I didn't say the assumption was written into the law, if it had been, there wouldn't be any debate. It was an assumption on the part of the people who wrote the law. They, optimists that they were, assumed their descendents would be sufficiently intelligent to understand that laws should not be considered absolutes that trump reason and judgement.
If I read the dictionary, I will have read 100% of the Reuters material, are they going to sue Merriam-Webster?
You can't simply aggregate all the snippets served and say it's material infringement. They serve a useful bit of text around the word the user is searching for, that is obviously a "fair use" of the work.
The person who wrote "to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords" would probably call you "a little slow in the head, if you know what I mean" for the position you are taking. You are falling for a common problem where you fail to understanding the difference between "technically correct" vs "actually correct".
There is an implicit assumption is that the defendent would be making multiple copies for the purpose of giving them to other people or else it would not be a matter of law. 18th century methods of surveillance were not quite as robust as those of the electronics age.
What if, by not applying for punitive damages you have simply allowed someone else to be injured? Punitive damages are awarded to punish corporations because the only thing a corporation understands is profit and loss. At $5000 your injury is certainly less than the cost to replace the railing, would you be as generous if you returned a year later to find that the railing had not been replaced?
There's are reasons for the system as well as reasons against it.
There can be no proof here. All I know is that I've heard a lot more about 360's failing that any other console launch. I didn't keep hearing about broken PS2's when they launched, or even broken Xboxes when it originally launched. I did hear about dead pixels on PSP, but I heard nothing about Nintendo DS failures. While, this may be because MS focused a lot of attention on themselves with the marketing blitz and the free 360s they gave to reporters and anchors, it also could be because the failure rate on 360s is higher than normal for reputable companies.
It's not proof of any sort, but we all know that if the failure rate is higher than 3% MS would lie about it now, and then apologize later for "being wrong". Even if they are not lying about it, that failure rate would currently be 3% of all 360s manufactured. As others have pointed out, if half of the 360s purchased were Christmas presents, then on Dec 26th that failure rate will double. So no matter how you look at it, MS's "3% failure rate" is meaningless and deliberately misleading.
The lawsuit is alleging that, barring special precautions, all 360s will eventually fail from heat problems because there is a design problem with the 360 and that MS should recall and replace all of them. This may or may not be true. However, if it is true, the lawsuit is certainly justified.
Code complete August 2006? Shipped October 2006? Quality assurance testing begins early 2007? Microsoft ends support early 2014? Last bug patched early 2014?
I think it's time to "thin the herd". It's obvious that music industry executives have grown in number and now there's not enough money to support them all. It's for their own good, really.
And just think, the TV executives could make a reality TV series out of it: "Music vs Guns, find out who wins next week on Executive Hunter!"
I'm afraid not, my friend. But I'll elaborate the point for those who can't think for themselves: If your situational example of how someone could commit copyright infringement requires that infringer already have a copy of the book, to build the keyword database to replicate it, or requires the recipient to have the ability to scan books means Google is entirely unnecessary to the plan and adding Google would only complicate matters. And as I understand it, you should be able to scan the average book in hours not weeks. Unless, of course, you're a total incompetent.
Additionally, maybe I misunderstand the nature of the snippets google will provide but my understanding is that they will provide text, not images of pages. The "snippets" will be approximately this long:
Blah, Blah, Blah and Blog. [Print story] [E-mail story] [Rants + Raves]. Page 1 of 1. By Farhad Manjoo | Also by this reporter. 02:00 AM Feb. 18, 2002 PT
So you would need a painstakingly generated list of all the keywords in the book that will uniquely return every two line snippet, in order, to recreate the book. I'm sure someone could make a list of all the words in the book you need to get the most of the text, however, it would be a lot more work to make that list then scanning the book in the first place. You'll also have problems, because words are frequently repeated in a book. I wouldn't be surprised if in many cases the only way to get the appropriate text back is to use the entire text of the snippet.
The only reason someone would do make that list is in a misguided attempt to say, no, I'm not copying the book, I'm just providing a list of words that happens to be in the book. It would be a transparent attemnpt and one that wouldn't hold up in court.
Even at that point, the recipients of the list wouldn't be able to reassemble the book without a script to reassemble that book from the keyword list.
In summary, it should be much easier to simply scan the book and turn it into a pdf than to build the keyword list you'd need to deliberately use Google to commit copyright infringement. A list, I might add, who's only purpose would be complicating the process of infringement.
Re:To the rag that is the Wash. Times: Let them sc
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
So basically, the Washington Times is a lot like slashdot...
More like a Slashdot where only the trolls are allowed to post...
"That said, with a decent OCR program, it would be pretty trivial to write a script that just dumps a book from the snippets provided by Google. So there is a security issue right there."
So you're saying it's a security issue with Google because if I have a copy of the book and an OCR scanner, and I scan the book into a digital format. Then I could theoretically use Google's index to make a digital copy of the book?
Dman right! Caching is dangerous and obviously illegal. We should require everyone to have local shell access to the web server so they can read the original document. After all, every time you "visit" a web site in reality you are really making several unauthorized copies (a local copy plus one copy for each cache the file passes through, not to mention the error tolerance redundancy in the HTTP protocol), and the author should be allowed to charge you for each and every copy made.
Really this whole internet thing is on dubious intellectual property grounds, we should should just take the whole thing down. You should start with your computer. You'd better destroy it before some less morally upstanding person gets a hold of it and commits copyright infringement. The rest of us, well... we'll get on that... right away...
I'm not. A computer without an operating system is useless. I don't think the software to run the operating system should cost $300 or even $250, especially when I know the profit margin for that operating system is between 90% and 95%. I know that I'm being gouged because the computer is useless without it.
I know the profit margin on the hardware is significantly lower than the profit margin on the software and I know that the hardware manufacturer is only paying a fraction of the retail cost of the O/S. I dislike discriminitory pricing and I dislike monopoly price gouging and I think these are entirely reasonable opinions.
Yeah tell me about it, one time I corrected an article only to have some fool change it back, and so I decided to prove him wrong. I went and tracked down to the source of his erroneous information and found out he was right, the four or five independent sources that I had pulled my information were all wrong.
The moral take claims of provably incorrect with a grain of salt, and when you make corrections to an article it's usually a good idea to footnote the source of your corrected information, if possible.
As for you reasoning on the incest thing, nice rationalization, but that's all it is. If Adam and Eve were pure and there was no genetic degredation because of the incestous relationships of them and their children, then why don't people live for a thousand years anymore? No, there are too many discrepencies that require too many rationalizations, it fails the Occam's Razor test. It much more plausible that Exodus is a fable to explain the origin of people, specifically the Jewish people, based on the knowledge of the time.
Actually, the roots of "fundamentalist violence" are people who believe that their god wants them to kill other people and that they will be rewarded for it. The Bible says no such thing. In fact, it doesn't even say "thou shall not kill" as you misquote. It says "You will not commit murder" which is entirely different.
Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill"
Ex.32:27 "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side... and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor."
Dude, I'm the Athiest here. Maybe you should go back and read your source material before you try to argue about it. The only worse than religious fundamentalists, is ignorant religious fundamentalists. There are other instances (Num 15:35, Sam 15:2-3) where God commands people to kill. Of course, American Christian funamdentalists, would love it to say "You will not commit murder" instead, it would protect them from criticism when they advocate for wars of aggression against other nations.
In addition, I don't think you understand the core of what I wrote. The issue is whether God's commands are good because "God commands it" or because "God would only command us to do something good". Be careful with the latter interpretation, it goes against official church doctrine because it necessitates an independent moral code that exists outside of God. That admission attacks the heart of the Christian mythos because it means God is no longer omnipotent because he can't change the laws of morality at his whim.
As long as people believe the first case, then they can easily be swayed to commit factional violence, they are only a command away. Well, in theory anyway, in practice you also have to also defeat the stabilizing influences in the community who will argue against violence and convince people that violence is actually God's command. This is why religiously bakced violence is such a problem in the Middle East, the violence has been going on for so long that in many of the voices that should speak out against violence have been silenced. It also explains why many terrorists are actually middle-class young professionals who have just discovered their religion, they are flush with new pride and a desire to prove their faith but bereft of the calming influence of the religious community.
So what you're saying is the morality is relative and dependent on the current set of rules that God is giving us. So if tomorrow God says "'Thou shalt not kill' is so last millenium, this millenium it will be 'Thou shalt not kill Americans'", it suddenly becomes morally justifiable for the United States to commit genocide against the rest of the earth?
I know that's a little extreme, but the point is either something is wrong because it is wrong, or it is wrong because God says it is wrong. If you choose to believe the latter case, then genocide and murder becomes justifiable against the enemies of your religion, it is one of the roots of fundamentalist violence and fanaticism.
It's called Engineering, before any type of responsibility for the flaws in software are established, or perhaps at the same time as, you would need to create a formalized professional engineering board for software.
This is not a small task, you would only be able to hold professional software engineers liable for the result of their software designs. The good news is that the liability would have to come with an equal increase in pay or no one would accept the liability, of course, the U.S. government would then have to pass some laws to require that certain critical software must be designed by software engineers.
Some people are going to howl that this is the end, but it's not, it's just a sign that software development is growing up. This is the same type of rules that a design for a bridge or a nuclear power plant has to undergo. We may want to make sure that the software that the operates that plant is held to the same professional standard as the physical design of the building.
One upside is that these steps would prevent "software architect" type jobs from being exported to third world nations, and the company would be liable for correctly creating the design laid out by the software engineer.
Personally, I think that's where we're going to end up. Whether it will be sooner or later, though, is the question.
So, I'm the one that's taking this too seriously? Grow up and learn to take the criticism you earn with dignity, man. You make the mistake then you either correct yourself gracefully or you admit you made a mistake. You don't get angry at other people because you made a mistake and got called on it.
It's not my self-esteem that's the problem here, it's your incompetence and your inability to deal with the consequences of it.
I'm not deliberately mistaking your point, I'm mocking for your fundamental ignorance. There's a difference, you should learn it. There are a lot of things you should learn. Like how to communicate your ideas correctly and clearly so that you don't get mocked for writing stupid things. Take some responsibility for what you write, instead of putting the responsibility on everyone else to figure out what you really meant to write.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I suppose the virus could transform you into a tortured zombie that spreads the mutant zombie virus to everyone it touches.
That might be worse, especially if you don't have your "How to fight a Zombie Uprising" manual handy. Remember kids, chainsaws need gas.
I didn't say the assumption was written into the law, if it had been, there wouldn't be any debate. It was an assumption on the part of the people who wrote the law. They, optimists that they were, assumed their descendents would be sufficiently intelligent to understand that laws should not be considered absolutes that trump reason and judgement.
It appears that they were fools after all.
I'm with ya:
It's like sueing a criminal's parents for making his crimes possible... by breeding.
Or sueing the school he went to, because if they hadn't taught him how to write, he wouldn't have been able to hand the bank teller a note.
Or sueing the manufacturers of the pen and paper he used to write the note.
The legal issue will always be whether there are substantial non-criminal uses, the answer is unequivocally yes in every one of these cases.
And?
If I read the dictionary, I will have read 100% of the Reuters material, are they going to sue Merriam-Webster?
You can't simply aggregate all the snippets served and say it's material infringement. They serve a useful bit of text around the word the user is searching for, that is obviously a "fair use" of the work.
The person who wrote "to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords" would probably call you "a little slow in the head, if you know what I mean" for the position you are taking. You are falling for a common problem where you fail to understanding the difference between "technically correct" vs "actually correct".
There is an implicit assumption is that the defendent would be making multiple copies for the purpose of giving them to other people or else it would not be a matter of law. 18th century methods of surveillance were not quite as robust as those of the electronics age.
What if, by not applying for punitive damages you have simply allowed someone else to be injured? Punitive damages are awarded to punish corporations because the only thing a corporation understands is profit and loss. At $5000 your injury is certainly less than the cost to replace the railing, would you be as generous if you returned a year later to find that the railing had not been replaced?
There's are reasons for the system as well as reasons against it.
There can be no proof here. All I know is that I've heard a lot more about 360's failing that any other console launch. I didn't keep hearing about broken PS2's when they launched, or even broken Xboxes when it originally launched. I did hear about dead pixels on PSP, but I heard nothing about Nintendo DS failures. While, this may be because MS focused a lot of attention on themselves with the marketing blitz and the free 360s they gave to reporters and anchors, it also could be because the failure rate on 360s is higher than normal for reputable companies.
It's not proof of any sort, but we all know that if the failure rate is higher than 3% MS would lie about it now, and then apologize later for "being wrong". Even if they are not lying about it, that failure rate would currently be 3% of all 360s manufactured. As others have pointed out, if half of the 360s purchased were Christmas presents, then on Dec 26th that failure rate will double. So no matter how you look at it, MS's "3% failure rate" is meaningless and deliberately misleading.
The lawsuit is alleging that, barring special precautions, all 360s will eventually fail from heat problems because there is a design problem with the 360 and that MS should recall and replace all of them. This may or may not be true. However, if it is true, the lawsuit is certainly justified.
You need to add:
"... but are unwilling to do any verification or cross-referencing."
Seriously. You start looking in an encyclopedia, then move to other sources unless you're in grade 3.
Code complete August 2006?
Shipped October 2006?
Quality assurance testing begins early 2007?
Microsoft ends support early 2014?
Last bug patched early 2014?
Yup, par for the course for Windows 2005.
I think it's time to "thin the herd". It's obvious that music industry executives have grown in number and now there's not enough money to support them all. It's for their own good, really.
And just think, the TV executives could make a reality TV series out of it: "Music vs Guns, find out who wins next week on Executive Hunter!"
Additionally, maybe I misunderstand the nature of the snippets google will provide but my understanding is that they will provide text, not images of pages. The "snippets" will be approximately this long:
So you would need a painstakingly generated list of all the keywords in the book that will uniquely return every two line snippet, in order, to recreate the book. I'm sure someone could make a list of all the words in the book you need to get the most of the text, however, it would be a lot more work to make that list then scanning the book in the first place. You'll also have problems, because words are frequently repeated in a book. I wouldn't be surprised if in many cases the only way to get the appropriate text back is to use the entire text of the snippet.
The only reason someone would do make that list is in a misguided attempt to say, no, I'm not copying the book, I'm just providing a list of words that happens to be in the book. It would be a transparent attemnpt and one that wouldn't hold up in court.
Even at that point, the recipients of the list wouldn't be able to reassemble the book without a script to reassemble that book from the keyword list.
In summary, it should be much easier to simply scan the book and turn it into a pdf than to build the keyword list you'd need to deliberately use
Google to commit copyright infringement. A list, I might add, who's only purpose would be complicating the process of infringement.
So basically, the Washington Times is a lot like slashdot...
More like a Slashdot where only the trolls are allowed to post...
"That said, with a decent OCR program, it would be pretty trivial to write a script that just dumps a book from the snippets provided by Google. So there is a security issue right there."
So you're saying it's a security issue with Google because if I have a copy of the book and an OCR scanner, and I scan the book into a digital format. Then I could theoretically use Google's index to make a digital copy of the book?
Seriously, think about that for a few seconds.
Dman right! Caching is dangerous and obviously illegal. We should require everyone to have local shell access to the web server so they can read the original document. After all, every time you "visit" a web site in reality you are really making several unauthorized copies (a local copy plus one copy for each cache the file passes through, not to mention the error tolerance redundancy in the HTTP protocol), and the author should be allowed to charge you for each and every copy made.
Really this whole internet thing is on dubious intellectual property grounds, we should should just take the whole thing down. You should start with your computer. You'd better destroy it before some less morally upstanding person gets a hold of it and commits copyright infringement. The rest of us, well... we'll get on that... right away...
Ok, let's layout with my economic credentials:
Higher Spending + Lower Taxes (Income) = Larger Deficits (income - spending)
So I hope you've learned your lesson today, math is good.
I'm not. A computer without an operating system is useless. I don't think the software to run the operating system should cost $300 or even $250, especially when I know the profit margin for that operating system is between 90% and 95%. I know that I'm being gouged because the computer is useless without it.
I know the profit margin on the hardware is significantly lower than the profit margin on the software and I know that the hardware manufacturer is only paying a fraction of the retail cost of the O/S. I dislike discriminitory pricing and I dislike monopoly price gouging and I think these are entirely reasonable opinions.
So now socialists are people who want to be left alone, and the good capitalist is the guy who it asking the government do him favours?
Spoken like a true Republican!
Yeah tell me about it, one time I corrected an article only to have some fool change it back, and so I decided to prove him wrong. I went and tracked down to the source of his erroneous information and found out he was right, the four or five independent sources that I had pulled my information were all wrong.
The moral take claims of provably incorrect with a grain of salt, and when you make corrections to an article it's usually a good idea to footnote the source of your corrected information, if possible.
Actually, the roots of "fundamentalist violence" are people who believe that their god wants them to kill other people and that they will be rewarded for it. The Bible says no such thing. In fact, it doesn't even say "thou shall not kill" as you misquote. It says "You will not commit murder" which is entirely different.
Dude, I'm the Athiest here. Maybe you should go back and read your source material before you try to argue about it. The only worse than religious fundamentalists, is ignorant religious fundamentalists. There are other instances (Num 15:35, Sam 15:2-3) where God commands people to kill. Of course, American Christian funamdentalists, would love it to say "You will not commit murder" instead, it would protect them from criticism when they advocate for wars of aggression against other nations.
In addition, I don't think you understand the core of what I wrote. The issue is whether God's commands are good because "God commands it" or because "God would only command us to do something good". Be careful with the latter interpretation, it goes against official church doctrine because it necessitates an independent moral code that exists outside of God. That admission attacks the heart of the Christian mythos because it means God is no longer omnipotent because he can't change the laws of morality at his whim.
As long as people believe the first case, then they can easily be swayed to commit factional violence, they are only a command away. Well, in theory anyway, in practice you also have to also defeat the stabilizing influences in the community who will argue against violence and convince people that violence is actually God's command. This is why religiously bakced violence is such a problem in the Middle East, the violence has been going on for so long that in many of the voices that should speak out against violence have been silenced. It also explains why many terrorists are actually middle-class young professionals who have just discovered their religion, they are flush with new pride and a desire to prove their faith but bereft of the calming influence of the religious community.
Or vice-versa, right?
So what you're saying is the morality is relative and dependent on the current set of rules that God is giving us. So if tomorrow God says "'Thou shalt not kill' is so last millenium, this millenium it will be 'Thou shalt not kill Americans'", it suddenly becomes morally justifiable for the United States to commit genocide against the rest of the earth?
I know that's a little extreme, but the point is either something is wrong because it is wrong, or it is wrong because God says it is wrong. If you choose to believe the latter case, then genocide and murder becomes justifiable against the enemies of your religion, it is one of the roots of fundamentalist violence and fanaticism.
It's called Engineering, before any type of responsibility for the flaws in software are established, or perhaps at the same time as, you would need to create a formalized professional engineering board for software.
This is not a small task, you would only be able to hold professional software engineers liable for the result of their software designs. The good news is that the liability would have to come with an equal increase in pay or no one would accept the liability, of course, the U.S. government would then have to pass some laws to require that certain critical software must be designed by software engineers.
Some people are going to howl that this is the end, but it's not, it's just a sign that software development is growing up. This is the same type of rules that a design for a bridge or a nuclear power plant has to undergo. We may want to make sure that the software that the operates that plant is held to the same professional standard as the physical design of the building.
One upside is that these steps would prevent "software architect" type jobs from being exported to third world nations, and the company would be liable for correctly creating the design laid out by the software engineer.
Personally, I think that's where we're going to end up. Whether it will be sooner or later, though, is the question.
Good, you're growing already.
So, I'm the one that's taking this too seriously? Grow up and learn to take the criticism you earn with dignity, man. You make the mistake then you either correct yourself gracefully or you admit you made a mistake. You don't get angry at other people because you made a mistake and got called on it.
It's not my self-esteem that's the problem here, it's your incompetence and your inability to deal with the consequences of it.
I'm not deliberately mistaking your point, I'm mocking for your fundamental ignorance. There's a difference, you should learn it. There are a lot of things you should learn. Like how to communicate your ideas correctly and clearly so that you don't get mocked for writing stupid things. Take some responsibility for what you write, instead of putting the responsibility on everyone else to figure out what you really meant to write.