"You're not a thief for downloading music, whatever the RIAAs PR says. Theft is a criminal offence and copyright violation is a civil one - HUGE difference."
Actually, if you infringe enough you are subject to criminal prosecution.
I've worked in the computer book publishing market for a long time - the 15% share is because they're successful only in a very small segment of the market. In fact, you'll start seeing a lot more "Windoze Wanker" books out of them soon - they see MS products (and consumer titles) as the areas where they can grow their business. It will be interesting to see if the technical audience that has formed the O'Reilly core will remain faithful as they "dirty" themselves publishing "Windoze" titles.
They're kind of the Apple of computer book publishers - even when they publish a stinker (and they do it not too seldomly) they'll get lots of glowing remarks from the O'Reilly faithful.
"I am aware of the four factors used to determaine if a use is fair. Please consider: 1) Newsweek prints quotes from copywrited works. Newsweek makes money from ads it sells partly on the basis of its book review section."
True, but they don't include the entire works across a series of articles without the permission of the copyright holder.
"2) The nature of the works copied are immaterial to Google. They are copying everything."
True, which means they are copying works that fall under fair-use, and those that don't.
"3) You only have access to tiny parts of the copywrited works. This is actually the crux of the argument they will make in court."
That is their argument, but it a bad one - and one they've already failed at. People are already able to download entire works by playing with the parameters Google uses to provide access to the works.
"4) Where possible they will provide links to booksellers: their making the text searchable increases the potential market for the copywrited works."
So helping companies market their products against their will is a good thing? How much incremental revenue will they gain versus what they will lose? Many people buy works to get access to specific information. If I can access that information via search without having to buy the work I'm not going to fork over the dough. Publishing (books at least) is a very low-margin business and publishers should be the ones to choose the return on their investment - not Google.
"The/. synopsis leaves a bit out as usual. Google is going to some pretty good lengths to make sure the system is not exploited in any non-fair use ways."
Their ealier versions have already been exploited, any new version the come up with will as well.
"For instance, you can only read a few pages of the book related to your search. And even if you search multiple times, you can only read a few more pages. You can not use google to download the entire book for free."
"Also, google is cutting publishers in on the advertising for the pages their book is displayed on."
Publishers aren't pushing back on Google for the works they've agreed to share - they are for the ones Google is trying to back-door through the library system. It's up to the publishers to determine what money they receive for the works - not what Google decides to share through their advertising.
Why don't you provide a link to support your absurdity? The four factors used to determine if a use is "fair" are below. Google fails to meet the criteria for #1 (they're doing it to generate ad revenue), #3 (they're putting the whole work up, and you can view the entire work over a relatively short period of time), and #4 (unkown for sure, but everyone here is glad they'll be getting the works for FREE).
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. 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.
"You know, outside of those works where no one knows who owns it (which the publishers seemed to be complaining about in the article... "We can't prove we own that book, but we want the profits from it!")"
They can prove they own the book simply by looking at the cover and seeing who the publisher is and who owns the copyright. You're taking out of context the publishers push back on having to provide a list of exclusions for Google that they can't generate. Google should be the one providing the list of what they want to include.
Easy to say when they're not your profits... Why don't you donate your next year's salary to your local library so you can increase the amount of knowledge available to your community?
That would be a great philosophy for you to run your own life by. If you work, just start doing it for free and make your time available to the world...
1)Real LIBRARIES either pay for the books or receive them free from publishers. Either way the publisher gets what they expect out of the deal.
2) There are limited numbers of copies available in a library, meaning if people really want to read a particular book today they may have to buy it. Online, there is no such restriction.
RTFA yourself, Firefox did lose 8% of its market share. If, for example, it had a 50% market share in July and then it had a 25% share in August it would have lost 50% of it's market share while still holding a 25% share overall.
"Around the year 1000 for example, it was much warmer than today. There's a reason why "Greenland" is called that: it had thawed and the Vikings could colonize and farm it."
sigh...another child left behind.
Here's a suggestion: If you get your "science" from Rush Limbaugh please report to the nearest suicide chamber and do us all a favor.
"None of the thousands of people I have ever met, at least where I live (Ontario, Canada) pay by the minute for local calls with a landline telephone."
You must have some *really* interesting conversations with the people you meet... "Hi, I'm AC - what local phone plan do you use?"
Come on - admit it, you're really just making stuff up.
OK, so if I ask politely you for all of your money while my gun is still in its holster, then I'm really not a bad guy? Hey, I'm only asking - right?
I find it hilarious that folks on Slashdot, who get all upset at DRM that is designed to ensure somebody's IP (music) is only used for personal purposes, but when Google asserts their IP rights they're great because they are initially nice about it?
Great link, I hadn't seen that one before. Personally, I'm not sure why everyone is in love with Google. They made a great search engine, but where else have they innovated? Most of what they've done is nothing more than making Google-ized versions of existing products.
They're an ad company. Everything they do is an effort to drive more ad revenue. They're Gator with a less pervasive business model. Of course, now that they'll start pushing out animated ads we'll see how long the love-fest lasts.
This is redundant...but 59 million downloads does not equal 59 million users. I have two machines and I account for 8 of those downloads myself. Divide the 59 million by some number to account for the five (1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4) versions of firefox then again by how many of those who are single users downloading to mulitple machines...
Not sure I'd call the site a pro-leadership site...
However, it doesn't imply that a leader is a necessity - just that without leadership sub-groups most often fall to working for their own good rather than the good over the overall group.
I used to work for Microsoft - and that "each group to their own" mentality is a major reason why they never ship a product on time. Even with some strong leaders present.
It's when groups come together for a common cause that great things happen. (And really bad things for that matter.)
Except that his notion is also backed by scientists world-wide. Yours is backed by you. Though, I'd love to see some links to articles that back up your proposition - always willing to learn something new.
Until then, I'll place my bet on the more established, and accepted, theory.
Slashdot Mirror
"You're not a thief for downloading music, whatever the RIAAs PR says. Theft is a criminal offence and copyright violation is a civil one - HUGE difference."
Actually, if you infringe enough you are subject to criminal prosecution.
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/2265_stat.html
Since 1997...
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/2265_stat.html
I've worked in the computer book publishing market for a long time - the 15% share is because they're successful only in a very small segment of the market. In fact, you'll start seeing a lot more "Windoze Wanker" books out of them soon - they see MS products (and consumer titles) as the areas where they can grow their business. It will be interesting to see if the technical audience that has formed the O'Reilly core will remain faithful as they "dirty" themselves publishing "Windoze" titles.
They're kind of the Apple of computer book publishers - even when they publish a stinker (and they do it not too seldomly) they'll get lots of glowing remarks from the O'Reilly faithful.
"I am aware of the four factors used to determaine if a use is fair. Please consider:
1) Newsweek prints quotes from copywrited works. Newsweek makes money from ads it sells partly on the basis of its book review section."
True, but they don't include the entire works across a series of articles without the permission of the copyright holder.
"2) The nature of the works copied are immaterial to Google. They are copying everything."
True, which means they are copying works that fall under fair-use, and those that don't.
"3) You only have access to tiny parts of the copywrited works. This is actually the crux of the argument they will make in court."
That is their argument, but it a bad one - and one they've already failed at. People are already able to download entire works by playing with the parameters Google uses to provide access to the works.
"4) Where possible they will provide links to booksellers: their making the text searchable increases the potential market for the copywrited works."
So helping companies market their products against their will is a good thing? How much incremental revenue will they gain versus what they will lose? Many people buy works to get access to specific information. If I can access that information via search without having to buy the work I'm not going to fork over the dough. Publishing (books at least) is a very low-margin business and publishers should be the ones to choose the return on their investment - not Google.
"The /. synopsis leaves a bit out as usual. Google is going to some pretty good lengths to make sure the system is not exploited in any non-fair use ways."
5
Their ealier versions have already been exploited, any new version the come up with will as well.
"For instance, you can only read a few pages of the book related to your search. And even if you search multiple times, you can only read a few more pages. You can not use google to download the entire book for free."
Read this article to know better: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/3/7/95844/5987
"Also, google is cutting publishers in on the advertising for the pages their book is displayed on."
Publishers aren't pushing back on Google for the works they've agreed to share - they are for the ones Google is trying to back-door through the library system. It's up to the publishers to determine what money they receive for the works - not what Google decides to share through their advertising.
Why don't you provide a link to support your absurdity? The four factors used to determine if a use is "fair" are below. Google fails to meet the criteria for #1 (they're doing it to generate ad revenue), #3 (they're putting the whole work up, and you can view the entire work over a relatively short period of time), and #4 (unkown for sure, but everyone here is glad they'll be getting the works for FREE).
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. 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.
"You know, outside of those works where no one knows who owns it (which the publishers seemed to be complaining about in the article... "We can't prove we own that book, but we want the profits from it!")"
They can prove they own the book simply by looking at the cover and seeing who the publisher is and who owns the copyright. You're taking out of context the publishers push back on having to provide a list of exclusions for Google that they can't generate. Google should be the one providing the list of what they want to include.
All right, then let's let publishers donate only a portion of their copyrighted works to Google print. Oh wait, they did that but Google wants more.
Maybe you shold consult with the underwear gnomes to see where profits fit in to your equation.
Easy to say when they're not your profits... Why don't you donate your next year's salary to your local library so you can increase the amount of knowledge available to your community?
That would be a great philosophy for you to run your own life by. If you work, just start doing it for free and make your time available to the world...
OK.
1)Real LIBRARIES either pay for the books or receive them free from publishers. Either way the publisher gets what they expect out of the deal.
2) There are limited numbers of copies available in a library, meaning if people really want to read a particular book today they may have to buy it. Online, there is no such restriction.
RTFA yourself, Firefox did lose 8% of its market share. If, for example, it had a 50% market share in July and then it had a 25% share in August it would have lost 50% of it's market share while still holding a 25% share overall.
Ahem... I find it rather funny that you're using the word "clueless" in your response to the sig.
To help you out; the point of the sig is to provide a humorous take on the *exact* same point that you offer up to correct the "clueless" sig owner...
"Around the year 1000 for example, it was much warmer than today. There's a reason why "Greenland" is called that: it had thawed and the Vikings could colonize and farm it."
sigh...another child left behind.
Here's a suggestion: If you get your "science" from Rush Limbaugh please report to the nearest suicide chamber and do us all a favor.
"None of the thousands of people I have ever met, at least where I live (Ontario, Canada) pay by the minute for local calls with a landline telephone."
You must have some *really* interesting conversations with the people you meet... "Hi, I'm AC - what local phone plan do you use?"
Come on - admit it, you're really just making stuff up.
OK, so if I ask politely you for all of your money while my gun is still in its holster, then I'm really not a bad guy? Hey, I'm only asking - right?
I find it hilarious that folks on Slashdot, who get all upset at DRM that is designed to ensure somebody's IP (music) is only used for personal purposes, but when Google asserts their IP rights they're great because they are initially nice about it?
Go figure.
Great link, I hadn't seen that one before. Personally, I'm not sure why everyone is in love with Google. They made a great search engine, but where else have they innovated? Most of what they've done is nothing more than making Google-ized versions of existing products.
They're an ad company. Everything they do is an effort to drive more ad revenue. They're Gator with a less pervasive business model. Of course, now that they'll start pushing out animated ads we'll see how long the love-fest lasts.
Real time...I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.
For it to be a real time communication (conversation) it would have to occur at the same speed it would if in person.
This is redundant...but 59 million downloads does not equal 59 million users. I have two machines and I account for 8 of those downloads myself. Divide the 59 million by some number to account for the five (1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4) versions of firefox then again by how many of those who are single users downloading to mulitple machines...
Can you name a leader-less group that does more than sit around a bar drinking beer? (Not that that's a bad thing.)
Not sure I'd call the site a pro-leadership site...
However, it doesn't imply that a leader is a necessity - just that without leadership sub-groups most often fall to working for their own good rather than the good over the overall group.
I used to work for Microsoft - and that "each group to their own" mentality is a major reason why they never ship a product on time. Even with some strong leaders present.
It's when groups come together for a common cause that great things happen. (And really bad things for that matter.)
Here, read this article on group dynamics and you'll understand why groups need leaders:
http://www.gmu.edu/student/csl/5stages.html
Except that his notion is also backed by scientists world-wide. Yours is backed by you. Though, I'd love to see some links to articles that back up your proposition - always willing to learn something new.
Until then, I'll place my bet on the more established, and accepted, theory.
I bet you ate paste as a kid, didn't you?