I don't see the login in what you say.. I'll try to explain... You just admitted FaceBook opened it's door to everyone. It aims to be MySpace now. It hopes to meet the same destiny. One has to admit it. Facebook is looking for growth. They are looking for teens, webcam girls.. whoever will help them grow. That's their fate. That's their destiny. Facebook WISHES they become MySpace, with all that comes with it. I understand you may like facebook.. maybe you are right at the moment, and facebook is different.. but it will change, and in a way you wont like.
I think you are giving too much credit to the UK youth.
What I mean is, it's hardly the fact that gadgets use ICs and don't come with tubes (that is subways in American;)). If you ask me, I think there should be a reform in the UK education system. The sooner the better
However! I do not think it is limited to sciences only, I see a lot of dumbness and ignorance around the net, in forms of blogs and boards posting. And mind you, these are people who can connect to the internet.. Lack of even the most basic history and social knowledge..
But at the same time I have to say, it is hardly a UK restricted phenomena. If this study is conducted in the US and many other developed countries, I think the findings wont be too different.
Sad.
It's funny though to see AMD falls for Intel's trap in the nanometer war, after the tried so hard to distance themselves from the MHz war. Chip companies should focus on making the chips stronger/faster. Not with higher clockspeed of smaller print - which historically proved to not be directly related in all cases.
While I can understand why Google wants to reach as many chinese as possible, it is a dangerous move since google, precieved as a source for valuable information, and as a research tool, is suddenly a distorted source that paints a picture which is very much not real and true.
Although not exactly the same, it is not too far from changing the facts in a history book. The main reason for this comparison is the 'deliberate' nature by which the facts are changed.
I think this is a very bad precedent. Very bad. And google's excuse of trying to "supply information (even if not all) to all chinese people" is flawed and not honest.
What google SHOULD have done is - put a notice "Chinese government does not allow us to present results for this search term" RATHER than show partial results.
I see your point about AMD as an option that should be approached carefully.
However, I don't think AMD would have problems supporting a long term commitment agreement with Apple. I am quite surprised AMD didn't win that contract.
What I find also surprising is that Apple pairs with 50% of the "Wintel" couple, being an alternative to windows. AMD seems untainted;) But I assume Intel has no problems jumping into bed with Apple.:)
I actually modded the XBox (the current one, not the 360) once, and let me tell you one thing... It felt TOO easy. Making the DVD region free, connect to the web, replace the built in HDD with a bigger one and copy the games to the HDD so they load much faster.. Absolutely amazing how easy it was.
It was as if the XBox was designed with modding in mind;) Simply install one chip on the board, where it seems to have a perfect place reserved for it, and one extra wire going from one leg of the chip to one point on the board.
What I wonder is: will it be that easy with the 360? or will MS make it harder this time? Is it in their interest to make it harder? or is modding basically an encouraged sub-culture that benefits XBox?
(for example, I think the XMC [XBox Media Center], a software developed for the modded XBox to make the Xbox a home entertainment center so to speak, is bascially what I think MS had in mind when they changed the XBox 360 into a home entertainment center.. so... maybe it also benefits MS?)
I was just about to buy 40 sun machines, based on AMD. Maybe I should wait for Cray to come out with their product? Anyone knows the estimated retail price that machine is expected to hit the market with?;)
Our Colocation hosting fascility offered us DC power if we wanted. They said, we can have as many servers drawing DC power as we want (while limiting us with AC power). They said it is up to us but they would prefer if we used DC.
However, our hosting fascility is also a Telco. They operate all their phone infrastructure with DC power. Therefore, they have the knowledge and a very reliable system for that.
The problem was that we had very hard time finding DC PSUs for the devices we wanted to buy. When looking at blades from the top manufacturers, they all had AC only solutions. I thought it was a shame.
Another issue would have been, what if we wanted to move to another fascility? They might not have DC. We would be either limited to DC only fascilities (which is very limited) OR buying AC power supplies for all our machines (waste of money).
I think DC is a great idea. Hosting fascilities should all move to DC asap. It makes sense. But they should all do it, and they should be backed up by hardware manufacturers.
You are forgetting that MS invented cross frame coding.
There should be no denying, MS lead the development of HTML into DHTML into what is basically refered to AJAX today. It might be that W3C defined certain things, but the "violation" of those definitions by MS (which many times W3C adopted) is the reason AJAX exists today.
Trace back the features you like today about AJAX and they all come down to MS features extending what was at the time the standard of web.
I totally agree that treselling used licences of MS is OK. It is logical and right. If you buy a licence for a Windows OS, no reason this licence can't be resold under the same terms...
However, it is important to note that licence is not a simple product like a TV screen or a fruit.
Here are three reasons:
1. Lets say a licence was bought discounted as part of a non-profit or educational licence pack (schools, universities, organizations..). Such a licence should not be resold to a business entity or a private user.
2. A licence bares commitments by the client, more than most products. For example, you are not allowed to share the product freely, or copy it. (maybe not only because of licencing issues but also because of such). In some cases, a licence allows the use of a product only to a specific person, or under specific terms (specific hardware, environment). For example, not allowing the use of a product by non-development personnel. Not allowing the use of a product on a multiple CPU computers, etc...
3. Partly like #2, licencing sometimes are regional. Some people suggest that if its allowed in the UK for now, it should be open to international trade as well. Well.. not necessarily. For example, some licences are regional. Sometimes for good reason (allowing 3rd world countries the use of software that is very expensive for them if they had to buy it in other countries). OR limits of technology/security export. Sometimes cross-border trading has to be limited. That is true - noone likes to be limited, but sometimes there might be a good reason to accept such limitation
Can't think of any other differences for now, but those two demonstrate in my opinion why there are some differences with licencing.
With that said, reselling of a licence under the same obligations/terms as the original purchase is something I think is very right and just and should be implemented world-wide.
Just my 2 cents.
About blogs it's easy.. They are all negative;)
As for the rest, it depends.. Well, the question is, what is negative? and maybe we want to find negative posts? lets say you are customare care for a company.. you want to find negative posts about your company, no? So, in this case, finding negative posts is positive. I guess Einstein was right;)
They want it all in one. But more scary, they want it PER PERSON. Am I correct?
I mean, they are talking about a software. Not a service. That means everyone in their own home/biz will be scanning TONS of sites/feeds all the time in order to find the little that is relevant to them? Be it brand, product, Pop star, wha'eve'..
If that is correct, if indeed each 'user' will become a little search engine, than it will be a nightmare for sites. Instead of using search engines, people will full "spider" sites on their own?
That means, lets say at least 5M people care about/.? and articles are resleased on an hourly basis lets say? so to get the news in time I would want to scan/. every hour? 24 times a day at least?/. will get 120M extra spider hits a day:)
Now.. maybe it is ok for/. but what about some silly little private blogs that can't even pay for their bandwidth?:D
Just my 2 cents..
For the cost of 2,000 bus rides you can buy a cheap car;) Still some people take the bus.
More seriously though, to the issue... I think its not a bad idea to allow paid views to TV shows. However, I think it should not be timed and expired, and it should not be limited to primetime shows or running shows. $1 to download a TV show (and I do mean over the net for now) is a good idea, however without the limitation of when I can watch it. I think it is also good pricing.
this would be good for people who either do not have a Tivo, do not want a Tivo or want to watch shows that aired months ago. Lets say I want to watch "Homocide", which is off the TV screen by now. or the second season of 24... I could buy the DVDs, but why bother if they could give me the entire season for $24. If it is good quality and download speed is good, I think it is a good way to monetize those shows. and certainly a way to fight pirated downloads of those shows.
just my 2 cents.
Free MSSQL?? MySQL... beware;) I find it funny that company name products with years/dates when it is rule #2 that doing something will always take two times longer than your worst estimates:D
It is his right to fear though;) Only shows he has good sense of perception:D
Re:Google, Books and the internet..
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
Are you sure they are really lawyers and not people with mental problems that think they are lawyers?
Yes. I am sure they are lawyers. And good ones. This is in contrast to people who did a little "research" and think they know the copyright law. All lawyers I have spoken to so far, none have any personal take on this case, have quite quickly got the the conclusiuon that what google is doing is copyright violation.
You fail to understand that the principal of the law applies the same whether it is for books, random papers, or anything else. Google, or someone else, will eventually begin scanning in everything possible to make these databases more useful.
I don't fail to see that. This is why I say it is copyright violation. Your claims that it helps people, amd that its hard to trace the copyright owners is failing to understand that hard work (or impossible situation) does not give you right to break the law.
But let's ignore that and assume for the sake of argument that you are right and 95% of works in libraries that they will scan is able to be traced at a somewhat reasonable expense. Is it right that those 5% of works are effectively lost to the people who copyright laws are supposed to benefit?
It is a safe assumtion to say I am right. As for the rest of the 5%, as I said, tough. Not being able to abide by the law does not mean you can break it. Copyright laws were there to protect writers. Not allowing google to infringe the writers' rights is working AGAIST the writers? How did you get to this conclusion?
What do you predict this situation will be like in 75 years? Copyright terms have been extended again and again and the average book written today will be copyrighted for 120 years. For works that have been around for 100 years, how many of the publishers will have vanished? How many individually produced works will be easily traceable through five or more generations of inheritance? More importantly, you've never answered why Google should bear this burden.
Why google should bare this burden? because its the law. its not more burden than speed limit. or not stealing from the grocery store. I don't care what will happen in 100 years. Copyright laws are good. And if a copyright is broken, it is bad even if you in person enjoy the product of the theft.
Lets also assume for the sake of argument that what Google is doing is a violation of copyright. The copyright holder is still obligated to notify them of any copyright infringement and give them a reasonable amount of time to stop republishing a work before they can be held liable for damages. Now you want to shift the burden of keeping works unavailable to the public to Google instead of the people who are supposed to be profiting from them and thus being motivated to make more works? Preposterous!
You are wrong. Here is why..
There is quite an open and clear debate about this issue, that google knows about. Google can not say it had no knowledge of their illegal act. Publishers already are expressing their disapproval. If a copyright holder wanted to sue google, he would not have to notify google in advance anymore. Since googld knowingly infringed his right. The burder of abiding by the law is always on the offender. I am not saying it should be moved to google, it is already on them. You are referring to "innocent" act when you claim the copyright holder should notify the offender. There you are right. But when google knows in advance quite clearly they are breaking the law, prior notice is not needed. I assume that when/if it comes to court, it will also be a class action agaist google. and if the verdict will be against google, it will not be only payment of compensation but a cease or desist verdict. It is not like MS and anti-competition laws.
The fact that you are enjoying what google does, does not make the copyright infrin
Re:Google, Books and the internet..
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
I certainly see you did a lot of this thing called "research". However, you simply have to ask lawyers (which is what I do) about copyright and they will you that using if for your befenit (especially financial) against the will of the copyright holder is illegal. Maybe you now hold poor opinion over the lawyers I talk to. That is your right.
You seem to found out other truth. Good for google then. I doubt though that the legal system will agree with you and google. But as I said, time will tell.
Woth most of the books they will scan, it is very easy to find the publisher. It is written in the book. Your claims are mostly argumentative as you seem to ignore the fact tht we talk about books and about printed ones. You talk about unknown authors and IP in general and seem to fail to realize we talk here about printed books in libraries. I am fairly sure that 95% or even more of the works found in libraries that are still copyrighted are very easy to trace back to the authors. Books written 100 years ago with an unknown authorr are not copyrighted anymore. And I bet libraries dont hold many 'printed' books by unknown authors. You think differently? ok.
As for the millions they will spend on contacting publishers, they will spend much more on scanning. So again, weak argument. Regardless, not having money to do the right thing is no excuse for doing the wrong thing. Especially not for a "poor" company like google.
You seem to live in a place where copyright can easily be broken and ignored. I live in a different place. You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that the world is not the US. that there are other countries there. Maybe I live in one of them?
Re:Google, Books and the internet..
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
We appear to think very differently on the subject. You seem to think that google is a special company that is not obliged by copyright laws. I think differently. And time I assume will prove my view is what the court will side with. But as we all say, time will tell.
I assure you that if I personally did it (what google is trying to do), I will be in jail for not being able to pay the sums of money the court will rule aginst me. I think people (maybe you included) think differently simply because of the fact that sueing google is a little harder than sueing smaller fish. But it is only a matter of time before google finds themslves paying a lot of money for wrongs they do, just as Mircosoft is doing nowadays.
Copyright laws are broken when google copies and make available (either for search or full/partial quote) without the concent of publishers. Not only that, but if publishers wanted, they could simply prove financial damages regardless of copyright violations, that will still stand in court. This is not a question of view. it is a question of law. Bad or good for the public or the author, law is law, and I for one think it is good. Ever more right than RIAA and the movie industry wins over not too different matters (copyright violations)
As for your assumption that google will spend hundreds of millions by trying to contact authors, this is simply funny. The number of publishers that publish 80% of the books in the world is very limited. Publishers are trusted with the copyright laws of most of the books. It is very easy to contact most of them IF one wanted. One does not want to because they know what the answer is.
Re:Google, Books and the internet..
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
I'd just like to mention, adding a robots.txt is an opt out scheme. Google indexes all the internet that people don't specifically request they do not. Legally, they do not even have to respect the robots.txt, they do so to generate good will. It would be prohibitively expensive to contact every website operator and get permission in advance.
Google does NOT index all the web. Robots.txt is opt out indeed, BUT the site has to be open to the web. NYTimes subscribed archive is not open to the web. Even without Robots.txt it wont be in google. Same with books. Books are not open to the net, nor they are free.
The same holds true for books as well. It is just too expensive to ask every copyright holder, and many copyright holders are completely obscured. Authors die, publishing houses go out of business. Technically, someone owns the copy rights, but no one really knows who.
I would say - Tough. Most of the books published (that are still copyrighted) can be tracked back to the publisher. For those that are not, a solution can be found. That is no excuse for not contacting those you CAN contact.
Which means jack and shit since it is not formatted in such a way as to be machine readable, like the robots.txt and since it is not legally binding. Fair use means Google can index them in order to recreate a excerpt and children can copy a paragraph for their book report. They could but in a clause that says "you agree to pay me $1 for every letter in this book you read." It means nothing.
Not formatted? Its very clearly formatted. And you are claiming that after indexing the entire book google, with all their brilliant people, can not write some routine that searches for copyright notice? It would be a very weak argument if google said that. As for your $1 argument.. Console games, DVD/VCR movies, all say that you are not allowed to publicly display the movie. Does that mean jack shit too? Maybe we can freely copy console games cause who cares if its written somewhere in the box that we can't why should we bother to read it? If its hard for google to find the copyright notice, it should be hard for us to realize what theft is as well. Hell... what about any other crime... who are they to expect us to obey the law when it is written is some obscure book somewhere, which I never saw??
Neither do web users since it is easy to forge said information.
How can you compare the two? At least WE have logs. At least we can see, if not all, then the "legitimate" spiders.
What the hell are you taking about? The fair use doctrine says no such thing.
I disagree with you. See what happens if google stopped linking to the original sites from which they index data. How many sites do you think will allow google to keep scanning their sites? It is common sense and clearly is part of the fair use doctrine.
The internet is not free. A good chunk is free, and a good chunk is paid for by ads, but then pay-to-view porn sites make up about a third as well. All three of these models apply to print as well.
In most part, the internet is free. Ads on a page does not mean its paid. Yuo clearly misundetood my use of free. Free as in "I don't have to pay to go to that page". Internet is free to the end user. Not the same with books. You might want to not see that fact, but it is. Ads allow the net to be free. The same way it allows some TV channels to be free.
Most of the Internet is free. And for the part that is not free? Well - that part is almost all NOT in google. Simple analogy to the books world.. Books therefore should NOT be spidered unless asking to. Same with sites that allow access only to paid members.
Basically, from doing a little research it is pretty apparent Google is likely to prevail in this case. As for whether or not that is a bad thing, the only peo
It was proved already over the history that when you dont incentive (economiacally as well) creators for their creation, you loose creativity.
As for your view of freely accessible information, it might be true BUT google does not enable access to the information. only make it searchable in a snippet format. Once that is done you don't have access to the information. And trust me, most aythors (novelists, sci-fi, philosophy) dont (and wont) use google to look for which books to read. They go to the library and talk to their friends/coleges about which books to read.
Although I am sure it will be the official stand, I doubt what drives google is the authors and their creativity;)
I am sure many will ask what the difference between books and sites is. And since we all like google scanning out sites, why should we oppose book scanning?
Well, for several reasons:
1. It is WE who like our sites scanned, and if not, we add a Robots.txt file. We can protect some of the content on our site, or all. and we easily know if its being spidered, so we can take action. How will that be with books? Robots.txt is not probably. You know what? if anything, it already exists in a way. All (most) books say have on them, in print, right in the beginning a text saying "copying of material from this book is not allowed unless permitted, prior, in writing, by the author or the publisher". I think that resembles a robots.txt file. no? And authors have little ability to "check the web logs" and see who scans their books.
2. We get something directly from it. Fair use dictates that google links to our sites directly. How will that be with books? You have to go to the shop to at least consider buying the book? Not likely. They can send traffic to Amazon maybe? But still, not a parallel (and if they do, I am sure they will collect referral fee;))
3. Our sites operate in the internet. Books "operate" in libraries, stores. You go to a library? you can search there for a book. On the internet, you can search for sites. Not only that, but internet has shaped to be mostly a free and open medium. Books - not. Books, you have to buy, or at least subscribe to a library (paid, directly or indirectly). Different "market".
4. Most of our sites are free, and are freely accessed. Most of the sites in google are such sites. As a matter of fact, subscribed sites where their content is protected and paid for (as books are) do NOT have their content on google. And IF they have, THEY take the steps to get it into google. Books are in a sense like protected/paid sites.
A world of difference that is going to be erased very abruptly by google..
Good or bad? You decide (and also authors, publications and libraries which seems to have decided already)
You boycott Nokia? But you just love google? Come on! Get real
Google doesn't have a patent on their software?? They have many (http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtm l?articleID=172901917). This is plain silly. And the $350K, tax exampt, self serving, PR.. Not very different from Nokia's site, only more effective with students and workd press alike.
Nothing wrong at all with software patents, as long as they are use appropriately (just like non-software patents). You don't like patents? Want to boycott companies that use them? Boycott google. Boycott Microsoft. Boycott your PC manufacturer. Boycott your food makers, electrical devices. Boycott the modern world basically.
Boycott Nokia though. It is your right, and since it is idiological one I fully support it (even if I think the reason is silly). But my suggestion is, treat all companies in the same way. Boycott all companies that use patents. Only thing is, you will be left with a very clean desktop.
Nokia is one of the companies that I really like. I really like their products. Most of what they did so far (that I have seen) was really good.
Indeed, they did not come out with a PDA phone (and I believe they wont), but their latest 3G phones have Symbian OS, which supports writing application for their phones. In many senses it is not far from a simple PDA phone. Design is slick and functionality really good. I personally don't see the point yet in 3G and certainly see little value in video chat over the cellular phone, but I think Nokia understands their market very good. Nokia seems to be steering (the company) in the right direction for many years now.
I for one can not see myself with a cell phone that is not Nokia.
As for their OSS project/site.. I guess its a beginning. Still a very simple and basic site. But I bet it will evolve really soon, really fast. Time will tell if my prediction is right, but to harness the OSS community to develop application to their phones seems like the smart move. Especially with a gadget/tool that we all carry so close and use it (some at least) so much.
Thumbs up to Nokia
I don't really know who uses Novell anymore.
last time I saw Novell was about 14 years ago when I managed a computer center in a community center. Even then though I was wondering why they decided to use Novell (network).
I assume it is legacy as you suggest. However, I don't really know (although by itself that can be an indicative). However, legacy business can still be a good business.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see the login in what you say.. I'll try to explain...
You just admitted FaceBook opened it's door to everyone. It aims to be MySpace now. It hopes to meet the same destiny. One has to admit it. Facebook is looking for growth. They are looking for teens, webcam girls.. whoever will help them grow. That's their fate. That's their destiny. Facebook WISHES they become MySpace, with all that comes with it.
I understand you may like facebook.. maybe you are right at the moment, and facebook is different.. but it will change, and in a way you wont like.
I think you are giving too much credit to the UK youth. ;)). If you ask me, I think there should be a reform in the UK education system. The sooner the better
What I mean is, it's hardly the fact that gadgets use ICs and don't come with tubes (that is subways in American
However! I do not think it is limited to sciences only, I see a lot of dumbness and ignorance around the net, in forms of blogs and boards posting. And mind you, these are people who can connect to the internet.. Lack of even the most basic history and social knowledge..
But at the same time I have to say, it is hardly a UK restricted phenomena. If this study is conducted in the US and many other developed countries, I think the findings wont be too different.
Sad.
It's funny though to see AMD falls for Intel's trap in the nanometer war, after the tried so hard to distance themselves from the MHz war. Chip companies should focus on making the chips stronger/faster. Not with higher clockspeed of smaller print - which historically proved to not be directly related in all cases.
This is a very good example.
While I can understand why Google wants to reach as many chinese as possible, it is a dangerous move since google, precieved as a source for valuable information, and as a research tool, is suddenly a distorted source that paints a picture which is very much not real and true. Although not exactly the same, it is not too far from changing the facts in a history book. The main reason for this comparison is the 'deliberate' nature by which the facts are changed. I think this is a very bad precedent. Very bad. And google's excuse of trying to "supply information (even if not all) to all chinese people" is flawed and not honest.
What google SHOULD have done is - put a notice "Chinese government does not allow us to present results for this search term" RATHER than show partial results.
I see your point about AMD as an option that should be approached carefully. However, I don't think AMD would have problems supporting a long term commitment agreement with Apple. I am quite surprised AMD didn't win that contract. What I find also surprising is that Apple pairs with 50% of the "Wintel" couple, being an alternative to windows. AMD seems untainted ;) But I assume Intel has no problems jumping into bed with Apple. :)
My d-u-p-l-i-c-a-t-e?
Is that like "My Y-a-h-o-o"?
I actually modded the XBox (the current one, not the 360) once, and let me tell you one thing... It felt TOO easy. Making the DVD region free, connect to the web, replace the built in HDD with a bigger one and copy the games to the HDD so they load much faster.. Absolutely amazing how easy it was. ;) Simply install one chip on the board, where it seems to have a perfect place reserved for it, and one extra wire going from one leg of the chip to one point on the board.
It was as if the XBox was designed with modding in mind
What I wonder is: will it be that easy with the 360? or will MS make it harder this time? Is it in their interest to make it harder? or is modding basically an encouraged sub-culture that benefits XBox?
(for example, I think the XMC [XBox Media Center], a software developed for the modded XBox to make the Xbox a home entertainment center so to speak, is bascially what I think MS had in mind when they changed the XBox 360 into a home entertainment center.. so... maybe it also benefits MS?)
I was just about to buy 40 sun machines, based on AMD. Maybe I should wait for Cray to come out with their product? Anyone knows the estimated retail price that machine is expected to hit the market with? ;)
Our Colocation hosting fascility offered us DC power if we wanted. They said, we can have as many servers drawing DC power as we want (while limiting us with AC power). They said it is up to us but they would prefer if we used DC.
However, our hosting fascility is also a Telco. They operate all their phone infrastructure with DC power. Therefore, they have the knowledge and a very reliable system for that.
The problem was that we had very hard time finding DC PSUs for the devices we wanted to buy. When looking at blades from the top manufacturers, they all had AC only solutions. I thought it was a shame.
Another issue would have been, what if we wanted to move to another fascility? They might not have DC. We would be either limited to DC only fascilities (which is very limited) OR buying AC power supplies for all our machines (waste of money).
I think DC is a great idea. Hosting fascilities should all move to DC asap. It makes sense. But they should all do it, and they should be backed up by hardware manufacturers.
You are forgetting that MS invented cross frame coding.
There should be no denying, MS lead the development of HTML into DHTML into what is basically refered to AJAX today. It might be that W3C defined certain things, but the "violation" of those definitions by MS (which many times W3C adopted) is the reason AJAX exists today.
Trace back the features you like today about AJAX and they all come down to MS features extending what was at the time the standard of web.
I totally agree that treselling used licences of MS is OK. It is logical and right. If you buy a licence for a Windows OS, no reason this licence can't be resold under the same terms...
However, it is important to note that licence is not a simple product like a TV screen or a fruit.
Here are three reasons:
1. Lets say a licence was bought discounted as part of a non-profit or educational licence pack (schools, universities, organizations..). Such a licence should not be resold to a business entity or a private user.
2. A licence bares commitments by the client, more than most products. For example, you are not allowed to share the product freely, or copy it. (maybe not only because of licencing issues but also because of such). In some cases, a licence allows the use of a product only to a specific person, or under specific terms (specific hardware, environment). For example, not allowing the use of a product by non-development personnel. Not allowing the use of a product on a multiple CPU computers, etc...
3. Partly like #2, licencing sometimes are regional. Some people suggest that if its allowed in the UK for now, it should be open to international trade as well. Well.. not necessarily. For example, some licences are regional. Sometimes for good reason (allowing 3rd world countries the use of software that is very expensive for them if they had to buy it in other countries). OR limits of technology/security export. Sometimes cross-border trading has to be limited. That is true - noone likes to be limited, but sometimes there might be a good reason to accept such limitation
Can't think of any other differences for now, but those two demonstrate in my opinion why there are some differences with licencing.
With that said, reselling of a licence under the same obligations/terms as the original purchase is something I think is very right and just and should be implemented world-wide.
Just my 2 cents.
About blogs it's easy.. They are all negative ;) ;)
As for the rest, it depends.. Well, the question is, what is negative? and maybe we want to find negative posts? lets say you are customare care for a company.. you want to find negative posts about your company, no? So, in this case, finding negative posts is positive. I guess Einstein was right
They want it all in one. But more scary, they want it PER PERSON. Am I correct? /.? and articles are resleased on an hourly basis lets say? so to get the news in time I would want to scan /. every hour? 24 times a day at least? /. will get 120M extra spider hits a day :) /. but what about some silly little private blogs that can't even pay for their bandwidth? :D
I mean, they are talking about a software. Not a service. That means everyone in their own home/biz will be scanning TONS of sites/feeds all the time in order to find the little that is relevant to them? Be it brand, product, Pop star, wha'eve'..
If that is correct, if indeed each 'user' will become a little search engine, than it will be a nightmare for sites. Instead of using search engines, people will full "spider" sites on their own?
That means, lets say at least 5M people care about
Now.. maybe it is ok for
Just my 2 cents..
For the cost of 2,000 bus rides you can buy a cheap car ;) Still some people take the bus.
More seriously though, to the issue... I think its not a bad idea to allow paid views to TV shows. However, I think it should not be timed and expired, and it should not be limited to primetime shows or running shows. $1 to download a TV show (and I do mean over the net for now) is a good idea, however without the limitation of when I can watch it. I think it is also good pricing.
this would be good for people who either do not have a Tivo, do not want a Tivo or want to watch shows that aired months ago. Lets say I want to watch "Homocide", which is off the TV screen by now. or the second season of 24... I could buy the DVDs, but why bother if they could give me the entire season for $24. If it is good quality and download speed is good, I think it is a good way to monetize those shows. and certainly a way to fight pirated downloads of those shows.
just my 2 cents.
Free MSSQL?? MySQL... beware ;) :D
I find it funny that company name products with years/dates when it is rule #2 that doing something will always take two times longer than your worst estimates
It is his right to fear though ;) Only shows he has good sense of perception :D
Yes. I am sure they are lawyers. And good ones. This is in contrast to people who did a little "research" and think they know the copyright law. All lawyers I have spoken to so far, none have any personal take on this case, have quite quickly got the the conclusiuon that what google is doing is copyright violation.
I don't fail to see that. This is why I say it is copyright violation. Your claims that it helps people, amd that its hard to trace the copyright owners is failing to understand that hard work (or impossible situation) does not give you right to break the law.
It is a safe assumtion to say I am right. As for the rest of the 5%, as I said, tough. Not being able to abide by the law does not mean you can break it. Copyright laws were there to protect writers. Not allowing google to infringe the writers' rights is working AGAIST the writers? How did you get to this conclusion?
Why google should bare this burden? because its the law. its not more burden than speed limit. or not stealing from the grocery store. I don't care what will happen in 100 years. Copyright laws are good. And if a copyright is broken, it is bad even if you in person enjoy the product of the theft.
You are wrong. Here is why..
There is quite an open and clear debate about this issue, that google knows about. Google can not say it had no knowledge of their illegal act. Publishers already are expressing their disapproval. If a copyright holder wanted to sue google, he would not have to notify google in advance anymore. Since googld knowingly infringed his right. The burder of abiding by the law is always on the offender. I am not saying it should be moved to google, it is already on them. You are referring to "innocent" act when you claim the copyright holder should notify the offender. There you are right. But when google knows in advance quite clearly they are breaking the law, prior notice is not needed. I assume that when/if it comes to court, it will also be a class action agaist google. and if the verdict will be against google, it will not be only payment of compensation but a cease or desist verdict. It is not like MS and anti-competition laws.
The fact that you are enjoying what google does, does not make the copyright infrin
I certainly see you did a lot of this thing called "research". However, you simply have to ask lawyers (which is what I do) about copyright and they will you that using if for your befenit (especially financial) against the will of the copyright holder is illegal. Maybe you now hold poor opinion over the lawyers I talk to. That is your right.
You seem to found out other truth. Good for google then. I doubt though that the legal system will agree with you and google. But as I said, time will tell.
Woth most of the books they will scan, it is very easy to find the publisher. It is written in the book. Your claims are mostly argumentative as you seem to ignore the fact tht we talk about books and about printed ones. You talk about unknown authors and IP in general and seem to fail to realize we talk here about printed books in libraries. I am fairly sure that 95% or even more of the works found in libraries that are still copyrighted are very easy to trace back to the authors. Books written 100 years ago with an unknown authorr are not copyrighted anymore. And I bet libraries dont hold many 'printed' books by unknown authors. You think differently? ok.
As for the millions they will spend on contacting publishers, they will spend much more on scanning. So again, weak argument. Regardless, not having money to do the right thing is no excuse for doing the wrong thing. Especially not for a "poor" company like google.
You seem to live in a place where copyright can easily be broken and ignored. I live in a different place. You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that the world is not the US. that there are other countries there. Maybe I live in one of them?
We appear to think very differently on the subject. You seem to think that google is a special company that is not obliged by copyright laws. I think differently. And time I assume will prove my view is what the court will side with. But as we all say, time will tell.
I assure you that if I personally did it (what google is trying to do), I will be in jail for not being able to pay the sums of money the court will rule aginst me. I think people (maybe you included) think differently simply because of the fact that sueing google is a little harder than sueing smaller fish. But it is only a matter of time before google finds themslves paying a lot of money for wrongs they do, just as Mircosoft is doing nowadays.
Copyright laws are broken when google copies and make available (either for search or full/partial quote) without the concent of publishers. Not only that, but if publishers wanted, they could simply prove financial damages regardless of copyright violations, that will still stand in court. This is not a question of view. it is a question of law. Bad or good for the public or the author, law is law, and I for one think it is good. Ever more right than RIAA and the movie industry wins over not too different matters (copyright violations)
As for your assumption that google will spend hundreds of millions by trying to contact authors, this is simply funny. The number of publishers that publish 80% of the books in the world is very limited. Publishers are trusted with the copyright laws of most of the books. It is very easy to contact most of them IF one wanted. One does not want to because they know what the answer is.
Google does NOT index all the web. Robots.txt is opt out indeed, BUT the site has to be open to the web. NYTimes subscribed archive is not open to the web. Even without Robots.txt it wont be in google. Same with books. Books are not open to the net, nor they are free.
I would say - Tough. Most of the books published (that are still copyrighted) can be tracked back to the publisher. For those that are not, a solution can be found. That is no excuse for not contacting those you CAN contact.
Not formatted? Its very clearly formatted. And you are claiming that after indexing the entire book google, with all their brilliant people, can not write some routine that searches for copyright notice? It would be a very weak argument if google said that. As for your $1 argument.. Console games, DVD/VCR movies, all say that you are not allowed to publicly display the movie. Does that mean jack shit too? Maybe we can freely copy console games cause who cares if its written somewhere in the box that we can't why should we bother to read it? If its hard for google to find the copyright notice, it should be hard for us to realize what theft is as well. Hell... what about any other crime... who are they to expect us to obey the law when it is written is some obscure book somewhere, which I never saw??
How can you compare the two? At least WE have logs. At least we can see, if not all, then the "legitimate" spiders.
I disagree with you. See what happens if google stopped linking to the original sites from which they index data. How many sites do you think will allow google to keep scanning their sites? It is common sense and clearly is part of the fair use doctrine.
In most part, the internet is free. Ads on a page does not mean its paid. Yuo clearly misundetood my use of free. Free as in "I don't have to pay to go to that page". Internet is free to the end user. Not the same with books. You might want to not see that fact, but it is. Ads allow the net to be free. The same way it allows some TV channels to be free.
Most of the Internet is free. And for the part that is not free? Well - that part is almost all NOT in google. Simple analogy to the books world.. Books therefore should NOT be spidered unless asking to. Same with sites that allow access only to paid members.
It was proved already over the history that when you dont incentive (economiacally as well) creators for their creation, you loose creativity. ;)
As for your view of freely accessible information, it might be true BUT google does not enable access to the information. only make it searchable in a snippet format. Once that is done you don't have access to the information. And trust me, most aythors (novelists, sci-fi, philosophy) dont (and wont) use google to look for which books to read. They go to the library and talk to their friends/coleges about which books to read.
Although I am sure it will be the official stand, I doubt what drives google is the authors and their creativity
I am sure many will ask what the difference between books and sites is. And since we all like google scanning out sites, why should we oppose book scanning? ;))
Well, for several reasons:
1. It is WE who like our sites scanned, and if not, we add a Robots.txt file. We can protect some of the content on our site, or all. and we easily know if its being spidered, so we can take action. How will that be with books? Robots.txt is not probably. You know what? if anything, it already exists in a way. All (most) books say have on them, in print, right in the beginning a text saying "copying of material from this book is not allowed unless permitted, prior, in writing, by the author or the publisher". I think that resembles a robots.txt file. no? And authors have little ability to "check the web logs" and see who scans their books.
2. We get something directly from it. Fair use dictates that google links to our sites directly. How will that be with books? You have to go to the shop to at least consider buying the book? Not likely. They can send traffic to Amazon maybe? But still, not a parallel (and if they do, I am sure they will collect referral fee
3. Our sites operate in the internet. Books "operate" in libraries, stores. You go to a library? you can search there for a book. On the internet, you can search for sites. Not only that, but internet has shaped to be mostly a free and open medium. Books - not. Books, you have to buy, or at least subscribe to a library (paid, directly or indirectly). Different "market".
4. Most of our sites are free, and are freely accessed. Most of the sites in google are such sites. As a matter of fact, subscribed sites where their content is protected and paid for (as books are) do NOT have their content on google. And IF they have, THEY take the steps to get it into google. Books are in a sense like protected/paid sites.
A world of difference that is going to be erased very abruptly by google..
Good or bad? You decide (and also authors, publications and libraries which seems to have decided already)
You boycott Nokia? But you just love google? Come on! Get realm l?articleID=172901917). This is plain silly. And the $350K, tax exampt, self serving, PR.. Not very different from Nokia's site, only more effective with students and workd press alike.
Google doesn't have a patent on their software?? They have many (http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jht
Nothing wrong at all with software patents, as long as they are use appropriately (just like non-software patents). You don't like patents? Want to boycott companies that use them? Boycott google. Boycott Microsoft. Boycott your PC manufacturer. Boycott your food makers, electrical devices. Boycott the modern world basically.
Boycott Nokia though. It is your right, and since it is idiological one I fully support it (even if I think the reason is silly). But my suggestion is, treat all companies in the same way. Boycott all companies that use patents. Only thing is, you will be left with a very clean desktop.
Nokia is one of the companies that I really like. I really like their products. Most of what they did so far (that I have seen) was really good.
Indeed, they did not come out with a PDA phone (and I believe they wont), but their latest 3G phones have Symbian OS, which supports writing application for their phones. In many senses it is not far from a simple PDA phone. Design is slick and functionality really good. I personally don't see the point yet in 3G and certainly see little value in video chat over the cellular phone, but I think Nokia understands their market very good. Nokia seems to be steering (the company) in the right direction for many years now.
I for one can not see myself with a cell phone that is not Nokia.
As for their OSS project/site.. I guess its a beginning. Still a very simple and basic site. But I bet it will evolve really soon, really fast. Time will tell if my prediction is right, but to harness the OSS community to develop application to their phones seems like the smart move. Especially with a gadget/tool that we all carry so close and use it (some at least) so much.
Thumbs up to Nokia
I don't really know who uses Novell anymore.
last time I saw Novell was about 14 years ago when I managed a computer center in a community center. Even then though I was wondering why they decided to use Novell (network).
I assume it is legacy as you suggest. However, I don't really know (although by itself that can be an indicative). However, legacy business can still be a good business.