You know, if this had been any other site, it might have worked. But I doubt that you could find a jury or judge who doesn't know what Google is used for. Google is a big and fairly respectable service that they use every day; good luck convincing a court that they need pr0n to get more hits...
My guess is that Google gets used for pr0n searches a lot more than they let on. More to the point, I would think, is simply that they don't advertise themselves that way.
He is suing because Google has indexed unauthorized mirror sites, not his own site. This is a bit scary, because I think what Google is doing might actually be considered illegal, because the pictures are copyrighted.
IANAL, so I can't speak to the actual, technical legal isssue -- but it seems to me highly unreasonable to expect a third party like Google to vet all the sites and images it links to for copyright violations. I can understand why Perfect 10 is suing the mega-popular American company with deep pockets rather than the offshore web sites owned by people who may very well be impossible to trace. But is Google to blame for that?
Now, the article didn't say anything about this, but I wonder if Perfect 10 had previously identified these sites and requested that Google remove them from its index? If so, I'd be more sympathetic to their case.
Sure, I'll be careful, it's not like I am not careful. I've had my drivers license since 1977 and have been driving stoned sporadically all these years. That is probably since before you were born.
I got my license five years before you did.
And when I talk about driving stoned, I know whereof I speak. I did quite a bit of it when I was young and stupid.
Now, give it a bit of thought. You know why being high makes people more careful when they drive? Because they know they're impaired.
I don't have a tragic story to tell about someone getting killed. All it took to drive the point home for me was a minor, no-injury fender bender, and realizing I could have avoided it if I hadn't been high.
Establishes "offering for distribution" as basis for criminal copyright violation and "making available" for civil violation, regardless of whether there is any distribution or copying, let alone infringement.
Here's what I want to know: Does this mean that dealing in used prerecorded media would be illegal? I mean, it's kinda hard for me to escape that implication. Am I misunderstanding something here?
Driving while stoned is totally different, you don't take chances, you are very careful when you drive and you tend to drive slower, not slow, but slower than when you are not stoned. I have no problems driving a car stoned, but I would never dream of driving one after drinking.
I hope you reconsider the idea that you have no problems driving stoned. It's true that it tends to make people drive more carefully, but it also slows your reaction time considerably. If someone runs a red light, or if a child runs out in front of your car, you could suddenly find yourself with a very big problem.
The difference with impared driving caused by recreational drugs is that the user doesn't ususally know about the imparement status - or thinks that it's either okay or possible to get away with.
No, that's not a difference. People who drive when they're impaired (or distracted) for any reason do so precisely for the reasons you state.
Besides, I don't think anyone wants to say it should be okay to drive when you're high. It's drug use at home that's harmless.
To American slashdotters : this is what you get when you have 45 million uninsured Americans, and yet your nation votes against a candidate that promised universal health coverage in favor of another who chose to limit stem-cell research on religious grounds.
You should understand two things here:
1. Although the question of stem cell research got some press during the campaign, it wasn't exactly hitting the top in polls that asked the public about which issues they thought were most important.
2. As for promises about health care coverage, a significant number of Americans' reaction to campaign promises ranges from "mildly doubtful" to "he's fucking lying."
Yeah I think it's justified. Better to give over a few details than to have your plane taken over by terrorists. Does anyone think their data is more important than their safety?
You're getting ahead of yourself. Try asking that question after you've already established that the data will actually be used in a competent manner to get useful information.
I doubt it, personally. It is a reliable and accurate web browser - A lot of people won't mind that it censors certain searches. The public won't give up better search results just becasue of a small amount of censorship.
What searches constitute "certain searches"? If it's censoring results, are the results really better? If Google is known to censor some searches, you can never be sure whether they're censoring your search, can you? This is just the issue that gets publicized.
Now, mind you, I don't see a problem with Google "filtering" (a word I'd prefer in this instance) the results in certain searches. It's their web site to run as they please. But as someone else already noted, I'm not certain it makes good business sense.
You got that right. Someone happens to leave a briefcase on the sidewalk in front of an office building, and we get an eight-minute news segment of the bomb squad checking it out with periodic updates for the next hour, until they figure out there's nothing in it but the daily racing form.
If you think it's worth it, use it and don't bitch. If you think it's not worth it, use a different product and don't bitch.
But if you bitch, you're giving the company a shot at improving its product.
So maybe they think you're totally unreasonable and blow you off. Fair enough. At least now you're able to say you gave them a chance. Or maybe, just maybe, they figure out a way to give you what you want while still getting what they want. Then it's a win-win.
Of course, it all depends on how you bitch. If you're all shrill and hysterical and stuff, they're not likely to take you seriously.
From the article... Now, the affirmative right to watch and skip parts of the content that a consumer has legally obtained only exists if certain conditions are met: no commercial or promotional ads may be skipped.
With product placement becoming more common in movies, does that mean that if we start running a movie we're required to watch the entire thing? That would be a problem for me because sometimes I'll pop a DVD in and skip to my favorite parts.
If they did not contribute to it, I don't see how it's like the "last paycheck" at all.
He did work he would have been paid for.
And if the guy's a famous star it's not like his family is struggling to put food on the table.
1. If he's a famous star. Most artists aren't.
2. A lot of famous stars aren't as well-off financially as folks think they are.
3. Whether they're struggling or not is beside the point.
It is nothing but a windfall for uncreative, greedy people who did nothing to deserve it, but who'll probably go around suing anyone who has the audacity to actually create, say, a derivative work.
If the artist thinks his heirs are greedy and don't deserve it, let him write them out of his will. Leave the copyright to the Susan G. Komen Foundation, or the Humane Society, or something. Or let him declare all his work public domain upon his death.
You are completely missing the point of copyright, as stated in the Constitution, which is to encourage an artist's creativity.
No, I'm not. I've argued here on/. before in favor of a limited, say 15 year copyright term with no renewal, for the very reason the Consitution states. I understand that the reason for a limited term is to give the artist an incentive to create subsequent works. I think it's a good idea, too.
But this view of copyright means the artist is working for the public's benefit, so there's the matter of the "last paycheck." The artist's family benefits from the income if he lives, so why not let the term of protection run its course if he dies? Or, heck, even cut it off shorter if you want. And if there's no immediate family, then by all means let the work go into public domain.
Do you know how Anthony Burgess started as a novelist? He was diagnosed with a brain tumor and told he had about a year to live. He wrote, if memory serves, his first five novels in that year to try to provide some money for his (he thought) soon-to-be widow. The tumor turned out to be a false alarm, but the idea that his heir would profit from his work was the incentive that started his career as a novelist.
This idea has come up before, and folks point out the possibility of someone recording a hit song and getting killed the next day. Surely his heirs deserve some return for that work.
And why is that? Did they contribute to it?
Maybe they did. In any case, if we're talking about immediate family, they almost certainly helped make the work possible even if they didn't contribute directly. But that's beside the point.
Here's the real argument: Think of it as being pretty much the same thing as the last paycheck of an hourly-wage worker who dies suddenly. That guy's family deserves the money for his work, don't they? So this would be the equivalent for the writer, musician, or whatever. Maybe the term's not as long as it would be if the artist had lived, but the heirs still get something.
I actually agree that that copyright should end within lifetime of the author, however, there is a good argument otherwise.
This idea has come up before, and folks point out the possibility of someone recording a hit song and getting killed the next day. Surely his heirs deserve some return for that work.
Now whether copyrights should be allowed to be sold in the first place is another story.
The ability to sell copyrights is, in some cases, what gives them value to the creator. It might not be an issue if all artists were also savvy business and/or marketing people, but they're not. So I say let'em cash out if they want, if there's a buyer. Put the material in the hands of someone who can commercially exploit it better. That works to everyone's advantage.
The phrase "that you speak of.", is indeed poor grammar...
A common misconception. It's okay to end a sentence with a preposition, especially if doing so allows you to construct the sentence in a way that makes it easier to understand.
From the Gregg Reference Manual, section 1080:
Whether or not a sentence should end in a preposition depends on the emphasis and effect desired.
Informal: I wish I knew which magazine her article appeared in. Formal: I wish I knew the magazine in which her article appeared.
Stilted: It is difficult to know about what you are thinking. Natureal: It is difficult to know what you are thinking about.
Short questions frequenly end with prepositions.
How many can I count on?
What is this good for?
The place to avoid it, if you're really concerned about it, is where the preposition is unnecessary. For example:
You might want to look up the way in which they were censored. The people owning the radio stations did not want them to be heard, not the people (as evidenced by their number record sales at same time).
They certainly had supporters who might have felt some extra motivation to buy CDs.
On the flip side, you can't measure non-sales. But what you can do is read letters to the editor pages, listen to talk radio shows, check out internet discussion boards and newsgroups, and you'll see a lot of howling about what they said. It doesn't take much to extend all that to listeners calling and e-mailing and maybe even writing letters to radio stations demanding a boycot.
That's different than what happened to the Dixie Chicks. Radio stations stopped playing their material because of their beliefs, not because they didn't like the music.
I dunno... my take on it is that radio stations stopped playing the Dixie Chicks' music simply because that's what their listeners wanted. (Or, at least, that's what they perceived their listeners to want.) That is to say, it was a business decision, not a political matter.
It's your choice: improve the economy of the US by selling software to new foreign markets and maintain the success and standard of living that the US enjoys, or give it away for free and see other countries begin to take the lead.
If the U.S. economy depends on selling Windows to third-world nations, we have far worse problems than even the deepest, darkest pessimist could ever have imagined.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think Alex had a computer.
My guess is that Google gets used for pr0n searches a lot more than they let on. More to the point, I would think, is simply that they don't advertise themselves that way.
IANAL, so I can't speak to the actual, technical legal isssue -- but it seems to me highly unreasonable to expect a third party like Google to vet all the sites and images it links to for copyright violations. I can understand why Perfect 10 is suing the mega-popular American company with deep pockets rather than the offshore web sites owned by people who may very well be impossible to trace. But is Google to blame for that?
Now, the article didn't say anything about this, but I wonder if Perfect 10 had previously identified these sites and requested that Google remove them from its index? If so, I'd be more sympathetic to their case.
"These days it's all secrecy and no privacy."
--Fingerprint File, Jagger/Richards (1974)
Nah. My logic says you should be more careful when driving sober.
"I have in my hand a list of 283 patent-infringing developers who have infiltrated the open source community..."
I got my license five years before you did.
And when I talk about driving stoned, I know whereof I speak. I did quite a bit of it when I was young and stupid.
Now, give it a bit of thought. You know why being high makes people more careful when they drive? Because they know they're impaired.
I don't have a tragic story to tell about someone getting killed. All it took to drive the point home for me was a minor, no-injury fender bender, and realizing I could have avoided it if I hadn't been high.
Here's what I want to know: Does this mean that dealing in used prerecorded media would be illegal? I mean, it's kinda hard for me to escape that implication. Am I misunderstanding something here?
I hope you reconsider the idea that you have no problems driving stoned. It's true that it tends to make people drive more carefully, but it also slows your reaction time considerably. If someone runs a red light, or if a child runs out in front of your car, you could suddenly find yourself with a very big problem.
No, that's not a difference. People who drive when they're impaired (or distracted) for any reason do so precisely for the reasons you state.
Besides, I don't think anyone wants to say it should be okay to drive when you're high. It's drug use at home that's harmless.
You should understand two things here:
1. Although the question of stem cell research got some press during the campaign, it wasn't exactly hitting the top in polls that asked the public about which issues they thought were most important.
2. As for promises about health care coverage, a significant number of Americans' reaction to campaign promises ranges from "mildly doubtful" to "he's fucking lying."
You're getting ahead of yourself. Try asking that question after you've already established that the data will actually be used in a competent manner to get useful information.
What searches constitute "certain searches"? If it's censoring results, are the results really better? If Google is known to censor some searches, you can never be sure whether they're censoring your search, can you? This is just the issue that gets publicized.
Now, mind you, I don't see a problem with Google "filtering" (a word I'd prefer in this instance) the results in certain searches. It's their web site to run as they please. But as someone else already noted, I'm not certain it makes good business sense.
You got that right. Someone happens to leave a briefcase on the sidewalk in front of an office building, and we get an eight-minute news segment of the bomb squad checking it out with periodic updates for the next hour, until they figure out there's nothing in it but the daily racing form.
From the first entry, notice in particular:
Also see the idiomatic usage found after that entry.
But if you bitch, you're giving the company a shot at improving its product.
So maybe they think you're totally unreasonable and blow you off. Fair enough. At least now you're able to say you gave them a chance. Or maybe, just maybe, they figure out a way to give you what you want while still getting what they want. Then it's a win-win.
Of course, it all depends on how you bitch. If you're all shrill and hysterical and stuff, they're not likely to take you seriously.
So what you're saying, then, is, "Don't worry about it until it's too late."
Now, the affirmative right to watch and skip parts of the content that a consumer has legally obtained only exists if certain conditions are met: no commercial or promotional ads may be skipped.
With product placement becoming more common in movies, does that mean that if we start running a movie we're required to watch the entire thing? That would be a problem for me because sometimes I'll pop a DVD in and skip to my favorite parts.
He did work he would have been paid for.
And if the guy's a famous star it's not like his family is struggling to put food on the table.
1. If he's a famous star. Most artists aren't.
2. A lot of famous stars aren't as well-off financially as folks think they are.
3. Whether they're struggling or not is beside the point.
It is nothing but a windfall for uncreative, greedy people who did nothing to deserve it, but who'll probably go around suing anyone who has the audacity to actually create, say, a derivative work.
If the artist thinks his heirs are greedy and don't deserve it, let him write them out of his will. Leave the copyright to the Susan G. Komen Foundation, or the Humane Society, or something. Or let him declare all his work public domain upon his death.
You are completely missing the point of copyright, as stated in the Constitution, which is to encourage an artist's creativity.
No, I'm not. I've argued here on /. before in favor of a limited, say 15 year copyright term with no renewal, for the very reason the Consitution states. I understand that the reason for a limited term is to give the artist an incentive to create subsequent works. I think it's a good idea, too.
But this view of copyright means the artist is working for the public's benefit, so there's the matter of the "last paycheck." The artist's family benefits from the income if he lives, so why not let the term of protection run its course if he dies? Or, heck, even cut it off shorter if you want. And if there's no immediate family, then by all means let the work go into public domain.
Do you know how Anthony Burgess started as a novelist? He was diagnosed with a brain tumor and told he had about a year to live. He wrote, if memory serves, his first five novels in that year to try to provide some money for his (he thought) soon-to-be widow. The tumor turned out to be a false alarm, but the idea that his heir would profit from his work was the incentive that started his career as a novelist.
My way gives the literary world Anthony Burgess.
And why is that? Did they contribute to it?
Maybe they did. In any case, if we're talking about immediate family, they almost certainly helped make the work possible even if they didn't contribute directly. But that's beside the point.
Here's the real argument: Think of it as being pretty much the same thing as the last paycheck of an hourly-wage worker who dies suddenly. That guy's family deserves the money for his work, don't they? So this would be the equivalent for the writer, musician, or whatever. Maybe the term's not as long as it would be if the artist had lived, but the heirs still get something.
This idea has come up before, and folks point out the possibility of someone recording a hit song and getting killed the next day. Surely his heirs deserve some return for that work.
Now whether copyrights should be allowed to be sold in the first place is another story.
The ability to sell copyrights is, in some cases, what gives them value to the creator. It might not be an issue if all artists were also savvy business and/or marketing people, but they're not. So I say let'em cash out if they want, if there's a buyer. Put the material in the hands of someone who can commercially exploit it better. That works to everyone's advantage.
A common misconception. It's okay to end a sentence with a preposition, especially if doing so allows you to construct the sentence in a way that makes it easier to understand.
From the Gregg Reference Manual, section 1080:
The place to avoid it, if you're really concerned about it, is where the preposition is unnecessary. For example:Where's he at?
...as opposed to...
Where is he?
They certainly had supporters who might have felt some extra motivation to buy CDs.
On the flip side, you can't measure non-sales. But what you can do is read letters to the editor pages, listen to talk radio shows, check out internet discussion boards and newsgroups, and you'll see a lot of howling about what they said. It doesn't take much to extend all that to listeners calling and e-mailing and maybe even writing letters to radio stations demanding a boycot.
I dunno... my take on it is that radio stations stopped playing the Dixie Chicks' music simply because that's what their listeners wanted. (Or, at least, that's what they perceived their listeners to want.) That is to say, it was a business decision, not a political matter.
If the U.S. economy depends on selling Windows to third-world nations, we have far worse problems than even the deepest, darkest pessimist could ever have imagined.