At least the New York Times is still in print. You can still go to them to ask permission for projects like this and they have well organized archives for people to access.
Good luck doing that with defunct journals and newspapers. You aren't able to find who to ask, but you can't risk a lawsuit either, so it's basically lost history and culture.
It's really going to hit us hard in a couple of decades when people want access to all the newspapers that were killed by the internet and no copies are to be found.
You speak as if Google removes it, then it's gone from the internet.
What happens 10 years from now if another search engine is popular? Suddenly it's all there again.
We can argue about whether or not Google actually publishes something, but removing something from Google does nothing to fix the problem, which is why "Right to Be Forgotten" is nonsense because it doesn't fix the problem. All it does is weaken Google compared to other search engines, which is why I guess the Google haters like it.
I agree that Google needs more competition, but frankly, if I were defamed on the internet, I'd rather not spend the rest of my life playing whack-a-mole with various search results.
Your local bookstore is charging more than that for public domain books. That's what's great about the public domain. Nobody has to ask permission to sell the stuff.
Google doesn't choose the snippets! Why can't you understand that?
The snippets are provided by the website - the website published the snippet, and the website has the editorial control. The website can change the snippet anytime they want to anything they want, which is why Google isn't liable.
Take away the website, and it's gone from Google. Take it away from Google, and the website is still there. That's why attacking Google is stupid.
It should be blindingly obvious to anyone that uses the internet that Google isn't the internet.
Re: "It's surely no accident that this novel relaxed attitude to sharing materials covered by copyright concerns academic papers."
Current copyright covers all creation equally - and doesn't vary based on intent or medium or commercial value or educational value.
The only "empty entertainments" that cost millions to make are films. Music, books, photographs, poetry, etc. are ridiculously cheap to make in comparison and still get the exact same protections. It's commercial film and film alone that has skewed copyright beyond reason.
So if you really believe one thing is fine and another thing is not, then we really just need a special copyright for movies.
In fact, considering the cost of academic research, most of those research papers probably cost more to make than most albums and books.
And if you actually believe that "empty entertainment" retard progress, then you have no respect for art or artists - or you just watch a lot of bad movies.
Re: Re: There's More Than One Way To Play This Game
Except if you remove the offending text from the website that published it, you also remove them from Google, so Google is not actually publishing anything. It is merely showing you what is written on the website.
Except if you remove the offending text from the website that published them, you also remove them from Google, so Google is not actually publishing anything. It is merely showing you what is written on the website.
It'd take a whole lot more than that to foment rebellion. Most Americans aren't interested in giving up their cozy lives for little things like rights.
Pretty easy to knock down an artist that sticks her neck out and talks about copyright, and then claim to be the greater artist and yet hide, presumably so your corporate masters won't ostracize you.
On the post: Copyright Terms And How Historical Journalism Is Disappearing
Re:
On the post: Copyright Terms And How Historical Journalism Is Disappearing
Re: Re: Re: When in doubt, blame copyright
On the post: How The Redskins' Delightfully Vulgar Court Filing Won Me Over
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Terms And How Historical Journalism Is Disappearing
Good luck doing that with defunct journals and newspapers. You aren't able to find who to ask, but you can't risk a lawsuit either, so it's basically lost history and culture.
It's really going to hit us hard in a couple of decades when people want access to all the newspapers that were killed by the internet and no copies are to be found.
On the post: Democrats Screw Over Larry Lessig To Keep Him Out Of The Debates; Forces Lessig To Drop His Campaign
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Our Founding Fathers Used Encryption... And So Should You
Re:
On the post: Democrats Screw Over Larry Lessig To Keep Him Out Of The Debates; Forces Lessig To Drop His Campaign
Re: Re:
On the post: Democrats Screw Over Larry Lessig To Keep Him Out Of The Debates; Forces Lessig To Drop His Campaign
Re: Flashbacks to Ron Paul's Campaign
On the post: Canadian Judge Says Asking For A Copy Of A Legally-Obtained But Paywalled Article Is Circumvention
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To
Re: Re:
What happens 10 years from now if another search engine is popular? Suddenly it's all there again.
We can argue about whether or not Google actually publishes something, but removing something from Google does nothing to fix the problem, which is why "Right to Be Forgotten" is nonsense because it doesn't fix the problem. All it does is weaken Google compared to other search engines, which is why I guess the Google haters like it.
I agree that Google needs more competition, but frankly, if I were defamed on the internet, I'd rather not spend the rest of my life playing whack-a-mole with various search results.
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To
Re: Re: Well if that's all it takes...
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To
Re: Re: Well if that's all it takes...
The snippets are provided by the website - the website published the snippet, and the website has the editorial control. The website can change the snippet anytime they want to anything they want, which is why Google isn't liable.
Take away the website, and it's gone from Google. Take it away from Google, and the website is still there. That's why attacking Google is stupid.
It should be blindingly obvious to anyone that uses the internet that Google isn't the internet.
On the post: Canadian Judge Says Asking For A Copy Of A Legally-Obtained But Paywalled Article Is Circumvention
Re:
On the post: Canadian Judge Says Asking For A Copy Of A Legally-Obtained But Paywalled Article Is Circumvention
Re: Re: "Refuse to plead guilty? Oh that's going to cost you..."
On the post: Copyright Fail: 'Pirating' Academic Papers Not Only Commonplace, But Now Seen As Mainstream
Re: "It's surely no accident that this novel relaxed attitude to sharing materials covered by copyright concerns academic papers."
The only "empty entertainments" that cost millions to make are films. Music, books, photographs, poetry, etc. are ridiculously cheap to make in comparison and still get the exact same protections. It's commercial film and film alone that has skewed copyright beyond reason.
So if you really believe one thing is fine and another thing is not, then we really just need a special copyright for movies.
In fact, considering the cost of academic research, most of those research papers probably cost more to make than most albums and books.
And if you actually believe that "empty entertainment" retard progress, then you have no respect for art or artists - or you just watch a lot of bad movies.
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To
Re: Re: There's More Than One Way To Play This Game
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To
Re: The court has a reasonable argument.
On the post: Senate Rejects All CISA Amendments Designed To Protect Privacy, Reiterating That It's A Surveillance Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Senate Rejects All CISA Amendments Designed To Protect Privacy, Reiterating That It's A Surveillance Bill
Re: Re:
On the post: Nina Paley Argues Why Copyright Is Brain Damage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
Next >>