Re:To the rag that is the Wash. Times: Let them sc
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
Not critically speaking. The opinions belong to the authors. That's the other sort of reason we're having this discussion.
Re:If they're right, Google is building my dream
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
These lawsuits are theft of intellectual works that belongs to all mankind, and they belong to all mankind for the simple fact of being intellectual works.
Access to these works may belong to all humankind. The works belong to their authors. They made them. Death of the Author can bite my shiny metal ass.
I think you're right. (Especially the point about how much damned effort would have to go in to downloading a book this way: it would be easier to do an hour or two's hard labour and spend your wages on the book in question. Especially if it's Lord of the Rings size.)
But I think people are also right to be concerned. (Not prohibitive, mind. Just concerned.) It wouldn't be the first time something with this calibre of information in it was misused, in a way unintended by its creation. I'm thinking here of something like, say, the chilling effect on creative writing that could occur if people tried - SCO or RIAA like - fishing for 'plagarism' infringements of their work via Google Print. Sure, I think that's covered in the US by the RICO racketeering laws, or similar. But imagine the effect in the meantime, before the courts decide that. So I'm just saying concern is not all bad.
Go change though, you understand.
Re:Google, Books and the internet..
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
This is a good idea. The only problem is that it highlights the key dilemma in this field: what if you can't find the author, or copyright holder, or the managers of their estates? But it's quite possible they'd probably let you scan it, if you could find them. And assuming that you could track everyone down, how much will it cost in time and money?
One the one hand, it would be so hard as to effectively halt the progress of something like Google print. So you need a blanket law, to be opted out of.
On the other hand, that's not fair on the individual authors and copyright holders who don't want to be included.
A simpler solution might be to make the index itself public domain, and government run. Run by a body like the Library of Congress, and licensed out to 3rd parties, using proper 'privacy'-like disclosure rules for the data.
Re:To the rag that is the Wash. Times: Let them sc
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
Re: 1
The Washington Times is a tabloid paper, sure. But this is the exactly same sort of manner that people use to dismiss the information from Wikipedia out of hand. Call the authors stupid. Not the publication. Even if it's Fox News.
Re:Indexing or Caching?
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Not originally. At first, things like the New York Times were cached and able to be searched; that is, the articles they were trying to make people pay for. The NYT asked Google to take those pages down.
And for books, Google Print scans books for which the copyright has already expired.
No. That's the Yahoo and Microsoft versions. Google will scan copyrighted books without explicit permission. See this article, by way of example.
"The Google project... includes both public domain works and printed materials under copyright, although it would handle and display these two differently. ...
The OCA [Open Content Alliance] will seek to digitize all public domain works, but only copyright material for which they gain explicit consent from the publisher. Made up of Google competitors Yahoo! and the Microsoft Network (MSN)"
"The creators and owners of these copyrighted works will not be compensated, nor has Google defined what a "snippet" is: a paragraph? A page? A chapter? A whole book?
This is the better point of the article: who said that Google gets to decide what's fair use? It can't just be Google's say so, court decisions aside. Nor just the balance of opinion on the web.
I admire Google's robust approach to copyright - that it's better to try things first, find out if you're right second. It's a very cool company. But it's not elected and it is straying into the area of other people's copyrights... be it for good reason, or otherwise.
.. on this, we can both agree: These lawsuits are needed to halt theft of intellectual property. To see it any other way is intellectually dishonest.
This is the more unsettling point in the article. In the same vein: why do Schroeder and Barr get to decide what is fair use? To point out the problem, reasonably, is something the article does very well until right near the end. These last few paragraphs stray unsettlingly into RIAA languge, be it intentionally or otherwise.
Oh registration, certainly. The problem is more that you can't be sure which person has written which part of an article.
There are solutions to this: look at the posting history; with few enough contributors, you could highlight each contributor's contributions.
The problem with the former is that the amount of work you have to do to read the news is disproportionate to the casual fashion in which people like to read newspapers, etc; and quite possibly to the value of the news in question. The second solution is problematic when it comes to more aesthetic questions of style.
Wikis can also easily suffer from the non-paid blog problem of people (or, say, the better contributors) not posting when other aspects of their life - usually time or money - prevent it.
The problem of multiple contributors isn't a problem unique to Wikis. Many newspapers will also have articles written by Josie Bloggs, Fred Nurk and APP, for example. Which bits were written by Josie, which by Fred, which by AAP? And which bits were silent, but substantial, rewrites added by their editor, Peter Throbbing?
Look at the number of independent films there aren't online, as well. Despite the technology, in the U.S. - and in all the other countries who read Slashdot - the field is still taking off.
It was for tech reasons. They only had so many copies of the movies on film. (And only so many copies of the real people in the films, once they started sending them internationally for premieres.) Which are expensive.
Fixing this issue is one of the good things about digital projectors.
"no other medium that I know actually allows a researcher to review the entire history that lead to the current revision of knowledge (or lack thereof) on a particular topic."
"Let me put it another way. Suppose you have free open municiple wifi and Fred Bloggs open wifi, you computer has no way of telling which is the free Municiple open wifi and which is not so it connects to Fred Blogs's net, attempts to login and is given permission -> crime comitted. You had the intent to connect to an open network, but not the method to determine which network is permitted."
Well, this is what SSIDs are for. The name should tell you if it's a known company or called 'FREEANDUSEME'.
At the very least, you can try to load up your first webpage: if it doesn't automatically redirect to some kind of login page, you can be pretty sure it's not an unknown commercial service, either.
And because of that, people wouldn't even start to tell each other how things worked. Brunelleschi, architect of the fantastically innovative Cathedral dome in Firenze (aka Florence, Italy), refused to explain his design to the people actually paying for it - on the basis that other architects would steal the method:
<i>To solve these problems, the Guild of Wool Merchants here in Florence decided to hold a competition in 1418 to design a new dome (cupola) for the cathedral. There were only two architects who dared step forward, Lorenzo Ghiberti and Filippo Brunelleschi (1377-1446). They were both assigned the task. However, the committee wanted Brunelleschi to explain to them how he was going to accomplish the task. Brunelleschi asked the members of the committee to demonstrate to him how they would stand an egg on the table. No one could. With that, Brunelleschi banged an egg on the table breaking its shell at the end and proceeded to stand this egg on the table. When the members of the committee protested that any one of them could have done that, Brunelleschi explained that this was exactly his point. If he told the committee how he planned to complete the task of the dome, all would claim that they could have done it. After several month of arguing, the committee allowed him to proceed and work began on the dome in the summer of 1420.</i>
Nowadays, protected by patents, he might have explained it first.
Prosecuting file-sharers may be bad, but that doesn't mean intellectual property is bad. Sometimes intellectual property can lead to a more free sharing of ideas, precisely <b>because</b> people feel protected by it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not critically speaking. The opinions belong to the authors. That's the other sort of reason we're having this discussion.
These lawsuits are theft of intellectual works that belongs to all mankind, and they belong to all mankind for the simple fact of being intellectual works.
Access to these works may belong to all humankind. The works belong to their authors. They made them. Death of the Author can bite my shiny metal ass.
I think you're right. (Especially the point about how much damned effort would have to go in to downloading a book this way: it would be easier to do an hour or two's hard labour and spend your wages on the book in question. Especially if it's Lord of the Rings size.)
But I think people are also right to be concerned. (Not prohibitive, mind. Just concerned.) It wouldn't be the first time something with this calibre of information in it was misused, in a way unintended by its creation. I'm thinking here of something like, say, the chilling effect on creative writing that could occur if people tried - SCO or RIAA like - fishing for 'plagarism' infringements of their work via Google Print. Sure, I think that's covered in the US by the RICO racketeering laws, or similar. But imagine the effect in the meantime, before the courts decide that. So I'm just saying concern is not all bad.
Go change though, you understand.
This is a good idea. The only problem is that it highlights the key dilemma in this field: what if you can't find the author, or copyright holder, or the managers of their estates? But it's quite possible they'd probably let you scan it, if you could find them. And assuming that you could track everyone down, how much will it cost in time and money?
One the one hand, it would be so hard as to effectively halt the progress of something like Google print. So you need a blanket law, to be opted out of.
On the other hand, that's not fair on the individual authors and copyright holders who don't want to be included.
A simpler solution might be to make the index itself public domain, and government run. Run by a body like the Library of Congress, and licensed out to 3rd parties, using proper 'privacy'-like disclosure rules for the data.
Re: 1
The Washington Times is a tabloid paper, sure. But this is the exactly same sort of manner that people use to dismiss the information from Wikipedia out of hand. Call the authors stupid. Not the publication. Even if it's Fox News.
Not originally. At first, things like the New York Times were cached and able to be searched; that is, the articles they were trying to make people pay for. The NYT asked Google to take those pages down.
... includes both public domain works and printed materials under copyright, although it would handle and display these two differently.
...
And for books, Google Print scans books for which the copyright has already expired.
No. That's the Yahoo and Microsoft versions. Google will scan copyrighted books without explicit permission. See this article, by way of example.
"The Google project
The OCA [Open Content Alliance] will seek to digitize all public domain works, but only copyright material for which they gain explicit consent from the publisher. Made up of Google competitors Yahoo! and the Microsoft Network (MSN)"
"The creators and owners of these copyrighted works will not be compensated, nor has Google defined what a "snippet" is: a paragraph? A page? A chapter? A whole book?
.. on this, we can both agree: These lawsuits are needed to halt theft of intellectual property. To see it any other way is intellectually dishonest.
This is the better point of the article: who said that Google gets to decide what's fair use? It can't just be Google's say so, court decisions aside. Nor just the balance of opinion on the web.
I admire Google's robust approach to copyright - that it's better to try things first, find out if you're right second. It's a very cool company. But it's not elected and it is straying into the area of other people's copyrights... be it for good reason, or otherwise.
This is the more unsettling point in the article. In the same vein: why do Schroeder and Barr get to decide what is fair use? To point out the problem, reasonably, is something the article does very well until right near the end. These last few paragraphs stray unsettlingly into RIAA languge, be it intentionally or otherwise.
Oh registration, certainly. The problem is more that you can't be sure which person has written which part of an article.
There are solutions to this: look at the posting history; with few enough contributors, you could highlight each contributor's contributions.
The problem with the former is that the amount of work you have to do to read the news is disproportionate to the casual fashion in which people like to read newspapers, etc; and quite possibly to the value of the news in question. The second solution is problematic when it comes to more aesthetic questions of style.
Wikis can also easily suffer from the non-paid blog problem of people (or, say, the better contributors) not posting when other aspects of their life - usually time or money - prevent it.
The problem of multiple contributors isn't a problem unique to Wikis. Many newspapers will also have articles written by Josie Bloggs, Fred Nurk and APP, for example. Which bits were written by Josie, which by Fred, which by AAP? And which bits were silent, but substantial, rewrites added by their editor, Peter Throbbing?
Most bloggers aren't paid. So they won't blog when they can't afford it, making news irregular. And Wikis lack attribution.
They're not subsitutes for a local paper.
Look at the number of independent films there aren't online, as well. Despite the technology, in the U.S. - and in all the other countries who read Slashdot - the field is still taking off.
It was for tech reasons. They only had so many copies of the movies on film. (And only so many copies of the real people in the films, once they started sending them internationally for premieres.) Which are expensive.
Fixing this issue is one of the good things about digital projectors.
"no other medium that I know actually allows a researcher to review the entire history that lead to the current revision of knowledge (or lack thereof) on a particular topic."
You can do it with paper. It's called drafting.
Which gels with the Standard article, which says an ABC technician was consulted.
Did you know that nuclear fusion is only 20 years away? Just like it was in 1950!
Yeah, but we have linux working already. It's a bit easier to make educated guesses about mainstreaming.
No offense to Aussies, but it's not exactly a "major" nation, is it?
This is what we've been trying to tell the world for years. Nobody listens.
"Let me put it another way. Suppose you have free open municiple wifi and Fred Bloggs open wifi, you computer has no way of telling which is the free Municiple open wifi and which is not so it connects to Fred Blogs's net, attempts to login and is given permission -> crime comitted. You had the intent to connect to an open network, but not the method to determine which network is permitted."
Well, this is what SSIDs are for. The name should tell you if it's a known company or called 'FREEANDUSEME'.
At the very least, you can try to load up your first webpage: if it doesn't automatically redirect to some kind of login page, you can be pretty sure it's not an unknown commercial service, either.
The trains have issues. But the buses get me to Uni and back every week just fine. I just wish they had more leg room.
I don't think the 13.1 in this story is 13.1. I think it reflects the theatres' 13.1 speaker implementation of 5.1 channel sound.
...1...2...3...
....4.....5....
SPEAKERS:
3 across the front
4 down each side
2 at the back
CHANNELS:
#s 1-5 played back over speakers like this:
4.............5
4.............5
4.............5
4.............5
I thought Andrea Dworkin was sexy.
You mean PCM .wav
AC3, as decoded by a consumer receiver, is a lossy codec.
Thanks.
I had to suddenly run away from the PC just as I was posting and didn't have time to preview it. Sorry all.
And because of that, people wouldn't even start to tell each other how things worked.
R enaissance/SantaMaria/Architecture.html">http://ww w.twingroves.district96.k12.il.us/Renaissance/Sant aMaria/Architecture.html</a>
Brunelleschi, architect of the fantastically innovative Cathedral dome in Firenze (aka Florence, Italy), refused to explain his design to the people actually paying for it - on the basis that other architects would steal the method:
<i>To solve these problems, the Guild of Wool Merchants here in Florence decided to hold a competition in 1418 to design a new dome (cupola) for the cathedral. There were only two architects who dared step forward, Lorenzo Ghiberti and Filippo Brunelleschi (1377-1446). They were both assigned the task. However, the committee wanted Brunelleschi to explain to them how he was going to accomplish the task. Brunelleschi asked the members of the committee to demonstrate to him how they would stand an egg on the table. No one could. With that, Brunelleschi banged an egg on the table breaking its shell at the end and proceeded to stand this egg on the table. When the members of the committee protested that any one of them could have done that, Brunelleschi explained that this was exactly his point. If he told the committee how he planned to complete the task of the dome, all would claim that they could have done it. After several month of arguing, the committee allowed him to proceed and work began on the dome in the summer of 1420.</i>
<a href="http://www.twingroves.district96.k12.il.us/
Nowadays, protected by patents, he might have explained it first.
Prosecuting file-sharers may be bad, but that doesn't mean intellectual property is bad. Sometimes intellectual property can lead to a more free sharing of ideas, precisely <b>because</b> people feel protected by it.
Well, it is the same URL you get in public at this page:m p3surro und/downloadpage.html
http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/amm/download/
But I don't see any reason that you couldn't have got it in a Fraunhoffer newsletter as well.
It's a genuine link to the program.
I could go on but the female mods are allready going to burn me on this one
And you'd deserve it.
"At least they didn't get to shaft the Australian pharmaceutical scheme"
As I understand it, this is yet to be seen. They have an independent monitoring scheme to be added to it, which some fear will have the same effect.