I grew up in south Florida, and saw it happen live. I was in 8th grade. It was at the start of our 4th period, which for me was band. I remember it being a freezing cold day, especially for Florida. We all went outside to watch, as was a fairly common thing to do at that point (remember, the shuttle program was only 5 years old at the time, and to middle-school kids was still really neat).
At the point at which the single contrail split into two (the explosion), we all just stared. There was no Aha! or Oh my God! moment. We all just stared, confused. After a few seconds, someone in the group asked the band teacher if something was wrong. I don't think he knew one way or the other, but he must have been wondering the same thing. He ushered us all back into the classroom, and went to his office.
About a minute later, he returned from his office and said that the shuttle blew up.
In the town I grew up in, Pratt and Whitney was the dominant employer. Following the accident, Pratt got the job or reengineering the now infamous O-rings, and a family friend of ours, who had retired a few years earlier, was asked to un-retire and lead the effort.
It does not make complete 100% copies available, as we discussed. Much from the site is missing, particularly aspects of its look and feel. The only thing that Google makes available is the part it uses for searching, namely the text.
Also, can you explain "hardware" caching? Software caches, not hardware. Software stores its cache using hardware.
More on point, however, is that your tacit endorsement of what you term "hardware" caching undermines your argument. Google caches but does not gain financially. An ISP caches and gains financially by more efficiently controlling its bandwidth. Is not the ISP far more vulnerable to this charge than is Google?
The moment one decides to put something on the Internet, he loses a large chunk of control over that content. Caching is an inherent, and necessary, component of Internet technology. Searching as a whole does not work without it.
Your original post was that the original site owner was entitled to relief because of lost financial gain (due to users viewing Google's ads rather than his own). You now present a new argument: content control. However, posting any content on the Internet is entails a conscious surrender of control, and in the bargain that control is surrendered for convenience: distribution, access, attention, what have you.
As to your coffee shop analogy, there is a significant difference. Google is not making any money from its action. No Google ads appear on the cached sites, unless they were there already. In your coffee shop, you are selling coffee to those photocopy readers. Google is not, as you condeded above. For a copyright violation to take place, the violator has to be receiving a material gain. It is not at all clear that Google is receiving any financial gain.
As for metatagging, no standard exists. You are arguing for a standard (be it an opt-in or opt-out). I agree that a standard should exist. However, in the specific case of Google, Google is clear in describing the steps that a site administrator can take to exclude its content from Google's cache.
I'm not trying to suggest that this is a one-way street and that no copyright protection exists for Internet content, but, particularly in this case, it's hard to see that Google was stealing his site or its contents.
It seems a stretch to argue that Google is providing this service for financial gain. For starters, when a user pulls up a Google cached page, they don't get Google's ads on that page. They get, as you noted, the actual site as it was when Google cached it, complete with that site's ads, if there are any.
In addition, the cached version is never anything more than a poor substitute for the actual site. Text comes through, but much of the site's look and feel is lost. If Google wanted to hijack this site, as you seem to suggest, they'd want to incorporate the subordinate links and images as well.
Finally, given that users tend to resort to the cached version only when the actual site itself is down, it is hard to argue that the site itself is taking a financial hit. The user can't get there in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
... she said this: I'm more worried about whether I've left my hair iron on than this little email exchange
Translation: I can't get a job now.
I grew up in south Florida, and saw it happen live. I was in 8th grade. It was at the start of our 4th period, which for me was band. I remember it being a freezing cold day, especially for Florida. We all went outside to watch, as was a fairly common thing to do at that point (remember, the shuttle program was only 5 years old at the time, and to middle-school kids was still really neat).
At the point at which the single contrail split into two (the explosion), we all just stared. There was no Aha! or Oh my God! moment. We all just stared, confused. After a few seconds, someone in the group asked the band teacher if something was wrong. I don't think he knew one way or the other, but he must have been wondering the same thing. He ushered us all back into the classroom, and went to his office.
About a minute later, he returned from his office and said that the shuttle blew up.
In the town I grew up in, Pratt and Whitney was the dominant employer. Following the accident, Pratt got the job or reengineering the now infamous O-rings, and a family friend of ours, who had retired a few years earlier, was asked to un-retire and lead the effort.
It does not make complete 100% copies available, as we discussed. Much from the site is missing, particularly aspects of its look and feel. The only thing that Google makes available is the part it uses for searching, namely the text.
Also, can you explain "hardware" caching? Software caches, not hardware. Software stores its cache using hardware.
More on point, however, is that your tacit endorsement of what you term "hardware" caching undermines your argument. Google caches but does not gain financially. An ISP caches and gains financially by more efficiently controlling its bandwidth. Is not the ISP far more vulnerable to this charge than is Google?
The moment one decides to put something on the Internet, he loses a large chunk of control over that content. Caching is an inherent, and necessary, component of Internet technology. Searching as a whole does not work without it.
Your original post was that the original site owner was entitled to relief because of lost financial gain (due to users viewing Google's ads rather than his own). You now present a new argument: content control. However, posting any content on the Internet is entails a conscious surrender of control, and in the bargain that control is surrendered for convenience: distribution, access, attention, what have you.
As to your coffee shop analogy, there is a significant difference. Google is not making any money from its action. No Google ads appear on the cached sites, unless they were there already. In your coffee shop, you are selling coffee to those photocopy readers. Google is not, as you condeded above. For a copyright violation to take place, the violator has to be receiving a material gain. It is not at all clear that Google is receiving any financial gain.
As for metatagging, no standard exists. You are arguing for a standard (be it an opt-in or opt-out). I agree that a standard should exist. However, in the specific case of Google, Google is clear in describing the steps that a site administrator can take to exclude its content from Google's cache.
I'm not trying to suggest that this is a one-way street and that no copyright protection exists for Internet content, but, particularly in this case, it's hard to see that Google was stealing his site or its contents.
It seems a stretch to argue that Google is providing this service for financial gain. For starters, when a user pulls up a Google cached page, they don't get Google's ads on that page. They get, as you noted, the actual site as it was when Google cached it, complete with that site's ads, if there are any.
In addition, the cached version is never anything more than a poor substitute for the actual site. Text comes through, but much of the site's look and feel is lost. If Google wanted to hijack this site, as you seem to suggest, they'd want to incorporate the subordinate links and images as well.
Finally, given that users tend to resort to the cached version only when the actual site itself is down, it is hard to argue that the site itself is taking a financial hit. The user can't get there in the first place.