I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic... a) fair use is not about the reactions of rights holders, but about the law, and b) Mike states right in this very post that he considers Google's project to be fair use and this to be reasonable, defensible and potentially fair use as well - he's merely stating that this violates the AP's own (narrow) interpretation of fair use.
You know what bugs me the most about it? The line my whitewalls are stained with varicose veins.
In the middle of a bunch of car metaphors, she throws in "varicose veins" out of nowhere, and it completely ruins the consistency of the (bland) analogy.
In journalism school, we had to learn proper fact checking technique and we had tests where we had to completely fact-check articles with two sources for every factual statement.
It was one of the many things I learned in journalism school that I never heard about again...
Though I don't agree with his views on gay marriage at all, there can be no doubt when you read them that he has thought things through fully and totally understands the implications of what he is saying, and believes in them. That counts more to me than the opinion itself when it comes to evaluating someone as a thinker.
...It's nothing but a silly e-mail forward full of terrible jokes. "I take forever to reach my full speed, my traction is bad and I slip and slide, blah blah blah."
yes, that's important too. Basically, a trade secret is a real secret, whereas a patent is regulated to be an effective secret even though it is totally out in the open.
Reading a bit on Wikipedia to confirm that my admittedly rudimentary understanding is correct, and I'm sorry friend, but there IS a big difference between trade secrets and more traditional IP like patents.
Firstly, the reverse engineering of a trade secret by another party is totally legal - if someone works out the Coca Cola formula, they can start making it (except for all that other stuff to do with importing coca leaves but that is unrelated to this discussion)
Secondly, "under most trade secret regimes, a trade secret is not deemed to exist unless its purported holder takes reasonable steps to maintain its secrecy." [wikipedia]
Trade secret laws are about preventing industrial espionage and allowing for the enforcement of NDAs and NCAs. You are basically saying "we are keeping this a secret". With a patent, you are saying "this isn't a secret, but you still aren't allowed to use it"
There are legalities surrounding trade secrets too, I know, though I don't know all the details of them. And I'm sure you could make the argument that they do count as a type of intellectual property... but honestly I don't think that affects my point for those who wish to understand it - nonetheless, here is a revised first sentence:
"There's a bit of (read: a lot of) difference between the type of IP generally criticized here on TechDirt and a trade secret"
There's a bit of (read: a lot of) difference between IP and a trade secret. Google does not and cannot claim that other people aren't allowed to invent similar algorithms - even identical ones if they could figure out how. Which is exactly why it is important for Google's business to keep their methods secret.
I am assuming you are trying to point hypocrisy fingers here, but it's not at all the same, and it's not about IP laws. Google is not broadcasting their algorithm as content and then saying "but no, it's still ours, you can't use it because of legal limitations" - they are keeping it a good ol' fashioned secret, which is the only "real" type of intellectual "property"
Except... that quote isn't saying "just because something is against the law doesn't make it wrong" - it's saying "just because something is allowed doesn't make it right."
RSS
Twitter
Someone had to say it: (as Marcus Carab)
Dear Lily, why you being so silly?
Re: (as Marcus Carab)
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic... a) fair use is not about the reactions of rights holders, but about the law, and b) Mike states right in this very post that he considers Google's project to be fair use and this to be reasonable, defensible and potentially fair use as well - he's merely stating that this violates the AP's own (narrow) interpretation of fair use.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nah... (as Marcus Carab)
Oh wait now that I re-read your comment, I see that's what you meant.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nah... (as Marcus Carab)
Actually I think the analogy would be: ten people each packaging up five grams of cocaine, but they all get charged with a felony for the 50g total.
Re: Nah... (as Marcus Carab)
This sums up exactly how I feel about the whole "psycho-acoustic simulation" thing too.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mayor wants best tools to run his city. Investigates Macs and iPhones. (as Marcus Carab)
...wha?
Re: Properly Attributed (as Marcus Carab)
You know what bugs me the most about it? The line my whitewalls are stained with varicose veins.
In the middle of a bunch of car metaphors, she throws in "varicose veins" out of nowhere, and it completely ruins the consistency of the (bland) analogy.
(as Marcus Carab)
In journalism school, we had to learn proper fact checking technique and we had tests where we had to completely fact-check articles with two sources for every factual statement.
It was one of the many things I learned in journalism school that I never heard about again...
Re: (as Marcus Carab)
I cannot even imagine Google getting into a bidding war for search results. They would just bid them farewell and watch them fail.
Re: Mayor wants best tools to run his city. Investigates Macs and iPhones. (as Marcus Carab)
Actually the title should have read: "I am hijacking this comment section for no good reason."
Techdirt has a story submission form, you know.
Re: (as Marcus Carab)
Though I don't agree with his views on gay marriage at all, there can be no doubt when you read them that he has thought things through fully and totally understands the implications of what he is saying, and believes in them. That counts more to me than the opinion itself when it comes to evaluating someone as a thinker.
Re: Re: It's a new business model... (as Marcus Carab)
Also, a disclaimer on step one:
*wit not actually required
Re: It's a new business model... (as Marcus Carab)
Coming early next year, the I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER? lawsuit
Have you seen this essay? (as Marcus Carab)
...It's nothing but a silly e-mail forward full of terrible jokes. "I take forever to reach my full speed, my traction is bad and I slip and slide, blah blah blah."
Re: It's only a matter of time (as Marcus Carab)
What do these folks think of: American Idol, the "Rock Band" game, etc.?
The same thing they think about cover bands and everything else that involves music: "how can we milk as much cash out of this as possible"
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Marcus Carab)
yes, that's important too. Basically, a trade secret is a real secret, whereas a patent is regulated to be an effective secret even though it is totally out in the open.
Re: Re: Re: (as Marcus Carab)
Reading a bit on Wikipedia to confirm that my admittedly rudimentary understanding is correct, and I'm sorry friend, but there IS a big difference between trade secrets and more traditional IP like patents.
Firstly, the reverse engineering of a trade secret by another party is totally legal - if someone works out the Coca Cola formula, they can start making it (except for all that other stuff to do with importing coca leaves but that is unrelated to this discussion)
Secondly, "under most trade secret regimes, a trade secret is not deemed to exist unless its purported holder takes reasonable steps to maintain its secrecy." [wikipedia]
Trade secret laws are about preventing industrial espionage and allowing for the enforcement of NDAs and NCAs. You are basically saying "we are keeping this a secret". With a patent, you are saying "this isn't a secret, but you still aren't allowed to use it"
Re: Re: (as Marcus Carab)
There are legalities surrounding trade secrets too, I know, though I don't know all the details of them. And I'm sure you could make the argument that they do count as a type of intellectual property... but honestly I don't think that affects my point for those who wish to understand it - nonetheless, here is a revised first sentence:
"There's a bit of (read: a lot of) difference between the type of IP generally criticized here on TechDirt and a trade secret"
Re: (as Marcus Carab)
There's a bit of (read: a lot of) difference between IP and a trade secret. Google does not and cannot claim that other people aren't allowed to invent similar algorithms - even identical ones if they could figure out how. Which is exactly why it is important for Google's business to keep their methods secret.
I am assuming you are trying to point hypocrisy fingers here, but it's not at all the same, and it's not about IP laws. Google is not broadcasting their algorithm as content and then saying "but no, it's still ours, you can't use it because of legal limitations" - they are keeping it a good ol' fashioned secret, which is the only "real" type of intellectual "property"
Re: Re: (as Marcus Carab)
Except... that quote isn't saying "just because something is against the law doesn't make it wrong" - it's saying "just because something is allowed doesn't make it right."
Pretty different concepts.