Oh, so once it's removed from the site, at that point Google is in violation of copyright. Until they've updated their index, they're in flagrant, prosecutable violation of the law, huh?
You don't need to Google it. Just review the facts you already know:
Google is a highly lucrative target for prosecution
Their publicly stated "don't be evil" philosophy would cause them to want to bury any brand-damaging associations, possibly with a settlement
You have prior knowledge of copyright violation charges levied against them
Seems to be a big no-brainer that someone would bring the pain if they thought they had a slam-dunk case. And they have, lots...simple as that. And no, Google doesn't violate copyrights. And yes, they may respond to requests to pull down embarrassing images, but not because they have to, and not because everyone in their position should have to.
So, for this case, scorned woman, says some nasty things about the guy. Some of it was kinda funny. She persists much longer, though, unless she's reeeeeeally really clever about it and turns out some grade-A comedy, who's gonna come out looking worse for wear? Him, or her? Who's accumulating the damage here after a point?
Oops. Did I just open myself up to a lawsuit? Are you legally damaged? If I'd included your picture with "idiot" written across the bottom, would that change things? What if I posted it on the web and it was popular?
I'm not saying she's doing a great and ethical thing here. I'm saying it's not illegal to publicly hate on someone unless it actually does rise to the level of violating that person's rights. No one has the right to force others to not talk about them, though. That's cuz growed-ups made the laws.
Although, this whole incident does bring to mind another such situation that happened just a few months ago. Here's the relevant quote from the guy that thinks the same way as you: "Ya dun goofed!...And the consekences will nevar be teh same!!!!"
I feel where you're coming from, and what I'm about to say is a minor point, but IC and ID have never achieved the status of a scientific theory. It may be considered a hypothesis as formulated—but that's the point of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, to show that's no measuring stick at all. Making testable predictions is not the only criterion for theory-hood, obviously...it's necessary but not sufficient. But even on this count they do indeed fail.
A prediction has to be about the future...it can't be based on looking around at the way things currently are for support. Feynman famously made this point to his physics class one day when he rolled in and said he'd begin class in a minute, but first he had to tell them about this unbelievable thing that happened that morning. He was driving to work, you see, and he saw an out of state license plate, YNK403. Now if you look at the number of out of state plates on the road, that he should happen to be within striking distance of one at any point during his short commute is already improbable, but that it should happen to be that particular one at that particular moment. What are the chances a Y would be in the first place and not the second? And the fifth letter a zero? He calculated the odds of that happening again, and they were astronomically small, so that it already happened once in his lifetime that very morning, well, what a stroke of unbelievable coincidence!
Think about all the many moles of particles around you. If you were to pick a configuration of the state of all those particles, the chance you'd be right on is so tiny as to equal zero. Yet, if you were able to record them all, you'd find that they actually do form exactly one configuration of states.
Feynman's point, of course, is that there's nothing remarkable about this. You have to predict the state before making the observation. Your prediction has to be coincident to be worth remarking upon...not merely an incident.
So, Ms. Eschoo has written an op-ed...or as I like to call it these days, "hard news reporting.":-/ At least she's on the right side of this issue, unlike so many others. In other news, I wonder if Lieberman has changed his mind on the web kill bill in the wake of Egypt.
Knock, knock. Who's there? Egypt. Egypt who? 'E gypt us outta tha 'net, 'e did!
Finally! Someone who will understand what I'm about to say!!!
Yes, the evidence STRONGLY supports Darwin and evolution.
Yes, the evidence also STRONGLY supports gravitation theory.
But not completely. How does evolution explain a four chambered heart?
But not completely. Quantum theory, GTR, and modern gravitation theory all produce similar predictions in weak gravitational fields, but they diverge as the field becomes strong. How does modern gravitation theory explain that?
What possible evolutionary advantage has writing given man?
Likewise...for what possible reason, according modern gravitation theory, could something else like writing that has nothing at all to do with gravity happen?
And the fact that we are talking about it here proves that it truly is a controversial subject. Maybe not to you, but then again, gay marriage is not controversial to gay man. Illegal immigration is not controversial to an illegal alien. Lawsuits against P2P grandmas without computers is not controversial to a RIAA lawyer. Just because it's not a controversy to you doesn't mean it's not controversial to some very bright and stupid people, alike.
Though many people reading this won't admit it, the fact that I have posted my qualms with gravitation theory here proves that there is a controversy And that controvery is this: is the gravitational force explained by gravitation theory, or is it due to Intelligent Falling? This is big, heady stuff. And I'm not saying I know that gravitation theory is wrong and Intelligent Falling is right, but I should have the right to ask (in taxpayer-funded public school science classrooms in a country founded on separation of church and state), shouldn't I?
Ok, enough mimicking your credulous nature. IC and ID are not scientific theories because they make no testable predictions. Without proposing a competing theory, you are essentially saying, "We shouldn't buy evolution theory because it doesn't explain everything! We should ignore the many useful predictions it makes and by the way I have nothing else of value to contribute in its place but still that's what we should do." Well, in case you missed my point above, neither does any other scientific theory. It turns out theories don't have to explain every single thing in order to be useful.
So, she writes Google Webmaster Help and demands they remove the image search results because it's a violation of copyright, and her son is a minor.
Um, no. Showing images in image search does not violate the copyright holder's rights. Perhaps the site hosting the images is violating copyright...but even there I wonder. Is this infringement? I don't think so, just like I don't think Shepard Fairey's work constitutions plagiarism, but either way you go on this the question is there.
Her son is a minor. So what? What's that got to do with Google?
In a free society, does someone have the right to express their opinion about someone else?
I like this approach: don't think, just knee-jerk out a response. I suppose philosophers can all retire because the answer is always "no".
Is it ethical for a company to not do the best it can for shareholders? They invested under the premise that's what the company would do. Is it ethical for people to feel entitled to be paid a certain wage for a job when others can do it better and cheaper?
I'm not suggesting I know the answer to these questions. But I am very much suggesting that the parent poster doesn't, either.
To anyone that thinks slashdot is rabidly anti-the man, I'd like to point out the restraint used on the title for this summary. It could have legitimately said, "Over half..." but went with the more restrained, "Half..."
...but when they finally ship all those backordered copies of Knuth's 4th volume, ebooks may never recover. Wait, is TAoCP available on e-book? Hang on, brb...
I'm bringing telnet back (what?)
them other hackers dunno how to act (what?)
i got fat pipe so i tcp ack (what?)
i rock a botnet, you best watch your back (packets thru the bridge!)
Well, this shows how ignorant you are about the state of the law in this country. The fact of the matter is that most accidents caused by drunk drivers are caused by the very small fraction that are really very drunk. Most of the apprehensions for drunk driving, on the other hand, are on people that have statistically less chance of getting into an accident than someone who is short on sleep.
Why do you suppose that drunk driving was quickly busted down to a misdemeanor class offense after it was introduced as a felony? The answer is: it would have created waaaaay too many felons.
This doesn't mean I'm for drunk driving in the least. It does mean that I think we have an area of law that is not in sync with reality. The effect is that the enforcer is given license to behave capriciously. If you are legally drunk but still relatively safe on the road (compared to, say, a tired person for instance), you are much, much better off statistically speaking if you happen to be dressed professionally, white, male, 35-50, have a nice but not too nice car, etc. Whenever we have laws that don't accord with reality, we invite unfairness into the system.
(Back to the topic at hand, though, even if you don't feel like the drunk person is worth saving, what about the people he'll hit?)
From TFA summary: "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported in October that vehicle-to-vehicle warning systems could address nearly 80 percent of reported crashes not involving drunk drivers."
Why does the NHTSA go out of their way to exclude drunk drivers? They won't benefit at all from this system? Really?
Slashdot Mirror
OP, you suggested MY IDEA to the Obama Administration. Expect to hear from my lawyers PRESENTLY.
(Yea...yours was not as apropos as the one you were trying to one up. Fail.)
"Nokia Jumps from a 'Burning Platform' onto a Sinking Ship"
"Professor's Head Differentiates Itself from London Citizenry"
Good point. If only there were some publicly accessible resource through which this fellow could identify her if he wanted to...
Alas, there is no such thing. If only, though, right?
Oh, so once it's removed from the site, at that point Google is in violation of copyright. Until they've updated their index, they're in flagrant, prosecutable violation of the law, huh?
Tell me, how do you explain the Internet Archive?
You don't need to Google it. Just review the facts you already know:
Seems to be a big no-brainer that someone would bring the pain if they thought they had a slam-dunk case. And they have, lots...simple as that. And no, Google doesn't violate copyrights. And yes, they may respond to requests to pull down embarrassing images, but not because they have to, and not because everyone in their position should have to.
So, for this case, scorned woman, says some nasty things about the guy. Some of it was kinda funny. She persists much longer, though, unless she's reeeeeeally really clever about it and turns out some grade-A comedy, who's gonna come out looking worse for wear? Him, or her? Who's accumulating the damage here after a point?
Hint: not him.
So you missed the whole fair use legal flap about Google search? Then the one about Google Images? Then the one about Google Books?
-sigh- What do you think the answer to your question is?
You're an idiot.
Oops. Did I just open myself up to a lawsuit? Are you legally damaged? If I'd included your picture with "idiot" written across the bottom, would that change things? What if I posted it on the web and it was popular?
I'm not saying she's doing a great and ethical thing here. I'm saying it's not illegal to publicly hate on someone unless it actually does rise to the level of violating that person's rights. No one has the right to force others to not talk about them, though. That's cuz growed-ups made the laws.
Although, this whole incident does bring to mind another such situation that happened just a few months ago. Here's the relevant quote from the guy that thinks the same way as you: "Ya dun goofed! ...And the consekences will nevar be teh same!!!!"
You believe that Google Images violates copyright law whenever it displays a copyrighted image as the result of an image search?
Please, do go on and develop your point further...this should be good.
I feel where you're coming from, and what I'm about to say is a minor point, but IC and ID have never achieved the status of a scientific theory. It may be considered a hypothesis as formulated—but that's the point of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, to show that's no measuring stick at all. Making testable predictions is not the only criterion for theory-hood, obviously...it's necessary but not sufficient. But even on this count they do indeed fail.
A prediction has to be about the future...it can't be based on looking around at the way things currently are for support. Feynman famously made this point to his physics class one day when he rolled in and said he'd begin class in a minute, but first he had to tell them about this unbelievable thing that happened that morning. He was driving to work, you see, and he saw an out of state license plate, YNK403. Now if you look at the number of out of state plates on the road, that he should happen to be within striking distance of one at any point during his short commute is already improbable, but that it should happen to be that particular one at that particular moment. What are the chances a Y would be in the first place and not the second? And the fifth letter a zero? He calculated the odds of that happening again, and they were astronomically small, so that it already happened once in his lifetime that very morning, well, what a stroke of unbelievable coincidence!
Think about all the many moles of particles around you. If you were to pick a configuration of the state of all those particles, the chance you'd be right on is so tiny as to equal zero. Yet, if you were able to record them all, you'd find that they actually do form exactly one configuration of states.
Feynman's point, of course, is that there's nothing remarkable about this. You have to predict the state before making the observation. Your prediction has to be coincident to be worth remarking upon...not merely an incident.
So, Ms. Eschoo has written an op-ed...or as I like to call it these days, "hard news reporting." :-/ At least she's on the right side of this issue, unlike so many others. In other news, I wonder if Lieberman has changed his mind on the web kill bill in the wake of Egypt.
Knock, knock. Who's there? Egypt. Egypt who? 'E gypt us outta tha 'net, 'e did!
Finally! Someone who will understand what I'm about to say!!!
Yes, the evidence also STRONGLY supports gravitation theory.
But not completely. Quantum theory, GTR, and modern gravitation theory all produce similar predictions in weak gravitational fields, but they diverge as the field becomes strong. How does modern gravitation theory explain that?
Likewise...for what possible reason, according modern gravitation theory, could something else like writing that has nothing at all to do with gravity happen?
Though many people reading this won't admit it, the fact that I have posted my qualms with gravitation theory here proves that there is a controversy And that controvery is this: is the gravitational force explained by gravitation theory, or is it due to Intelligent Falling? This is big, heady stuff. And I'm not saying I know that gravitation theory is wrong and Intelligent Falling is right, but I should have the right to ask (in taxpayer-funded public school science classrooms in a country founded on separation of church and state), shouldn't I?
Ok, enough mimicking your credulous nature. IC and ID are not scientific theories because they make no testable predictions. Without proposing a competing theory, you are essentially saying, "We shouldn't buy evolution theory because it doesn't explain everything! We should ignore the many useful predictions it makes and by the way I have nothing else of value to contribute in its place but still that's what we should do." Well, in case you missed my point above, neither does any other scientific theory. It turns out theories don't have to explain every single thing in order to be useful.
Read this.
So, she writes Google Webmaster Help and demands they remove the image search results because it's a violation of copyright, and her son is a minor.
Um, no. Showing images in image search does not violate the copyright holder's rights. Perhaps the site hosting the images is violating copyright...but even there I wonder. Is this infringement? I don't think so, just like I don't think Shepard Fairey's work constitutions plagiarism, but either way you go on this the question is there.
Her son is a minor. So what? What's that got to do with Google?
In a free society, does someone have the right to express their opinion about someone else?
Allow me to suggest a slightly more relevant heading for this summary. "Online Images Are Often Stolen"
I like this approach: don't think, just knee-jerk out a response. I suppose philosophers can all retire because the answer is always "no".
Is it ethical for a company to not do the best it can for shareholders? They invested under the premise that's what the company would do. Is it ethical for people to feel entitled to be paid a certain wage for a job when others can do it better and cheaper?
I'm not suggesting I know the answer to these questions. But I am very much suggesting that the parent poster doesn't, either.
So...the point of view we're "pushing" on China here is that people should be free to read whatever news they want? And you're not ok with that?
How did this get modded up to +5 Insightful? It's beyond ignorant, it should be +5 Evil.
To anyone that thinks slashdot is rabidly anti-the man, I'd like to point out the restraint used on the title for this summary. It could have legitimately said, "Over half..." but went with the more restrained, "Half..."
What's evolution got to do with this. It's enough that they released the skeeters while praying to allah.
...but when they finally ship all those backordered copies of Knuth's 4th volume, ebooks may never recover. Wait, is TAoCP available on e-book? Hang on, brb...
I'm bringing telnet back (what?)
them other hackers dunno how to act (what?)
i got fat pipe so i tcp ack (what?)
i rock a botnet, you best watch your back (packets thru the bridge!)
Well, this shows how ignorant you are about the state of the law in this country. The fact of the matter is that most accidents caused by drunk drivers are caused by the very small fraction that are really very drunk. Most of the apprehensions for drunk driving, on the other hand, are on people that have statistically less chance of getting into an accident than someone who is short on sleep.
Why do you suppose that drunk driving was quickly busted down to a misdemeanor class offense after it was introduced as a felony? The answer is: it would have created waaaaay too many felons.
This doesn't mean I'm for drunk driving in the least. It does mean that I think we have an area of law that is not in sync with reality. The effect is that the enforcer is given license to behave capriciously. If you are legally drunk but still relatively safe on the road (compared to, say, a tired person for instance), you are much, much better off statistically speaking if you happen to be dressed professionally, white, male, 35-50, have a nice but not too nice car, etc. Whenever we have laws that don't accord with reality, we invite unfairness into the system.
(Back to the topic at hand, though, even if you don't feel like the drunk person is worth saving, what about the people he'll hit?)
From TFA summary: "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported in October that vehicle-to-vehicle warning systems could address nearly 80 percent of reported crashes not involving drunk drivers."
Why does the NHTSA go out of their way to exclude drunk drivers? They won't benefit at all from this system? Really?