treeline
msg:3272245 | 5:36 am on Mar 6, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Pretty funny from a company that got rich by stealing other people's innovations. Hmmm.... -- It takes one to know one, or... -- The Pot calling the Kettle black?
|
beakertrail
msg:3272257 | 6:09 am on Mar 6, 2007 (gmt 0) |
ha! he has a good point though. Google's mission of 'organizing the internet' has become a bit obsessive with the blatent plundering of content.
|
walkman
msg:3272260 | 6:17 am on Mar 6, 2007 (gmt 0) |
>> Pretty funny from a company that got rich by stealing other people's innovations. Hmmm.... they stole a stolen thing, it's not as bad :)
Didn't apple "borrow" a few ideas from Xerox Parc? This MSFT jab is funny though and IMO it's no coindence. I am sure Gates et al knew and approved this attack.
|
MisterT
msg:3272305 | 7:54 am on Mar 6, 2007 (gmt 0) |
seems like they are just trying to give google a black eye
|
ogletree
msg:3272313 | 8:06 am on Mar 6, 2007 (gmt 0) |
That is really weird that they would just stand up and say something like that. It almost seems personal. Google is making money because they are good at organizing data. Books should be set up like music. If you show books with advertising there should be a set fee that goes to the publisher/author like radio stations do.
|
BeeDeeDubbleU
msg:3272338 | 8:43 am on Mar 6, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| Pretty funny from a company that got rich by stealing other people's innovations. |
|
Stealing is the wrong word. M$ like any other major company recognises innovation in other companies by buying them, not stealing from them .. nothing new in that. I often hear this point being made as though M$ are somehow different. Think about it, how many small innovative companies has Google bought over during the last ten years?
|
m0thman
msg:3272349 | 9:10 am on Mar 6, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| I often hear this point being made as though M$ are somehow different. Think about it, how many small innovative companies has Google bought over during the last ten years? |
|
Yeah, but google do no evil.... microsoft on the other hand is the devil incarnate :-)
|
BeeDeeDubbleU
msg:3272427 | 10:58 am on Mar 6, 2007 (gmt 0) |
For the time being. ;)
|
oddsod
msg:3272434 | 11:01 am on Mar 6, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Because a company is not liked isn't a good enough reason to condemn them when they do the right thing and show others a good example by getting permission before they use your content. I'm no MS supporter - and slam them for the things they do wrong - but it's in all our interests to support them when they're doing something that we'd like others to follow.
|
loner
msg:3272453 | 11:21 am on Mar 6, 2007 (gmt 0) |
MS is right, Google is violating copyright and should be held accountable. They can afford to buy the right to publish.
|
Web_speed
msg:3272534 | 1:21 pm on Mar 6, 2007 (gmt 0) |
100% correct. Google is violating copyrights on a massive scale and in broad daylight. “Opt out if you don’t want us to copy and display your work (surrounded by ads)” ....give me a fri#$^%^ break. Can’t wait to seeing the massive class action in motion.
|
flack47
msg:3272629 | 3:04 pm on Mar 6, 2007 (gmt 0) |
You have to admire the Google business model, though: put stuff out for free in a way that people have yet to figure out how to regulate and make a killing off of it. Just to cover their butt, though, make sure that they offer an "opt out" option. That way they can say "Hey, bro, he could have told us to not allow people to read his book in its entirety." Nevermind the fact that they don't come to you with the "opt out" option. You have to first realize that Google is ripping your intellectual property, then tell them to stop.
"You're in unless you tell us otherwise."
Seems like they're assuming a little more authority than they're entitled to, if you ask me. Furthermore, for all of the people that like to bring up how Microsoft likes to rip off this company and that company. The truth is that you would be hard-pressed to find a company that doesn't mimic other people's innovations in their design - especially in any new/evolving medium. It's just the way that things work. They could take more of a Google approach and just wait for something to look promising, then buy it *cough*Youtube*cough*. Back on the ripping other people's stuff subject, though. This whole book thing gives me a bad flashback of a day when a certain company began making mp3s available for free, not realizing that one day the owners of the intellectual property contained therewithin would come at them with a furious whineyboy-drummer (Lars) vengeance. And now I'm off of my soapbox :) [edited by: caveman at 4:47 pm (utc) on Mar. 6, 2007]
|
loner
msg:3272679 | 3:53 pm on Mar 6, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Now that I thought about it, it is my understanding that the copyright is a way to "opt out."
|
Liane
msg:3272701 | 4:16 pm on Mar 6, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| Now that I thought about it, it is my understanding that the copyright is a way to "opt out." |
|
Google pays no attention to copyright notices. You have to use their code: <meta name="ROBOTS" value="noarchive"> The "your in unless you tell us otherwise" policy is pretty much the same as the phone book. Your home adress and phone numbers are published unless you "PAY" for an unlisted number! I can just see all the search engines jumping on that band wagon at some point in the future! Don't want us to cache your pages ... no problem! That will be $200.00 for the first year please and $100.00 for all subsequent years. Yep, I can just see it now! :)
|
jeremy goodrich
msg:3272833 | 6:01 pm on Mar 6, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Weird. I just went to MSN search & saw "cached" links on their search results. When clicked, I saw an advertisement on the page for MSN...yep, MSN is much better than Google because they use a logo, instead of text colored with CSS as the Google cache does. lol.
|
arubicus
msg:3272992 | 7:29 pm on Mar 6, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Weird all I see is a disclaimer. Not an outright ad. At that the logo is not clickable. Google has 3 mentions of their name and once in the cache url that is displayed vs. once in the disclaimer for MSN if you want to get technical.
|
flack47
msg:3273255 | 11:29 pm on Mar 6, 2007 (gmt 0) |
"Don't want us to cache your pages ... no problem! That will be $200.00 for the first year please and $100.00 for all subsequent years." Great point! The day that this happens is the day that I get the heck out of SEO, that's for sure.
|
Liane
msg:3273341 | 1:01 am on Mar 7, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| Great point! The day that this happens is the day that I get the heck out of SEO, that's for sure. |
|
I was really just kidding. I was only looking at the possible angles the SE's could use to milk this sort of thing. The topic itself: Microsoft Takes Google to Task on Copyright is so silly that I decided to just throw in something humourous rather than serious. Now if that headline had read: 10,000 webmasters Take Google to Task on Copyright violation ... my post would have been very, very different! :) Let them throw bricks at each other's glass houses. Makes no difference to me who wins or loses this particular public relations war ... the fact of the matter is that Google delivers the goods and MSN doesn't. (At least not yet they don't!)
|
loner
msg:3273872 | 1:31 pm on Mar 7, 2007 (gmt 0) |
The copyright laws were designed to protect an author's right to control their own work. So let's not forget what Google is doing; scanning books and puting the content on the net. The author is no longer in control. Now forget the internet part of this. The web is a whore. I figured out that a long time ago; So accordingly, the work I value, the creative product I originate, is put into print, not on the internet. When I sell a book I do not provide the right to reproduce that book to anyone that buys it. Google is stealing and their thievery is motivated by profit. Authors of print publications are no longer in control of their creative work. I'm glad a big guy like MS is saying something. Lord knows our government doesn't have the guts to- after all, look what they let happen to the rights of artists in the music industry.
|
oddsod
msg:3273931 | 2:27 pm on Mar 7, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| ...the fact of the matter is that Google delivers the goods and MSN doesn't. |
|
That's a good reason for criticising Microsoft's direction on copyright respect? :(
|
|
