You haven't read a single thing in this thread have you!?
Google isn't claiming ownership, and if you want to march around to hundreds of libraries and scan these books you can do so under the same terms as google did. The rights holders of these works can not be located. Probably dead.
Your solutions is to burn the books rather than allow anyone to make them available under any terms were a nickel changes hands.
Now go back and READ the thread and the Amended Settlement this time.
Who says they are EXCLUSIVE to google? You seem to have thrown that nugget in there with no citation. Anyone else can do as the same and scan these old books in just like google did.
How is this a money grab by Google? Have you even once visited the Google books on line and read the FAQ? How are you prevented from scanning your out-of-copyright books and selling them? How does a publisher sign a contract with a dead author or an abandoned works author?
You would rather the books disappear all together? You would rather have some cheesy "collection" author pen 5 a five paragraph introduction and then copyright the entire thing as his own? (Don't laugh this is happening every day in the Kindle Store an Nook books.
This is a pissing contest about books that have been abandoned, where no author is living and for which there is no clear copyright. Nobody on the NYT best seller list need worry. No book publisher need be threatened.
Don't be ridiculous. Every person who has used google books knows you are lying. How can you say its not available on line, and in the next sentence claim you only get blurry images? You can't have it both ways. Its all on line. Full texts are available, both imaged and OCRed flowing text, for all books that are free of copyright encumbrance. You can read the whole book. Unless the publisher or author still holds a copyright and refuses to allow google to put it out there.
Your argument is internally inconsistent, at war with itself, and at odds with the facts. Do just a little research.
This is to be the greatest library ever assembled. It is worthwhile in and of itself. A noble goal to prevent the permanent loss of so much art and knowledge - to avoid the Great Forgetting. It is the very preservation of world culture.
I wish I had mod points.
A dispersed and replicated library freely available world wide. This is something you see in every sci-fi novel about futuristic super advanced civilizations. Its like the entire community of Sci-Fi writers secretly wished this existed already.
Here some private company is build that for zero dollars. You would think this would have to be done by Governments.
Authors are either dead or unknown. Fate has already screwed them.
This is not an argument about current authors, or currently valid copyrights. In no way is Google proposing to screw living authors or copyright holders out of money. The works in question are abandoned works, where the copyright holders are unknown.
Why should OTHER authors or publishers profit from these abandoned works? Believe me, that is what this is, nothing but a money grab by publishing companies trying to lay claim to works long ago abandoned by authors, or works of dead authors where there is no clear copyright.
Well if google maintained one snippet of a book that might be a good argument. But because they scan the entire book, and have a complete collection of snippets, and you can contrive to obtain and read the entire book via the snippets there is a problem.
Still for most of what is in Google Books, this is not the issue. What seems to be the case is a consortium of authors backed by publishers who wish to lay claim to recently out of copyright works. Essentially a literary RIAA.
In no case where the copyright holder is clearly identifiable is google proposing to short circuit property rights.
Question: Who opts in (or out) for orphaned works?
For public domain books long out of copyright, there is no argument from either side.
This debate is all about books in a very narrow range if years, where the authors are dead, but (perhaps) not the copyright, and there exists no known copyright holder.
Nothing carrying a clear copyright statement with a date that has not legally expired is covered here.
If there is good for humanity in it, what does it matter if they earn advertising revenue?
As a user, you would not be obligated to pay. So then it simply becomes a matter of your jealousy that Google is profitable.
Prior to Google Books your chance of finding most of these long-out-of-print books was essentially zero, unless you happened to live in a major city. That Toshiba or Toro, or T-Mobile are willing to pay google to make it available to me for free bothers me not in the least. Get over yourself.
Not the best pics yet, but then Dawn is positioned about 9,000 miles away from Vesta in its orbit.
What is interesting is the steepness of some of the crater walls. You don't see that on bigger bodies such as the moon as the angle of repose is so much different. But with Vesta's small size and light gravity you can stack sand up pretty steeply.
Some of the craters look almost perfectly conical with sides that approach 45 degrees. Vesta's surface gravity is 0.022g, compared to the Moon's 0.165g, which suggests why craters of the sizes seen can be that steep.
Assuming synchronized rhythmic movements if 17 people (total weight probably over a ton) I would be surprised if a lot of buildings didn't sway a little depending on where the weight was being thrown about. They were located one third of the tower, and a ton is a lot of weight. By the time even a slight movement was propagated to the top floors it could be a significant movement. I doubt this is as accidental as it sounds.
The flexibility of the building might be a key part of its earthquake protection, and it probably doesn't need fixing.
Verizon was represented by one Mr William E. Lehman, Esquire, which google will reveal is a small potatoes lawyer who grosses (not Nets, grosses) less than 500k per year.
It was heard before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Which means it was heard by an Administrative Law Judge. That judge would have the authority to hand down a huge fine but instead of a bitch slap, she waved her hand in the general direction of Verizon's wrist, and I'm sure there were chuckles all around over cheese and wine that very evening.
In addition the judge ordered them to cease and desist in violating section 1501 of the Public Utility Code which required them to provide information about charges. So they can't do this again.
BUT if they do, everybody gets to go to court all over again, at great time and expense.
The $1000 fine was merely an embarrassment to the green behind the ears lawyer they assigned to this case, management probably is entirely unaware of this issue, and they will probably continue to demand a subpoena because updating their procures and retraining their CS reps will cost more than 1000 bucks.
(The attorney Verizon sent, William E. Lehman, Esquire, does not appear to even be a corporate employee, instead he runs a firm of 1 to 4 lawyers which grosses 500,000, so strictly small time hired gun. That's how much Verizon though of this case).
A fine of two orders of magnitude greater might catch management's attention. This will be expensed as a cost of doing business, and taken as a tax write off.
The technology was never meant to identify precisely. Just to give a list of candidates, more for exclusionary purposes. When Charlie walks down the street, regardless of how stoned he may be, the technology won't confuse him with George Bush or even Martin Sheen. You, on the other hand may be asked were you were last night.
Slashdot Mirror
You haven't read a single thing in this thread have you!?
Google isn't claiming ownership, and if you want to march around to hundreds of libraries and scan these books you can do so under the same terms as google did. The rights holders of these works can not be located. Probably dead.
Your solutions is to burn the books rather than allow anyone to make them available under any terms were a nickel changes hands.
Now go back and READ the thread and the Amended Settlement this time.
That's still "piracy" under the law.
Apparently not, but thanks for your dissenting opinion Judge.
They make a good faith effort to find the author or their heirs.
They will pull any book should the author come back from the grave and contact them.
You can sue a ham sandwich.
The people that sued them had no standing, because they were not the author or the copyright holder of the abandoned books.
Who says they are EXCLUSIVE to google?
You seem to have thrown that nugget in there with no citation.
Anyone else can do as the same and scan these old books in just like google did.
Piracy is not the issue here.
Google Books does not pirate books.
Educate yourself before you climb on your soap box.
How is this a money grab by Google?
Have you even once visited the Google books on line and read the FAQ?
How are you prevented from scanning your out-of-copyright books and selling them?
How does a publisher sign a contract with a dead author or an abandoned works author?
You would rather the books disappear all together?
You would rather have some cheesy "collection" author pen 5 a five paragraph introduction and then copyright the entire thing as his own? (Don't laugh this is happening every day in the Kindle Store an Nook books.
The argument is about books out of copyright, not books in copyright.
Nope, you have that wrong.
They are doing no such thing.
This is a pissing contest about books that have been abandoned, where no author is living and for which there is no clear copyright.
Nobody on the NYT best seller list need worry. No book publisher need be threatened.
Don't be ridiculous.
Every person who has used google books knows you are lying.
How can you say its not available on line, and in the next sentence claim you only get blurry images? You can't have it both ways.
Its all on line.
Full texts are available, both imaged and OCRed flowing text, for all books that are free of copyright encumbrance. You can read the whole book.
Unless the publisher or author still holds a copyright and refuses to allow google to put it out there.
Your argument is internally inconsistent, at war with itself, and at odds with the facts. Do just a little research.
Apparently just long enough to prevent copying and dispersal of its holdings.
This is to be the greatest library ever assembled. It is worthwhile in and of itself. A noble goal to prevent the permanent loss of so much art and knowledge - to avoid the Great Forgetting. It is the very preservation of world culture.
I wish I had mod points.
A dispersed and replicated library freely available world wide. This is something you see in every sci-fi novel about futuristic super advanced civilizations.
Its like the entire community of Sci-Fi writers secretly wished this existed already.
Here some private company is build that for zero dollars. You would think this would have to be done by Governments.
Authors are either dead or unknown. Fate has already screwed them.
This is not an argument about current authors, or currently valid copyrights.
In no way is Google proposing to screw living authors or copyright holders out of money.
The works in question are abandoned works, where the copyright holders are unknown.
Why should OTHER authors or publishers profit from these abandoned works? Believe me, that is what this is, nothing but a money grab by publishing companies trying to lay claim to works long ago abandoned by authors, or works of dead authors where there is no clear copyright.
Well if google maintained one snippet of a book that might be a good argument.
But because they scan the entire book, and have a complete collection of snippets, and you can contrive to obtain and read the entire book via the snippets there is a problem.
Still for most of what is in Google Books, this is not the issue.
What seems to be the case is a consortium of authors backed by publishers who wish to lay claim to recently out of copyright works. Essentially a literary RIAA.
In no case where the copyright holder is clearly identifiable is google proposing to short circuit property rights.
Question: Who opts in (or out) for orphaned works?
For public domain books long out of copyright, there is no argument from either side.
This debate is all about books in a very narrow range if years, where the authors are dead, but (perhaps) not the copyright, and there exists no known copyright holder.
Nothing carrying a clear copyright statement with a date that has not legally expired is covered here.
Read any book you'd want to?
Seriously, you did NOT just post that!!
If there is good for humanity in it, what does it matter if they earn advertising revenue?
As a user, you would not be obligated to pay. So then it simply becomes a matter of your jealousy that Google is profitable.
Prior to Google Books your chance of finding most of these long-out-of-print books was essentially zero, unless you happened to live in a major city.
That Toshiba or Toro, or T-Mobile are willing to pay google to make it available to me for free bothers me not in the least. Get over yourself.
Not the best pics yet, but then Dawn is positioned about 9,000 miles away from Vesta in its orbit.
What is interesting is the steepness of some of the crater walls. You don't see that on bigger bodies such as the moon as the angle of repose is so much different. But with Vesta's small size and light gravity you can stack sand up pretty steeply.
Some of the craters look almost perfectly conical with sides that approach 45 degrees. Vesta's surface gravity is 0.022g, compared to the Moon's 0.165g, which suggests why craters of the sizes seen can be that steep.
Assuming synchronized rhythmic movements if 17 people (total weight probably over a ton) I would be surprised if a lot of buildings didn't sway a little depending on where the weight was being thrown about. They were located one third of the tower, and a ton is a lot of weight. By the time even a slight movement was propagated to the top floors it could be a significant movement. I doubt this is as accidental as it sounds.
The flexibility of the building might be a key part of its earthquake protection, and it probably doesn't need fixing.
She doesn't get the money.
And yes corporations can write off all lawyer fees, and the fine was probably paid out of petty cash.
They didn't even bother sending their own lawyer.
Verizon was represented by one Mr William E. Lehman, Esquire, which google will reveal is a small potatoes lawyer who grosses (not Nets, grosses) less than 500k per year.
Development?
All CRS systems worth running have a comments section.
I'm sure there are some choice notations in there already.
Read the story.
It was heard before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Which means it was heard by an Administrative Law Judge.
That judge would have the authority to hand down a huge fine but instead of a bitch slap, she waved her hand in the general direction of Verizon's wrist, and I'm sure there were chuckles all around over cheese and wine that very evening.
In addition the judge ordered them to cease and desist in violating section 1501 of the Public Utility Code which required them to provide information about charges. So they can't do this again.
BUT if they do, everybody gets to go to court all over again, at great time and expense.
The $1000 fine was merely an embarrassment to the green behind the ears lawyer they assigned to this case, management probably is entirely unaware of this issue, and they will probably continue to demand a subpoena because updating their procures and retraining their CS reps will cost more than 1000 bucks.
(The attorney Verizon sent, William E. Lehman, Esquire, does not appear to even be a corporate employee, instead he runs a firm of 1 to 4 lawyers which grosses 500,000, so strictly small time hired gun. That's how much Verizon though of this case).
A fine of two orders of magnitude greater might catch management's attention. This will be expensed as a cost of doing business, and taken as a tax write off.
The technology was never meant to identify precisely. Just to give a list of candidates, more for exclusionary purposes. When Charlie walks down the street, regardless of how stoned he may be, the technology won't confuse him with George Bush or even Martin Sheen. You, on the other hand may be asked were you were last night.
Yeah, we've all seen those grainy images, and we all know the pathetic arrest rate in robberies and shoplifting.
Would seem Target and others should invest in camera technology at least as good as that sold in their own stores.