But there are distinctions made among prisoners that determine where you end up. ..
Of course, but that's in terms of security. Not severity of punishment. Though I'm sure the harshness does vary in practice, I'd imagine most of that is who you have to share the prison with. Maximum security murderers or minimum security computer hackers and politicians...
If you have some moral or religious objection, then don't use their services (search with bing; I am sure they would NEVER think of tracking your search history ).
My search engine of choice is Duck Duck Go. Their USP is anonymous search; no tracking. So the argument that others are as bad don't hold any water. Nor does the one that Google have to do it to pay pay for the service.
This in no way obligates Google to make this video available for download. Not for you, not for anybody.
Of course not. They can close down YouTube at any time, as they did with Google Reader recently. But whilst they ARE allowing downloads, and I use Google's API to do that download, Google can't complain I did anything wrong with regard to "scraping their content". Because it wasn't their content. What I do with the packets of video, after they leave Googles servers and enter my machine is none of their business.
Like, if you went to Starbucks and said, "Hey, I like coffee, I'm single, have a full time job, and disposable income. I'll let you tell me how great Starbucks is if you just pay me a dollar!"
Nice marketing effort. But completely disingenuous. If it was a case that Google had a profile form, that you filled in with relatively innocuous information like this, on the understanding that Google will commercialise it to pay for the service, then few people would have a problem with it. You would be conciously giving them information, for a purpose.
But Google doesn't work like that. What Google actually do is record every search term you ever type in, and every email that's send from or to you, and every video that you watch on YouTube. And by spying on this data, that's how they construct a profile of you.
So, if for example you think perhaps you have pancreatic cancer, you'll probably search on terms relating to that. And Google will know, probably before your loved ones, almost certainly before your friends and colleagues. Quite likely before you've even had a definite diagnosis, that you have or at least think you have cancer. And as a result you be advertised medical services, quack medicines and assorted scams, and funeral services.
This is just one of the myriad of creepy scenarios that are a reality for Google users every day.
How about if you have a slightly weird, but legal sexual fetish? Google knows.
Having an affair? Google knows.
Have money troubles? Google knows.
None of this would happen if you sold your chosen personal details to Starbucks.
It may well have been so. Big companies have sales conferences and all sorts of other internal conferences and they do make internal videos. Microsoft certainly do. It may have always been intended for public consumptions, but equally it may have been intended for internal consumption. We just don't know. And prejudice for/against a company isn't a reliable way of guessing accurately.
The Justice department claims that Apple is the ringmaster in an ebook price fixing case. Can you prove them wrong? For my part, I'll trust the justice department
For my part, I won't pre-judge the court-case. But I will challenge some clearly bogus claims by people here such as ebook prices "went up 50% literally overnight",
And other bogus claims such as "yet the only one you respond to (which also does a great job of showing how wrong you are) you dismiss because it makes a "think of the children!" argument." There are very few posts that I don't respond to. The only real exception is ACs, I usually ignore them.
"For the sole purpose" meaning only, as in only to allow my software to talk to that section of that other persons software -- this isn't MS unwinding an API to find a way to make its API work with that API
That's exactly what they are doing.
they're just scraping content.
Well, they are providing users with an app that can download content. That's not necessarily illegal. Suppose I download a movie, I previously uploaded? The rights are mine, not Google's. Likewise if I download something that you uploaded, it's up to you to say if that's OK or not. The rights are yours not Google's. Now Google may be trying to declare ownership of all the videos on YouTube. But if they are, they are overreaching. When a person uploads a video to YouTube they are giving Google limited rights to show that movie to others. They are not giving ownership of that movie to Google.
They also have to have "lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program" and are thus restricted by the terms of that licensed use -- the terms of service
I love the fact that most people here are defending Terms of Service now, when they've spent years saying EULAs on software are not legally enforceable.
This is a case where Google is merely fighting back, not abusing its market position.
Always the excuse from Slashdotters when Google or Samsung do wrong. Never an allowable excuse when Apple or Microsoft do wrong.
I'm not, generally speaking, a Google fanboy. They're in business to make a profit, like any other company. But it just so happens that Google benefits most from an open web and Microsoft benefits most from proprietary software and a closed web. Until that changes, I know which is the lesser of two evils. The second Google has so much dominance on the web that they get more power from being closed than open, they'll be just as evil as Microsoft. But they aren't there yet.
So you're a fanboy of convenience. You are acting as a fanboy for Google at the moment. Even when they do wrong.
The DMCA ramifications presumably being that you are allowed to reverse engineer a protocol (API in this case) in order to provide interoperability between software. (Google's web service and the WP app in this case.)
Likewise, Slashdot always champions DVRs that skip adverts contrary to TV broadcasters wishes. And DVD players that skip "unskippable" DVD content.
If this was an app on the Android platform to avoid advertising, and do downloads of streams from Microsoft, Google, TV channels or the movie industry, Slashdot would be supporting it.
But as it's an app on the WP platform that few here use, and most here like Google and not Microsoft, they argue the issue the opposite way from normal.
Likewise, most here that are arguing that Google is entitled to not have it's TOS broken, also think Jailbreaking iOS devices is OK, and the Pirate Bay are heroes.
It's far from unusual to use a HTTP sniffer to find out what private APIs other mobile apps are using, in order to implement competitor apps. It's day to day reality in the mobile app business.
Hardly much of a hassle. The server side is 100% already done, they just use the same API as their Android and iOS apps. And putting an app together for a mobile device is something an individual can do in a relatively short time, so not much of a challenge for a giant like Google.
What is undoubtably the case here is that Google did an iOS app, because iOS has the power to put a serious dent in YouTube, and help a competitor such as Vimeo.
With Microsoft the boot is on the other foot. Windows Phone isn't big enough to harm YouTube. But Google can arm Windows Phone by refusing access to YouTube.
One problem is that prices went up 50% literally overnight when Apple got all the publishers to agree to force Amazon and other sellers to charge more.
Two problems there. First where's the evidence that eBook prices went up at all, let alone 50%. People have found individual cases of books that went up, and books that went down. 50% is far too round a number to represent anything other than somebody making up statistics on the spot.
For their part, Apple claims average ebook price went down from $7.97 to $7.34. Can you prove them wrong?
Secondly, you repeat the Justice Department's assertion that Apple orchestrated price fixing. It's an allegation not a fact. You don't knwo any better than I whether it's true or not.
Your statement "McDonald's added sugar, fat and salt to dress up poor quality food in a way that kids (and some adults) love. Why wouldn't that work with bugs?"
OK, I'm hitting my head against a brick wall here. Delete.
Amazon gained its market share by competing on price, Apple got forming a cartel with publishers using price-fixing. The bottom line is non-apple customers are being hurt by this, including children.
Thank you so much for ridiculing your own argument. It saves me the bother.
"Under the old model, Amazon controlled about 90 percent of the market, but after the publishers instituted the new pricing scheme, Amazon's share fell to 60 percent."
SO Amazon's near monopoly was broken. Good thing.
Its not amusing at all. Amazon dominate by competing on old fashioned things like price, Not being corrupt.
That's about as rational as saying the same thing about Microsoft and Walmart.
I find it sick that your defending a mega corporation (again)
Kind of how you're defending Amazon, the book monopolist.
Slashdot Mirror
But there are distinctions made among prisoners that determine where you end up. . .
Of course, but that's in terms of security. Not severity of punishment. Though I'm sure the harshness does vary in practice, I'd imagine most of that is who you have to share the prison with. Maximum security murderers or minimum security computer hackers and politicians...
If you have some moral or religious objection, then don't use their services (search with bing; I am sure they would NEVER think of tracking your search history ).
My search engine of choice is Duck Duck Go. Their USP is anonymous search; no tracking. So the argument that others are as bad don't hold any water. Nor does the one that Google have to do it to pay pay for the service.
grant Google non-exclusive rights
Right. As I said.
This in no way obligates Google to make this video available for download. Not for you, not for anybody.
Of course not. They can close down YouTube at any time, as they did with Google Reader recently. But whilst they ARE allowing downloads, and I use Google's API to do that download, Google can't complain I did anything wrong with regard to "scraping their content". Because it wasn't their content. What I do with the packets of video, after they leave Googles servers and enter my machine is none of their business.
This is England. There's no such distinction.
It's a parody. The original uses "you". It wouldn't be much of a parody if it changed the form of the statements.
Like, if you went to Starbucks and said, "Hey, I like coffee, I'm single, have a full time job, and disposable income. I'll let you tell me how great Starbucks is if you just pay me a dollar!"
Nice marketing effort. But completely disingenuous. If it was a case that Google had a profile form, that you filled in with relatively innocuous information like this, on the understanding that Google will commercialise it to pay for the service, then few people would have a problem with it. You would be conciously giving them information, for a purpose.
But Google doesn't work like that. What Google actually do is record every search term you ever type in, and every email that's send from or to you, and every video that you watch on YouTube. And by spying on this data, that's how they construct a profile of you.
So, if for example you think perhaps you have pancreatic cancer, you'll probably search on terms relating to that. And Google will know, probably before your loved ones, almost certainly before your friends and colleagues. Quite likely before you've even had a definite diagnosis, that you have or at least think you have cancer. And as a result you be advertised medical services, quack medicines and assorted scams, and funeral services.
This is just one of the myriad of creepy scenarios that are a reality for Google users every day.
How about if you have a slightly weird, but legal sexual fetish? Google knows.
Having an affair? Google knows.
Have money troubles? Google knows.
None of this would happen if you sold your chosen personal details to Starbucks.
Right. The sensible approach is to trust neither of them.
Slashdot. The site where people make excuses for Google.
It may well have been so. Big companies have sales conferences and all sorts of other internal conferences and they do make internal videos. Microsoft certainly do. It may have always been intended for public consumptions, but equally it may have been intended for internal consumption. We just don't know. And prejudice for/against a company isn't a reliable way of guessing accurately.
This is simply not true. I use Apple's products every day, and I am neither tracked not advertised to by them.
When I used to have a Google account, I was tracked with every action I did, and advertised to with most.
The Justice department claims that Apple is the ringmaster in an ebook price fixing case. Can you prove them wrong?
For my part, I'll trust the justice department
For my part, I won't pre-judge the court-case. But I will challenge some clearly bogus claims by people here such as ebook prices "went up 50% literally overnight",
And other bogus claims such as "yet the only one you respond to (which also does a great job of showing how wrong you are) you dismiss because it makes a "think of the children!" argument." There are very few posts that I don't respond to. The only real exception is ACs, I usually ignore them.
"For the sole purpose" meaning only, as in only to allow my software to talk to that section of that other persons software -- this isn't MS unwinding an API to find a way to make its API work with that API
That's exactly what they are doing.
they're just scraping content.
Well, they are providing users with an app that can download content. That's not necessarily illegal. Suppose I download a movie, I previously uploaded? The rights are mine, not Google's. Likewise if I download something that you uploaded, it's up to you to say if that's OK or not. The rights are yours not Google's. Now Google may be trying to declare ownership of all the videos on YouTube. But if they are, they are overreaching. When a person uploads a video to YouTube they are giving Google limited rights to show that movie to others. They are not giving ownership of that movie to Google.
They also have to have "lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program" and are thus restricted by the terms of that licensed use -- the terms of service
I love the fact that most people here are defending Terms of Service now, when they've spent years saying EULAs on software are not legally enforceable.
Many slashdot users are already saying this is OK, on a variety of bases.
Though not on the basis of the constitution.
This is a case where Google is merely fighting back, not abusing its market position.
Always the excuse from Slashdotters when Google or Samsung do wrong. Never an allowable excuse when Apple or Microsoft do wrong.
I'm not, generally speaking, a Google fanboy. They're in business to make a profit, like any other company. But it just so happens that Google benefits most from an open web and Microsoft benefits most from proprietary software and a closed web. Until that changes, I know which is the lesser of two evils. The second Google has so much dominance on the web that they get more power from being closed than open, they'll be just as evil as Microsoft. But they aren't there yet.
So you're a fanboy of convenience. You are acting as a fanboy for Google at the moment. Even when they do wrong.
The DMCA ramifications presumably being that you are allowed to reverse engineer a protocol (API in this case) in order to provide interoperability between software. (Google's web service and the WP app in this case.)
MS is on the right side of that.
Good point.
Likewise, Slashdot always champions DVRs that skip adverts contrary to TV broadcasters wishes. And DVD players that skip "unskippable" DVD content.
If this was an app on the Android platform to avoid advertising, and do downloads of streams from Microsoft, Google, TV channels or the movie industry, Slashdot would be supporting it.
But as it's an app on the WP platform that few here use, and most here like Google and not Microsoft, they argue the issue the opposite way from normal.
Likewise, most here that are arguing that Google is entitled to not have it's TOS broken, also think Jailbreaking iOS devices is OK, and the Pirate Bay are heroes.
An undocumented API is still an API.
It's far from unusual to use a HTTP sniffer to find out what private APIs other mobile apps are using, in order to implement competitor apps. It's day to day reality in the mobile app business.
Absolutely, back in the 1990s mainly. And they faced legal action and fines as a result of it. And the hatred of Slashdot.
So how come Google is getting a free ride here when they do the same thing?
Hardly much of a hassle. The server side is 100% already done, they just use the same API as their Android and iOS apps. And putting an app together for a mobile device is something an individual can do in a relatively short time, so not much of a challenge for a giant like Google.
What is undoubtably the case here is that Google did an iOS app, because iOS has the power to put a serious dent in YouTube, and help a competitor such as Vimeo.
With Microsoft the boot is on the other foot. Windows Phone isn't big enough to harm YouTube. But Google can arm Windows Phone by refusing access to YouTube.
I predict Microsoft will lose, and lose hard.
They don't have an inherent right to access youtube. It's not in the constitution.
Were the company names reversed, I guarantee that Slashdot users would be using the constitution to say this is OK.
One problem is that prices went up 50% literally overnight when Apple got all the publishers to agree to force Amazon and other sellers to charge more.
Two problems there. First where's the evidence that eBook prices went up at all, let alone 50%. People have found individual cases of books that went up, and books that went down. 50% is far too round a number to represent anything other than somebody making up statistics on the spot.
For their part, Apple claims average ebook price went down from $7.97 to $7.34. Can you prove them wrong?
Secondly, you repeat the Justice Department's assertion that Apple orchestrated price fixing. It's an allegation not a fact. You don't knwo any better than I whether it's true or not.
Your statement "McDonald's added sugar, fat and salt to dress up poor quality food in a way that kids (and some adults) love. Why wouldn't that work with bugs?"
OK, I'm hitting my head against a brick wall here. Delete.
Amazon gained its market share by competing on price, Apple got forming a cartel with publishers using price-fixing.
The bottom line is non-apple customers are being hurt by this, including children.
Thank you so much for ridiculing your own argument. It saves me the bother.
"Under the old model, Amazon controlled about 90 percent of the market, but after the publishers instituted the new pricing scheme, Amazon's share fell to 60 percent."
SO Amazon's near monopoly was broken. Good thing.
Its not amusing at all. Amazon dominate by competing on old fashioned things like price, Not being corrupt.
That's about as rational as saying the same thing about Microsoft and Walmart.
I find it sick that your defending a mega corporation (again)
Kind of how you're defending Amazon, the book monopolist.
It's worth noting that all of the publishers have settled with DoJ without a fight.
It's worth noting that Apple hasn't. You do realise the publishers may have colluded without Apple's involvement.