'legitimate' mailers anyway - Their emails probably aren't designed to circumvent anti-spam filters
The last time this story was mentioned I checked out the details. Unapproved mail, even if not marked spam, will be delivered, but HTML links, to images say, will be inoperative. The spammers who pay will have their mail delivered in all their multimedia glory.
If this is true, you should forward it, with complete headers, back to the domain's postmaster and to spam@uce.gov.
I used to do that, 10 years ago. Complete waste of time, never as reply. I can't spend 10 minutes working out where each spam really came from, if it's possible at all, and if it is it's likely a zombie. As a non-US citizen the FTC is not going to pay any attention to me, and I doubt they do anything except add it to their statistics.
. Off the top of my head it would be quite difficult, if not impossible to preserve the way sites are accessed normally from inside that (China's internet) network
I personally think that this is solely about the money
Obviously... and the timing is equally obviously in the hope of getting a settlement to make them go away and not disrupt the movie release. As a couple of years ago someone tried to sue Mike Myers for Goldmember being too similar to "Goldfinger"; though it had been public knowledge for a year the suit was made only just before the release.
>A copy of the book? No. Data derived from the book, yes.
So how do one present small sentences from the book to show as a result of a search if you don't keep a copy of the book?
A "book" is an object made of paper, ink and glue. Google does not have a "copy of a book", it doesn't have "a book" at all. That may not be what you were thinking of when you used the word, but that's what it means.
>Arguably; however the person supplying you with the download would be unequivocally breaking copyright.
Perhaps, but that is quite irellevant. On the other hand it is not nessecarilly so either.
Sorry, I can't even understand that.
My example was to do the exact same thing google do, but do it with other media types
Well, that is quite irellevant. On the other hand it is not nessecarilly so either.
So? And what says 3 lines from a book is the limit? I am not arguing exact specs, just the general idea.
So you want to say that one can't quote one word? One letter? One comma? You have to draw the line somewhere. As a practical matter, it's usually considered a few pages, more or less. And I have looked at a few cases, I work in publishing and the question comes up.
My main point would be the spidering of p2p networks and downloading and creating copies of what I find. In addition, creating a searchable index of were I find those files/content (now, there IS such things that typically is under quite some fire for infringement from various sources and they are not even spidering anything). That is after all exactly what google does
For $20 you can get a pair of headphones that give you (or at least, me) the same perceived quality as $1000 speakers. That's what I use when watching movies, especially late at night when I don't want to bother anyone.
So after the indexing, you claim that Google doesn't keep the copy of the book?
A copy of the book? No. Data derived from the book, yes.
If google internally can use the book for whatever they do, then it seems I could too. Seems anyone can download at will and even use what they download as long as they don't make the entire work available to others.
Arguably; however the person supplying you with the download would be unequivocally breaking copyright. And infringement for a book is usually taken as a few pages at most, so your download would have to be divided amongst hundreds of "sharers", difficult to arrange without becoming some kind of conspiracy, in the legal sense. But that's a whole other can of worms, Google isn't responsible for that, each case has to be argued on its own merits.
A small modification to for example torrent clients so that no one can get the entier work from you at once
See above. You'd have to limit it to a very small fragment, like the 3 lines or so Google does. And not just "at once", if someone can trickle a page a day it's still an infringement. And you can be sure that if your system effectively publishes the entire book, or even more than a couple of pages, you won't get away with it.
Yes, there is a grey area here; that's where "fair use" lives. Few books could be published at all if they couldn't "borrow" ideas, themes, let alone entire phrases from other books without fear of litigation. You'd have to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to review each book like a patent.
As the Cuban missile crises showed, the US was more then willing to risk complete annihilation in a fight to keep the USSR at bay.
Whatever the merits of the rest of your argument; the Cuban Missile Crisis was a crisis because the US itself was threatened, the US has never gone that far when another country was threatened by a major power. And as for Vietnam.... Whatever good was done, not EVERYTHING was good, and what GWB has got you into now is pretty controversial, to put it as mildly as I can.
he idea that slashdot has a conservative and/or pro-US slant is ridiculous.
For those of us who aren't American, it seems obvious. Just wait till the next article that mentions India, China &/or outsourcing. Not to mention the regular ID "debates".
A reasonable analogy might be a book review. A reviewer can quote excerpts from a book in the course of a review. But those excerpts can't be excessive. You can't write a 10 chapter review of a 10 chapter book that ends up quoting or paraphrasing most of the book. Google has to "quote" the entire book, even if it only serves up fragments. That, I think, counts against Google in a fair use determination.
In this analogy, Google's "copying" of the work is like the reviewer reading the book. A "copy" of the book exists as whole, in his brain only. I can't agree that they are "quoting the entire book". Google goes to great lengths to prevent users from accessing more than a few lines of a book they don't have explicit permission to feature, you get blocked before you can accumulate a single page. Much easier for book pirates to borrow or buy a copy and scan it themselves; and if you look on alt.binaries.e-books, for instance, you'll see many results from exactly that; Google is not introducing a new threat to books' copyright.
The summary contains only one link to primidi.com and that is Roland's name. I'm perfectly fine with an RP story where all relevant links point to sites that aren't RP's blog
Click on the "additional details" link and see where that takes you.
the only place he links his blog is his name-link; the others are legit publications.
No; the "additional details" link is another of his blogs. And whereas Slashdot adds a "nofollow" to the submitter's link, (to discourage link spamming), it does not to ones in the story. And his "additional details" are either copied from the prinmary souce, or found by a cursory Google search.
Cross platform, and illegal as a bonus! (at least outside russia)
Since they're inside Russia, they are legal. if you're implying that buying from them is illegal if you're outside Russia, I think that with the **AAs' propensity to sue anything living or dead that bypasses their business model, that if it were so they'd have been suing the customers.
Slashdot Mirror
The last time this story was mentioned I checked out the details. Unapproved mail, even if not marked spam, will be delivered, but HTML links, to images say, will be inoperative. The spammers who pay will have their mail delivered in all their multimedia glory.
You really should RTFA before commenting.
That's why they'll sell 12 million. After all, the 360 originally cost about $2 million each.
I used to do that, 10 years ago. Complete waste of time, never as reply. I can't spend 10 minutes working out where each spam really came from, if it's possible at all, and if it is it's likely a zombie. As a non-US citizen the FTC is not going to pay any attention to me, and I doubt they do anything except add it to their statistics.
How about they just type in http://216.127.147.243/ instead of http://www.falundafa.org? I guess well-known sites like this will be blocked anyway.
It won't have the slightest effect on that. Anyway, I live in Hong Kong and 95% of my spam is from the USA.
Buying, selling, porn, warez; no problem. Politics is what they want to block.
They've had .com.cn and .net.cn for many years already. (Eg, the People's Daily link in the summary is at people.com.cn.)
Obviously... and the timing is equally obviously in the hope of getting a settlement to make them go away and not disrupt the movie release. As a couple of years ago someone tried to sue Mike Myers for Goldmember being too similar to "Goldfinger"; though it had been public knowledge for a year the suit was made only just before the release.
It was tense, but the US and Russia didn't directly come into conflict. The whole point of the airlift was to avoid a ground-level confrontation.
So how do one present small sentences from the book to show as a result of a search if you don't keep a copy of the book?
A "book" is an object made of paper, ink and glue. Google does not have a "copy of a book", it doesn't have "a book" at all. That may not be what you were thinking of when you used the word, but that's what it means.
>Arguably; however the person supplying you with the download would be unequivocally breaking copyright.
Perhaps, but that is quite irellevant. On the other hand it is not nessecarilly so either.
Sorry, I can't even understand that.
My example was to do the exact same thing google do, but do it with other media types
Well, that is quite irellevant. On the other hand it is not nessecarilly so either.
So? And what says 3 lines from a book is the limit? I am not arguing exact specs, just the general idea.
So you want to say that one can't quote one word? One letter? One comma? You have to draw the line somewhere. As a practical matter, it's usually considered a few pages, more or less. And I have looked at a few cases, I work in publishing and the question comes up.
My main point would be the spidering of p2p networks and downloading and creating copies of what I find. In addition, creating a searchable index of were I find those files/content (now, there IS such things that typically is under quite some fire for infringement from various sources and they are not even spidering anything). That is after all exactly what google does
No, it is not what Google does at all.
For $20 you can get a pair of headphones that give you (or at least, me) the same perceived quality as $1000 speakers. That's what I use when watching movies, especially late at night when I don't want to bother anyone.
A copy of the book? No. Data derived from the book, yes.
If google internally can use the book for whatever they do, then it seems I could too. Seems anyone can download at will and even use what they download as long as they don't make the entire work available to others.
Arguably; however the person supplying you with the download would be unequivocally breaking copyright. And infringement for a book is usually taken as a few pages at most, so your download would have to be divided amongst hundreds of "sharers", difficult to arrange without becoming some kind of conspiracy, in the legal sense. But that's a whole other can of worms, Google isn't responsible for that, each case has to be argued on its own merits.
A small modification to for example torrent clients so that no one can get the entier work from you at once
See above. You'd have to limit it to a very small fragment, like the 3 lines or so Google does. And not just "at once", if someone can trickle a page a day it's still an infringement. And you can be sure that if your system effectively publishes the entire book, or even more than a couple of pages, you won't get away with it.
Yes, there is a grey area here; that's where "fair use" lives. Few books could be published at all if they couldn't "borrow" ideas, themes, let alone entire phrases from other books without fear of litigation. You'd have to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to review each book like a patent.
Because if we don't, we know what happens.
Anyway, cheap shots aside, Slashdot may be "liberal" on the US scale, but it still pegs pretty far to the right as the rest of the world sees things.
Whatever the merits of the rest of your argument; the Cuban Missile Crisis was a crisis because the US itself was threatened, the US has never gone that far when another country was threatened by a major power. And as for Vietnam.... Whatever good was done, not EVERYTHING was good, and what GWB has got you into now is pretty controversial, to put it as mildly as I can.
For those of us who aren't American, it seems obvious. Just wait till the next article that mentions India, China &/or outsourcing. Not to mention the regular ID "debates".
Do you think the navy hasn't already spent billions on just that? They've been doing this since sonar was invented, 70 years ago.
In this analogy, Google's "copying" of the work is like the reviewer reading the book. A "copy" of the book exists as whole, in his brain only. I can't agree that they are "quoting the entire book". Google goes to great lengths to prevent users from accessing more than a few lines of a book they don't have explicit permission to feature, you get blocked before you can accumulate a single page. Much easier for book pirates to borrow or buy a copy and scan it themselves; and if you look on alt.binaries.e-books, for instance, you'll see many results from exactly that; Google is not introducing a new threat to books' copyright.
Yes, only two out of three links go to his sites and earn him impressions and Pagerank.
Click on the "additional details" link and see where that takes you.
No; the "additional details" link is another of his blogs. And whereas Slashdot adds a "nofollow" to the submitter's link, (to discourage link spamming), it does not to ones in the story. And his "additional details" are either copied from the prinmary souce, or found by a cursory Google search.
Since they're inside Russia, they are legal. if you're implying that buying from them is illegal if you're outside Russia, I think that with the **AAs' propensity to sue anything living or dead that bypasses their business model, that if it were so they'd have been suing the customers.
Please. One gun nut vs a SWAT team. Who wins?
we do not live in some magical age where no one will come to power that will become a blood thirsty tyrant.
Try exercising your right to vote. Try not giving your leaders carte-blanche every time they cry "Terrorist" or "WMD".
in short:
England ~13 per 100,000
U.S.A. ~6 per 100,000
look again:
England ~13 per MILLION
U.S.A. ~6 per 100,000
So the US rate is FIVE TIMES HIGHER.
Oh no, first bird flu, now ant viruses!