It looks like the new CSS-driven slashdot has got a Random Slashdot Headline generator built into it!
Look out tomorrow for "Is <$NOUN> the Key to Microsoft Killing <$RIVAL>?" Of course, in actuality, tomorrow's headline is likely to be "Is AOL the Key to Microsoft Killing Google?" again
Now perhaps they are doing research on efficient indexing and cross referencing techniques on large bodies of text written by independant authors over hundreds of years.
Perhaps they are doing research on patterns of referencing and perhaps plagerism in those same texts.
Then there's absolutely no need for the scanned texts to be accessible on line. And I'd imagine if Google were doing this internally, no one would actually mind.
Perhaps they are doing "meta-research" on the research patterns and usage of researchers in said large bodies of text.
Maybe I should produce illegal copies of school textbooks, sell them at the entrances to schools, and then claim that I'm "researching the buying patterns of the 11-16 demographic." I dunno, but I really don't think that's going to fly in a court of law.
If an engineer designs a building, does he have the right to dictate what each room must be used for by the owners?
No. But only because the engineer explicitly voids that right by producing a "work for contract". The engineer is contracted to build the building, and the people who contracted them (the owners) do indeed get to decide what happens to that building.
the authors, who have done no aditional work deserve to be paid a cut?
errr. Yes. Try selling bootleg copies of Windows and then telling Microsoft's lawyers "But I did all the work duplicating the CDs". Heh. Good luck with that.
FACT : Copyright owners retain the exclusive right to produce derivative works. FACT : A scanned copy of a book is a derivative work of that book.
Google have no right to profit from their unauthorised derivative works.
It is not like having a searchable index of every book in print is useless for research purposes.
Taking that line, one might argue that they're facilitating others' research, sure.
But that's not actually the same thing as using these texts for research. Similarly, if I copied textbooks, and sold my copies to students too poor to afford originals, I'd be facilitating research, but I wouldn't be doing research.
If I want to burn his book, I don't need permission either
Well, burning a book doesn't involve copying it, so that's irrelevant to copyright. And copyright law is fairly explicit in its exceptions. (See sections 107-122 of Title 17, circ 92)
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
I don't see "For the generation of ad revenue for Google" as fitting any of those Fair Use exemptions.
You might argue that the Lord Of The Rings movie benefitted the Tolkein estate through increased book sales (and it most certainly did). But that does not remove the necessity of New Line paying the rights-holders of Professor Tolkein's work, or the fact that those rights-holders would've been justified to tell Peter Jackson to F*** Off.
excerpts of copyrighted works can be quoted for fair use
Google aren't scanning excerpts, they're scanning entire books. Copying excerpts (especially for review) is explicitly allowed. Copying entire books to generate ad revenue (even if they only show an excerpt at a time) seems much more likely to be illegal.
The authors want to be consulted on how their copyrighted text is used. And that is absolutely their right. And if Google use their texts to generate ad revenue, they deserve a cut of that revenue, or at least the right to refuse to allow Google to exploit them in that way.
Uh. It is a law, asshat. There's this thing called human interface design. First rule says IF IT LOOKS THE SAME, IT WORKS THE SAME.
Dude. Two points: i) That's still someone's opinion. You may choose to call that person a guru, but I don't. ii) "If it looks the same it works the same" is not the same thing as "Everything interface should look the same". Ever wonder why a helicopter doesn't have a steering wheel?
I agree with your drift (especially with regard to court cases) but I find Wikipedia very useful for research papers, with the proviso that you should double source everything you take from there. Fortunately, many wikipedia articles do now cite their references, which makes this a lot more straightforward. (Hell, even if you ignore the entire wiki article, the reference list is often useful for less protean information).
Given AOL/Netscape's prime role in Mozilla development, I'd suggest this might be a nice plan to slow down the opposition, too. Yes, the Moz Foundation is independent, but the last time I checked, many of the dedicated coders are still AOL employees.
nicest, most stable and most usable (for admins) Linux release there is.
YAY!
Let's all pull so-subjective-as-to-be-meaningless statements out of our butts in order to promote a "my distro is cooler than yours" dick-waving contest!
So, search both the web and the blogsearch. There's an awful lot of useful information in the Google/Deja Usenet archive, but there's no clamour for those things to be included in the main search, because if you want that, all you have to do is click the appropriate word.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, duh.
It looks like the new CSS-driven slashdot has got a Random Slashdot Headline generator built into it!
Look out tomorrow for "Is <$NOUN> the Key to Microsoft Killing <$RIVAL>?"
Of course, in actuality, tomorrow's headline is likely to be "Is AOL the Key to Microsoft Killing Google?" again
So you think holding up all releases to wait for the slowest is a more secure strategy that releasing each translation when its ready?
OK.
Were you born dumb, or did you work at it?
Well, given the contest tells you to start by modifying WINE, I'd say "No".
Way to RTFA, dude.
Thank you for your correction.
errr. Yes. Try selling bootleg copies of Windows and then telling Microsoft's lawyers "But I did all the work duplicating the CDs". Heh. Good luck with that.
FACT : Copyright owners retain the exclusive right to produce derivative works.
FACT : A scanned copy of a book is a derivative work of that book.
Google have no right to profit from their unauthorised derivative works.
Comprenez?
But that's not actually the same thing as using these texts for research. Similarly, if I copied textbooks, and sold my copies to students too poor to afford originals, I'd be facilitating research, but I wouldn't be doing research.
That's not a cut of Google's revenue.
You might argue that the Lord Of The Rings movie benefitted the Tolkein estate through increased book sales (and it most certainly did). But that does not remove the necessity of New Line paying the rights-holders of Professor Tolkein's work, or the fact that those rights-holders would've been justified to tell Peter Jackson to F*** Off.
i) That's still someone's opinion. You may choose to call that person a guru, but I don't.
ii) "If it looks the same it works the same" is not the same thing as "Everything interface should look the same". Ever wonder why a helicopter doesn't have a steering wheel?
If you don't like themes, then you don't have use them. Please don't try and generalise them into a universal evil. It makes you look like a retard.
I omit the ridiculous '5' for Tom Lehrer related reasons.
Thirty is not middle aged.
Love,
Gaz (age 32)
... just as soon as we capture the last of these rage infected monkeys.
I agree with your drift (especially with regard to court cases) but I find Wikipedia very useful for research papers, with the proviso that you should double source everything you take from there. Fortunately, many wikipedia articles do now cite their references, which makes this a lot more straightforward. (Hell, even if you ignore the entire wiki article, the reference list is often useful for less protean information).
Given AOL/Netscape's prime role in Mozilla development, I'd suggest this might be a nice plan to slow down the opposition, too. Yes, the Moz Foundation is independent, but the last time I checked, many of the dedicated coders are still AOL employees.
Let's all pull so-subjective-as-to-be-meaningless statements out of our butts in order to promote a "my distro is cooler than yours" dick-waving contest!
YAY!
No, but OnStar will inform various spammers that they've found another customer in need of penis enlargement.
So, search both the web and the blogsearch. There's an awful lot of useful information in the Google/Deja Usenet archive, but there's no clamour for those things to be included in the main search, because if you want that, all you have to do is click the appropriate word.
Is that really so difficult?