We could think that the administration is doing what it says it is doing... using the data to look for terrorists,..
But more likely, this information can be used as the next generation of political technology. Using social network analysis polictical campaigns can identify central individuals in key districts --> but targetting the right people a campaign, I'm guessing republicans, can change one mind and influence 50, maybe 100. A candidate could see 20 people one week and do more for his election than any number of town halls and other get the word out campaigns.
While I am sure MS hopes to have its research dollars turn into real innovation, what is really important is that MS demonstrates a credible commitement to the search market. MS is just trying to send a signal to potential partners that they see MSN as a longer term strategic technology and they are putting a bet on it. MS has to spend at least $1B for anyone to notice, but they are saying -"join us, we'll still be in this market in a few years".
A9 looks more relevant to me. Less total hits (490,000 vs. 8.6M) but its not like I'd be looking at more than 100 on anything. I prefer googles interface, but still A9 looks fine. INteresting how fast they can switch technology too.
Twice a day delivery is an awful idea. First, email is asyncronous communication - thus it works better than a phone when I don't want to be interrupted. I can read it and answer it when I want, not when the company schedules me to. Second, why impose structure on a system that has its advantages in allowing for less structure? If there actually is anything important everyone has to wait to get it started becuase they won't know about it until 8 hours later (ie. what if there is an internal post that has an error?) Companies want responsive employees, not people that take 7 hour coffee breaks before they panic on what needs to get done.
Like most other posts - the problem is not inherant to email, but found either the idiots that can't figure out to use it (your boss!), or the people that over use it (spammers). My email works great. I love it, don't know what I would do without it.
Man,
I didn't even see this post when I posted the thread below. Hamel is Dr. Enron. Of course, google managmenet in the last few months has sold a lot more stock that any of those Enron guys.
Lets not forget that Gary Hamel had Enron "leading the future", his now revised book, with its decentralized management structure. As many of us know, in the current thinking decentralized structures promote innovation at the expense of control. Hamel's one sided view of structure didn't work out so well.
Googles 20% +10% rule is jsut best practice from the 3M post-it case taught to every HBS MBA with the 10% twist. It works. Its not new. Google does some things exceptionally well. But I don't need a revisionist telling me about that.
I think google was just trying to be interesting and innovative so their designers built from the Miro peices. They showed that their search produces pretty pages too. I'm not the hugest Miro fan or anything, but I think Google showed a carelessness for the little guy, and I wanted to say good for the little guy for asseting their rights (this is a scary thing to do when you don't have big bank). If google wanted to honor Miro they should have contacted the rights holders, proposed the idea, and possibly even offered them some sort of compensation or legitimate recognition. Usually when you honor someone they get a reward - making a commercial logo as tribute is one bizarre reward.
On an economic test, more Miro's prints are probably going to be sold. Still, if Miro's family was inking some deal to put a Miro gallery online at Yahoo, you could see how this could create some economic impact and customer confusion (usually associated w/trademark problem).
What people neglect is that the public has no right to take something out of the private interest just becuase the public is better off, and even if the private party is rewarded. Without your permission, I can't go take your car, lend it out to a bunch of people that wouldn't have known of the car, even if I return the car and put $1000 on your chair for your trouble. An artist doesn't have to share his work, even it is of value to others, and even if that artist is compensated.
"The only reason this is an issue is because Google is a huge company...."
Sure. That is the main issue. Google is a huge company. They do things for commercial gain. Since when did we stop protecting the interests of a family (who Miro assigned his rights to by the way) so a huge company could do what it wants?
I'm sure Google appreciates your defense though, and with most on the board. I know, poor big company using someone elses artistic expression without their permission for commercial purposes. You know, even MSFT 10 or so years ago bought up a heap a copyrights just so that they could be free to do things like this (not that they have).
It does matter what the family feels -they are his family, who are you! And our laws give the a right for a limited amount of time to do so. Who give google the right?
Lucius is correct - its not my sense of morality, its a abstract concept relating the moral rights of the creator. On moral rights, there is a lot of theory for those that write about this but copyright law tries to capture that Miro has a moral right in his expressions (not everything has to be about economic incentives, this is another theoretical position!). I would hope that Miro's familiy, is genuinly acting on behalf of Miro in asserting that Miro has some say in how his expression is used. So it's not really that subjective even in the abstract sense - people who are in a position to asset Miro's moral rights have stated that they have been offended.
On style, I said "depending on the specific similarities of the expression", and from another poster and the article:
"It's apparently not just in the style of, but a rip-off of a few of his paintings, which to me sounds fishy at best and copyright violation at worst."Google's logo allegedly incorporated images from Miro's ``The Escape Ladder,'' 1940, ``Nocture,'' 1940, and ``The Beautiful Bird Revealing the Unknown to a Pair of Lovers,'' 1941.""
I would defer to litigation rather then your opinion of the similarity of the expressions. And guess what? You don't need to copy verbatim to voilate copyright. Artists can enjoin derivative works. Is this a copy, maybe parts. Is this a derivative work? You bet your ass. Does is fall under fair use - most likely no as flagrant commercial purposes. People do create works in the style of others all the time - and if there is enought money involved people do get sued. Remember Vanilla Ice, , words are differnt, the tones are technically different, but they sound tremendously similar. Do I wish we lived in your world? Hey, we don't.
Now I regret that Oogle.com was not a great example - but I would expect to be sued under BOTH trademark and copyright law which is why i don't set up said site. I was trying to make the point of nobody likes me but everyone LOVES google. Google ignored the rights holders and did what google wanted. That's getting close to evil.
Unlikely to be fair use. One of the tests for fair use is if it is for commercial use. Hard for google to get away from this one in putting it in their logo. Point Miro.
Hey,
You just identified how google imposed commercial harm to the Miro family. Congratulations! See why companies shouldn't tie other peoples work with their logo? It's none of google's business leaching of of others goodwill.
It's google.com NOT google.org. If google employees want to be artists they should do so off the company dime. Maybe some employees can set up a nice miro fan club, but google is using Miro's goodwill. Fair use, parady, and all these nice public use exceptions to copyright law generally rely on tests of commercial use. While it would not be too easy to show commercial harm to Miro (point to google), the Miro family has reasonable concerns about commerical use (point to Miro), and derivative works (point to Miro).
Why all the google love? Miro is none of google's business. If the Miro family wanted a Miro tribute, and that was so great, why wouldn't they pay google to do one? (ie. see all the Da Vinci code stuff). Maybe the family is greedy, or maybe they think Miro would be pissed that he was being associated with a company logo.
I never said "Style" was copyrightable. Google may have directly copied elements out of a miro work and hung it off of their letters - I saw the letters, but I don;t know so I refrained from making a blanket copyright opinion.
Anyway, one thing is arguing copyright which is screwed up practically everywhere (though it can enjoin derivative works which I think there is a nice case for here). One can also considered the moral right whereby ones expressions are imitated for commercial use (even in this limited). Even though other artists have imitated Miro, or better yet, further devloped it, I get where the family is coming from.
Once a big fan of google, this type of behavior is bugging me. There may or may not be a copyright violation here (depending on specific similarities of the expressions), but there is certainly a disrespect of the moral rights of the artist. Let's say a google made a "tribute" to tiger woods by making the google words out of him, or paid a tribute to U2 by playing "one" when you went to the site. Do you think this would be ok? Miro's a big deal, though perhaps not to the ignorant masses. Google appropriates good will from Miro at Google's discretion, not necessarily the other way around (i.e. think Miro on Enron's homepage and you understand why the family might be pissed).
I think should set up a porn site, perhaps www.oogle.com, and use the same fonts and colors as google (as a tribute to their fantastic business savy) and see if google gets pissed off.
Take of your rosy googles and think about what's going on her folks.
Slashdot Mirror
We could think that the administration is doing what it says it is doing... using the data to look for terrorists,..
But more likely, this information can be used as the next generation of political technology. Using social network analysis polictical campaigns can identify central individuals in key districts --> but targetting the right people a campaign, I'm guessing republicans, can change one mind and influence 50, maybe 100. A candidate could see 20 people one week and do more for his election than any number of town halls and other get the word out campaigns.
Democracy in action with your private data kids.
While I am sure MS hopes to have its research dollars turn into real innovation, what is really important is that MS demonstrates a credible commitement to the search market. MS is just trying to send a signal to potential partners that they see MSN as a longer term strategic technology and they are putting a bet on it. MS has to spend at least $1B for anyone to notice, but they are saying -"join us, we'll still be in this market in a few years".
A9 looks more relevant to me. Less total hits (490,000 vs. 8.6M) but its not like I'd be looking at more than 100 on anything. I prefer googles interface, but still A9 looks fine. INteresting how fast they can switch technology too.
Twice a day delivery is an awful idea. First, email is asyncronous communication - thus it works better than a phone when I don't want to be interrupted. I can read it and answer it when I want, not when the company schedules me to. Second, why impose structure on a system that has its advantages in allowing for less structure? If there actually is anything important everyone has to wait to get it started becuase they won't know about it until 8 hours later (ie. what if there is an internal post that has an error?) Companies want responsive employees, not people that take 7 hour coffee breaks before they panic on what needs to get done. Like most other posts - the problem is not inherant to email, but found either the idiots that can't figure out to use it (your boss!), or the people that over use it (spammers). My email works great. I love it, don't know what I would do without it.
Man, I didn't even see this post when I posted the thread below. Hamel is Dr. Enron. Of course, google managmenet in the last few months has sold a lot more stock that any of those Enron guys.
Lets not forget that Gary Hamel had Enron "leading the future", his now revised book, with its decentralized management structure. As many of us know, in the current thinking decentralized structures promote innovation at the expense of control. Hamel's one sided view of structure didn't work out so well.
Googles 20% +10% rule is jsut best practice from the 3M post-it case taught to every HBS MBA with the 10% twist. It works. Its not new. Google does some things exceptionally well. But I don't need a revisionist telling me about that.
Amen, and nice site.
I think google was just trying to be interesting and innovative so their designers built from the Miro peices. They showed that their search produces pretty pages too. I'm not the hugest Miro fan or anything, but I think Google showed a carelessness for the little guy, and I wanted to say good for the little guy for asseting their rights (this is a scary thing to do when you don't have big bank). If google wanted to honor Miro they should have contacted the rights holders, proposed the idea, and possibly even offered them some sort of compensation or legitimate recognition. Usually when you honor someone they get a reward - making a commercial logo as tribute is one bizarre reward. On an economic test, more Miro's prints are probably going to be sold. Still, if Miro's family was inking some deal to put a Miro gallery online at Yahoo, you could see how this could create some economic impact and customer confusion (usually associated w/trademark problem). What people neglect is that the public has no right to take something out of the private interest just becuase the public is better off, and even if the private party is rewarded. Without your permission, I can't go take your car, lend it out to a bunch of people that wouldn't have known of the car, even if I return the car and put $1000 on your chair for your trouble. An artist doesn't have to share his work, even it is of value to others, and even if that artist is compensated.
"The only reason this is an issue is because Google is a huge company...."
Sure. That is the main issue. Google is a huge company. They do things for commercial gain. Since when did we stop protecting the interests of a family (who Miro assigned his rights to by the way) so a huge company could do what it wants?
I'm sure Google appreciates your defense though, and with most on the board. I know, poor big company using someone elses artistic expression without their permission for commercial purposes. You know, even MSFT 10 or so years ago bought up a heap a copyrights just so that they could be free to do things like this (not that they have).
It does matter what the family feels -they are his family, who are you! And our laws give the a right for a limited amount of time to do so. Who give google the right?
Lucius is correct - its not my sense of morality, its a abstract concept relating the moral rights of the creator. On moral rights, there is a lot of theory for those that write about this but copyright law tries to capture that Miro has a moral right in his expressions (not everything has to be about economic incentives, this is another theoretical position!). I would hope that Miro's familiy, is genuinly acting on behalf of Miro in asserting that Miro has some say in how his expression is used. So it's not really that subjective even in the abstract sense - people who are in a position to asset Miro's moral rights have stated that they have been offended.
On style, I said "depending on the specific similarities of the expression", and from another poster and the article:
"It's apparently not just in the style of, but a rip-off of a few of his paintings, which to me sounds fishy at best and copyright violation at worst."Google's logo allegedly incorporated images from Miro's ``The Escape Ladder,'' 1940, ``Nocture,'' 1940, and ``The Beautiful Bird Revealing the Unknown to a Pair of Lovers,'' 1941.""
I would defer to litigation rather then your opinion of the similarity of the expressions. And guess what? You don't need to copy verbatim to voilate copyright. Artists can enjoin derivative works. Is this a copy, maybe parts. Is this a derivative work? You bet your ass. Does is fall under fair use - most likely no as flagrant commercial purposes. People do create works in the style of others all the time - and if there is enought money involved people do get sued. Remember Vanilla Ice, , words are differnt, the tones are technically different, but they sound tremendously similar. Do I wish we lived in your world? Hey, we don't.
Now I regret that Oogle.com was not a great example - but I would expect to be sued under BOTH trademark and copyright law which is why i don't set up said site. I was trying to make the point of nobody likes me but everyone LOVES google. Google ignored the rights holders and did what google wanted. That's getting close to evil.
Cheers
Unlikely to be fair use. One of the tests for fair use is if it is for commercial use. Hard for google to get away from this one in putting it in their logo. Point Miro.
Hey, You just identified how google imposed commercial harm to the Miro family. Congratulations! See why companies shouldn't tie other peoples work with their logo? It's none of google's business leaching of of others goodwill.
It's google.com NOT google.org. If google employees want to be artists they should do so off the company dime. Maybe some employees can set up a nice miro fan club, but google is using Miro's goodwill. Fair use, parady, and all these nice public use exceptions to copyright law generally rely on tests of commercial use. While it would not be too easy to show commercial harm to Miro (point to google), the Miro family has reasonable concerns about commerical use (point to Miro), and derivative works (point to Miro). Why all the google love? Miro is none of google's business. If the Miro family wanted a Miro tribute, and that was so great, why wouldn't they pay google to do one? (ie. see all the Da Vinci code stuff). Maybe the family is greedy, or maybe they think Miro would be pissed that he was being associated with a company logo.
I never said "Style" was copyrightable. Google may have directly copied elements out of a miro work and hung it off of their letters - I saw the letters, but I don;t know so I refrained from making a blanket copyright opinion. Anyway, one thing is arguing copyright which is screwed up practically everywhere (though it can enjoin derivative works which I think there is a nice case for here). One can also considered the moral right whereby ones expressions are imitated for commercial use (even in this limited). Even though other artists have imitated Miro, or better yet, further devloped it, I get where the family is coming from.
Once a big fan of google, this type of behavior is bugging me. There may or may not be a copyright violation here (depending on specific similarities of the expressions), but there is certainly a disrespect of the moral rights of the artist. Let's say a google made a "tribute" to tiger woods by making the google words out of him, or paid a tribute to U2 by playing "one" when you went to the site. Do you think this would be ok? Miro's a big deal, though perhaps not to the ignorant masses. Google appropriates good will from Miro at Google's discretion, not necessarily the other way around (i.e. think Miro on Enron's homepage and you understand why the family might be pissed). I think should set up a porn site, perhaps www.oogle.com, and use the same fonts and colors as google (as a tribute to their fantastic business savy) and see if google gets pissed off. Take of your rosy googles and think about what's going on her folks.