Comments on: “Limited and Temporary?”

By: laptop battery

laptop battery — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:30:39 +0000

This is great news. Best of luck for the future and keep up the good work.

By: laptop battery

laptop battery — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:30:39 +0000

This is great news. Best of luck for the future and keep up the good work.

By: FreeDem

FreeDem — Fri, 01 May 2009 18:55:37 +0000

Democracy Now had a long discussion with the Internet Archive that probably has the second largest collection of works after Google and is a non-profit-501-c3 organization that I believe is the proper repository for that data.

They mentioned a Public Comment thing that the Court has set up but I can find no link to it on Archive's site. I would like to try and bring general attention to this that they hear from the maximum number of people as to why this is a bad thing and needs to be settled very differently as a public commons.

I also have viewed Google favorably due to their Founding rule to "Not do evil" unfortunately power corrupts and Google has now oodles of power so despite intentions this is very far out on that slippery slope that Google has no business in.

By: Freedem

Freedem — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:55:37 +0000

By: Links 06/04/2009: More Schools Move to GNU/Linux, Debian Gains Architectures | Boycott Novell

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:15:58 +0000

[...] “Limited and Temporary?” Thanks to the magic of the class action mechanism, the settlement will confer on Google a kind of legal immunity that cannot be obtained at any price through a purely private negotiation. It confers on Google immunity not only against suits brought by the actual members of the organizations that sued Google, but also against suits brought by anyone who doesn’t explicitly opt out. That means that Google will be free to mine the vast body of orphan works without fear of liability. [...]

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:28:20 +0000

They might be able to, although it would be a little bit tricky to replicate the conditions that led to the Google settlement. But the more important question is why should the AAAP and the Authors' Guild get to decide who gets to index the millions of orphan works that weren't written by their members? I don't think that's an outcome to celebrate even if it doesn't create a literal monopoly.

By: Don Marti

Don Marti — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:44:54 +0000

The record companies finally got smart enough to let Amazon create a reasonably useful competitor to Apple's iTUnes — why won't the publishing companies and authors' organizations want to do the same? Amazon is the logical second source here, too.