Re:I get the most spam from MSN/hotmail
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 1
Oh, it's definitely from MSN/Hotmail. My mail server reports that it received them from XXX-XXXX.bayNNN.hotmail.com, and they contain the X-Originating-IP and X-Originating-Email headers that are always in real hotmail/msn emails. I've been too lazy to auto forward these messages to report_spam@msn.com, but it's on my list of things to implement when I'm bored. I rarely see hotmail forgeries, probably because they usually don't get past my greylist filter.
This morning, my bayes_99% folder had 6 true hotmail spam, and one from tin.it.
I get the most spam from MSN/hotmail
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 1
If Microsoft wanted to kill spam, a good start would be for them to run spamcheckers on all their outgoing mail. 80% of my email that SpamAssassin marks with 90% or higher probability of being spam through bayesian analysis is coming from MSN or Hotmail (and I've never seen a false positive).
If you want to use content sold by Sony in the reader's native format, you'll need to go to Sony's Connect site, which redirects you to http://www.connect.com/non_ie.html if you're not using IE on a Windows platform as an administrator user. As for me, I'd never buy a Sony device until I knew that I could provide my own content derived from text, HTML, or other formats via another operating system.
Linux Journal Is Currently Unavailable Due to a Denial of Service (DoS) Attack Sorry for any inconvenience.
Sony and RIAA will blame P2Pers not boycott
on
Bad Day To Be Sony
·
· Score: 1
Even if a boycott were to work, and Sony's CD sales were to drop 50% during the Christmas season (with no changes in sales from other labels), Sony and the RIAA would claim that it was clearly caused by illegal P2P file-sharing, and file extra lawsuits targeting Sony CD sharers, and lobby Congress for more protection. The industry's been in denial for years about the causes of the decline in CD sales, and Sony would never admit that a slump is caused by their poor management when they could pin the blame on the evil file-sharing masses.
I would expect that Google would not display context past the end of the chapter, so you'd have to know the beginning to each chapter. Also, any technical book with illustrations or figures would be useless for harvesting, if the text relied on the illustrations to make the point.
Sure, it might be possible to game Google Library, especially for a novel, but it's going to be more difficult than buying it, or borrowing it from the library.
What part of the concept of "fair use" don't you get? In the US, it's OK to copy an entire work without compensating the copyright holder under certain circumstances. The court has already ruled that a business copying images for the sake of indexing was fair use, because the result returned didn't adversely affect the marketability of the work. While the courts may rule against Google, they do have a legitimate argument that this is similar to another case where the court ruled that it was fair use.
As far as I can tell, your primary argument against Google Library is that Google shouldn't be able to create the index because they didn't purchase the books. Does this mean that if the individual libraries scanned their own works and created their own search system to return 2-3 line snippets for their users, it would be OK? And if it's OK for the libraries to do it, then can they contract a third party to do it for them? If that's OK, then what's wrong with the Google Library joint venture with the libraries? Is the problem that instead of paying Google up front for the service, Google is getting paid by the display of advertising on the search page?
Assuming that you think the indexing is a good idea, and that it would OK if only Google owned the books, then what do you think Google should do about all the out of print books? Should Google hire thousands of book buyers to search through all the book sales, and used-book shops for copies of these works, and buy them so they can lock them into a vault when they're finished with them? Or maybe we just don't care about them, because if they're out of print, they're obviously not worth indexing. Oh, I know, let's just ignore them, until they go out of copyright, this book's out of copyright in 2049, and that one's out of copyright in 2076 if the author hurries up and dies (unless copyright terms get extended again, and again, and again).
They have nothing against Google Print, it's an opt-in program. It's Google Library they oppose. Part of it is control, but part is because Google Library will point searchers to out of print books they can find at a library or used bookseller. That does the publisher no good, they only are interested in searchers being able to find texts from books in print, so that they will be potential buyers.
It's simple. Google Print helps publishers market books that are in print, and they can opt-out any book that goes out of print. Google Library, on the other hand, encourages book searchers to seek out books that are out of print from used book sellers or libraries. Why would a publisher be in favour of this? An author, on the other hand, may be interested in Google Library, because it could be used to introduce searchers to their work, and give them an idea of whether there's a market for republication. Publishers don't care if any particular book has a marginal republication market, because they've got plenty of books in their pipeline, and in most cases, new books sell better than reprints.
No he hasn't. This op-ed is also a bargaining tool, to get people to think that Google is right, and the publishers and authors are just running a FUD campaign to extract money from Google.
That's illegal in the US too, unless the court finds it to be fair use. In the US, there are 4 criteria used to determine fair use, and the amount copied is only one of them. If Google made the copies, and distributed the copies to employees, that would clearly be in violation too. However, there is precedent, Kelly v. Arriba, where Arriba copied copyrighted images in order to create thumbnails in a web search image, and that was classified as fair use. We don't know that the court will rule the same in the Google lawsuits, but I suspect that Google wouldn't have launched Google Library if there hadn't been this precedent.
I think many publishers are ambivalent about Google Print, I know there's at least one author upset because her publisher won't put her book into Google Print. However, I think that if Google attempted to drop a publisher from Google Print in retribution for not allowing them to use their books in Google Library, they'd be sued, and I think that all the major publishers would pull out of Google Print. After all, from their perspective, they were doing OK before Google Print, and most of them, the real reason for joining Google Print is probably because their competitors did, and they don't want to be missing out from a potential advertising venue that their competitors are using (and a low cost one, to boot).
Don't forget, publishers only care about books that are in print. Google Library doesn't help the publisher if the book is out of print, and may even be detrimental, if a person decides to find a copy of an out of print book instead of buying one that's in print.
I'm not saying Google Library is fair use, the only way we'll know for sure is when the courts rule on it. There is a precedent for fair use where a search engine copied the full work in order to substantially less than the full work to be delivered to the user of the search engine. But if it is fair use, then Google doesn't need to ask permission, and if they're using an opt-out system, it's only for PR reasons. Eric Schmidt's article is not a legal defense, but it's a PR piece to try to explain how the Google Library project works, and why it's good for the public at large.
IANAL, but I don't think copyright works the way you claim. For example, I think you're confusing the right to choose who publishes your work with the right to choose who sells copies of the published work. The owner of a copy of a book does not need permission to resell it. Since taping a TV program for personal use and rewatching it at home has been classified as fair use, you don't need permission from the copyright owner to do it.
There are 4 points that the court uses to determine fair use. One is the extent of the copying, another is the nature of the use, and another is the effect of the use on the marketability of the work. So, even though Google is copying the entire work, the other points, like the fact that returning 2-3 line snippets for copyrighted works will not adversely affect the markets for the works, may be the more important points for the court.
The Google Library lawsuits are really about 3 things. On the face of it, it is to determine if it is about whether this is a form of fair use. But it's also about the copyright holders (Author's Guild lawsuit) trying to get a cut of the ad revenue on the Google Print search results page, and it's about the publishers suing to make sure that Google Print doesn't somehow turn into something some sort of on-line viewing system or on-demand printing system that makes the publishers obsolete.
1. If Google loses the case, they'll do what Yahoo! is doing, and switch to an opt-in process. And if the publishers are smart, they'll all opt-in.
2. Why is it flawed? If 99% (and I'm not saying that's the correct percentage) of all copyrighted material is commercially unviable after 14 years, why do we really need to maintain copyright for lifetime+70 or 95 years (commissioned work) to ensure that 1% can make money? Furthermore, if this is determined to be fair use in the US, and other countries object, they can contest it through WIPO. The US may be a signatory of the Berne Convention, and modified its copyright term for international treaties, but that doesn't mean that the US has codified the concept of moral rights in its copyright laws.
3. The main issue here is whether Google's claim that this is fair use is a correct one. If it is, by using the 4 criteria used in the US to make that determination, then Google legally doesn't need to have and opt-in or opt-out program, at least in the US. As to morally, I guess it depends on whether one considers copyright to be a moral right of an author, or if one considers copyright to be a time-limited monopoly granted to promote the creation of new works. If one views it as the latter, and that this is a fair use, then there's no moral obligation for Google to do anything.
I don't know what the right way to protect copyright in the digital age, but I'm sure it's not by continually increasing the term of copyrights.
I don't think that you've got an accurate analogy there. For example, a drug dealer never has implicit permission to distribute small amounts of drugs, whereas the copyright's fair use is an implicit exemption. Also, drug possession/selling is a criminal offense, and copyright infringement is a civil offense.
I'm not arguing that Google Library is fair use, I'm arguing that it may be fair use. IANAL. There are four criteria to determine if a use is a fair use, one is the amount of the work copied, another is whether whether the use will adversely affect the market for the work. In one possible precendent, the Kelly v. Arriba Software case, the court ruled that a copy of an image, displayed as a thumbnail, was not a form of copyright infringement, despite the search engine copying the entire image, because it didn't affect the market for the original work. So, the court could easily decide that the criteria concerning the affect on the market for the work, and the nature of the use, providing snippets of text from a search engine, are the overriding factors, even though they're making an entire copy of the work.
You might want to check out http://www.policybandwidth.com/doc/googleprint.pdf for a legal expert's opinion on why this could be fair use. Finally, regardless of the various opinions, the only way we'll really know for sure whether it's fair use or not, is for this to go to trial.
One criterion is the extent of copying, and Google fails that one.
Another criterion is the purpose and character of the use, and it could go either way for Google here. It's a commercial use, but it could be used for educational searching, and the result available to the end-user would be an amount that would be fair use.
I'm not sure that third criterion, the nature of the (original) work matters here.
The fourth criterion on the effect of the potential market of the work, may be the most important point, because I think it's clear that the 2-3 line snippets would have few to no negative impact, but potentially have great positive impact on the potential market.
So, the court could easily rule that the initial copying of 100 perecent of the work doesn't matter, it's the size of the snippet delivered to the end customer, the basic use of searching, and the positive impact on the market are the important considerations, and that it's fair use. On the other hand, they could also rule that the initial copying and the commercial nature of the search engine are the important criteria, and rule against Google.
The whole point of this suit and the one by the Author's Guild is whether Google's copying of the entire book in order to produce 2-3 line snippets on a search engine constitutes fair use. If it is fair use, then Google doesn't need permission, and their opt-out is merely a PR ploy to say "we're not doing evil". Note that for Google to treat a work scanned in for Google Library as a Google Print book (where 20% - 100% of the book is viewable), it requires an opt-in procedure.
Since determination of fair use is contingent on 4 points, Google will win or lose based on the court's determination on which points are the important ones. They could say that "yes, Google's copying the entire book, but because it's used to dole out snippets that do not materially adversely affect book sales, it's OK", or they could say "They're copying the entire book, therefore it's not fair use". Neither Google nor the plaintiffs know how the court will rule.
Industry groups are notorious for trying to limit technological induced changes to their industries, even when the end result is highly profitable for the industry. You'll no doubt remember that the movie industry was against the introduction of the consumer grade VCR, and we all know how detrimental that was for the MPAA.
How many people have accounts at just one financial institution? I have accounts at two credit unions, several credit cards, brokerage firms, etc., and my wife does also. Do you really think the financial institutions will all share a single token (if that's the route they all chose)? Not a chance.
The reason why you don't ask what the "dot pitch" is of a page of newspaper is because it's high enough you don't need to. In general, if you can make out individual dots/pixels in the letters of a word, the dot pitch isn't high enough.
Whether health care is funded by private industry or government, it's not possible to fund every possible line of research. If it's funded by the government, someone, either in Congress, NIH, or somewhere else, is going to be choosing which research to fund, and which to ignore. No matter what they choose, something's not going to get researched, people will die, and people will criticize the decisions. In an ideal world, you'd let the for-profit companies work on the things that give them the most profit, presumably because it would help the most number of people, and the government would fund things that are still important, but not profitable to research because the incidence is too small, like your example of childhood cancer.
The biggest problem I see with "for profit" healthcare, in particular the pharmaceutical companies, is that often the companies drive sales and profits by marketing a solution for a problem that most people don't have. For example, in the US, there are heavy marketing campaigns to convince people that occasional heartburn requires medication, and often that it needs to be the most recently introduced prescription medication (which is usually quite profitable), when something like a cheap antacid would be fine.
About 40% of the Nigerian scam emails that get past my greylists (but usually not Spam Assassin) go through Hotmail. If Microsoft is going to help Nigeria filter this at the source, then they should start with their own email service. I hardly see any scam email coming from either Yahoo! or GMail.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, it's definitely from MSN/Hotmail. My mail server reports that it received them from XXX-XXXX.bayNNN.hotmail.com, and they contain the X-Originating-IP and X-Originating-Email headers that are always in real hotmail/msn emails. I've been too lazy to auto forward these messages to report_spam@msn.com, but it's on my list of things to implement when I'm bored. I rarely see hotmail forgeries, probably because they usually don't get past my greylist filter.
This morning, my bayes_99% folder had 6 true hotmail spam, and one from tin.it.
If Microsoft wanted to kill spam, a good start would be for them to run spamcheckers on all their outgoing mail. 80% of my email that SpamAssassin marks with 90% or higher probability of being spam through bayesian analysis is coming from MSN or Hotmail (and I've never seen a false positive).
If you want to use content sold by Sony in the reader's native format, you'll need to go to Sony's Connect site, which redirects you to http://www.connect.com/non_ie.html if you're not using IE on a Windows platform as an administrator user. As for me, I'd never buy a Sony device until I knew that I could provide my own content derived from text, HTML, or other formats via another operating system.
Karma is quite nice
But funny gets no karma
Snow falls slowly here
Linux Journal Is Currently Unavailable Due to a Denial of Service (DoS) Attack
Sorry for any inconvenience.
Even if a boycott were to work, and Sony's CD sales were to drop 50% during the Christmas season (with no changes in sales from other labels), Sony and the RIAA would claim that it was clearly caused by illegal P2P file-sharing, and file extra lawsuits targeting Sony CD sharers, and lobby Congress for more protection. The industry's been in denial for years about the causes of the decline in CD sales, and Sony would never admit that a slump is caused by their poor management when they could pin the blame on the evil file-sharing masses.
Did the Board of Education have a discussion on that, too?
I would expect that Google would not display context past the end of the chapter, so you'd have to know the beginning to each chapter. Also, any technical book with illustrations or figures would be useless for harvesting, if the text relied on the illustrations to make the point. Sure, it might be possible to game Google Library, especially for a novel, but it's going to be more difficult than buying it, or borrowing it from the library.
What part of the concept of "fair use" don't you get? In the US, it's OK to copy an entire work without compensating the copyright holder under certain circumstances. The court has already ruled that a business copying images for the sake of indexing was fair use, because the result returned didn't adversely affect the marketability of the work. While the courts may rule against Google, they do have a legitimate argument that this is similar to another case where the court ruled that it was fair use.
As far as I can tell, your primary argument against Google Library is that Google shouldn't be able to create the index because they didn't purchase the books. Does this mean that if the individual libraries scanned their own works and created their own search system to return 2-3 line snippets for their users, it would be OK? And if it's OK for the libraries to do it, then can they contract a third party to do it for them? If that's OK, then what's wrong with the Google Library joint venture with the libraries? Is the problem that instead of paying Google up front for the service, Google is getting paid by the display of advertising on the search page?
Assuming that you think the indexing is a good idea, and that it would OK if only Google owned the books, then what do you think Google should do about all the out of print books? Should Google hire thousands of book buyers to search through all the book sales, and used-book shops for copies of these works, and buy them so they can lock them into a vault when they're finished with them? Or maybe we just don't care about them, because if they're out of print, they're obviously not worth indexing. Oh, I know, let's just ignore them, until they go out of copyright, this book's out of copyright in 2049, and that one's out of copyright in 2076 if the author hurries up and dies (unless copyright terms get extended again, and again, and again).
They have nothing against Google Print, it's an opt-in program. It's Google Library they oppose. Part of it is control, but part is because Google Library will point searchers to out of print books they can find at a library or used bookseller. That does the publisher no good, they only are interested in searchers being able to find texts from books in print, so that they will be potential buyers.
It's simple. Google Print helps publishers market books that are in print, and they can opt-out any book that goes out of print. Google Library, on the other hand, encourages book searchers to seek out books that are out of print from used book sellers or libraries. Why would a publisher be in favour of this? An author, on the other hand, may be interested in Google Library, because it could be used to introduce searchers to their work, and give them an idea of whether there's a market for republication. Publishers don't care if any particular book has a marginal republication market, because they've got plenty of books in their pipeline, and in most cases, new books sell better than reprints.
No he hasn't. This op-ed is also a bargaining tool, to get people to think that Google is right, and the publishers and authors are just running a FUD campaign to extract money from Google.
That's illegal in the US too, unless the court finds it to be fair use. In the US, there are 4 criteria used to determine fair use, and the amount copied is only one of them. If Google made the copies, and distributed the copies to employees, that would clearly be in violation too. However, there is precedent, Kelly v. Arriba, where Arriba copied copyrighted images in order to create thumbnails in a web search image, and that was classified as fair use. We don't know that the court will rule the same in the Google lawsuits, but I suspect that Google wouldn't have launched Google Library if there hadn't been this precedent.
I think many publishers are ambivalent about Google Print, I know there's at least one author upset because her publisher won't put her book into Google Print. However, I think that if Google attempted to drop a publisher from Google Print in retribution for not allowing them to use their books in Google Library, they'd be sued, and I think that all the major publishers would pull out of Google Print. After all, from their perspective, they were doing OK before Google Print, and most of them, the real reason for joining Google Print is probably because their competitors did, and they don't want to be missing out from a potential advertising venue that their competitors are using (and a low cost one, to boot).
Don't forget, publishers only care about books that are in print. Google Library doesn't help the publisher if the book is out of print, and may even be detrimental, if a person decides to find a copy of an out of print book instead of buying one that's in print.
I'm not saying Google Library is fair use, the only way we'll know for sure is when the courts rule on it. There is a precedent for fair use where a search engine copied the full work in order to substantially less than the full work to be delivered to the user of the search engine. But if it is fair use, then Google doesn't need to ask permission, and if they're using an opt-out system, it's only for PR reasons. Eric Schmidt's article is not a legal defense, but it's a PR piece to try to explain how the Google Library project works, and why it's good for the public at large.
IANAL, but I don't think copyright works the way you claim. For example, I think you're confusing the right to choose who publishes your work with the right to choose who sells copies of the published work. The owner of a copy of a book does not need permission to resell it. Since taping a TV program for personal use and rewatching it at home has been classified as fair use, you don't need permission from the copyright owner to do it.
There are 4 points that the court uses to determine fair use. One is the extent of the copying, another is the nature of the use, and another is the effect of the use on the marketability of the work. So, even though Google is copying the entire work, the other points, like the fact that returning 2-3 line snippets for copyrighted works will not adversely affect the markets for the works, may be the more important points for the court.
The Google Library lawsuits are really about 3 things. On the face of it, it is to determine if it is about whether this is a form of fair use. But it's also about the copyright holders (Author's Guild lawsuit) trying to get a cut of the ad revenue on the Google Print search results page, and it's about the publishers suing to make sure that Google Print doesn't somehow turn into something some sort of on-line viewing system or on-demand printing system that makes the publishers obsolete.
1. If Google loses the case, they'll do what Yahoo! is doing, and switch to an opt-in process. And if the publishers are smart, they'll all opt-in.
2. Why is it flawed? If 99% (and I'm not saying that's the correct percentage) of all copyrighted material is commercially unviable after 14 years, why do we really need to maintain copyright for lifetime+70 or 95 years (commissioned work) to ensure that 1% can make money? Furthermore, if this is determined to be fair use in the US, and other countries object, they can contest it through WIPO. The US may be a signatory of the Berne Convention, and modified its copyright term for international treaties, but that doesn't mean that the US has codified the concept of moral rights in its copyright laws.
3. The main issue here is whether Google's claim that this is fair use is a correct one. If it is, by using the 4 criteria used in the US to make that determination, then Google legally doesn't need to have and opt-in or opt-out program, at least in the US. As to morally, I guess it depends on whether one considers copyright to be a moral right of an author, or if one considers copyright to be a time-limited monopoly granted to promote the creation of new works. If one views it as the latter, and that this is a fair use, then there's no moral obligation for Google to do anything.
I don't know what the right way to protect copyright in the digital age, but I'm sure it's not by continually increasing the term of copyrights.
I don't think that you've got an accurate analogy there. For example, a drug dealer never has implicit permission to distribute small amounts of drugs, whereas the copyright's fair use is an implicit exemption. Also, drug possession/selling is a criminal offense, and copyright infringement is a civil offense.
I'm not arguing that Google Library is fair use, I'm arguing that it may be fair use. IANAL. There are four criteria to determine if a use is a fair use, one is the amount of the work copied, another is whether whether the use will adversely affect the market for the work. In one possible precendent, the Kelly v. Arriba Software case, the court ruled that a copy of an image, displayed as a thumbnail, was not a form of copyright infringement, despite the search engine copying the entire image, because it didn't affect the market for the original work. So, the court could easily decide that the criteria concerning the affect on the market for the work, and the nature of the use, providing snippets of text from a search engine, are the overriding factors, even though they're making an entire copy of the work.
You might want to check out http://www.policybandwidth.com/doc/googleprint.pdf for a legal expert's opinion on why this could be fair use. Finally, regardless of the various opinions, the only way we'll really know for sure whether it's fair use or not, is for this to go to trial.
There are http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf/ 4 criteria that determine what is fair use, and until the court rules, we won't know whether it's fair use or not.
One criterion is the extent of copying, and Google fails that one.
Another criterion is the purpose and character of the use, and it could go either way for Google here. It's a commercial use, but it could be used for educational searching, and the result available to the end-user would be an amount that would be fair use.
I'm not sure that third criterion, the nature of the (original) work matters here.
The fourth criterion on the effect of the potential market of the work, may be the most important point, because I think it's clear that the 2-3 line snippets would have few to no negative impact, but potentially have great positive impact on the potential market.
So, the court could easily rule that the initial copying of 100 perecent of the work doesn't matter, it's the size of the snippet delivered to the end customer, the basic use of searching, and the positive impact on the market are the important considerations, and that it's fair use. On the other hand, they could also rule that the initial copying and the commercial nature of the search engine are the important criteria, and rule against Google.
The whole point of this suit and the one by the Author's Guild is whether Google's copying of the entire book in order to produce 2-3 line snippets on a search engine constitutes fair use. If it is fair use, then Google doesn't need permission, and their opt-out is merely a PR ploy to say "we're not doing evil". Note that for Google to treat a work scanned in for Google Library as a Google Print book (where 20% - 100% of the book is viewable), it requires an opt-in procedure. Since determination of fair use is contingent on 4 points, Google will win or lose based on the court's determination on which points are the important ones. They could say that "yes, Google's copying the entire book, but because it's used to dole out snippets that do not materially adversely affect book sales, it's OK", or they could say "They're copying the entire book, therefore it's not fair use". Neither Google nor the plaintiffs know how the court will rule. Industry groups are notorious for trying to limit technological induced changes to their industries, even when the end result is highly profitable for the industry. You'll no doubt remember that the movie industry was against the introduction of the consumer grade VCR, and we all know how detrimental that was for the MPAA.
How many people have accounts at just one financial institution? I have accounts at two credit unions, several credit cards, brokerage firms, etc., and my wife does also. Do you really think the financial institutions will all share a single token (if that's the route they all chose)? Not a chance.
The reason why you don't ask what the "dot pitch" is of a page of newspaper is because it's high enough you don't need to. In general, if you can make out individual dots/pixels in the letters of a word, the dot pitch isn't high enough.
Whether health care is funded by private industry or government, it's not possible to fund every possible line of research. If it's funded by the government, someone, either in Congress, NIH, or somewhere else, is going to be choosing which research to fund, and which to ignore. No matter what they choose, something's not going to get researched, people will die, and people will criticize the decisions. In an ideal world, you'd let the for-profit companies work on the things that give them the most profit, presumably because it would help the most number of people, and the government would fund things that are still important, but not profitable to research because the incidence is too small, like your example of childhood cancer.
The biggest problem I see with "for profit" healthcare, in particular the pharmaceutical companies, is that often the companies drive sales and profits by marketing a solution for a problem that most people don't have. For example, in the US, there are heavy marketing campaigns to convince people that occasional heartburn requires medication, and often that it needs to be the most recently introduced prescription medication (which is usually quite profitable), when something like a cheap antacid would be fine.
About 40% of the Nigerian scam emails that get past my greylists (but usually not Spam Assassin) go through Hotmail. If Microsoft is going to help Nigeria filter this at the source, then they should start with their own email service. I hardly see any scam email coming from either Yahoo! or GMail.