Take apart that mp3.com system into steps, and you'll see differences.
mp3.com: Put CD in drive, rip CD, transmit music to third party, 3rd party stores music, and retransmits music.
Google: Put book through scan/OCR, store content in own database, perform query against database.
The differences are the third party storage, and the retransmission of content. It's actually quite a large set of differences between mp3.com and Google.
It would be poetic justice, but unfortunately, I doubt these groups would opt-in, be it for free or otherwise. The only way to get this off the ground is to already have a massive database of content indexed.
With only opt-in, you would probably end up with only a small number of authors. Specifically, the ones that are contracted with small publishers, or that just publish online through ebooks. It would be like what mp3.com, and similar, looked like: no big names, but sometimes good content that you'd never heard of.
The publishers and authors would certainly make additional sales, considering Google is also placing links to various online retailers. You would go directly to the purchase page for that particular book!
They are copying the text into a database, and running a query against the database. The result is that they do not disperse any copies to users. They don't create another copy when you perform a search against that database.
In the case of mp3.com, they were supplying a copy of music that wasn't taken from your purchased copy. In effect, they were giving you a copy of different music than what you purchased. That would be disallowed as copyright infringement.
I don't see why it *wouldn't* be acceptable for them to do what they are. If they have a flaw that allows people to obtain the whole work, then it should be fixed. With the exception of dissemination of works, you can use your property however you like. If the authors in the Guild don't like that idea, then they shouldn't be distibuting copies of their work.
Where do you think Google is inciting infringment? Their system is currently not for dissemination of work in any way. They would incidentally be providing a means, given a flaw in their design.
Google then goes out of their way to provide a method for an author to request to not have it indexed. This is actually providing the author with more power over their work than copyright law does.
Then you would be doing something different from what Google is doing. Google either possesses the work, or is accessing the systems of a library who does possess the work. Your example has Google going to the library, scanning the work, and leaving with the entirety of the data.
What Google is actually doing is encouraging libraries to scan their books, and then they are running queries against the libraries' databases. They do not seem to be taking possession of that database.
Shifting of medium is perfectly legal. Google is not violating copyright by scanning books. Go poke around USC Title 17, and the various court precedents out there.
The Authors' Guild is within the normal frame of RIAA/MPAA copyright, where they insist you can only do what they say you can. That isn't the way copyright actually works, and there are many court cases to prove it.
In this case, Google shifts the content from a book to a database. It then queries that database. It has not infringed copyright in this process.
Google makes agreements with libraries to access a database and run a query. This does not require Google to ever have a copy, as they never posses more than a selection of the work. That's Fair Use.
So the library doesn't have the book Google wants, and they buy a copy of the book, and then digitize it. Now Google owns a copy of the copyrighted work, to use as it pleases, and has it in a database. They then run queries on that database the same way as above.
They are not allowed to give out copies or republish, but Google isn't doing that. They *are* allowed to disseminate excerpt.
They already sought and attained an agreement with the copyright holder by going out and *buying a copy*, either on their own, or through the libraries. There is nothing additional required.
From what we know, the Authors' Guild is being ridiculous and just trying to cash in on Google's idea. At best, we're talking about a group of people that do not fundamentally understand the technology, and a few blood sucking lawyers. Hopefully the Guild will go down in flames on this.
Yeah, that makes more sense... digging for the etymology of "arse" gets me to proto-Germanic origins. It would appear that it's always meant the same thing, and wasn't originally obscene.
A large amount of "curse" words were actually normal words in other languages. They sometimes became obscene through an attempt to control people or language. Sometimes they became obscene through their misuse.
Shit was in Old English, and has its roots in proto-German language. It really did mean to defacate, and was a normal word for it.
Fuck has roots in proto-German and Scandanavian languages, but has pretty much always been obscene.
Damn was a Latin word meaning damage or hurt. It seems to be only obscene as a result of the religious use.
Ass was from the animal, and is rooted in Sumerian. Not exactly sure how it came to mean someones rear, but that's pretty recent.
Bitch was, as expected, a female dog, and became a obscene through misuse. It was Old Norse in origin.
You'll find most obscene words have benign origins, with the apparent exception of "fuck".
I would say that you shouldn't trust either as a primary source for information. The NYT has been caught in outright fabrication on more than one occasion.
Mirriam-Webster is much more reputable. It implies something closer to what Wiktionary said:
Main Entry: golly Pronunciation: 'gä-lE Function: interjection Etymology: euphemism for God -- used as a mild oath or to express surprise
Make sure that you qualify whether you mean a personal use copy where you own a copy of the property, and a personal use copy where you don't. Many people think you mean transferring between mediums or making a backup copy.
It is a similar problem as when people confuse patent and copyright. There are different rules for each, and confusing between the situations causes debate on the wrong thing.:)
Actually, it sounds like IBM. They have hundreds of sites worldwide, and hundreds of thousands of active employees. They could easily have 1.5 million employees in a directory, if they included past employees. Then you get into machines, rooms, vehicles, etc and that number goes up dramatically. You could add in client data, too. You would have a directory that would far surpass the capabilities of AD.
A national ISP could easily have millions of objects. A telephone company could have hundreds of millions.
The GP might not have been talking about IBM, since there are quite a few other huge companies, but that's one easy example that I know about.
And yes, it is foolish to try to rip that kind of system out for a price break, but dumber things have happened. Look at the fiasco that MS had when trying to convert Hotmail to Windows from BSD...
In that case, you would certainly lose. You're allowed to shift the content between mediums, but not to allow two people to use them at the same time. In the event that you transfer your copy to someone else, you have to go so far as destroying the backup copies.
You are allowed to transfer between mediums, but only after you have legally acquired a copy. You're also allowed to create things like mix tapes, etc. It must all be for your personal use.
IFAIK, there is nothing in law that would let one person make a "personal copy" of a copyrighted work that another person possessed. You are allowed excerpt under Fair Use, but that is, by definition, only a section.
Some countries allow any use of copyrighted work for noncommercial use.
The "time shifting" court precendent was set up by "Universal Studios v. Sony Corp." in 1984, by the SCOTUS. It was termed "fair use" and is governed under the USC section that I quoted to you earlier.
I seem to have sent you to the wrong section for the specific part of the US Code. Title 17, Chapter 1 does have everything, save for the court precendent.
I know, it's the section that defines "Fair Use" is all. All of the US Code that has to do with it will be located until Title 17, which is the body of copyright law.
There is also quite a bit that is defined by court precendent. You could probably find more on that at groklaw.
I was asking if you were saying something else, and you decided I was putting words in your mouth. It was a question, which is a request for additional information.
If you can't defend your points, at least admit it. Considering the number of them that you dropped as we went along, you don't seem to be able to back what you were saying.
Novell with NDS does all that AD does, and a lot more. It is an incredibly well designed directory server, and it existed before AD. The big reason to go with AD is because of group policy; I don't know if NDS has an equivalent to it.
It might still be that W2k3 is the right tool, but please, have your information straight!
Geosynchronous just means it has a 24 hour orbit. Geostationary is a geosynchronous orbit that is fixed relative above a point on the equator.
Stable GEO is about 22,000 miles out, so we're not likely to build an elevator out to that distance anytime soon. LEO is much more attainable, at roughly 125 to 725 miles up. We put most satellites up at that orbit. We don't do much in MEO, save for GPS. Unfortunately, LEO doesn't do too much good for an elevator.
The worst part is that a government tax is supposed to go to the government. This is the government allowing the recording company to use the force of government to levy and collect tax, to be paid to their private company. That is wholly inappropriate, and likely illegal in all EU countries.
Think of it this way, if the government collects a tax from you to fund the school, they have to allow you to use the school now. If the government collects a tax to pay for copyright infringement, by that logic, they have to allow you to infringe.
See, now you've changed your tune. It was WinNT and Win9x sharing enough code that it was a smaller change than going from XP to Vista. Now you seem to be saying that it's just GDI?
Besides, GDI code wasn't shared, either. GDI for NT was written before the release of 9x; the code in 9x was developed independantly. The NT GDI code had to interface with the console, drivers, the window manager, and the rest of the NT kernel. The NT4 design required changes in how this worked, and then the 2000 design changed it again. All the backend interfaces of GDI in NT were incompatible with 9x.
In reality-land, Win95 reused much of the Win3.1 GDI code, as well as kernel and user code. WinNT was implemented from scratch. That information is also easily available, if you actually look. There was extremely good reason to rewrite GDI; the Win95 GDI code wouldn't work in NT, was based on 16bit code, and was insecure.
Again, compatible APIs do not equate shared code. The Wine project has compatible APIs and shares no code with *any* version of Windows.
You have no proof or source to back up your claims. If you so much as did a Google search, you would find massive amount of intormation that refute your claims. You're just wrong and refuse to admit to it.
Just because there was a Win32 implementation on both WinNT and Win9x does not make them the same code. The Win32 implementation in W2K was carried forward from WinNT 4, and from WinNT 3.5 and WinNT 3.1 before that. Parts of Win32 were implemented as Win32S under Win3.1, and then much of it was reimplemented under Win95. Seeing that the WinNT code, with all the security, HAL, etc would not, and could not, run under Win95, they had to write the API implementation under Win95.
You're refusing to admit the fact that Win95 was a MS-DOS based system. The OS code was not portable between 9x and NT. Win32 API under NT was separate from Win32 API under 9x. Apps written for 9x actually had to run under NT3.51 to be logo certified, but not the other way around. This is because NT's Win32 API was not fully implemented under Win9x, and bugs in the API did not manifest the same under both OS'. That shows rather heavily that they were separate code bases.
MS even called the API under Win95 by a different name to distinguish that it was not the same as the Win32 API under NT. Win3.1 = Win32S, WinNT = Win32, Win9x = Win32c.
My sources are MS Press books (specifically "Inside Windows95"), Wikipedia, Microsoft, themselves, as well as direct experience, common sense, and the agreement of the myriad of Win32 API history sites out there. Why don't you try to back something that you say with fact this time. Your denial of reality does not constitute you being correct.
The API code is not shared, only the API specification.
Slashdot Mirror
Take apart that mp3.com system into steps, and you'll see differences.
mp3.com: Put CD in drive, rip CD, transmit music to third party, 3rd party stores music, and retransmits music.
Google: Put book through scan/OCR, store content in own database, perform query against database.
The differences are the third party storage, and the retransmission of content. It's actually quite a large set of differences between mp3.com and Google.
It would be poetic justice, but unfortunately, I doubt these groups would opt-in, be it for free or otherwise. The only way to get this off the ground is to already have a massive database of content indexed.
With only opt-in, you would probably end up with only a small number of authors. Specifically, the ones that are contracted with small publishers, or that just publish online through ebooks. It would be like what mp3.com, and similar, looked like: no big names, but sometimes good content that you'd never heard of.
The publishers and authors would certainly make additional sales, considering Google is also placing links to various online retailers. You would go directly to the purchase page for that particular book!
They are copying the text into a database, and running a query against the database. The result is that they do not disperse any copies to users. They don't create another copy when you perform a search against that database.
In the case of mp3.com, they were supplying a copy of music that wasn't taken from your purchased copy. In effect, they were giving you a copy of different music than what you purchased. That would be disallowed as copyright infringement.
I don't see why it *wouldn't* be acceptable for them to do what they are. If they have a flaw that allows people to obtain the whole work, then it should be fixed. With the exception of dissemination of works, you can use your property however you like. If the authors in the Guild don't like that idea, then they shouldn't be distibuting copies of their work.
Where do you think Google is inciting infringment? Their system is currently not for dissemination of work in any way. They would incidentally be providing a means, given a flaw in their design.
Google then goes out of their way to provide a method for an author to request to not have it indexed. This is actually providing the author with more power over their work than copyright law does.
Then you would be doing something different from what Google is doing. Google either possesses the work, or is accessing the systems of a library who does possess the work. Your example has Google going to the library, scanning the work, and leaving with the entirety of the data.
What Google is actually doing is encouraging libraries to scan their books, and then they are running queries against the libraries' databases. They do not seem to be taking possession of that database.
No, you are incorrect, Google does not infringe copyright by shifting the medium. The RIAA and MPAA tried that one, and were shot down.
d =13612978
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=162900&ci
Shifting of medium is perfectly legal. Google is not violating copyright by scanning books. Go poke around USC Title 17, and the various court precedents out there.
The Authors' Guild is within the normal frame of RIAA/MPAA copyright, where they insist you can only do what they say you can. That isn't the way copyright actually works, and there are many court cases to prove it.
In this case, Google shifts the content from a book to a database. It then queries that database. It has not infringed copyright in this process.
Google makes agreements with libraries to access a database and run a query. This does not require Google to ever have a copy, as they never posses more than a selection of the work. That's Fair Use.
So the library doesn't have the book Google wants, and they buy a copy of the book, and then digitize it. Now Google owns a copy of the copyrighted work, to use as it pleases, and has it in a database. They then run queries on that database the same way as above.
They are not allowed to give out copies or republish, but Google isn't doing that. They *are* allowed to disseminate excerpt.
They already sought and attained an agreement with the copyright holder by going out and *buying a copy*, either on their own, or through the libraries. There is nothing additional required.
From what we know, the Authors' Guild is being ridiculous and just trying to cash in on Google's idea. At best, we're talking about a group of people that do not fundamentally understand the technology, and a few blood sucking lawyers. Hopefully the Guild will go down in flames on this.
Yeah, that makes more sense... digging for the etymology of "arse" gets me to proto-Germanic origins. It would appear that it's always meant the same thing, and wasn't originally obscene.
A large amount of "curse" words were actually normal words in other languages. They sometimes became obscene through an attempt to control people or language. Sometimes they became obscene through their misuse.
Shit was in Old English, and has its roots in proto-German language. It really did mean to defacate, and was a normal word for it.
Fuck has roots in proto-German and Scandanavian languages, but has pretty much always been obscene.
Damn was a Latin word meaning damage or hurt. It seems to be only obscene as a result of the religious use.
Ass was from the animal, and is rooted in Sumerian. Not exactly sure how it came to mean someones rear, but that's pretty recent.
Bitch was, as expected, a female dog, and became a obscene through misuse. It was Old Norse in origin.
You'll find most obscene words have benign origins, with the apparent exception of "fuck".
I would say that you shouldn't trust either as a primary source for information. The NYT has been caught in outright fabrication on more than one occasion.
n ary&va=golly
Mirriam-Webster is much more reputable. It implies something closer to what Wiktionary said:
Main Entry: golly
Pronunciation: 'gä-lE
Function: interjection
Etymology: euphemism for God
-- used as a mild oath or to express surprise
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictio
If you checked the etymology from the OED, I imagine you would find that it really was "God's Body" or something quite similar.
Make sure that you qualify whether you mean a personal use copy where you own a copy of the property, and a personal use copy where you don't. Many people think you mean transferring between mediums or making a backup copy.
:)
It is a similar problem as when people confuse patent and copyright. There are different rules for each, and confusing between the situations causes debate on the wrong thing.
Actually, it sounds like IBM. They have hundreds of sites worldwide, and hundreds of thousands of active employees. They could easily have 1.5 million employees in a directory, if they included past employees. Then you get into machines, rooms, vehicles, etc and that number goes up dramatically. You could add in client data, too. You would have a directory that would far surpass the capabilities of AD.
A national ISP could easily have millions of objects. A telephone company could have hundreds of millions.
The GP might not have been talking about IBM, since there are quite a few other huge companies, but that's one easy example that I know about.
And yes, it is foolish to try to rip that kind of system out for a price break, but dumber things have happened. Look at the fiasco that MS had when trying to convert Hotmail to Windows from BSD...
In that case, you would certainly lose. You're allowed to shift the content between mediums, but not to allow two people to use them at the same time. In the event that you transfer your copy to someone else, you have to go so far as destroying the backup copies.
You are allowed to transfer between mediums, but only after you have legally acquired a copy. You're also allowed to create things like mix tapes, etc. It must all be for your personal use.
IFAIK, there is nothing in law that would let one person make a "personal copy" of a copyrighted work that another person possessed. You are allowed excerpt under Fair Use, but that is, by definition, only a section.
Some countries allow any use of copyrighted work for noncommercial use.
The "time shifting" court precendent was set up by "Universal Studios v. Sony Corp." in 1984, by the SCOTUS. It was termed "fair use" and is governed under the USC section that I quoted to you earlier.
c ourt=us&vol=464&invol=417
s c_sec_17_00000117----000-.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
Backup copies are allowed under section 117 of the Copyright Act.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
I seem to have sent you to the wrong section for the specific part of the US Code. Title 17, Chapter 1 does have everything, save for the court precendent.
I know, it's the section that defines "Fair Use" is all. All of the US Code that has to do with it will be located until Title 17, which is the body of copyright law.
There is also quite a bit that is defined by court precendent. You could probably find more on that at groklaw.
You can read a bit about Fair Use from Stanford:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
I was asking if you were saying something else, and you decided I was putting words in your mouth. It was a question, which is a request for additional information.
If you can't defend your points, at least admit it. Considering the number of them that you dropped as we went along, you don't seem to be able to back what you were saying.
I guess that somebody doesn't like me!
Novell with NDS does all that AD does, and a lot more. It is an incredibly well designed directory server, and it existed before AD. The big reason to go with AD is because of group policy; I don't know if NDS has an equivalent to it.
It might still be that W2k3 is the right tool, but please, have your information straight!
LaTeX margins are also taking into consideration binding. If you use the default margins, you can bind your page an any side and with most any method.
;-)
You can't really compare a well designed full typesetting system with a quick and dirty memo program that came down with a serious case of bloat.
Geosynchronous just means it has a 24 hour orbit. Geostationary is a geosynchronous orbit that is fixed relative above a point on the equator.
Stable GEO is about 22,000 miles out, so we're not likely to build an elevator out to that distance anytime soon. LEO is much more attainable, at roughly 125 to 725 miles up. We put most satellites up at that orbit. We don't do much in MEO, save for GPS. Unfortunately, LEO doesn't do too much good for an elevator.
The worst part is that a government tax is supposed to go to the government. This is the government allowing the recording company to use the force of government to levy and collect tax, to be paid to their private company. That is wholly inappropriate, and likely illegal in all EU countries.
Think of it this way, if the government collects a tax from you to fund the school, they have to allow you to use the school now. If the government collects a tax to pay for copyright infringement, by that logic, they have to allow you to infringe.
Sure, it's in USC Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
See, now you've changed your tune. It was WinNT and Win9x sharing enough code that it was a smaller change than going from XP to Vista. Now you seem to be saying that it's just GDI?
Besides, GDI code wasn't shared, either. GDI for NT was written before the release of 9x; the code in 9x was developed independantly. The NT GDI code had to interface with the console, drivers, the window manager, and the rest of the NT kernel. The NT4 design required changes in how this worked, and then the 2000 design changed it again. All the backend interfaces of GDI in NT were incompatible with 9x.
In reality-land, Win95 reused much of the Win3.1 GDI code, as well as kernel and user code. WinNT was implemented from scratch. That information is also easily available, if you actually look. There was extremely good reason to rewrite GDI; the Win95 GDI code wouldn't work in NT, was based on 16bit code, and was insecure.
Again, compatible APIs do not equate shared code. The Wine project has compatible APIs and shares no code with *any* version of Windows.
You have no proof or source to back up your claims. If you so much as did a Google search, you would find massive amount of intormation that refute your claims. You're just wrong and refuse to admit to it.
Just because there was a Win32 implementation on both WinNT and Win9x does not make them the same code. The Win32 implementation in W2K was carried forward from WinNT 4, and from WinNT 3.5 and WinNT 3.1 before that. Parts of Win32 were implemented as Win32S under Win3.1, and then much of it was reimplemented under Win95. Seeing that the WinNT code, with all the security, HAL, etc would not, and could not, run under Win95, they had to write the API implementation under Win95.
You're refusing to admit the fact that Win95 was a MS-DOS based system. The OS code was not portable between 9x and NT. Win32 API under NT was separate from Win32 API under 9x. Apps written for 9x actually had to run under NT3.51 to be logo certified, but not the other way around. This is because NT's Win32 API was not fully implemented under Win9x, and bugs in the API did not manifest the same under both OS'. That shows rather heavily that they were separate code bases.
MS even called the API under Win95 by a different name to distinguish that it was not the same as the Win32 API under NT. Win3.1 = Win32S, WinNT = Win32, Win9x = Win32c.
My sources are MS Press books (specifically "Inside Windows95"), Wikipedia, Microsoft, themselves, as well as direct experience, common sense, and the agreement of the myriad of Win32 API history sites out there. Why don't you try to back something that you say with fact this time. Your denial of reality does not constitute you being correct.
The API code is not shared, only the API specification.