Whatever the free market dictates. Some content may cost more because of its value in popularity. For example, The New York Times charges extra money to read some columns, but not all. Google can read and index a copyrighted page, but cannot make an electronic copy (cache) when doing so without prior written consent. The 'fair use' argument would be okay if indicated by the copyright holder in advance. The Google statistics would also reveal how much pornography they index - not a great public relations move for their stock.
Google news no longer carries articles from various French publications after a copyright lawsuit was decided against them. With the handwriting on the wall, Google Base is a legal remedy in that copyrighted content is given to Google for free. Google only has a problem when it has to pay for copyrighted material.
Remember the Microsoft 'patch' to prevent Linux from invading the xbox? The link is all Microsoft's. There was also the big legal challenge regarding user hardware modifications to the xbox itself and the sale of modified chips for the unit. Microsoft wants to sell you the xbox for $300 - and still own the hardware.
I have been in this business 37 years, so I can assure you - Microsoft loves the xbox. In fact, the company focus is more towards gaming software and hardware than data security. Just about every Windows patch description contains the phrase "allowing the intruder to gain complete control" or words to that effect. Not just a little control - complete control! If anything holds-up the xbox for the holidays it might be that some/.ers figured out how to run Non-Microsoft programs on the thing. By the way, the new xbox is desiged to self-destruct if unapproved programs are used "allowing the intruder no control" over the xbox. This is very important security issue - for games.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever the free market dictates. Some content may cost more because of its value in popularity. For example, The New York Times charges extra money to read some columns, but not all. Google can read and index a copyrighted page, but cannot make an electronic copy (cache) when doing so without prior written consent. The 'fair use' argument would be okay if indicated by the copyright holder in advance. The Google statistics would also reveal how much pornography they index - not a great public relations move for their stock.
Google news no longer carries articles from various French publications after a copyright lawsuit was decided against them. With the handwriting on the wall, Google Base is a legal remedy in that copyrighted content is given to Google for free. Google only has a problem when it has to pay for copyrighted material.
Remember the Microsoft 'patch' to prevent Linux from invading the xbox? The link is all Microsoft's. There was also the big legal challenge regarding user hardware modifications to the xbox itself and the sale of modified chips for the unit. Microsoft wants to sell you the xbox for $300 - and still own the hardware.
I have been in this business 37 years, so I can assure you - Microsoft loves the xbox. In fact, the company focus is more towards gaming software and hardware than data security. Just about every Windows patch description contains the phrase "allowing the intruder to gain complete control" or words to that effect. Not just a little control - complete control! If anything holds-up the xbox for the holidays it might be that some /.ers figured out how to run Non-Microsoft programs on the thing. By the way, the new xbox is desiged to self-destruct if unapproved programs are used "allowing the intruder no control" over the xbox. This is very important security issue - for games.