There is a lot of support for OSS in Europe, mainly in EU institutions built up in and around Maastricht.
The idea is to create a lot of research centers, not only in tech related issues but in the study of the economics and political impact of OSS as well.
In addition to that, a lot of EU countries, particularly France, Germany, and some parts of Spain are taking big steps towards goverment support for OSS. Schools in Spain are to migrate to linux in 18 months, and there is talk about doing the same in France. France runs quite a bit of its critical infrastructure (computer administrated motorways, nuclear power plants, airport traffic control, etc) on hardened linux systems.
Take a look at the following links if your interested:
Do you have any idea how annoying it must be if this thing runs into a corner, say, under a bed, where it is absolutely out of reach and you have no way of turning it off until the battery finally dies.
That's a pretty serious design flaw, IMHO. They should come with a remote control which let's you make it blow up from afar.
I'm happy that you can look up the decimation of fair use.
Me too.
If I was an independent news agency trying to decide on an international news service, I'd probably go with the one that was more well known. Before this article came out, I wasn't even aware of the AFP (but I was quite aware of AP and Reuters).
This is very much my field and I can tell you that you wouldn't. News outlets don't usually want newsagencies to outshine their own correspondents.
It's almost as if you are reading all the posts on this thread, and picking out everything you don't agree with and attributing it to me.
I'm not attributing it to you, I'm trying to be exhaustive. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough on that particular point. If you felt personaly attacked, then please accept my apologies, that was not my intention.
My original post was meant to apply to the entire discussion, not to single you out.
In the meantime, I'm going to still make fun of the French (I never thought, said, or even implied that you were French). Making of the French is fun, it's easy, and it's usually warranted.
On this point I take exception. I still feel your picking on the french is gratuitous and uncalled for. As you rightly point out, our disagreement would be the same if the actors involved were of different nationalities. Would you just as willingly make fun of jews and blacks?
In this case it's quite unwarranted, they run a damn good news agency, and no I'n not related to it or on its take in any way.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."
You'll notice I have highlited the occurences of the word "quotation". For something to qualify as a quotation, it must be clearly attributed to its author or source. That is not what google is doing, rather, it is taking AFP's pics and inserting them into articles from third parties without attribution.
The issue, therefor, is not one of compensation but one of attribution. AFP's business model does not rely on google or anyone else linking to them. Rather, they provide content to newspapers and other outlets and generally keep a low profile themselves. If said newspapers have to compete with third parties who basically rip off AFP images and insert them into a foreign and unattributed context, then they are right to complain before a court, and do so after having contacted google directly beforehand.
To suggest that AFP should keep its content away from google's robots is to ignore the issue. AFP isn't trying to keep its pics off google, just keep them in context.
To suggest that AFP is suing for the money is to have absolutely no idea what kind of budget one of the world's big three news agencies runs with and is downright ridiculous.
Before I am called an idiot by someone else who is just looking for a good chance to bash the french because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside rather than because the nationality of the news agency in question has anything to do with the issue at hand, let it be known I am not french.
Just as sending (spewing) spam, buying from spammers if one is replying to a spam offer should be a criminal offence as well, just as buying contraband is a crime.
It would be nice to see some of the resources put into fighting P2P for the MPAA put into fighting spammers and their supporters.
Those of you who think one of the world's big three news agencies (along with Associated Press and Reuters) needs to scam 17 million dollars obviously have no idea what kinds of budgets these agencies work with.
These AFP articles have really shown how most of the slashdot crowd just follow the leader in a mindless manner.
"Oh no! Someone is complaining to google! They must be evil, nevermind what the issue is about, let's stomp on them to make ourselves feel warm and fuzzy inside!"
Did you even read TFA?
AFP is complaining because its photographs are having its copyright data removed. That is not fair use, and if you actually thought about the issue before having some mindless knee-jerk reaction you might even notice.
A lot of people here don't seem to understand AFP's business model. AFP doesn't want people directed to its site because it doesn't make a living offering its content to the wide world. Rather, they sell their content to newspapers and the like, who then distribute it. Some of these outlets buy certain content which they levy at a premium to their paying customers, and other contents they distribute the way we're used to seeing it.
Therefor, AFP wishes to maintain it's role of providing content to the final distributors. How is that bad? AFP happens to be one of the most respected news agencies in the world for the quality and reliability of its reporting. Let's praise them for that and leave them to choose whatever business model they feel more comfortable with...
Lufthansa, the german flagship airline already has wifi on most flights. You pay a fixed fee and can surf the whole flight.
I can't remember the actual price, surely it's on their site.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're the one to blame for that bump on my head! I has been inhabited by a colony of roach like insects ever since...
I'm a hideous, snaggle-toother beast you insensitive clod!!!!
There is a lot of support for OSS in Europe, mainly in EU institutions built up in and around Maastricht.
The idea is to create a lot of research centers, not only in tech related issues but in the study of the economics and political impact of OSS as well.
In addition to that, a lot of EU countries, particularly France, Germany, and some parts of Spain are taking big steps towards goverment support for OSS. Schools in Spain are to migrate to linux in 18 months, and there is talk about doing the same in France. France runs quite a bit of its critical infrastructure (computer administrated motorways, nuclear power plants, airport traffic control, etc) on hardened linux systems.
Take a look at the following links if your interested:
http://www.flosspols.org/ http://www.flossproject.org/
Do you have any idea how annoying it must be if this thing runs into a corner, say, under a bed, where it is absolutely out of reach and you have no way of turning it off until the battery finally dies.
That's a pretty serious design flaw, IMHO. They should come with a remote control which let's you make it blow up from afar.
I'm happy that you can look up the decimation of fair use.
Me too.
If I was an independent news agency trying to decide on an international news service, I'd probably go with the one that was more well known. Before this article came out, I wasn't even aware of the AFP (but I was quite aware of AP and Reuters).
This is very much my field and I can tell you that you wouldn't. News outlets don't usually want newsagencies to outshine their own correspondents.
It's almost as if you are reading all the posts on this thread, and picking out everything you don't agree with and attributing it to me.
I'm not attributing it to you, I'm trying to be exhaustive. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough on that particular point. If you felt personaly attacked, then please accept my apologies, that was not my intention.
My original post was meant to apply to the entire discussion, not to single you out.
In the meantime, I'm going to still make fun of the French (I never thought, said, or even implied that you were French). Making of the French is fun, it's easy, and it's usually warranted.
On this point I take exception. I still feel your picking on the french is gratuitous and uncalled for. As you rightly point out, our disagreement would be the same if the actors involved were of different nationalities. Would you just as willingly make fun of jews and blacks?
In this case it's quite unwarranted, they run a damn good news agency, and no I'n not related to it or on its take in any way.
From copyright.gov:
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."
You'll notice I have highlited the occurences of the word "quotation". For something to qualify as a quotation, it must be clearly attributed to its author or source. That is not what google is doing, rather, it is taking AFP's pics and inserting them into articles from third parties without attribution.
The issue, therefor, is not one of compensation but one of attribution. AFP's business model does not rely on google or anyone else linking to them. Rather, they provide content to newspapers and other outlets and generally keep a low profile themselves. If said newspapers have to compete with third parties who basically rip off AFP images and insert them into a foreign and unattributed context, then they are right to complain before a court, and do so after having contacted google directly beforehand.
To suggest that AFP should keep its content away from google's robots is to ignore the issue. AFP isn't trying to keep its pics off google, just keep them in context.
To suggest that AFP is suing for the money is to have absolutely no idea what kind of budget one of the world's big three news agencies runs with and is downright ridiculous.
Before I am called an idiot by someone else who is just looking for a good chance to bash the french because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside rather than because the nationality of the news agency in question has anything to do with the issue at hand, let it be known I am not french.
Just as sending (spewing) spam, buying from spammers if one is replying to a spam offer should be a criminal offence as well, just as buying contraband is a crime. It would be nice to see some of the resources put into fighting P2P for the MPAA put into fighting spammers and their supporters.
Those of you who think one of the world's big three news agencies (along with Associated Press and Reuters) needs to scam 17 million dollars obviously have no idea what kinds of budgets these agencies work with. These AFP articles have really shown how most of the slashdot crowd just follow the leader in a mindless manner. "Oh no! Someone is complaining to google! They must be evil, nevermind what the issue is about, let's stomp on them to make ourselves feel warm and fuzzy inside!"
Did you even read TFA? AFP is complaining because its photographs are having its copyright data removed. That is not fair use, and if you actually thought about the issue before having some mindless knee-jerk reaction you might even notice.
A lot of people here don't seem to understand AFP's business model. AFP doesn't want people directed to its site because it doesn't make a living offering its content to the wide world. Rather, they sell their content to newspapers and the like, who then distribute it. Some of these outlets buy certain content which they levy at a premium to their paying customers, and other contents they distribute the way we're used to seeing it. Therefor, AFP wishes to maintain it's role of providing content to the final distributors. How is that bad? AFP happens to be one of the most respected news agencies in the world for the quality and reliability of its reporting. Let's praise them for that and leave them to choose whatever business model they feel more comfortable with...
Lufthansa, the german flagship airline already has wifi on most flights. You pay a fixed fee and can surf the whole flight. I can't remember the actual price, surely it's on their site.