or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by anonymouse

    GG likes to argue against all historical evidence to the contrary. By discounting all the evidence that contradicts his assertion, he's able to claim zero evidence. This is a pretty common mode of argument with him. But, then, that's his job, to push an alternate view of reality that contradicts the facts.
    Just to make this point unambiguously...   Apple gathers information from you, information you can choose to not provide by not using the service, and they make this point pretty explicitly in, for example, iTunes in regard to the Genius data and retrieving album cover art. They do this to provide you with specific services. (It would be difficult for them to provide you cover art without knowing what albums you have.) They are selling to you.   Google collects...
  Even if you have seen one, they make it look simple.
  I just don't see the point. There's no money to be made, and typical users aren't going to be, "developing loyalty to Android."   We're talking about people who, once they get the phone aren't going to be investing much, if anything, in the ecosystem. Thus, there's really no significant cost to switch. (And, other than a few geeks, I don't think we'll see anyone, "developing loyalty to Android," on any other basis.) Also, in these markets, owning an Apple product is...
  Sorry, but the argument that we'd have squat if Google hadn't given it to us is apologist nonsense. There's no reason to think someone else might not have come along and offered us everything Google did. In fact, it's likely more accurate to see Google as a roadblock to innovation and better systems than what they provide. Their monopoly in search and dominance in other areas acts as a barrier to prevent others from even attempting to enter the market. So, it's just as...
  It's completely flawed, for the reasons given above, which you've conveniently ignored in your "rebuttal". You apparently need to go back to school, because your understanding of fair use is completely flawed too.   Google was stealing books to publish and otherwise use them -- to sell advertising, for example -- without any grant of any license, solely for commercial gain. Under no interpretation of fair use is this legal. It's piracy.   And, rather than an article...
    The analogy with Betamax is hopelessly flawed. In this instance, the manufacturer(s) of the scanners Google used to pirate books are in the position Sony was in in that case. Google is the guy using Sony's recorders to produce and sell pirated copies of copyright holders' works. Making the recorders wasn't illegal, because they had legitimate uses. But the guy selling pirated copies was still breaking the law.   And the answers to your questions are yes and no,...
  Your entire argument is mistaken. Fair use does not allow use for commercial purposes. There was no First Amendment issue involved here. This was Google simply setting itself up as a publisher by essentially usurping copyrights for thousands and thousands of books. A clear violation of copyright law on all points. (And public domain books are beside the point, so a red herring in this discussion.) A fair use defense would have fallen on its face and Google would have...
  Indeed. It's passed well beyond credibility when, every time Google is caught breaking the law or violating consent decrees and court orders, their excuse is that it was "inadvertent", especially when, for example, we find out that in the Street View WiFi Data Collection Program investigation they even lied ("inadvertently", of course) to regulators about how much data they had collected. Illegal drug sales, Mocality, conspiracy to violate copyright law, patent law, any...
  There, I fixed it for you.
New Posts  All Forums: