Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1.    #1  
  2. #2  
    It sure is a heck of a way to suppress the freedom of speech. Limiting access to printed media such as this is just plain wrong. It shows that the printed media is really afraid of coming to an end.

    Ben
  3. #3  
    How does this have any implication over freedom of speech? All of the material in question is already published and available. You have all the access you want. Of course, you'd have to pay for the media involved -- or is that the lack of "free" we're talking about?
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by copernicus View Post
    For another view see http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...007.html&cid=0
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickS View Post
    How does this have any implication over freedom of speech? All of the material in question is already published and available. You have all the access you want. Of course, you'd have to pay for the media involved -- or is that the lack of "free" we're talking about?
    Agreed. While it might be nice for Google to be able to give it away, they have no free speech right to do so.

    I do not know what it means in Canada but here free speech means that the government may not suppress speech. "Congress shall make no law...," the five most beautiful words in our common language. It does not mean that the family, church, school, or other community may not ostracize you. Note the difference between the force that the state might use to silence one and moral suasion of the community.

    Specifically, free speech does not apply to the right of copyright holders to collect their vige. Google cannot even claim "fair use" until it pays for the material. Fair use does not ever include re-use for profit.
  6.    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickS View Post
    How does this have any implication over freedom of speech? All of the material in question is already published and available. You have all the access you want. Of course, you'd have to pay for the media involved -- or is that the lack of "free" we're talking about?
    I think the second sentence in Ben's post is where the emphasis should be placed: "Limiting access to printed media such as this is just plain wrong."

    My understanding (I could be wrong about this) is that these are newspaper articles which have, up until now, been accessible to the public at no charge. I'm not sure I understand why Google should not be able to index these articles. If it was a subscription service and Google had gotten hold of the articles illegally, that's another matter. This could set up a dangerous precedent IMHO.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by copernicus View Post
    I think the second sentence in Ben's post is where the emphasis should be placed: "Limiting access to printed media such as this is just plain wrong."

    My understanding (I could be wrong about this) is that these are newspaper articles which have, up until now, been accessible to the public at no charge. I'm not sure I understand why Google should not be able to index these articles. If it was a subscription service and Google had gotten hold of the articles illegally, that's another matter. This could set up a dangerous precedent IMHO.
    I would agree with you if the question before the court was one of indexing. That is not my understanding. My understanding is that Google was making the text available after the paper had removed it from the paper's public site. If one went to the paper's site for the article, one would have to be a subscriber to see the article. Google was making it availlable, in competition with the paper, for free.

    I cannot even imagine a theory under which one can defend Google. Since I am a Google stockholder, this has cost me big time.
  8.    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    I would agree with you if the question before the court was one of indexing. That is not my understanding. My understanding is that Google was making the text available after the paper had removed it from the paper's public site. If one went to the paper's site for the article, one would have to be a subscriber to see the article. Google was making it availlable, in competition with the paper, for free.

    I cannot even imagine a theory under which one can defend Google. Since I am a Google stockholder, this has cost me big time.
    It's a good point, they provide full text. But then, this could disrupt Google's right to cache pages of all kinds, something it's been doing for years and something that has become (almost) an accepted practice in the industry. Better close your position fast.
    Last edited by copernicus; 02/13/2007 at 07:40 PM.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by copernicus View Post
    It's a good point, they provide full text. But then, this could disrupt Google's right to cache pages of all kinds, something it's been doing for years and something that has become (almost) an accepted practice in the industry. Better close your position fast.
    Very true, on both counts. I suspect that all Google was doing was caching a frequently referenced page. I doubt that the paper would have sued had Google flushed the cache on a timely basis.

    That said, the issue is still one of copyrights rather than one of free speech.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    That said, the issue is still one of copyrights rather than one of free speech.
    No....the issue is over money, no matter how one approaches it or legally labels it.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by copernicus View Post
    It's a good point, they provide full text. But then, this could disrupt Google's right to cache pages of all kinds, something it's been doing for years and something that has become (almost) an accepted practice in the industry. Better close your position fast.
    Does Google actually have such a right? I've heard of the right of free speech and the right to bear arms, but not the right to cache web pages.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by copernicus View Post
    I think the second sentence in Ben's post is where the emphasis should be placed: "Limiting access to printed media such as this is just plain wrong."

    My understanding (I could be wrong about this) is that these are newspaper articles which have, up until now, been accessible to the public at no charge. I'm not sure I understand why Google should not be able to index these articles. If it was a subscription service and Google had gotten hold of the articles illegally, that's another matter. This could set up a dangerous precedent IMHO.
    Perhaps the newspapers are feeling a loss of control over their own material? They had taken the archived articles down for whatever reason. Google has trumped them by still making the articles available. Whether they were free or not, for whatever reason, the newspapers no longer want them to be shown. Assuming they hold original copyright to the material, they feel they have a right to dictate what happens to their material. Just a thought.
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    It sure is a heck of a way to suppress the freedom of speech. Limiting access to printed media such as this is just plain wrong. It shows that the printed media is really afraid of coming to an end.

    Ben
    Or is it maintaining control over your own material? Are you sure that you can tell any newspaper that they have to keep showing archived articles, if they own the material? When ANYONE removes stuff off their website, do we have the right to tell them to keep the archive because we feel we have a right to see it?
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    No....the issue is over money, no matter how one approaches it or legally labels it.
    I stand corrected.
  15.    #15  
    Here is one way to deal with the problem.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by copernicus View Post
    Here is one way to deal with the problem.
    I agree. Not indexing or caching the pub is easier than trying to take it down on a timely basis. The Belgian paper may find that it is cutting off its nose to spite its face.

    [I have a witness to sitting in the offices of the NYTimes and being told that the Times would never be on the Internet. Now the publisher says that he is indifferent to whether or not the print edition survives.]
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by copernicus View Post
    Here is one way to deal with the problem.
    They should do this, but that would be evil and google doesnt do evil.

    If the papers are upset of being part of google news, then they are stupid. google news just gives you an exerp and then takes you to the page if you want to read more.

    I can understand them being upset of google making available cashed web sites, epesially if they charge for archives.

    But wait, all sites have an out.

    its called robot.txt. it tells search engines what they should and should index.
    Felipe
    On the road to 5,000 posts
    Life is what happens between Firmware releases.
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by Felipe View Post
    They should do this, but that would be evil....
    I must be missing your point. Google wants to do business as business is being done. One or more newspapers do not. Not indexing or caching those papers is simply an accomodation to them. Seems to me that is an "offer to do business" declined. What is evil about that?

    The alternative is for Google to continue to be sued. What is good about that?

    Your position would put Google in a double bind.
  19.    #19  
    In September Google seems to have dropped some of the Belgian newspapers, long before this last ruling. It's a bit confusing.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    I must be missing your point. Google wants to do business as business is being done. One or more newspapers do not. Not indexing or caching those papers is simply an accomodation to them. Seems to me that is an "offer to do business" declined. What is evil about that?

    The alternative is for Google to continue to be sued. What is good about that?

    Your position would put Google in a double bind.
    http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html

    You can make money without doing evil. Google is a business. The revenue the company generates is derived from offering its search technology to companies and from the sale of advertising displayed on Google and on other sites across the web. However, you may have never seen an ad on Google. That's because Google does not allow ads to be displayed on our results pages unless they're relevant to the results page on which they're shown. So, only certain searches produce sponsored links above or to the right of the results. Google firmly believes that ads can provide useful information if, and only if, they are relevant to what you wish to find.
    Google has also proven that advertising can be effective without being flashy. Google does not accept pop-up advertising, which interferes with your ability to see the content you've requested. We've found that text ads (AdWords) that are relevant to the person reading them draw much higher clickthrough rates than ads appearing randomly. Google's maximization group works with advertisers to improve clickthrough rates over the life of a campaign, because high clickthrough rates are an indication that ads are relevant to a user's interests. Any advertiser, no matter how small or how large, can take advantage of this highly targeted medium, whether through our self-service advertising program that puts ads online within minutes, or with the assistance of a Google advertising representative.
    Advertising on Google is always clearly identified as a "Sponsored Link." It is a core value for Google that there be no compromising of the integrity of our results. We never manipulate rankings to put our partners higher in our search results. No one can buy better PageRank. Our users trust Google's objectivity and no short-term gain could ever justify breaching that trust.
    Thousands of advertisers use our Google AdWords program to promote their products; we believe AdWords is the largest program of its kind. In addition, thousands of web site managers take advantage of our Google AdSense program to deliver ads relevant to the content on their sites, improving their ability to generate revenue and enhancing the experience for their users.
    Felipe
    On the road to 5,000 posts
    Life is what happens between Firmware releases.

Posting Permissions