What was the point of examining this individual animal?
To find out how old it was. Seems fairly obvious. Research, like omelets, occasionally requires breaking a few eggs.
Its one animal, bored out of its gourd, form sitting in the same mud for 500 years. If it had one more brain cell, it would be capable of a synapse, but probably even the lone brain cell was thankful to end the monotony.
Google is often, but not always, one of the places you can buy the book.
The others include Barnes and Noble, Amazon, Books a million, ebay and places you haven't even heard of. I don't know if there is an agreement with those places or not, but I'm certain there isn't an agreement when you click the links to find it in a library.
Not EVERY link on a google site is a paid link. They are very clear in designating paid advertisers from simple search links.
Just go read the Judges ruling. You clearly don't have a clue about how the Google books search works. You are talking nonsense.
Nobody said google was only USING snippets. Google will only GIVE YOU snippets. Just like the librarian that won't let you copy a whole book but will let you copy a coupe pages.
Google doesn't SELL these snippets. There is no advertising on the pages that contain Snippets. There are unpaid links to stores that sell the book you are looking at. And some libraries that are known to have a copy.
READ WHAT THE JUDGE SAID FOR CHRISTS SAKE. Its a court ruling. Anyone who wants to copy google's model, in whole or in part can point to that ruling in court. Unless or until it is overturned, it is the law of the land. Please, I beg you, go read the ruling. You are making an idiot of yourself on the internet.
Squib loads can be just as effective for that purpose, and provide more plausible deniability. The load itself is so weak the bullet never exits the barrel. With predictable results when the next full round is fired.
The overall assessment that you quoted merely addresses the benefit to society aspect, it essentiall covers only one prong of your four prong argument, and addresses a second prong only in passing.
None of that would be sufficient, if google was replicating the books (distributing copies). Copyright is named specifically for what it does, preserves the right of copying works for the author. Key to not violating the copyright is ONLY providing snippets. Fair use is quite restrictive as to amount (percentage) copied. Its requirement that there be some public benefit is less clear.
So while the summary is laudatory, fawning, even, it is not central to the decision.
I'm sorry, but did you miss what happened with a guy named Aaron Schwartz?
Schwartz was not working from legal copies obtained by legal means. Nor was he providing snippets, but rather whole texts. He wasn't even arrested for copyright infringement.
yet if you target other sections with your search the limit would slide and if you were clever/persistent enough you would be able to access the full text
Try it some time. It won't work.
From the judgement:
Google takes security measures to prevent users from viewing a complete copy of a snippet-view book. For example, a user cannot cause the system to return different sets of snippets for the same search query; the position of each snippet is fixed within the page and does not "slide" around the search term; only the first responsive snippet available on any given page will be returned in response to a query; one of the snippets on each page is "black-listed," meaning it will not be shown; and at least one out of ten entire pages in each book is black-listed.
An "attacker" who tries to obtain an entire book by using a physical copy of the book to string together words appearing in successive passages would be able to obtain at best a patchwork of snippets that would be missing at least one snippet from every page and 10% of all pages.
The benefits Google Books and full text search provides are only ONE Part of the judgement, and not even the most important part.
The key finding was that Google does not provide the full text of the books, can't be tricked into giving the full text of the book, and actually contains links to where the book can be legally purchased (or borrowed from a library).
Even those books that are out of print will not be shown in full text if it is still under copyright.
If google can legally copy books (even when profit is involved) then why can't I do the same?
Wouldn't I get hammered with copyright infringement problems if I scanned in books I did not author myself?
The Judgement clearly states:
Here, Google does not sell the scans it has made of books for Google Books; it does not sell the snippets that it displays; and it does not run ads on the About the Book pages that contain snippets. It does not engage in the direct commercialization of copyrighted works.
Google does, of course, benefit commercially in the sense that users are drawn to the Google websites by the ability to search Google Books. While this is a consideration to be acknowledged in weighing all the factors, even assuming Google's principal motivation is profit, the fact is that Google Books serves several important educational purposes.
That Google is a FOR Profit company doesn't enter into it at all. So is Barnes and Noble. The pages the contain the snippets contain links to many different sites from which you can buy the book (including Google Books in some cases) as well as where you can find it in a library.
Why don't you 1) try out google book search and see what they do 2) read the judgement and see what it says.
If you do the same as google did, you can point to this judgement in your defense. Google has opened the door for you. Just make sure you provide the authors the right to refuse, and make sure you don't provide the FULL text of the book.
Find any other company doing the same thing, and the result would be the same. Its not WHO does it that determines fair use. It is WHAT is actually done.
Your response is the typical jealousy based response. Not rich enough and not smart enough to pull this off even on a small scale, therefore Google must have be evil.
Even if you think that Google is Damien's evil brother, this is the right damn decision.
Agreed, and reading from the full text of the decision, its hard to see what the Authors Guild is all about.
You can't get the full text of a copyrighted work from google, no matter how hard you try. You get snippets, not complete pages, and not snippets from all the pages.
Further, most of the Author's guild whining was all about the fact that Google is a for profit company.
Yet the decision clearly considers this:
Here, Google does not sell the scans it has made of books for Google Books; it does not sell the snippets that it displays; and it does not run ads on the About the Book pages that contain snippets. It does not engage in the direct commercialization of copyrighted works.
Google does, of course, benefit commercially in the sense that users are drawn to the Google websites by the ability to search Google Books. While this is a consideration to be acknowledged in weighing all the factors, even assuming Google's principal motivation is profit, the fact is that Google Books serves several important educational purposes.
I just checked yesterday, and the thing is still loaded with malware Download buttons. This morning, it looks slightly different, but on four different projects the biggest button on the page was MALWARE download button. (Adblock switched off).
Why can't they just put them all in a separate box labeled MALWARE - DON'T CLICK!. Or header the column they are in with a ADVERTISEMENT - Not the software you were looking for" banner.
SourceForge has definitely suffered since being picked up by Dice Holdings, and it is probably an indication of what will happen to Slashdot over time.
I've been called a nut job here on/. and elsewhere for suggesting that the biggest flaw the founding fathers made was forgetting the teeth in the Constitution. Glad I'm not the only one waking up to the realization that this is a serious failure. They simply didn't consider that courts would be as corruptible as the rest of government.
The more likely a couple's children are to die before they grow up, the more children they have. An increase in food, health, education, and so on means birth rates will decrease, not explode and take over the world.
Fixed it to what I think you meant.
And this has been proven true all over the world, even high birthrate countries like China, where the better off affluent educated seldom seem to get into a problems with with the country's draconian birth regulations but the country bumpkins still do.
You can exercise all you want. It won't and can't make much difference at all. The overwhelmingly vast majority of calories burned by the human body are burned in just living. So the diet and exercise mantra comes down to just diet.
Slashdot Mirror
What was the point of examining this individual animal?
To find out how old it was. Seems fairly obvious. Research, like omelets, occasionally requires breaking a few eggs.
Its one animal, bored out of its gourd, form sitting in the same mud for 500 years. If it had one more brain cell, it would
be capable of a synapse, but probably even the lone brain cell was thankful to end the monotony.
Google is often, but not always, one of the places you can buy the book.
The others include Barnes and Noble, Amazon, Books a million, ebay and places you haven't even heard of.
I don't know if there is an agreement with those places or not, but I'm certain there isn't an agreement when you click the links to find it in a library.
Not EVERY link on a google site is a paid link. They are very clear in designating paid advertisers from simple search links.
Just go read the Judges ruling.
You clearly don't have a clue about how the Google books search works. You are talking nonsense.
Nobody said google was only USING snippets. Google will only GIVE YOU snippets.
Just like the librarian that won't let you copy a whole book but will let you copy a coupe pages.
Google doesn't SELL these snippets. There is no advertising on the pages that contain Snippets.
There are unpaid links to stores that sell the book you are looking at. And some libraries that are
known to have a copy.
READ WHAT THE JUDGE SAID FOR CHRISTS SAKE.
Its a court ruling. Anyone who wants to copy google's model, in whole or in part can point to that ruling in court.
Unless or until it is overturned, it is the law of the land.
Please, I beg you, go read the ruling. You are making an idiot of yourself on the internet.
Sorry, forgot to mention that I DID read the entire thing.
My comments refer only to your assessments of the the summary, which you (in your first post) suggested is the most important part, saying:
this paragraph has probably given us some very useful & explicit design considerations to incorporate in projects
.
This is the part I disagree with, not the summary itself, but rather your assessment of the value of this closing paragraph.
More detailed design guidelines were given elsewhere in the ruling, and those parts will be far more instructive and useful than the summary.
This summary paragraph serves no real purpose except perhaps as "appeal bait", being perhaps a little too effusive and one sided.
Squib loads can be just as effective for that purpose, and provide more plausible deniability.
The load itself is so weak the bullet never exits the barrel. With predictable results when the next full round is fired.
The overall assessment that you quoted merely addresses the benefit to society aspect, it essentiall covers only one prong of your four prong argument, and addresses a second prong only in passing.
None of that would be sufficient, if google was replicating the books (distributing copies). Copyright is named specifically for what it does, preserves the right of copying works for the author. Key to not violating the copyright is ONLY providing snippets.
Fair use is quite restrictive as to amount (percentage) copied. Its requirement that there be some public benefit is less clear.
So while the summary is laudatory, fawning, even, it is not central to the decision.
Reefer Madness!!
Given any commercial shoulder arm or hand gun, I can load you a round the will burst the barrel.
Not that hard.
I'm sorry, but did you miss what happened with a guy named Aaron Schwartz?
Schwartz was not working from legal copies obtained by legal means.
Nor was he providing snippets, but rather whole texts.
He wasn't even arrested for copyright infringement.
yet if you target other sections with your search the limit would slide and if you were clever/persistent enough you would be able to access the full text
Try it some time. It won't work.
From the judgement:
Google takes security measures to prevent users from
viewing a complete copy of a snippet-view book. For example, a
user cannot cause the system to return different sets of snippets
for the same search query; the position of each snippet is fixed
within the page and does not "slide" around the search term; only
the first responsive snippet available on any given page will be
returned in response to a query; one of the snippets on each page
is "black-listed," meaning it will not be shown; and at least one
out of ten entire pages in each book is black-listed.
An "attacker" who tries
to obtain an entire book by using a physical copy of the book to
string together words appearing in successive passages would be
able to obtain at best a patchwork of snippets that would be
missing at least one snippet from every page and 10% of all
pages.
The benefits Google Books and full text search provides are only ONE Part of the judgement, and not even the most important part.
The key finding was that Google does not provide the full text of the books, can't be tricked into giving the full text of the book,
and actually contains links to where the book can be legally purchased (or borrowed from a library).
Even those books that are out of print will not be shown in full text if it is still under copyright.
If google can legally copy books (even when profit is involved) then why can't I do the same?
Wouldn't I get hammered with copyright infringement problems if I scanned in books I did not author myself?
The Judgement clearly states:
Here, Google does not sell the scans it has
made of books for Google Books; it does not sell the snippets
that it displays; and it does not run ads on the About the Book
pages that contain snippets. It does not engage in the direct
commercialization of copyrighted works.
Google does, of course, benefit commercially in the sense that
users are drawn to the Google websites by the ability to search
Google Books. While this is a consideration to be acknowledged
in weighing all the factors, even assuming Google's principal
motivation is profit, the fact is that Google Books serves
several important educational purposes.
That Google is a FOR Profit company doesn't enter into it at all. So is Barnes and Noble.
The pages the contain the snippets contain links to many different sites from which you
can buy the book (including Google Books in some cases) as well as where you
can find it in a library.
Why don't you
1) try out google book search and see what they do
2) read the judgement and see what it says.
If you do the same as google did, you can point to this judgement in your defense.
Google has opened the door for you. Just make sure you provide the authors
the right to refuse, and make sure you don't provide the FULL text of the book.
But that's just it, they don't show ads down the sides when showing you snippets.
Go search for a quote from any book, and look at the snippets.
You will see links to places you can buy the book, as well as libraries that have it.
That's really all.
Find any other company doing the same thing, and the result would be the same.
Its not WHO does it that determines fair use. It is WHAT is actually done.
Your response is the typical jealousy based response. Not rich enough
and not smart enough to pull this off even on a small scale, therefore Google
must have be evil.
Even if you think that Google is Damien's evil brother, this is the right damn decision.
Agreed, and reading from the full text of the decision, its hard to see what the Authors Guild is all about.
You can't get the full text of a copyrighted work from google, no matter how hard you try. You get
snippets, not complete pages, and not snippets from all the pages.
Further, most of the Author's guild whining was all about the fact that Google is a for profit company.
Yet the decision clearly considers this:
Here, Google does not sell the scans it has
made of books for Google Books; it does not sell the snippets
that it displays; and it does not run ads on the About the Book
pages that contain snippets. It does not engage in the direct
commercialization of copyrighted works.
Google does, of course, benefit commercially in the sense that
users are drawn to the Google websites by the ability to search
Google Books. While this is a consideration to be acknowledged
in weighing all the factors, even assuming Google's principal
motivation is profit, the fact is that Google Books serves
several important educational purposes.
Mod Parent UP.
Most people probably don't realize SF is owned by the owner of Slashdot.
SF is probably a good indication of what will befall Slashdot.
Exactly.
I just checked yesterday, and the thing is still loaded with malware Download buttons.
This morning, it looks slightly different, but on four different projects the biggest button
on the page was MALWARE download button. (Adblock switched off).
Why can't they just put them all in a separate box labeled MALWARE - DON'T CLICK!.
Or header the column they are in with a ADVERTISEMENT - Not the software you were looking for" banner.
SourceForge has definitely suffered since being picked up by Dice Holdings, and it is probably
an indication of what will happen to Slashdot over time.
They used to fly F16s.
Its not unusual for ANG wings be have attack capabilities.
Especially near those Dreaded Canadians.
How much was the Drone worth?
Apparently not enough, because you didn't even feel it was worth a single click on the only link in the story.
I've been called a nut job here on /. and elsewhere for suggesting that the biggest flaw the founding fathers made was
forgetting the teeth in the Constitution. Glad I'm not the only one waking up to the realization that this is a serious
failure. They simply didn't consider that courts would be as corruptible as the rest of government.
The more likely a couple's children are to die before they grow up, the more children they have. An increase in food, health, education, and so on means birth rates will decrease, not explode and take over the world.
Fixed it to what I think you meant.
And this has been proven true all over the world, even high birthrate countries like China, where the better off affluent educated seldom seem to get into a problems with with the country's draconian birth regulations but the country bumpkins still do.
No kidding.
Especially if Facebook is involved in any way.
Who needs metadata when everyone has to sign up with facebook?
Stanford: What in gods name were you thinking??!!
Other than eating less and exercising, you mean.
You have done the math, right?
You can exercise all you want. It won't and can't make much difference at all.
The overwhelmingly vast majority of calories burned by the human body are burned in just living.
So the diet and exercise mantra comes down to just diet.
Ask the North Koreans how that's working out for them.
They no longer deny helping the FBI, DEA, ATF, and county sheriffs.
Shaddup!
Just look at the kings marvelous new robes, and don't be raining on the parade.
They've never seen this before but they are positive this won't slow down global warming.