>why should they be expected to enjoy the freedoms they are supposedly dying for?
Because following orders from people who know the big picture is more important to the overall objective then your feelings. If soldiers were always questioning orders the military would fail in all of it's endeavors.
Ok, and when we start dumping oil on the market in attempt to control the prices of oil, what do you think OPEC will do in response? They most likely would decrease production thus negating any effect the US could have. It's a global market and one one where we are not in control.
You really think that 36 days of oil will tide us over till those "undiscovered reserves" will be productive? You are looking at at least 2-5 years before that oil reaches the refineries, and probably longer.
I thought we were done with that rumor. ISP's are not common carriers, they never have been or wanted to be. It's why the DMCA has the Safe Harbor provision.
An easier way, and one that would more likely be acceptable to the PURCHASER of the DOMAIN (sorry for the emphasis but I really doubt anyone wants to buy a website without being able to have corresponding email, and also having assurance that the site won't just disappear one day), would be to have a contract stipulating you have your email address for the life of the site. Then work on moving all your services off that domain.
Your right, Fair-Use is muddy water. No one knows what it really means. The letter of the law is very vague, I am sure this was done intentionally so as to cover future reasons that may have been disallowed if they were too specific, kind of like the Bill of Rights. But the spirit of the law is less vague. Basically fair-use is for the betterment of society at large, not for corporate profits.
Under what claim does Google to get fair use. Just because they offer a few pages does not make it fair-use.
17 U.S.C. 107 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. 106 and 17 U.S.C. 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. 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.
Google is not using these excerpts for any of the above reasons, they are using them for profit, thus it is not protected under fair-use.
You are all stuck on the fact they are only allowing excerpts but that is only one of the requirements of fair-use.
They may only provide short excerpts, but they do copy the entire work without permission and they use the fact that you can search the entire work for their own profit. They are not trying to sell the authors books they are trying to use that database to entice more users for Google. Google has no right to profit off the authors works and the fact that Google is doing this strictly for profit pretty much negates fair-use. Opt-out is a poor excuse for getting permission.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah but that's a completely different range in prices. 229 vs 999.
The first spill and your out $600, go for a Pantech Element and get something cheaper and more durable.
Whooooosh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juFZh92MUOY
>why should they be expected to enjoy the freedoms they are supposedly dying for?
Because following orders from people who know the big picture is more important to the overall objective then your feelings. If soldiers were always questioning orders the military would fail in all of it's endeavors.
Don't tell some one to google something, its your argument you defend it.
Most likely this government group has in house representation thus there really is no external law firm to siphon off large amounts of cash.
Who, Lady Gaga or his wife?
Ok, and when we start dumping oil on the market in attempt to control the prices of oil, what do you think OPEC will do in response? They most likely would decrease production thus negating any effect the US could have. It's a global market and one one where we are not in control.
You really think that 36 days of oil will tide us over till those "undiscovered reserves" will be productive? You are looking at at least 2-5 years before that oil reaches the refineries, and probably longer.
I thought we were done with that rumor. ISP's are not common carriers, they never have been or wanted to be. It's why the DMCA has the Safe Harbor provision.
I thought the whole pull for the Navy was you got to travel around the world having sex in every port.
I was a red shirt, but I was in Damage Control. Yeah we were expendable.
They take a sample, usually from a fringe area of the farm and if it tests positive they sue, period. There is no percentage, there is just guilt.
I looked and the only source I found was this comment so I call shenanigans.
An easier way, and one that would more likely be acceptable to the PURCHASER of the DOMAIN (sorry for the emphasis but I really doubt anyone wants to buy a website without being able to have corresponding email, and also having assurance that the site won't just disappear one day), would be to have a contract stipulating you have your email address for the life of the site. Then work on moving all your services off that domain.
Your right, Fair-Use is muddy water. No one knows what it really means. The letter of the law is very vague, I am sure this was done intentionally so as to cover future reasons that may have been disallowed if they were too specific, kind of like the Bill of Rights. But the spirit of the law is less vague. Basically fair-use is for the betterment of society at large, not for corporate profits.
They profit by using your eyeballs to sell advertising space, who ever said you were Google's customer, you are their product.
Are you trying to tell me Google is not a profit making company?
So quit being so smug and try and understand what your talking about.
Private does not mean for profit.
I have been a member of the Atheneum in Providence RI for my whole life. It is a private library but it is most definitely not a for profit venture.
Not just a bomb range, but also a jail and a reserves training area.
They should make a mythbusters episode about it.
Under what claim does Google to get fair use. Just because they offer a few pages does not make it fair-use.
17 U.S.C. 107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. 106 and 17 U.S.C. 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. 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.
Google is not using these excerpts for any of the above reasons, they are using them for profit, thus it is not protected under fair-use.
You are all stuck on the fact they are only allowing excerpts but that is only one of the requirements of fair-use.
Because libraries are not for profit institutions.
They may only provide short excerpts, but they do copy the entire work without permission and they use the fact that you can search the entire work for their own profit. They are not trying to sell the authors books they are trying to use that database to entice more users for Google. Google has no right to profit off the authors works and the fact that Google is doing this strictly for profit pretty much negates fair-use. Opt-out is a poor excuse for getting permission.
Pepper spray is NOT non-violent law enforcement. it is Non-Lethal, A very big difference.
So far, and hopefully it stays that way. Just because no one has died yet doesn't pardon the abuse of authority.