Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
Forum Moderators: open
I would think this falls under public domain.
I am surprised you all are chiding the man who dared to take on the giant. Not many people would be brave enough to do that.
Bob should have charged $10,000 for a copy of that document, his GP would probably have been much higher :)
(5 x $10,000 = $50,000, Vs 5 x $20 = $100....laid it out simple just incase the $$$$$ recipient comes along) :)
$50K would only have left the coffers a few million short to put up a decent case.
When MS go to court they have $40 billion in cash with which to scare the opposition, I wonder how much Bob is planning to raise from that document?
My understanding is that searchking used to be a solid PR8 and becuase Google didn't like bob's pradnetwork they dumped him to a PR4.
Can a movie critic give good reviews to a film, find out the producer holds contrary political views, then turn around and pan the movie?
Well, the movie PR industry works differently. A PC movie critic is expected to know the producer's political views before writing the first review. So your question is sort of like "Can a National Review editor publish an article one week, and then go back and check the spelling of the main words and republish if they were misspelled?" -- It's part of the basic research.
Google recalculates the PR each month. Think of it more as Clintonian democracy in action, and ask instead, "Can a politician claim to give a factual description of an event one month, poll to find out the electorate holds different views, and express a contradictory set of proclaimed facts about the same event the next month?"
Think of Google as the website-review version of Clinton: it doesn't HAVE its own personal view, it just runs the polls to see what comes up. But Clinton doesn't therefore lose his copyright to his own words (or even the words his copywriter wrote for hire for him).
Google's poll results, since they do respresent an enormous amount of data collection, aggregation, and processing (involving proprietary and probably patented techniques extending far beyond the borderline test cases involving phone directories), are surely copyrightable.
That's not my understanding of what occurred. I feel the situation is more along the lines of:
If the critic found out that the movie's producer made false claims that the movie was directed by ###, when in actuallity ###'s name was merely placed on the credits to increase the movie's appeal/status in the press, then the critic not only CAN, but SHOULD expose that fact.
Actually, the critic has a DUTY to expose that sort of behavior.
Back when Gene Siskel was teamed with critic Roger Ebert, they panned some movie. As a result, the studio (I forget which one) told the duo they would no longer be allowed to see their movies prior to their release. But that didn't last long at all. :)
And since it is a subjective opinion, it is protected under the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Subjective? Doesn't that mean that Google would have to give PR on a site by site basis?
So does this mean that Google is publically admitting to hand edits?