Libraries have purchased the copy(s) they lend out. I see no problem in having Google post info and excerpts from copyrighted books, that is fair use!
But assuming that they have free reign to redistribute full works unless the author gives them an exclude list is not. (no it is not right for the wayback machine to do the same with websites ether, but you can say that the website was "given away" freely so give them a bit of a pass).
Call me a Ludite, but as far as I can see there is nothing in the Copyright law that says that it is Ok to steal copyrighted stuff unless the owner finds you and gives you a list of things They don't want you to steal. (Isn't that what copyLeft is about?).
It is hard enough for Authors to make a living at writing without Google stealing their works and giving them away for free.
I work with a lot of small nonprofits who use email to advocate for their cause to MEMBERS AND FRIENDS who sign up for their lists. BUT many ISPS now use a simplistic definition of spam as "any large amount of email at one time". Many ISPs are not responsive to pleading by the orgs that they are a special case and in the case of high speed vendors they are often the only game in town.
While real spam is a pain, we must actively protect the free speech rights of legitimate causes on the internet.
"Why is some malicious software called a virus and removed by my anti-virus software and other malware called "spyware" and left there. The answer suggested here is that the difference is that the virus didn't trick you into clicking a User agreement. (not that all spyware does) But in fact I still don't see a lot of difference between what is classed spyware and what is classed virus. Is this a case of my being on the wrong side of that "fine line between clever and stupid".
Slashdot Mirror
Libraries have purchased the copy(s) they lend out. I see no problem in having Google post info and excerpts from copyrighted books, that is fair use! But assuming that they have free reign to redistribute full works unless the author gives them an exclude list is not. (no it is not right for the wayback machine to do the same with websites ether, but you can say that the website was "given away" freely so give them a bit of a pass). Call me a Ludite, but as far as I can see there is nothing in the Copyright law that says that it is Ok to steal copyrighted stuff unless the owner finds you and gives you a list of things They don't want you to steal. (Isn't that what copyLeft is about?). It is hard enough for Authors to make a living at writing without Google stealing their works and giving them away for free.
I work with a lot of small nonprofits who use email to advocate for their cause to MEMBERS AND FRIENDS who sign up for their lists. BUT many ISPS now use a simplistic definition of spam as "any large amount of email at one time". Many ISPs are not responsive to pleading by the orgs that they are a special case and in the case of high speed vendors they are often the only game in town. While real spam is a pain, we must actively protect the free speech rights of legitimate causes on the internet.
"Why is some malicious software called a virus and removed by my anti-virus software and other malware called "spyware" and left there. The answer suggested here is that the difference is that the virus didn't trick you into clicking a User agreement. (not that all spyware does) But in fact I still don't see a lot of difference between what is classed spyware and what is classed virus. Is this a case of my being on the wrong side of that "fine line between clever and stupid".