Google can distribute some of the copyrighted material without violating copyrights if it proves that the distribution meets the criteria of fair use, and I think Google has a chance. Here is the definition:
... In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work....
According to Google's intension and plans revealed so far, Google should be able to prove it gains no direct revenue, distributes only part of copyrighted material, and brings efficiency to the publishing market. As a result, Google can legally substitute the publishers' operations with the library under fair use, and that freaks them out.
Google should be smart enough to treat this as a PR opportunity rather than a legal fight. By helping the publishers integrate their operations with the library, Google can maximize the whole project's PR value while reducing the opposition.
Branding mozilla products is absolutely a relevant and great idea, and I have some lengthy thoughts.
Designing brand elements (name, logo, and slogan) for a particular product should be evaluated from a corporate level. The Mozilla Foundation's stand-alone products can be branded separately so that each has its own unique brand elements. However, they should share some common elements to reflect their associations with the Foundation and to collectively define the identity of the Foundation.
The Foundation is relative difficult to be branded since its value is intangible, and general consumers will have difficulties in associating the value with their over-commercialized life. Thus instead of branding the Foundation, we could utilize each product to define one aspect of the Foundation's values, create common elements consistently hold across all the products, and link the common elements to the Foundation.
For example, for Mozilla Thunderbird, I would pick the M icon as background and add the mail icon (or simply the word "mail") on top of it. Similarly, all the products' logos will have the same neat M as background, while each of them have clear words or pictorial stuff that communicate what product category it's in. Those icons with flame inside are beautiful, but they don't communicate clearly what product category Thunderbird is in. They could be ideal logos if some marketing communication programs are designed and deployed to help consumers associate the flame with the concept of email client.
Now, these products collectively define a set of Internet tools such as a browser and an email client. Moreover, they are strongly correlated in both visual effect (the M in common) and intangible value (freedom, quality, and innovation). The next step is to link them to the Mozilla Foundation by making the M the Foundation's logo. As a result, Mozilla Foundation will convey meanings to consumers that it's about innovation, freedom, and quality. Any product properly associated with the Foundation will deliver that message as well.
The American government should... and require all Taiwanese nationals to produce a Beijing passport if they wish to apply for a visa to the USA.
This suggestion is so creative that I start wondering what's wrong with a country like Taiwan (ROC) that allows its people to protest against its own name, and what's right about a country like China (PRC) that made its people do something like this
I wish it's not, but I think this is just another typical reaction to a latest hot topic, and it's will eventually be forgotten.
Legislators in Taiwan can call nearly any meeting they want, but I have never heard of such meeting until last night. To make sure the legislator hear what they want, the attending officials have to have some plans, and here is the plan.
Having plans is always good beginning, but I don't think the plan has clear purpose, and nor does the planers know what they are dealing with.
"...the goal is to establish Taiwan's basic software development infrastructure...will train 120,000 users the basic skills of free software environments."
This description is exactly what it sounds like in Mandarin: no content at all.
I am glad to see the awareness of alternative in Taiwan, but according to my knowledge about the government, I would rather do it by myself.
It is expanding, and that's a good thing for the community as a whole, since more varieties and choices.
I don't see the notion of majority would make much sense on Internet. If eastern audiences don't like the way Internet works, they would eventually come up their solutions. If western audiences are interested in easter information, translation services will prosper. It they don't like each other, well that hurts nobody.
If several products are widely used, people will expect them come with a box, then there is a chance - packaging. Contract with hardware vendors to help them save money from propriatary software and to directly support the software after box sold.
MS is the largest, most resourceful, and "most innovative" software company in the world. Unless MS claims they don't have enough buget to hire, and they havn't found an innovative debugging method to QA their product, the size of the user-base is nothing but an execuse, simply implying they don't really care.
Slashdot Mirror
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
According to Google's intension and plans revealed so far, Google should be able to prove it gains no direct revenue, distributes only part of copyrighted material, and brings efficiency to the publishing market. As a result, Google can legally substitute the publishers' operations with the library under fair use, and that freaks them out.
Google should be smart enough to treat this as a PR opportunity rather than a legal fight. By helping the publishers integrate their operations with the library, Google can maximize the whole project's PR value while reducing the opposition.
Branding mozilla products is absolutely a relevant and great idea, and I have some lengthy thoughts.
Designing brand elements (name, logo, and slogan) for a particular product should be evaluated from a corporate level. The Mozilla Foundation's stand-alone products can be branded separately so that each has its own unique brand elements. However, they should share some common elements to reflect their associations with the Foundation and to collectively define the identity of the Foundation.
The Foundation is relative difficult to be branded since its value is intangible, and general consumers will have difficulties in associating the value with their over-commercialized life. Thus instead of branding the Foundation, we could utilize each product to define one aspect of the Foundation's values, create common elements consistently hold across all the products, and link the common elements to the Foundation.
For example, for Mozilla Thunderbird, I would pick the M icon as background and add the mail icon (or simply the word "mail") on top of it. Similarly, all the products' logos will have the same neat M as background, while each of them have clear words or pictorial stuff that communicate what product category it's in. Those icons with flame inside are beautiful, but they don't communicate clearly what product category Thunderbird is in. They could be ideal logos if some marketing communication programs are designed and deployed to help consumers associate the flame with the concept of email client.
Now, these products collectively define a set of Internet tools such as a browser and an email client. Moreover, they are strongly correlated in both visual effect (the M in common) and intangible value (freedom, quality, and innovation). The next step is to link them to the Mozilla Foundation by making the M the Foundation's logo. As a result, Mozilla Foundation will convey meanings to consumers that it's about innovation, freedom, and quality. Any product properly associated with the Foundation will deliver that message as well.
This suggestion is so creative that I start wondering what's wrong with a country like Taiwan (ROC) that allows its people to protest against its own name, and what's right about a country like China (PRC) that made its people do something like this
You head google's technology and people who make the technology possible. What's your philosophy of leading such a team?
I wish it's not, but I think this is just another typical reaction to a latest hot topic, and it's will eventually be forgotten.
Legislators in Taiwan can call nearly any meeting they want, but I have never heard of such meeting until last night. To make sure the legislator hear what they want, the attending officials have to have some plans, and here is the plan.
Having plans is always good beginning, but I don't think the plan has clear purpose, and nor does the planers know what they are dealing with.
"...the goal is to establish Taiwan's basic software development infrastructure...will train 120,000 users the basic skills of free software environments."
This description is exactly what it sounds like in Mandarin: no content at all.
I am glad to see the awareness of alternative in Taiwan, but according to my knowledge about the government, I would rather do it by myself.
It is expanding, and that's a good thing for the community as a whole, since more varieties and choices.
I don't see the notion of majority would make much sense on Internet. If eastern audiences don't like the way Internet works, they would eventually come up their solutions. If western audiences are interested in easter information, translation services will prosper. It they don't like each other, well that hurts nobody.
Just out of curiosity. It will be very helpful if you could explain what contributes to the 3-5.5% efficiecy improvement.
even if the product is very widely used.
If several products are widely used, people will expect them come with a box, then there is a chance - packaging. Contract with hardware vendors to help them save money from propriatary software and to directly support the software after box sold.
MS is the largest, most resourceful, and "most innovative" software company in the world. Unless MS claims they don't have enough buget to hire, and they havn't found an innovative debugging method to QA their product, the size of the user-base is nothing but an execuse, simply implying they don't really care.