. When an author sells publishing rights, they receive different amounts for different rights. For the sake of argument, lets say they sell dead-tree book rights for 10%, e-book rights for 5%, and audio-book rights for 15%. What the author's guild is saying is that Amazon and the publishers are paying for the ebook rights but selling as audiobooks. In my opinion (bear in mind that IANAL), these ebooks are still being sold as nothing but a DRM encoded text file. The customer's device (the Kindle) is using software to render the text as speech, which should be a form of fair use. For example, if a computer can make visualizations from a song on a CD, does that mean that the CD publisher or the developer of the media playing software should pay for music video rights?
Mostly its because many do not have as much time as they would like to read. If you have a long commute, you can get audio-books so that they are read to you as you drive. I personally have a hard time listening to most audio-books that I have heard, usually for the same reasons you stated. Probably the only audio-book I really enjoyed was the one for World War Z, which had a full cast (including Alan Alda and Mark Hamill) acting out the characters being interviewed, with the author providing the voice of the interviewer.
That would be age discrimination, which the state may have a law against. However, with "at will" states, they just need to say you were fired for another reason. It basically creates a loophole for discrimination, because you just have to hide it.
Hah, AOL Broadband. For only $5 a month you get:
-AIM (free otherwise)
-AOL email (free otherwise and crap compared even to other free webmail providers)
-AOL browser/AOL explorer (some shitty Trident-based browser)
-some anti-virus app (crap antivirus, probably the only thing they provided that wasn't free otherwise. At $5 dollars a month, that comes out to 60 bucks a year, more than most decent AV programs cost)
I wouldn't be surprised if you could be held under suspicion for keeping your passport in a mylar ziploc. Much like people are concerned about encrypting their hard drives putting them under suspicion. It's very scary that just the act of protecting one's reasonable privacy could label them as a terrorist.
I'm not a Mac user, but this is how backwards compatibility should work. Instead of including hacks to make the software run in the kernel, they created a compatibility layer to run the older software. Sure, that means the older stuff doesn't run at native speeds, but that just seems like a good way to sell newer software to me.