Apple's choice not to sue Google directly 'extremely curious,' says Schmidt - Page 4

I am certainly not oblivious that Google and others take liberties with our privacy.

Facebook needs to be called on the carpet as well in my opinion. I can willingly share selected pieces of my personal life with people of my choosing, but why on earth does Facebook keep installing a tracking cookie in my browser to cache my data. I can delete virtually all cookies on my system, restart Safari and immediately the fbsdn.net cookie is back. How and why does this even happen? I am not on the Facebook site, I am doing nothing related to Facebook whatsoever. There is no need for a Facebook cookie whatsoever EVER.

I rarely go on Facebook as a rule anyway and I share very little. The same goes for Linkedin. I won't touch Google+ and avoid anything Google whenever I can. I think Google and Facebook are two of the greasiest "services" companies around. It's not that I don't think that Google does some pretty cool things, because they do. The fact remains that I'd gladly pay for some of their services, provided they not harvest anything from me. Ever. I am not comfortable selling my soul for anything that they have to offer. Google intentionally circumventing Safari privacy settings speaks volumes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

Particularly this,"...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. ..."

 

which outlines the types of purposes fair-use applies to. Google's copying and use don't fall under any of these purposes, nor any similar purpose.

 

Hmm.  I use Google Books all the time for research.  It's no different than going into a library and searching by hand, but much easier.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Google's entire revenue stream is this. Apple makes no revenue whatsoever from it.

Apple's iAds department would argue with that claim.  Just like Google, Apple sells ad placements based on our personal information.  Heck, Apple probably knows more than Google, because of iTunes:  media and app search and sales preferences, credit card info, etc.

The good news is that both companies keep that info as anonymous and secure as possible, since it's a source of revenue and statistics.   And at least with Google, you can go to your ad dashboard and remove anything you don't like in your profile.  (What they store about us is surprisingly innocuous and boring.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mac123 

If there were no Android phones there would be no portable Google search boxes. Search would be limited to the desktop.

Smartphones have had search inside Google Maps, at least, since before the iPhone came along.

Originally Posted by KDarling 

The good news is that both companies keep that info as anonymous and secure as possible, since it's a source of revenue and statistics.

Google sells you to the lowest bidder. Apple doesn't sell you to anyone…

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

Hmm.  I use Google Books all the time for research.  It's no different than going into a library and searching by hand, but much easier.

Your thought process is confused. Your use of an illegal copy in no way legitimizes the illegal copy, it's still illegal. The point is that Google made the copy and they aren't using it for research, they are using it to generate revenue. It's no different than if the library (illegally) made copies of books, instead of purchasing them, on the pretense that people were going to be using them for research.

Actually, there is a difference, the library (most of them at least) is a non-profit or governmental entity. They would have an even stronger claim to make copies than Google in your scenario, yet, it's still deemed illegal for them to just make their own copies of copyrighted material so you can use them for research. Plenty of university libraries would be thrilled if copyright law worked the way you apparently think it does, what with all the money they could save on institutional journal subscriptions. Unfortunately for them, Google and you, that's not what the law says. On the other hand, it's fortunate for the publishers and authors of journals and books that it doesn't work the way you think it does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Google sells you to the lowest bidder. Apple doesn't sell you to anyone…

Neither company sells any personal information.  Not Google.  Not Apple.

Both companies only sell ad placements based on the info they have.

For example, a company comes to Apple and says they want to target 20-30 year olds, middle class, who like gaming apps and heavy metal music.  They also supply Apple with the ads they wish to be shown.

Whenever an app requests an iAd, Apple's server looks at your profile to see what target audience you match.  The server then sends back an ad for that profile, such as with the example above.  Which ads you see, are also stored at Apple for a month, to prevent you from having to see the same ones over and over again unnecessarily.  The requesting company pays about 10 cents for each ad view, and the app developer gets a 70% cut of that.

The company that paid for the ad is never given any of your personal information.  Only you can do that by clicking on the ad and then giving your name and other info once you get to their website.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

Your thought process is confused. Your use of an illegal copy in no way legitimizes the illegal copy, it's still illegal. The point is that Google made the copy and they aren't using it for research, they are using it to generate revenue.

 

Interesting point.

Of course, websites and magazines that print book reviews also use excerpts to generate revenue... albeit with less dependence on the copyrighted matter.

And Google is not providing the entire book, but only some pages here and there.

Still, you've convinced me to agree that it should be up to the copyright holder as to what material should be visible during a search.

Thanks for the thoughtful debate!

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

 

Interesting point.

 

Of course, websites and magazines that print book reviews also use excerpts to generate revenue... albeit with less dependence on the copyrighted matter.

 

And Google is not providing the entire book, but only some pages here and there.

Reviews specifically fall under the definition of fair use. Google's intent isn't to use it themselves for any of those purposes. Their intent, which they have themselves indicated, is to act as a publisher of this material.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

... Still, you've convinced me to agree that it should be up to the copyright holder as to what material should be visible during a search. ,,,

It should be up to the copyright holder, whether Google should even be able to have a copy of the work on their servers.