Yep, that's probably what did it: 50GB of space for a mailserver a couple of years ago would have been unusual for a small company. Fill the drive, kill the server; do it over a long weekend.
You are mistaken. Your research is faulty. Read this FAQ
The FAQ is misleading. The adverts appear in the search results page rather than the displayed pages, but they do appear. Why do you find it so hard to admit that Google has made copies of books with out permission for their own use when the evidence is on their website for anyone to see? Do you have shares in them or something?
The libraries are allowing Google to copy the books.
You are mistaken
I've checked this; I'm not. Google are using the books for their own business gain. They have copied the books and are selling advertising based on searches for those books. This money is not going to the copyright holders nor the libraries, nor is access restricted to patrons of the libraries or indeed any class of person. Google are in massive and blatant breach of copyright laws and morals.
The libraries have partnered with Google to scan the libraries' books in order to produce a subject-index catalog of the libraries' collections that they, the libraries, believe will be of substantial value.
That's nice. However, it is not what is happening. Google is copying works for its own use, which is illegal. The libraries are gaining nothing from this that could be characterised as an agent/patron relationship since they do not have exclusive access to the index so created.
As a good will gesture, the libraries have offered to strike from their catalogs any works whose copyright holders would prefer said works to be undiscoverable via the library's catalog; a gesture which decreases the value of the libraries' holdings, without compensating the libraries for the loss of utility.
So, what you're saying is that as a goodwill gesture, the libraries are going to NOT infringe the copyright of anyone that bothers to object but that they are such nice people that they're not going to charge for obeying the law. What great big hearts they must have. How generous of spirit, how noble and self-sacrificing they are!
I burgled your house last night while you were out. You hadn't written to me to say I couldn't so I assumed the law didn't apply to me. Thanks for the TV and I'll waive the taxi fare to show there's no hard feelings about the effort it took to jimmy open your front door.
Libraries who do not believe that a subject-index catalog preopared with electromechanical assistance would be of substantially greater value than the ones they currently have are free to continue their current practices.
So what? It is Google that is breaking the law; the libraries are simply accessories. There is no loophole that allows a company to take the books in a library, copy them for their own use and simply walk away saying that the librarian told them it was okay. Nor should there be.
Can we at least get some props for transcoding all the videos into flash?
Er...No. What the fuck would I want with a Flash version of a video? What sort of retard wants to run their videos through Flash?! What even made someone think that was a good idea?
Jesus, I keep Flash switched off for 90%+ of the time I'm on the web; I sure as hell don't want to start having to use it for ordinary files.
To take on Microsoft, you'd need an OS that is nearly as easy to install as Windows. It needs to find and auto-configure for common hardware, make reasonable assumptions and continue with the installation without pestering the user unless it's absolutely necessary.
All of which is easy to do in Linux if you do it the same way that 99.99999% of the world's Windows users install Windows: they just buy a machine with it pre-installed and set up for the hardware in the machine.
Windows is not easy to install in the sense of it automatically sensing everything and never having to download drivers etc. But noone cares because almost noone actually ever installs Windows.
And, THAT is why Microsoft leans so hard on people like Dell and others to prevent them selling computers with Linux or even FreeDOS on them.
Sure, it might be just like the old serials. But why did he limit himself to making a bad copy of them...
You've obviously not watched one of those old serials recently, they really were pretty bad. And: so what? Did Lucas say you had to share his vision? Has he ever really claimed that he was doing anything else? Ep. IV fits the pattern perfectly, so what did people expect in the other films? Doctor Zhivago? Well, alright, Ep. V had a lot of snow, but still...
If you want to take that approach, FireFly and Buffy did a better job, with less money.
I've never heard of Firefly but certainly Buffy was as self-indulgent as Lucas but I don't think that making seven series of repetitious, hack-written, predictable wank is really much better than writing six films of predictable, hack-written, and repetitious low-brow fun. It's a subjective call, although I'd LOVE someone to to explain how Sara Michelle Geller gets work.
Now "The Willow Half Hour" - that's a programme I'd watch! I have a script all worked out here...Oh, Yeah!
Lucas wanted to make a set of films which reminded him of the old-time matinee serials. Lots of adventure, light on plot, big on fun. Within that framework I think he succeeded pretty well 100%.
Now, it may well be the case that some of us don't want that, and it pretty well explains such nonsense as Jar-Jar and "going through the core" etc, but it seems obvious to me that it was what George wanted and I suspect he's a happy man when he looks at what he did. And, on the way, he did manage to produce six films about the bad guy, which I think is a great idea.
Chill out and repeat: "It's just Flash Gordon". You'll enjoy the films much more that way.
You can still pick up the 1911 edition of Encyclopædia Britannica, and find a lot of information that is correct and relevant. If you freeze a part of Wikipedia onto paper, it's the same
Except for the "correct" and "relevant" parts.
Things like the date Germany invaded Poland, or the gravitational constant, don't change overnight.
Sadly, on Wikipedia such things can and do change overnight.
Try thinking of them as the "50% of the population Institute" and you might see why. Obviously, they don't have that level of support but there's no reason why they should have any less input than the hundreds of lobbying groups that represent like 10 rich people or companies.
If I was running some variety of Illuminati, the prison would be super-secret, and impossible to find.
You've missed the point: when you are true Illuminati you parade your control in front of the masses, who are unable to do anything about it. That's why Guantanamo is public: to send out a signal to the rest of the world that the USA can do whatever the fuck it likes and no one can do squat about it (particularly Cuba). This is a very common habit in empires.
It is Microsoft's insistance on keeping a tight copyright grip on their XML that is preventing, or has the potential to prevent, people from reading OpenDoc files in Office. They have used XML in order to tick that box on the feature list while discarding the only virtue of the format: ease of translation/parsing.
It is not MA's fault that Microsoft have chosen to attempt a lock-in, nor is it their responsibility to support Microsoft's business plan by allowing themselves to be so locked-in.
Are there ANY fossils found that are half one animal and half another?
Yes, lots. And I mean LOTS: thousands and thousands of them. You really should try researching this a bit more.
Are there any animals living today that are half one and half another?
Presumably. Since the animal they are half-way to becoming isn't, by definition, here yet it's hard to know what they're between, but certainly whales, with their back legs now totally embedded in their bodies, must be over half way to some animal with no back legs at all.
The Law of Entropy states that everything goes naturally to disorder.
Universally, over all of time. Locally and in the short term entropy can be reversed with no problem. Once the sun dies, for example, entropy on Earth is going to start booming again. Until then, we can reverse our entropy at the Sun's expense.
How can the order that is life(on a molecular level that is), especially human life, by chance materialize out of nothing or out of a few base elements.
What's so special about "human life"? Once you have life at all humans are no big deal. Anyway, chance is involved in the broad sense but actually not in any important way. If a gambler backs a 1:100 chance a thousand times then luck is involved but you would not consider him lucky to have won. Life may be a tricky bet, but the whole universe has been placing that bet for the whole of time, so it's not very surprising that it came up at least once.
Actually, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in a Creator.
The libraries are not granting Google the right to use their collections for Google's own business.
Well, that's what they're doing.
Google is the libraries' expert agent for indexing the volumes the libraries own in order for the libraries to carry out the libraries' business.
No they're not. The libraries are allowing Google to copy the books in order to pursue its business aims. The libraries are aiding this copyright infringement because they think they will reap some benefits from it too. The resulting index is not owned by the library, nor does it in any way drive patrons to the particular library, and in fact the libraries gain nothing from this of any substantial value. Even if they did, they do not have the right to allow authors' work to be raped in this way.
Any library that supports this sort of activity should be closed and its staff tried; at the very least they should not be allowed to work in a library again.
Google is acting as an agent of the libraries to index the libraries' own lawfully-held collections so that the libraries can effectively carry out their rightful, just, and legitimate mission
Bullshit. As it happens, I went to school with the head librarian of my town. It is entirely possible that he could appoint me as an agent to put together an index, even a searchable index, of the books in the library. It is not, however, in his power to tell me that I can then keep a copy of all the library's books and use them for my own business. That would be massive copyright infringement, just as it is for Google.
Libraries can not just waive copyright by arbitrarily claiming that someone is their "agent". Google are not acting like or as agents in this case - they are purely and simply taking books as stock for their own private trade.
Google returns that many pages only when the copyright holders have explicitly opted in. You have mistaken Google Print's publisher program with Google Library.
Fair point.
The authors' copyrights grant the libraries permission to make the works the libraries purchased discoverable. The libraries do not need to ask permission to exercise those rights
Discoverable has nothing to do with allowing Google to copy entire works, store them, and use them for their own business. If I did that I'd be in deep shit. What law says copyright restrictions do not apply to Google? What they are doing is clearly and justly illegal and has been for a very long time.
Google are not library employees or agents and what Google is making is not simply an index so none of your points have anything to do with this.
5
You are either confused as to who is doing the copying and what they are doing with those copies or you are deliberately trying to distract from the real issues by dragging in irrelevant points.
The libraries acquire the right to read (and archive) the entire work by purchasing it.
But not copy beyond certain limits. They certainly do not gain any ability to grant other people the right to copy without limit.
To make matters worse, they will be copying books by British (and perhaps other countries too, I don't know) authors who are entitled to payment each time a book is borrowed from a library in the UK, so they are directly affected financially. At least an argument could be made that US authors who do not get paid by US libraries have little to loose, but Google is not a US-only organisation.
The libraries' employees and agents have the right to use the entire work in carrying out the libraries' purposes, one of which is to make works discoverable to the libraries' patrons.
Which they can do without allowing a patron to simply take home a copy of every book in the library and keep it forever while distributing bits of those books to anyone who asks.
For these reasons, Google's indexing is just and legitimate.
It is neither, it is a clear and unashamed appropriation of other people's work for their own business goals. Google could have asked for permission (either individually or en-mass via publishers); they could have but that would have seriously reduced the profit; so they didn't, they just took the books and gave copyright laws the old middle-finger salute.
As far as I can tell, your primary argument against Google Library is that Google shouldn't be able to create the index because they didn't purchase the books.
Google are not "creating an index", they are making whole copies, which they are making available for their own profit. The whole copy. Maybe not to any one individual user but they are using the whole copy for their own profit without a cent of payment to authors. Regardless of this, the availability of what they do provide has a clear adverse effect on the marketability of the original book, in the case of reference works particularly.
If they simply said "The book 'I was a lonely Mexican Wandering Spider' has useful information about that" and left it at that, then they would be "creating an index".
2-3 line snippets
The last time I tried it, Google returned 2 or 3 pages.
Should Google hire thousands of book buyers to search through all the book sales, and used-book shops for copies of these works, and buy them so they can lock them into a vault when they're finished with them?
Once again the argument amounts to "the law must bend to fit Google's business plan. All hail Google."
Oh, I know, let's just ignore them, until they go out of copyright, this book's out of copyright in 2049, and that one's out of copyright in 2076 if the author hurries up and dies (unless copyright terms get extended again, and again, and again).
Or ask for permission? Yeah, yeah, authors' rights are secondary to Google's right to make a buck off the back of their work; I forgot again. Duh!
That's the problem here: there is no real reason why Google could not have set up a system which worked with authors instead of simply raping them and then saying "you didn't say NOT to rape you".
Because PageRank sucks and has done for years. It worked for about a year until rigging it became a financially rewarding activity and since then it has served no purpose.
If Google could at least exclude blogs from the main index it might help a bit but in the long run PageRank is a dead duck.
The only Google staff who might require access to an entire work through some unrestricted channel would be those working directly on the project; and they would be acting as the libraries' agents and thus commit no violation.
This is just silly. Google is in blatant violation of the copyright laws. "Libraries' agents"?! What about the authors? Who gave the libraries the right to allow wholesale copying of other people's work? No one. The idea that they are acting as a library's agent is a fantasy. Is a burgler acting as his fence's agent?
The "we're indexing" so it's alright is baloney - Google themselves are breaking the law in a manner which it is hard to imagine being any clearer. Google is copying entire books for its use as a business without paying a penny to the authors.
Webpages can express their wish not to be indexed quite easily and the intent of the web is clearly to be a public-access medium; neither is true of books and it is not reasonable to apply the same "oh, they're just indexing" argument to both.
If Google made the copies, and distributed the copies to employees, that would clearly be in violation too.
Which it clearly must be. Do you think there's a system in place to track how much of any one book an employee can ever see?
However, there is precedent, Kelly v. Arriba, where Arriba copied copyrighted images in order to create thumbnails in a web search image, and that was classified as fair use.
I can see an argument there if the originals were then deleted. A thumbnail of an image is not a faithful copy nor a serious functional replacement for the original, so I think that's a different thing from a whole book.
Given the fair-use applictions that are ruled out-of-bounds it would be an topsy-turvy world indeed if this sort of industrialised infringement was allowed.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, that's probably what did it: 50GB of space for a mailserver a couple of years ago would have been unusual for a small company. Fill the drive, kill the server; do it over a long weekend.
TWW
The FAQ is misleading. The adverts appear in the search results page rather than the displayed pages, but they do appear. Why do you find it so hard to admit that Google has made copies of books with out permission for their own use when the evidence is on their website for anyone to see? Do you have shares in them or something?
TWW
You are mistaken
I've checked this; I'm not. Google are using the books for their own business gain. They have copied the books and are selling advertising based on searches for those books. This money is not going to the copyright holders nor the libraries, nor is access restricted to patrons of the libraries or indeed any class of person. Google are in massive and blatant breach of copyright laws and morals.
The libraries have partnered with Google to scan the libraries' books in order to produce a subject-index catalog of the libraries' collections that they, the libraries, believe will be of substantial value.
That's nice. However, it is not what is happening. Google is copying works for its own use, which is illegal. The libraries are gaining nothing from this that could be characterised as an agent/patron relationship since they do not have exclusive access to the index so created.
As a good will gesture, the libraries have offered to strike from their catalogs any works whose copyright holders would prefer said works to be undiscoverable via the library's catalog; a gesture which decreases the value of the libraries' holdings, without compensating the libraries for the loss of utility.
So, what you're saying is that as a goodwill gesture, the libraries are going to NOT infringe the copyright of anyone that bothers to object but that they are such nice people that they're not going to charge for obeying the law. What great big hearts they must have. How generous of spirit, how noble and self-sacrificing they are!
I burgled your house last night while you were out. You hadn't written to me to say I couldn't so I assumed the law didn't apply to me. Thanks for the TV and I'll waive the taxi fare to show there's no hard feelings about the effort it took to jimmy open your front door.
Libraries who do not believe that a subject-index catalog preopared with electromechanical assistance would be of substantially greater value than the ones they currently have are free to continue their current practices.
So what? It is Google that is breaking the law; the libraries are simply accessories. There is no loophole that allows a company to take the books in a library, copy them for their own use and simply walk away saying that the librarian told them it was okay. Nor should there be.
TWW
Er...No. What the fuck would I want with a Flash version of a video? What sort of retard wants to run their videos through Flash?! What even made someone think that was a good idea?
Jesus, I keep Flash switched off for 90%+ of the time I'm on the web; I sure as hell don't want to start having to use it for ordinary files.
TWW
All of which is easy to do in Linux if you do it the same way that 99.99999% of the world's Windows users install Windows: they just buy a machine with it pre-installed and set up for the hardware in the machine.
Windows is not easy to install in the sense of it automatically sensing everything and never having to download drivers etc. But noone cares because almost noone actually ever installs Windows.
And, THAT is why Microsoft leans so hard on people like Dell and others to prevent them selling computers with Linux or even FreeDOS on them.
TWW
"Think" as in "This is what I think, but it's subjective".
Happy now?
TWW
You've obviously not watched one of those old serials recently, they really were pretty bad. And: so what? Did Lucas say you had to share his vision? Has he ever really claimed that he was doing anything else? Ep. IV fits the pattern perfectly, so what did people expect in the other films? Doctor Zhivago? Well, alright, Ep. V had a lot of snow, but still...
If you want to take that approach, FireFly and Buffy did a better job, with less money.
I've never heard of Firefly but certainly Buffy was as self-indulgent as Lucas but I don't think that making seven series of repetitious, hack-written, predictable wank is really much better than writing six films of predictable, hack-written, and repetitious low-brow fun. It's a subjective call, although I'd LOVE someone to to explain how Sara Michelle Geller gets work.
Now "The Willow Half Hour" - that's a programme I'd watch! I have a script all worked out here...Oh, Yeah!
TWW
Lucas wanted to make a set of films which reminded him of the old-time matinee serials. Lots of adventure, light on plot, big on fun. Within that framework I think he succeeded pretty well 100%.
Now, it may well be the case that some of us don't want that, and it pretty well explains such nonsense as Jar-Jar and "going through the core" etc, but it seems obvious to me that it was what George wanted and I suspect he's a happy man when he looks at what he did. And, on the way, he did manage to produce six films about the bad guy, which I think is a great idea.
Chill out and repeat: "It's just Flash Gordon". You'll enjoy the films much more that way.
TWW
TWW
Except for the "correct" and "relevant" parts.
Things like the date Germany invaded Poland, or the gravitational constant, don't change overnight.
Sadly, on Wikipedia such things can and do change overnight.
TWW
TWW
Only 300? Geez, tax evasion is really rife in the States these days.
TWW
You've missed the point: when you are true Illuminati you parade your control in front of the masses, who are unable to do anything about it. That's why Guantanamo is public: to send out a signal to the rest of the world that the USA can do whatever the fuck it likes and no one can do squat about it (particularly Cuba). This is a very common habit in empires.
TWW
It is not MA's fault that Microsoft have chosen to attempt a lock-in, nor is it their responsibility to support Microsoft's business plan by allowing themselves to be so locked-in.
TWW
Yes, lots. And I mean LOTS: thousands and thousands of them. You really should try researching this a bit more.
Are there any animals living today that are half one and half another?
Presumably. Since the animal they are half-way to becoming isn't, by definition, here yet it's hard to know what they're between, but certainly whales, with their back legs now totally embedded in their bodies, must be over half way to some animal with no back legs at all.
The Law of Entropy states that everything goes naturally to disorder.
Universally, over all of time. Locally and in the short term entropy can be reversed with no problem. Once the sun dies, for example, entropy on Earth is going to start booming again. Until then, we can reverse our entropy at the Sun's expense.
How can the order that is life(on a molecular level that is), especially human life, by chance materialize out of nothing or out of a few base elements.
What's so special about "human life"? Once you have life at all humans are no big deal. Anyway, chance is involved in the broad sense but actually not in any important way. If a gambler backs a 1:100 chance a thousand times then luck is involved but you would not consider him lucky to have won. Life may be a tricky bet, but the whole universe has been placing that bet for the whole of time, so it's not very surprising that it came up at least once.
Actually, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in a Creator.
Only if you're stupid.
TWW
TWW
Well, that's what they're doing.
Google is the libraries' expert agent for indexing the volumes the libraries own in order for the libraries to carry out the libraries' business.
No they're not. The libraries are allowing Google to copy the books in order to pursue its business aims. The libraries are aiding this copyright infringement because they think they will reap some benefits from it too. The resulting index is not owned by the library, nor does it in any way drive patrons to the particular library, and in fact the libraries gain nothing from this of any substantial value. Even if they did, they do not have the right to allow authors' work to be raped in this way.
Any library that supports this sort of activity should be closed and its staff tried; at the very least they should not be allowed to work in a library again.
TWW
Bullshit. As it happens, I went to school with the head librarian of my town. It is entirely possible that he could appoint me as an agent to put together an index, even a searchable index, of the books in the library. It is not, however, in his power to tell me that I can then keep a copy of all the library's books and use them for my own business. That would be massive copyright infringement, just as it is for Google.
Libraries can not just waive copyright by arbitrarily claiming that someone is their "agent". Google are not acting like or as agents in this case - they are purely and simply taking books as stock for their own private trade.
TWW
Fair point.
The authors' copyrights grant the libraries permission to make the works the libraries purchased discoverable. The libraries do not need to ask permission to exercise those rights
Discoverable has nothing to do with allowing Google to copy entire works, store them, and use them for their own business. If I did that I'd be in deep shit. What law says copyright restrictions do not apply to Google? What they are doing is clearly and justly illegal and has been for a very long time.
TWW
Google are not library employees or agents and what Google is making is not simply an index so none of your points have anything to do with this.
5
You are either confused as to who is doing the copying and what they are doing with those copies or you are deliberately trying to distract from the real issues by dragging in irrelevant points.
TWW
But not copy beyond certain limits. They certainly do not gain any ability to grant other people the right to copy without limit.
To make matters worse, they will be copying books by British (and perhaps other countries too, I don't know) authors who are entitled to payment each time a book is borrowed from a library in the UK, so they are directly affected financially. At least an argument could be made that US authors who do not get paid by US libraries have little to loose, but Google is not a US-only organisation.
The libraries' employees and agents have the right to use the entire work in carrying out the libraries' purposes, one of which is to make works discoverable to the libraries' patrons.
Which they can do without allowing a patron to simply take home a copy of every book in the library and keep it forever while distributing bits of those books to anyone who asks.
For these reasons, Google's indexing is just and legitimate.
It is neither, it is a clear and unashamed appropriation of other people's work for their own business goals. Google could have asked for permission (either individually or en-mass via publishers); they could have but that would have seriously reduced the profit; so they didn't, they just took the books and gave copyright laws the old middle-finger salute.
TWW
Google are not "creating an index", they are making whole copies, which they are making available for their own profit. The whole copy. Maybe not to any one individual user but they are using the whole copy for their own profit without a cent of payment to authors. Regardless of this, the availability of what they do provide has a clear adverse effect on the marketability of the original book, in the case of reference works particularly.
If they simply said "The book 'I was a lonely Mexican Wandering Spider' has useful information about that" and left it at that, then they would be "creating an index".
2-3 line snippets
The last time I tried it, Google returned 2 or 3 pages.
Should Google hire thousands of book buyers to search through all the book sales, and used-book shops for copies of these works, and buy them so they can lock them into a vault when they're finished with them?
Once again the argument amounts to "the law must bend to fit Google's business plan. All hail Google."
Oh, I know, let's just ignore them, until they go out of copyright, this book's out of copyright in 2049, and that one's out of copyright in 2076 if the author hurries up and dies (unless copyright terms get extended again, and again, and again).
Or ask for permission? Yeah, yeah, authors' rights are secondary to Google's right to make a buck off the back of their work; I forgot again. Duh!
That's the problem here: there is no real reason why Google could not have set up a system which worked with authors instead of simply raping them and then saying "you didn't say NOT to rape you".
TWW
If Google could at least exclude blogs from the main index it might help a bit but in the long run PageRank is a dead duck.
TWW
This is just silly. Google is in blatant violation of the copyright laws. "Libraries' agents"?! What about the authors? Who gave the libraries the right to allow wholesale copying of other people's work? No one. The idea that they are acting as a library's agent is a fantasy. Is a burgler acting as his fence's agent?
The "we're indexing" so it's alright is baloney - Google themselves are breaking the law in a manner which it is hard to imagine being any clearer. Google is copying entire books for its use as a business without paying a penny to the authors.
Webpages can express their wish not to be indexed quite easily and the intent of the web is clearly to be a public-access medium; neither is true of books and it is not reasonable to apply the same "oh, they're just indexing" argument to both.
TWW
Which it clearly must be. Do you think there's a system in place to track how much of any one book an employee can ever see?
However, there is precedent, Kelly v. Arriba, where Arriba copied copyrighted images in order to create thumbnails in a web search image, and that was classified as fair use.
I can see an argument there if the originals were then deleted. A thumbnail of an image is not a faithful copy nor a serious functional replacement for the original, so I think that's a different thing from a whole book.
Given the fair-use applictions that are ruled out-of-bounds it would be an topsy-turvy world indeed if this sort of industrialised infringement was allowed.
TWW