The difference is that he is providing access to only books that he is the publisher of and holds copyright on, or has the permission of the copyright holder! He also pays the copyright holders that paricipate in his server. On top of that, he requires a fee to use his service.
The difference here is that Google will make it freely available and is not the copyright holder of *any* of the materials and isn't asking any authors permission and isn't offering any payment to the owners of the copyright.
Please explain how making the FULL contents of a digital copy of a copyrighted work available from a web browser, even for searching and indexing purposes only, falls under fair use? You are right, it is about money. Google wants more of it. How about Google starts by publishing all their source code for all their products on a website so everyone can search through it?
Google is going to lose this one big. Any sensible person can see that they are overstepping their bounds.
Incredible! Tell me what right do you, or a mega-corporation such as Google, Inc, have to provide the full content of a copyrighted book available on the web - even if it is just for searching or indexing purposes? If there ever was a case of the rights of an individual against the wishes of a mega-corporation, this is it. You people should be defending the authors on this one.
Google, Inc IS NOT GOOD. They are just another mega-corporation out to make as much money as possible - individual rights be damned! They don't even have the decency to offer an opt-in option for the authors.
That is correct: Google is not providing full downloads, however they are providing access to the complete contents of the book. They are doing this against the wishes of the authors. What right does Google have to do this? None. Until Tim allows the same, he should let the authors decide what is best for them. I don't think authors need a millionaire and a mega-billion dollar corporation telling them they should do with their works.
I'll tell you what Tim: why don't you put ALL (not just a selected set) of your books free for download on the web and then tell us how good it is for O'Reilly,Inc?
Until then, how about you shut up and let the authors decide what is good for them?
I hope you didn't invest much time learning Java because it is going the way of the cuckoo. Java on the client side sucks - everyone knows it. Thats why no one deploys Java client applications anymore. Why didn't Google choose Java for maps.google.com? Why didnt Microsoft for Virtual Earth? Why didn't any major web app choose Java? Answer:
- Crappy non-native look and feel - Slow start up (freezes the browser while Java initializes) and GUI responsiveness - Large downloads required for computers that don't the right version of Java
Everyone should have a modern browser, even for security reasons. Not everyone should have the most recent JVM.
It doesn't help. This is just a way for this MIT guy to get grant money. MIT has officially jumped the shark on this one.
Re:If it ain't broke, wait, it's broke
on
Palm's Mistakes
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Palm fails for the same reason that Symbian will fail and eventually every Smartphone will be using Windows Mobile:
Windows Mobile uses the same developer tools and API that desktop Windows uses. This is huge. You don't need a huge effort to retrain developers to develop for Windows Mobile. Everything is integrated with Microsoft's desktop and server offerings and other technologies. This is the same strategy that they used makes the Xbox the #2 game system in a single generation of releases. If you had told most people five years ago that Microsoft would beat Nintendo in the console market, and beat everything in the PDA market, they would have laughed.
Everyone makes fun of Ballmer and his "Developers, developers, developers" tirade, but he is right. Thats exactly what it is about. Microsoft understands this. This is why they own the PDA market and are slowly taking over the high end mobile device market.
And also some people believe that Windows offers a better solution for them than any Linux distribution. The main reason though is that Windows ships as the default OS on most computers. Until that situation changes there is hardly any opportunity for Linux on the desktop.
Because then TiVo would need to be able to communicate with every cable networks PPV system and billing system - thats something that will never happen. If you want to view the PPV again, just buy it again from your cable network.
What you are describing is open standards, not open source. Standardizing protocols, file formats, etc is EXACTLY like standardizing screw sizes and track gauges.
The implementation doesn't matter, just like if you make a screw out of some whiz bang proprietary alloy or just steel it doesnt matter, as long as it meets the standard specification for tensile strength, size, whatever.
Many parts of other industries are very closed and proprietary, including the production processes.
If you want to throw away potential revenue streams that could be used to fund product improvements by giving away the source, go ahead. Just realize that giving away the source doesn't make the system any more open than one that is properly defined.
As an example of what an open system is, take a look at Jabber/XMPP. It is a proper specification of a system that is built on standards. Many of the implementations are closed, and it doesn't affect the success of the XMPP technologies in any way. This is the way things should work, not just throwing the source open and saying "its open". Only engineers could possibly think that the source is what is important about a system. It isn't - its the openness of the system iteself that is important.
The point is that Open STANDARDS are important - not Open Source. All this fuss over OSS is ridiculous. What should remain is the idea that open standards provide the opportunity for growth in the industry. The actual implementation of the software is much less important.
Open standards and Open Source have nothing to do with each other. There is plenty of closed source software that supports open standards.
Well I think the "global tax for content" statement should give you pause and cause you to re-examine who you are allying yourself with. If the FSF really believes in such a scheme it completely changes everything. It becomes more apparent that they are interested in destroying the commercial software and digital content industry as we know it. You should also re-examine your anti-software patent stance. The forces who are pushing that seem to have an agenda that may not coincide with yours.
The FSF is intent on destroying to the commercial software industry, period. This should scare the hell out of anyone that plans on working in the software industry. I've been warning about this for years. I am pleased to see that FSF is revealing their true agenda.
Um, what should bother you is the following quote:
--- "We're fundamentally opposed to DRM. We think it's a dead end for society," Greve said, adding all software should be free to use and that artists could be paid for their films and music by a general 'taxation' on Internet connections.
"Web access could come with a cultural flat fee," he said.
-----
I think everyone should rethink their alliances that this point. The FSF is a very scary organization if they start supporting globally administered fees to support "free" content. Why copyrighted software, music, movies, etc should become "free" is beyond comprehension. Its obvious that the FSF has an agenda that they are hiding. I've always suspected that they are more concerned with free as in beer than they let on. The above quote certainly is disturbing.
And now you have found out what a mess the Free Software supporters have found themselves in. The true agenda has been revealed. Lets just make everything "free" and just tax everyone to support the system.
This should put to rest those "Free and in Beer vs. Free as in Free" comments. It is obvious that the true agenda is to ruin the commercial software industry. Software engineers should be concerned with this, because frequently it is the sale of commercial software that is paying their salaries.
Forgive us for being suspicious, but you have already admitted working with LMI, which means the lawyers involved. I think you guys are doing a huge amount of harm myself, but I'm not involved with Linux so it doesn't affect me. I'm just amused because you can see how now that money is being made with Linux the lawyers start sniffing around.
That link adds nothing to the discussion. We already know the supposed reasons. If you read DocRuby's posts you will see that he is claiming that is a ruse that is really just a money grab by the lawyers.
Please don't let facts and logic creep in here. What do you think you are doing? We need ad revenue- have you seen how LNUX is doing lately? The best way to increase revenue is to post "controversial" non-stories that will quickly bring out the knee-jerk slashbots out of the woodwork.
You also forgot about acid rain. That was going to destroy all of our plant and animal life within 50 years. That was early 1970/80s hysteria - most people around here were too young to remember that. Of course the media got tired of talking about that and the scientists grant money dried up so we have moved on to something better - somethig even more GLOBAL and DEVASTATING!
But now we KNOW global warming is true. I mean just look around, everyone is talking about it. CNN, celebrities, Slashdot, some scientists. Cmon you KNOW its gotta be true if Sting says so!
Lets not let logic and the scientific process get in the way of our massive grants and hysteria!
And if you don't believe in global warming, you must be a REPUBLICAN!
Just to head it off: we know you think it may corrupt your frequency, even though there has been no proof of that in existing BPL deployments. Secondly we don't care because we think that BPL is more important than HAM radio. Yeah yeah I know 9/11, cell comms were down, etc.
I do not argue that computers have a mathematical basis for accomplishing their tasks, everyone studies that in school, but what does that have to do with whether a software concept should be patentable or not? You apparently believe just because CS (rather self-importantly IMO) claims to be a branch of applied mathematics then software that runs on a computer cannot be patented. Of course you never bother to explain why, perhaps because there is no logical connection between the two. Please explain why software should not be patentable as you have never mentioned that.
Think of this: if I can describe the operation of any system (steam engine, cotton mill) in a pure mathematical form can it not be patented? If I can model a system or invention using a digital computer can it not be patented? Or is the "virtualness" of software that people have a problem with?
With that logic anything digital can't be patented. Heck, anything that can be modeled using a device that uses mathematics as it basic building block can't be patented. After all it just boils down to discrete mathematics right?
Well theorectically EVERY FUCKING THING could be reduced to a set of logical and mathematical operations, like the FUCKING STEAM ENGINE. That should not prevent it from being patentable.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that he is providing access to only books that he is the publisher of and holds copyright on, or has the permission of the copyright holder! He also pays the copyright holders that paricipate in his server. On top of that, he requires a fee to use his service.
The difference here is that Google will make it freely available and is not the copyright holder of *any* of the materials and isn't asking any authors permission and isn't offering any payment to the owners of the copyright.
So, yes, Tim is wrong and Google is wrong.
Please explain how making the FULL contents of a digital copy of a copyrighted work available from a web browser, even for searching and indexing purposes only, falls under fair use? You are right, it is about money. Google wants more of it. How about Google starts by publishing all their source code for all their products on a website so everyone can search through it?
Google is going to lose this one big. Any sensible person can see that they are overstepping their bounds.
Incredible! Tell me what right do you, or a mega-corporation such as Google, Inc, have to provide the full content of a copyrighted book available on the web - even if it is just for searching or indexing purposes? If there ever was a case of the rights of an individual against the wishes of a mega-corporation, this is it. You people should be defending the authors on this one.
Google, Inc IS NOT GOOD. They are just another mega-corporation out to make as much money as possible - individual rights be damned! They don't even have the decency to offer an opt-in option for the authors.
That is correct: Google is not providing full downloads, however they are providing access to the complete contents of the book. They are doing this against the wishes of the authors. What right does Google have to do this? None. Until Tim allows the same, he should let the authors decide what is best for them. I don't think authors need a millionaire and a mega-billion dollar corporation telling them they should do with their works.
I'll tell you what Tim: why don't you put ALL (not just a selected set) of your books free for download on the web and then tell us how good it is for O'Reilly,Inc?
Until then, how about you shut up and let the authors decide what is good for them?
I hope you didn't invest much time learning Java because it is going the way of the cuckoo. Java on the client side sucks - everyone knows it. Thats why no one deploys Java client applications anymore. Why didn't Google choose Java for maps.google.com? Why didnt Microsoft for Virtual Earth? Why didn't any major web app choose Java? Answer:
- Crappy non-native look and feel
- Slow start up (freezes the browser while Java initializes) and GUI responsiveness
- Large downloads required for computers that don't the right version of Java
Everyone should have a modern browser, even for security reasons. Not everyone should have the most recent JVM.
It doesn't help. This is just a way for this MIT guy to get grant money. MIT has officially jumped the shark on this one.
Palm fails for the same reason that Symbian will fail and eventually every Smartphone will be using Windows Mobile:
Windows Mobile uses the same developer tools and API that desktop Windows uses. This is huge. You don't need a huge effort to retrain developers to develop for Windows Mobile. Everything is integrated with Microsoft's desktop and server offerings and other technologies. This is the same strategy that they used makes the Xbox the #2 game system in a single generation of releases. If you had told most people five years ago that Microsoft would beat Nintendo in the console market, and beat everything in the PDA market, they would have laughed.
Everyone makes fun of Ballmer and his "Developers, developers, developers" tirade, but he is right. Thats exactly what it is about. Microsoft understands this. This is why they own the PDA market and are slowly taking over the high end mobile device market.
And also some people believe that Windows offers a better solution for them than any Linux distribution. The main reason though is that Windows ships as the default OS on most computers. Until that situation changes there is hardly any opportunity for Linux on the desktop.
Because then TiVo would need to be able to communicate with every cable networks PPV system and billing system - thats something that will never happen. If you want to view the PPV again, just buy it again from your cable network.
What you are describing is open standards, not open source. Standardizing protocols, file formats, etc is EXACTLY like standardizing screw sizes and track gauges.
The implementation doesn't matter, just like if you make a screw out of some whiz bang proprietary alloy or just steel it doesnt matter, as long as it meets the standard specification for tensile strength, size, whatever.
Many parts of other industries are very closed and proprietary, including the production processes.
If you want to throw away potential revenue streams that could be used to fund product improvements by giving away the source, go ahead. Just realize that giving away the source doesn't make the system any more open than one that is properly defined.
As an example of what an open system is, take a look at Jabber/XMPP. It is a proper specification of a system that is built on standards. Many of the implementations are closed, and it doesn't affect the success of the XMPP technologies in any way. This is the way things should work, not just throwing the source open and saying "its open". Only engineers could possibly think that the source is what is important about a system. It isn't - its the openness of the system iteself that is important.
The point is that Open STANDARDS are important - not Open Source. All this fuss over OSS is ridiculous. What should remain is the idea that open standards provide the opportunity for growth in the industry. The actual implementation of the software is much less important.
Open standards and Open Source have nothing to do with each other. There is plenty of closed source software that supports open standards.
Well I think the "global tax for content" statement should give you pause and cause you to re-examine who you are allying yourself with. If the FSF really believes in such a scheme it completely changes everything. It becomes more apparent that they are interested in destroying the commercial software and digital content industry as we know it. You should also re-examine your anti-software patent stance. The forces who are pushing that seem to have an agenda that may not coincide with yours.
The FSF is intent on destroying to the commercial software industry, period. This should scare the hell out of anyone that plans on working in the software industry. I've been warning about this for years. I am pleased to see that FSF is revealing their true agenda.
Um, what should bother you is the following quote:
---
"We're fundamentally opposed to DRM. We think it's a dead end for society," Greve said, adding all software should be free to use and that artists could be paid for their films and music by a general 'taxation' on Internet connections.
"Web access could come with a cultural flat fee," he said.
-----
I think everyone should rethink their alliances that this point. The FSF is a very scary organization if they start supporting globally administered fees to support "free" content. Why copyrighted software, music, movies, etc should become "free" is beyond comprehension. Its obvious that the FSF has an agenda that they are hiding. I've always suspected that they are more concerned with free as in beer than they let on. The above quote certainly is disturbing.
And now you have found out what a mess the Free Software supporters have found themselves in. The true agenda has been revealed. Lets just make everything "free" and just tax everyone to support the system.
This should put to rest those "Free and in Beer vs. Free as in Free" comments. It is obvious that the true agenda is to ruin the commercial software industry. Software engineers should be concerned with this, because frequently it is the sale of commercial software that is paying their salaries.
Forgive us for being suspicious, but you have already admitted working with LMI, which means the lawyers involved. I think you guys are doing a huge amount of harm myself, but I'm not involved with Linux so it doesn't affect me. I'm just amused because you can see how now that money is being made with Linux the lawyers start sniffing around.
That link adds nothing to the discussion. We already know the supposed reasons. If you read DocRuby's posts you will see that he is claiming that is a ruse that is really just a money grab by the lawyers.
Please don't let facts and logic creep in here. What do you think you are doing? We need ad revenue- have you seen how LNUX is doing lately? The best way to increase revenue is to post "controversial" non-stories that will quickly bring out the knee-jerk slashbots out of the woodwork.
You also forgot about acid rain. That was going to destroy all of our plant and animal life within 50 years. That was early 1970/80s hysteria - most people around here were too young to remember that. Of course the media got tired of talking about that and the scientists grant money dried up so we have moved on to something better - somethig even more GLOBAL and DEVASTATING!
But now we KNOW global warming is true. I mean just look around, everyone is talking about it. CNN, celebrities, Slashdot, some scientists. Cmon you KNOW its gotta be true if Sting says so!
Lets not let logic and the scientific process get in the way of our massive grants and hysteria!
And if you don't believe in global warming, you must be a REPUBLICAN!
...all the complaints from the ham operators.
Just to head it off: we know you think it may corrupt your frequency, even though there has been no proof of that in existing BPL deployments. Secondly we don't care because we think that BPL is more important than HAM radio. Yeah yeah I know 9/11, cell comms were down, etc.
Twitter, you didn't mention how this was M$ fault somehow. Are you losing your touch?
Um, you certainly can patent cooking methods. Campbell soups has many patents on cooking processes.
I do not argue that computers have a mathematical basis for accomplishing their tasks, everyone studies that in school, but what does that have to do with whether a software concept should be patentable or not? You apparently believe just because CS (rather self-importantly IMO) claims to be a branch of applied mathematics then software that runs on a computer cannot be patented. Of course you never bother to explain why, perhaps because there is no logical connection between the two. Please explain why software should not be patentable as you have never mentioned that.
Think of this: if I can describe the operation of any system (steam engine, cotton mill) in a pure mathematical form can it not be patented? If I can model a system or invention using a digital computer can it not be patented? Or is the "virtualness" of software that people have a problem with?
With that logic anything digital can't be patented. Heck, anything that can be modeled using a device that uses mathematics as it basic building block can't be patented. After all it just boils down to discrete mathematics right?
Well theorectically EVERY FUCKING THING could be reduced to a set of logical and mathematical operations, like the FUCKING STEAM ENGINE. That should not prevent it from being patentable.