Uhh, yeah. You're ignoring the fact that this suit is a COUNTER-suit. They're suing Buffalo to prevent the patent being rule invalid. Sounds like CSIRO were happy to continue as things were until the manufacturers decided to apply for an invalidation of the patent.
WTF? Why should books be any different? Because they are FUNDAMENTALLY different. They are a hard copy. Not digital. Besides that, a book is considerably higher res than any web-page you've looked at in your life. For example: On one hand, screen-res (what you use to browse the web) is generally accepted as 72dpi (that's dots per inch and can be considered independantly of actual pixel width and height). On the other hand the books we publish, however are published at 300dpi. A copy of the books we produce (especially at the 600dpi Google is using to scan them) contains much more pixel information and therefore is much more valuable than the low-res lossy versions of the images we put on the web.
Nomad, thanks for making that clearer. I'm sorry if it seems like I was talking out of my arse regarding the law, but I have obviously misunderstood what our copyright lawyers have told us. Thank you for making the distinctions between trademark/patent/copyright law.
I agree with you 100% that Australian copyright law is "broke" (and that's before the Free Trade act and those goddamn DMCA style provisions). I am also of the opinion that this lawsuit in the US needs to be duplicated out here so that the law MAY be challenged.
As an IT guy in the company I work for, I have to deal with the possessiveness (holy crap that's a lot of "s"es) of the directors here. We have been hit numerous times by offshore companies using our images (I work for a photographer who has his own publishing company) to make their own calendars and posters. There is an atmosphere of paranoia here, and the fact Google are "making a copy" of our books has set off some alarms. Now I personally LOVE the whole Print project. I think the model will work. I think we should opt-in. However I also understand the perspective that "they can't do that! They're not allowed to copy a whole book!" The attitude is "If Google do this and we allow them even though is it illegal, will this be seen as encouraging copyright violation? What happens the next time someone wants to copy our works?" I think there needs to be a legal decision made. Fix the law if it needs fixing. Otherwise, tell us it is within the law and we can happily join, knowing that Google are within their rights and we can be a party to this project.
Consider this: We put low-res images on the web because it's so damn easy to rip them off and use them. It's also nigh-on impossible to find out if someone has used your images without permission. With books, on the other hand, the images are MUCH higher quality (posterised, but still higher quality). We take a calculated risk with the web, but that same risk has NEVER been part of the equation for printing books. After all, books are (one of) our products. If they aren't high quality, people won't buy them.
The concern with Google Print is one of control (as has been previously stated in this discussion). If they have copies of our books (taken at 600dpi!), then it is a risk. There is a high res copy of our whole catalog residing at a location outside our jurisdiction. Can you understand why this might be a little frightening to publishers? That catalog is an asset. Someone else has control of one of OUR assets. This means there must be a HUGE amount of trust between us and Google. That is a big ask.
Remember, I am in favour of the project. I want to sign up and send our whole catalog off so we can be listed much sooner rather than later. However, I am a geek, and although the directors are somewhat tech-savvy, for them this is a VERY large leap into murky waters of unknown depth. This lawsuit will (hopefully) clear the waters somewhat. Now we just need one in Australia, or we need the laws to change.
True, however, for google (or any other spider) to find you without submitting your site, that site must have an external link from an indexed site. I have numerous sites that are NOT indexed, have never received a single hit from any spider or bot, and they don't have a robots.txt file. How? Absolutely no external links, and never submitted to any search engine.
Regardless, this is a peripheral issue (as usual,/. seems prone to tangents) that we could easily argue over for a few days. I'm happy to consider web searches as opt-out, and you can safely ignore my original point about the web-search parallel. Unless you want to discuss the difference between print publishing and web-publishing, and associated assumptions about indexing and cataloging.
Back on topic - I'm still of the opinion that this lawsuit is "a good thing" as it will (hopefully) bring some certainty to the whole situation.
You're right. A quick look at copyright.org.au and the Copyright Act does not seem to indicate active defense as a requirement of ongoing protection. We may need to question our copyright lawyers on this matter again.
Regardless, the point I'm trying to make here is that this lawsuit is not necessarily a "bad-thing". It will clear the way for Google to go ahead in the US, or it will force Google to make it an opt-in process. I don't think making it opt-in will reduce the effectiveness in the long term (and let's face it, this is a long term project). Publishers will opt-in now, or see the benefits to other publishers and opt-in later. Even as the system stands now, there are great benefits to submitting your catalogue for the full treatment.
The other point I'm trying to make is that Google could make the whole lawsuit go away if they pre-empted it by going completely opt-in. Sinse they are already using a process that is half opt-in, this would not be a massive leap for them.
That is interesting. Whether it is true or not, Schmidt claims most major US and UK publishers have signed up. I'm not sure where or how that fits your statement. Which is based on opinion. And apparently bias. The way you have portrayed it may well be the attitude of the publishing houses. Then again, if Schmidt is not talking out of his hat, it is obviously NOT the attitude of the major publishing houses.
Are you serious? You don't know how to submit a site to google? Try this. If you do not have links to your website from pages that are actively indexed, how will google (or any other search engine) find you? Of course as soon as an indexed site links to you, you can be indexed. It will take a while, however. Either way, you must actively submit your site, or actively seek a link. Opt-IN.
Note: I said webSITE, not webPAGE. Unless I am linked to other websites which are actively indexed, I need to submit my website in order to have it indexed. From THAT point I can use robots.txt to exclude certain pages. The original act however is clearly opt-IN.
Of course it's debatable. It MUST be debated. That's why this lawsuit from the publishers is exactly what is needed - it will be debated by people who's conclusion is actually worth an iota (as opposed to my opinion). If Google is cleared, fantastic, let's go. If not, they will probably have to make it opt-in to proceed, and away we go again.
This is simply not true. Here, we can clearly see the benefits of the project and plan on being involved - once the legal status has been determined. (Although whether we would be classified by you as a "respectable publisher is another matter.) In the article, Schmidt states "most major U.S. and U.K. publishers have signed up".
So when a huge Internet site publishes pieces of their books and pays nothing in return, the publishers are running scared.
Again, this is an assumption, and this one is actually stating incorrect facts. Schmidt puts it nicely: "We also don't place ads on Google Print pages for books from our Library Project, and we do so for books in our Publishing Program only with the permission of publishers, who receive the majority of the resulting revenue." (Emphasis added by me). Here, we antipate a nice (although small) revenue stream, from both the ads and from additional sales, since our "Buy this book" link would be at the top of the list.
You are absolutely right. Here's the CRITICAL point in this whole argument:
All Google has to do to make everybody happy is to make this an opt-in program.
I work for an independant Australian publisher (which is owned by the people actually writing the books). As a geek, I am completely in favour of the Google Print program's objectives. I mean, it's really an amazing idea, and I'm all for it. However, I cannot understand Google's attitude here. Google have suddenly become really arrogant. This isn't the Google we have come to know and love!
There are a couple of problems with as I see it:
1. This is an opt-OUT program. Fundamentally, this is flawed. I mean even webpage search engines are opt-in. Your website doesn't get indexed unless you submit it, yet Google are using the webpage parallel as an example of why they should be allowed to proceed with the Print program.
2. Since they are not gaining permission from the publisher (or copyright holder), and it is debatable whether the program falls under the Australian Copyright Act provisions for permissable reproduction, storage and retrieval, the whole Australian section of the project is under a legal cloud.
3. The real reason that publishers have to pursue this, even if it is ascertained that the program IS legal, is that copyright can be reneged if you are not seen to be defending your rights. It sets a precedent. In other words, if someone else came along wanting to copy your works, but you had not challenged Google, the courts COULD say (if it was argued) "You knew what Google was doing, you allowed it, therefore you are not really concerned about your copyright on these works. Thus, anyone else who wants to copy these works should be allowed." (Of course, that is a very simplistic version of an interpretation of the law.)
Thus, although the publishers might be in favour of the goals of the program (as we are here) it must still be challenged, even if it is only to determine that what Google is doing DOES fall within the provisions of the Copyright Act. This then shows that the publishers are defending their rights, and means that it is no easier for people to abuse their works.
Google, if you're reading this, how about just making it opt-in? That'll solve all the issues, and we can all still benefit from this amazingly ambitious project.
With a non-specific statement like the one you are using as an example, saying "I'm not going to eat anything" would retain the correct meaning. If you were to say that to a Spanish listener, I'm faily certain they would understand.
That's what they say, but in reality, these guys have been doing this _commercially_ for at least 4 years (I believe it was used to do the large images on the crowd and the rotating globe during the opening ceremony of the 2000 Sydney Olympics).
[The representative] said the stolen servers did not contain sensitive information.
"They did not contain any personal, business-related or security information, and they are not servers that are used to communicate with law enforcement or security agencies," [she] said.
I have a Nokia 6310 and use the Sony Ericsson HBH-30 headset. I have used this combination for about 6 months.
I have found the combination to work brilliantly. Once the devices are paired, to reconnect and disconnect is quicker and easier than it was with a "wired" handsfree headset. The ability to answer calls and hang them up from the headset is great, and the lower EMR output (compared to the phone) puts my mind at ease (whether or not I'm deluding myself;).
I have never had a dropout, and once I established the useable range from earpiece to phone, I had no problems with quality. In actual fact I have found the earpiece has better voice quality than the phone.
I got mine for less than $AU200, which, considering I had gone through 6 high quality corded earpieces in the previous 12 months (adding up to $AU240), makes the bluetooth earpiece quite affordable in comparison.
It's personally one of the best investments I have made for my mobile phone.
Yes, the Wright brothers managed to apply proven physical laws through engineering. However, in the 1600's, those laws of physics (specifically Bernoulli's principle) were not theorised, let alone proven. Peope did, however, dream of flying like the birds.
The same applies to space flight now. We can dream it, but we can't figure out how to do it. Some day, a bunch of different people will come up with a bunch of theories on "super-luminal" travel, then set out to prove their theories. One of them will be proven.
Soon after that, someone will apply that "proven" law of physics (as the Wright brothers did), and a short time later interstallar travel will be like catching a plane is now - nothing out of the ordinary.
Unfortunately, it's not likely to be in our lifetime. (Oh, that it were!!)
This lack of macro support was my major gripe with my SC. I bought it for Mech Mercs a couple of years ago and never really got into it. It has sat in a drawer in my desk for about 18 months.
I know what you mean... at my workplace, we implemented Telstra's ADSL the first week it was available at our exchange... for about 14 months, there was no alternative either. But now we're with iiNet. Same speed, but cheaper and 6 times the download allowance.
One other major reason we swapped was the spam the account's email address was receiving. Interesting to note, that since we have our own domain, this email address was NEVER, and I mean NEVER, submitted to a mailing list, a newsgroup or anywhere it may be gathered by spammers. The account name was also random enough that a dictionary attack shouldn't have worked.
The address was never used to send mail, or reply to spam, but by the end of our 18 month contract, we were recieving about 6-10 spam emails per day. I realise this is not a lot for an active email address, but this wasn't used at all. The only reason I even looked at the mail box was to get Telstra mailouts regarding outages, updates etc.
Not selling customer details eh?
----
All extremists should be taken out and shot.
I think it was several companies that bought Sen. Alston. Telstra, Newscorp (Murdoch) and Australian Consolidated Press (Packer) are the main parties to have benefited from Alston's position of Minister for Communications, Information Technology & the Arts.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhh, yeah. You're ignoring the fact that this suit is a COUNTER-suit. They're suing Buffalo to prevent the patent being rule invalid. Sounds like CSIRO were happy to continue as things were until the manufacturers decided to apply for an invalidation of the patent.
WTF? Why should books be any different? Because they are FUNDAMENTALLY different. They are a hard copy. Not digital. Besides that, a book is considerably higher res than any web-page you've looked at in your life. For example: On one hand, screen-res (what you use to browse the web) is generally accepted as 72dpi (that's dots per inch and can be considered independantly of actual pixel width and height). On the other hand the books we publish, however are published at 300dpi. A copy of the books we produce (especially at the 600dpi Google is using to scan them) contains much more pixel information and therefore is much more valuable than the low-res lossy versions of the images we put on the web.
Nomad, thanks for making that clearer. I'm sorry if it seems like I was talking out of my arse regarding the law, but I have obviously misunderstood what our copyright lawyers have told us. Thank you for making the distinctions between trademark/patent/copyright law.
I agree with you 100% that Australian copyright law is "broke" (and that's before the Free Trade act and those goddamn DMCA style provisions). I am also of the opinion that this lawsuit in the US needs to be duplicated out here so that the law MAY be challenged.
As an IT guy in the company I work for, I have to deal with the possessiveness (holy crap that's a lot of "s"es) of the directors here. We have been hit numerous times by offshore companies using our images (I work for a photographer who has his own publishing company) to make their own calendars and posters. There is an atmosphere of paranoia here, and the fact Google are "making a copy" of our books has set off some alarms. Now I personally LOVE the whole Print project. I think the model will work. I think we should opt-in. However I also understand the perspective that "they can't do that! They're not allowed to copy a whole book!" The attitude is "If Google do this and we allow them even though is it illegal, will this be seen as encouraging copyright violation? What happens the next time someone wants to copy our works?" I think there needs to be a legal decision made. Fix the law if it needs fixing. Otherwise, tell us it is within the law and we can happily join, knowing that Google are within their rights and we can be a party to this project.
Consider this: We put low-res images on the web because it's so damn easy to rip them off and use them. It's also nigh-on impossible to find out if someone has used your images without permission. With books, on the other hand, the images are MUCH higher quality (posterised, but still higher quality). We take a calculated risk with the web, but that same risk has NEVER been part of the equation for printing books. After all, books are (one of) our products. If they aren't high quality, people won't buy them.
The concern with Google Print is one of control (as has been previously stated in this discussion). If they have copies of our books (taken at 600dpi!), then it is a risk. There is a high res copy of our whole catalog residing at a location outside our jurisdiction. Can you understand why this might be a little frightening to publishers? That catalog is an asset. Someone else has control of one of OUR assets. This means there must be a HUGE amount of trust between us and Google. That is a big ask.
Remember, I am in favour of the project. I want to sign up and send our whole catalog off so we can be listed much sooner rather than later. However, I am a geek, and although the directors are somewhat tech-savvy, for them this is a VERY large leap into murky waters of unknown depth. This lawsuit will (hopefully) clear the waters somewhat. Now we just need one in Australia, or we need the laws to change.
True, however, for google (or any other spider) to find you without submitting your site, that site must have an external link from an indexed site. I have numerous sites that are NOT indexed, have never received a single hit from any spider or bot, and they don't have a robots.txt file. How? Absolutely no external links, and never submitted to any search engine.
/. seems prone to tangents) that we could easily argue over for a few days. I'm happy to consider web searches as opt-out, and you can safely ignore my original point about the web-search parallel. Unless you want to discuss the difference between print publishing and web-publishing, and associated assumptions about indexing and cataloging.
Regardless, this is a peripheral issue (as usual,
Back on topic - I'm still of the opinion that this lawsuit is "a good thing" as it will (hopefully) bring some certainty to the whole situation.
You're right. A quick look at copyright.org.au and the Copyright Act does not seem to indicate active defense as a requirement of ongoing protection. We may need to question our copyright lawyers on this matter again.
Regardless, the point I'm trying to make here is that this lawsuit is not necessarily a "bad-thing". It will clear the way for Google to go ahead in the US, or it will force Google to make it an opt-in process. I don't think making it opt-in will reduce the effectiveness in the long term (and let's face it, this is a long term project). Publishers will opt-in now, or see the benefits to other publishers and opt-in later. Even as the system stands now, there are great benefits to submitting your catalogue for the full treatment.
The other point I'm trying to make is that Google could make the whole lawsuit go away if they pre-empted it by going completely opt-in. Sinse they are already using a process that is half opt-in, this would not be a massive leap for them.
That is interesting. Whether it is true or not, Schmidt claims most major US and UK publishers have signed up. I'm not sure where or how that fits your statement. Which is based on opinion. And apparently bias. The way you have portrayed it may well be the attitude of the publishing houses. Then again, if Schmidt is not talking out of his hat, it is obviously NOT the attitude of the major publishing houses.
Are you serious? You don't know how to submit a site to google? Try this. If you do not have links to your website from pages that are actively indexed, how will google (or any other search engine) find you? Of course as soon as an indexed site links to you, you can be indexed. It will take a while, however. Either way, you must actively submit your site, or actively seek a link. Opt-IN.
Note: I said webSITE, not webPAGE. Unless I am linked to other websites which are actively indexed, I need to submit my website in order to have it indexed. From THAT point I can use robots.txt to exclude certain pages. The original act however is clearly opt-IN. Of course it's debatable. It MUST be debated. That's why this lawsuit from the publishers is exactly what is needed - it will be debated by people who's conclusion is actually worth an iota (as opposed to my opinion). If Google is cleared, fantastic, let's go. If not, they will probably have to make it opt-in to proceed, and away we go again.
In Australia, yes it is an issue. Of course, you're right. I am not a lawyer. However, this is a point that has been raised by our copyright lawyers.
No respectable publisher would then opt in.
This is simply not true. Here, we can clearly see the benefits of the project and plan on being involved - once the legal status has been determined. (Although whether we would be classified by you as a "respectable publisher is another matter.) In the article, Schmidt states "most major U.S. and U.K. publishers have signed up".
So when a huge Internet site publishes pieces of their books and pays nothing in return, the publishers are running scared.
Again, this is an assumption, and this one is actually stating incorrect facts. Schmidt puts it nicely: "We also don't place ads on Google Print pages for books from our Library Project, and we do so for books in our Publishing Program only with the permission of publishers, who receive the majority of the resulting revenue. " (Emphasis added by me). Here, we antipate a nice (although small) revenue stream, from both the ads and from additional sales, since our "Buy this book" link would be at the top of the list.
You are absolutely right. Here's the CRITICAL point in this whole argument:
All Google has to do to make everybody happy is to make this an opt-in program.
I work for an independant Australian publisher (which is owned by the people actually writing the books). As a geek, I am completely in favour of the Google Print program's objectives. I mean, it's really an amazing idea, and I'm all for it. However, I cannot understand Google's attitude here. Google have suddenly become really arrogant. This isn't the Google we have come to know and love!
There are a couple of problems with as I see it:
1. This is an opt-OUT program. Fundamentally, this is flawed. I mean even webpage search engines are opt-in. Your website doesn't get indexed unless you submit it, yet Google are using the webpage parallel as an example of why they should be allowed to proceed with the Print program.
2. Since they are not gaining permission from the publisher (or copyright holder), and it is debatable whether the program falls under the Australian Copyright Act provisions for permissable reproduction, storage and retrieval, the whole Australian section of the project is under a legal cloud.
3. The real reason that publishers have to pursue this, even if it is ascertained that the program IS legal, is that copyright can be reneged if you are not seen to be defending your rights. It sets a precedent. In other words, if someone else came along wanting to copy your works, but you had not challenged Google, the courts COULD say (if it was argued) "You knew what Google was doing, you allowed it, therefore you are not really concerned about your copyright on these works. Thus, anyone else who wants to copy these works should be allowed." (Of course, that is a very simplistic version of an interpretation of the law.)
Thus, although the publishers might be in favour of the goals of the program (as we are here) it must still be challenged, even if it is only to determine that what Google is doing DOES fall within the provisions of the Copyright Act. This then shows that the publishers are defending their rights, and means that it is no easier for people to abuse their works.
Google, if you're reading this, how about just making it opt-in? That'll solve all the issues, and we can all still benefit from this amazingly ambitious project.
Hmmmm, this disease must be contagious. I can't see a link either.
With a non-specific statement like the one you are using as an example, saying "I'm not going to eat anything" would retain the correct meaning. If you were to say that to a Spanish listener, I'm faily certain they would understand.
or even better: Laser Skirmish!
That's what they say, but in reality, these guys have been doing this _commercially_ for at least 4 years (I believe it was used to do the large images on the crowd and the rotating globe during the opening ceremony of the 2000 Sydney Olympics).
The product to look at is called "Watchout".
You did leave Hitler and "Tojo" alone... until Tojo bloodied your nose at pearl harbor.
Perhaps they weren't "main fileservers". Taken from the Sydney Morning Herald:
[The representative] said the stolen servers did not contain sensitive information.
"They did not contain any personal, business-related or security information, and they are not servers that are used to communicate with law enforcement or security agencies," [she] said.
Sheep shagging? SHEEP? We've progressed to kangaroos, thanks very much. It's our bloody kiwi neighbours that still shag sheep.
Dunno if this is a troll but...
Australia sent SAS troops to Afghanistan and Iraq.
We were targeted by Jamaar Islamir in the Bali Bombing.
Yeah, it's probable Australia is a potential target for terrorists...
I have a Nokia 6310 and use the Sony Ericsson HBH-30 headset. I have used this combination for about 6 months.
;).
I have found the combination to work brilliantly. Once the devices are paired, to reconnect and disconnect is quicker and easier than it was with a "wired" handsfree headset. The ability to answer calls and hang them up from the headset is great, and the lower EMR output (compared to the phone) puts my mind at ease (whether or not I'm deluding myself
I have never had a dropout, and once I established the useable range from earpiece to phone, I had no problems with quality. In actual fact I have found the earpiece has better voice quality than the phone.
I got mine for less than $AU200, which, considering I had gone through 6 high quality corded earpieces in the previous 12 months (adding up to $AU240), makes the bluetooth earpiece quite affordable in comparison.
It's personally one of the best investments I have made for my mobile phone.
Yes, the Wright brothers managed to apply proven physical laws through engineering. However, in the 1600's, those laws of physics (specifically Bernoulli's principle) were not theorised, let alone proven. Peope did, however, dream of flying like the birds.
The same applies to space flight now. We can dream it, but we can't figure out how to do it. Some day, a bunch of different people will come up with a bunch of theories on "super-luminal" travel, then set out to prove their theories. One of them will be proven.
Soon after that, someone will apply that "proven" law of physics (as the Wright brothers did), and a short time later interstallar travel will be like catching a plane is now - nothing out of the ordinary.
Unfortunately, it's not likely to be in our lifetime. (Oh, that it were!!)
This lack of macro support was my major gripe with my SC. I bought it for Mech Mercs a couple of years ago and never really got into it. It has sat in a drawer in my desk for about 18 months.
Maybe it's time to bring it out again...
I know what you mean... at my workplace, we implemented Telstra's ADSL the first week it was available at our exchange... for about 14 months, there was no alternative either. But now we're with iiNet. Same speed, but cheaper and 6 times the download allowance. One other major reason we swapped was the spam the account's email address was receiving. Interesting to note, that since we have our own domain, this email address was NEVER, and I mean NEVER, submitted to a mailing list, a newsgroup or anywhere it may be gathered by spammers. The account name was also random enough that a dictionary attack shouldn't have worked. The address was never used to send mail, or reply to spam, but by the end of our 18 month contract, we were recieving about 6-10 spam emails per day. I realise this is not a lot for an active email address, but this wasn't used at all. The only reason I even looked at the mail box was to get Telstra mailouts regarding outages, updates etc. Not selling customer details eh? ---- All extremists should be taken out and shot.
Oops, sorry... Packer's parent company is Publishing & Broadcasting Ltd
I think it was several companies that bought Sen. Alston. Telstra, Newscorp (Murdoch) and Australian Consolidated Press (Packer) are the main parties to have benefited from Alston's position of Minister for Communications, Information Technology & the Arts.