I believe you'll find that google's claims of rights applied to the digitized images, not to the underlying content. This is akin to a performer recording a piece of music, the performer has the rights to the recording but it doesn't interfere with the composer's prior rights to the music.
The disagreement between Google and the publishers essentially created new law - as such it's unreasonable to claim that they should have behaved differently, there simply was no precedent to determine what 'fair use' meant, or what Google could reasonably claim over the images.
What really happened was that Google was attempting to redefine it to their liking. After an agreement was made that turned out to represent the opinion of few actually affected by their actions, it was overturned. It's still in the courts. It hasn't been resolved.
Your definition based on your first paragraph has nothing at all to do with this. Google isn't a performer, interpreting a composition. Even if they were, your example is wrong. If the work is under copyright, permission must be obtained for a recording. Payment for a public performance. They are a copier, violating copyright. They've added nothing of their own to this. Yet, they've stated that their intent was to charge universities and researchers to use their scans. All this with no intention to seek out and pay anyone involved with the works themselves, as international law requires.
This is, as will all of Google's works, a matter of profits, and total disregard for others' rights.
Can you imagine Adobe's approach to the smart phone market? (I kid here of course)
You can either buy The Master Phone suite of phones that do everything for $1,800 or an individual phone each able to do one thing for $695. The suite offers the Adobe Call phone, the Adobe Mapping phone, the Adobe Message phone, the Adobe Game phone ... and so on ... each of the 27 phones in the suite all do a masterful job at their designed function and can be used stand alone. If you purchase the entire suite you also get the Adobe Systems Phone that integrates all functions seamlessly into a single phone cleverly communicating with the other phones via another phone called the Adobe Comms phone. Each phone always calls Adobe first to ensure you are the legal registrant of that phone before allowing any call or use of any kind. The entire suite will be updated yearly with high upgrade costs and minimal changes.
The word "evil" isn't a definition of law, it's a definition of morality. If you know you are doing something wrong, then what would you call it? Is evil just a level of immorality, or is it immorality itself? Do you want to get into a philosophical discussion over this?
Some people just don't get the fact that it was Google who set the parameters for the word "evil".
From Google's Code of Conduct:
The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put "Don't be evil" into practice. It's built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct.
In other words... I don't give a rat's ass what anyone else believes about the definition of evil... it was Google that set the terms... "measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct". Therefore, on Google's terms, anything outside of that can be considered evil.
... and this is about Google... not Apple, not Microsoft, not IBM or anyone else.... it was Google who said, "Don't be evil".
The word "evil" isn't a definition of law, it's a definition of morality. If you know you are doing something wrong, then what would you call it? Is evil just a level of immorality, or is it immorality itself? Do you want to get into a philosophical discussion over this?
Evil is indeed a discussion of morality, but patents are a matter of law, as is copyright. It's ludicrous to suggest that patent infringement is evil - I invite you to find a major religion with an injunction against it, or a moral philosopher with a cogent argument for it as 'evil' or immoral.
Evil is definitely used to mean extreme immorality. When George W Bush railed against the Axis of Evil, even americans didn't think he was including people who cheated on their spouses or double dipped their chips.
If Google is evil, then Apple is evil and no doubt even Ben and Jerries were evil. If everybody is evil then nobody is evil. A little sense of proportion would go a long way.
I am not a big fan of Apple (the company), but I am a fan of their hardware and software. So I have a love/hate relationship with Apple.
After reading more and more about Google's actions I am seriously considering dumping everything Google in my life. Why does Google's action's bother me more than if another company were to to the same thing? Because of Google's motto "Don't be Evil". If they choose to use this motto (unofficial or not) I expect them to follow through.
Transitioning to a Google-free life will not be an easy process. My email is 100% Google. One of my smart phones is a Sony Xperia X10a running Gingerbread. I use Google Voice/Google Docs/Google Maps/Google Translate...etc. My browser of choice on both Mac and PC is Chrome.
All Google would have to do (for me) is to admit what they did wrong and then make the appropriate actions to fix the situation. Yes, it would cost money to pay the licences, but they should have done this long ago.
Soon I,m switching to iCloud so to hell with Google.
One big massive email to all my contacts then that's it, Google is now my spam email
Right. Also, this is a very complex question. There is no absolute line where something is privileged and something isn't. For example if something is sent to the lawyer, and also sent to someone else on the same list, then it automatically loses privilege. If a lawyer is asked something, depending on what is asked, how it is asked, and when it is asked all relate to privilege.
But the justice department requires, in certain instances, that corporations give up that privilege when under investigation. So it isn't as cut and dry as some people think.
In your example, it isn't so cut and dry. If the email copies someone else in the company (Google) then the email would still be privileged because the client is Google and both parties are employed by Google therefore it is still attorney/client privilege. If the email copied someone outside the company, then you'd be correct.
Unfortunately for Google, none of that matters because the email was a draft and it's original content wasn't sent to the attorney. If I started a letter to my attorney saying I killed someone but didn't send it but sent another letter with similar information, privilege doesn't cover the original letter because I never sent it. This is why discovery is so crucial in these cases and why you see defendants "burying" the plaintiffs in discovery. In that strategy, you send any and all documents (relevant or not) in the hopes that the billable hours start to ratchet up for the plaintiff to the point where they get nervous about the litigation costs or their attorneys miss crucial info. This pressures the plaintiff into either settling the case quickly or dropping the suit altogether.
Yet, most religions would suggest stealing is morally wrong. Further, Google set it's own definition of evil by suggesting it will conduct itself by the highest ethical standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
Evil is indeed a discussion of morality, but patents are a matter of law, as is copyright. It's ludicrous to suggest that patent infringement is evil - I invite you to find a major religion with an injunction against it, or a moral philosopher with a cogent argument for it as 'evil' or immoral.
Evil is definitely used to mean extreme immorality. When George W Bush railed against the Axis of Evil, even americans didn't think he was including people who cheated on their spouses or double dipped their chips.
If Google is evil, then Apple is evil and no doubt even Ben and Jerries were evil. If everybody is evil then nobody is evil. A little sense of proportion would go a long way.
Like any magical energy however, karma can be "washed off" by spinning around three times under a full moon and spitting over your left shoulder while hopping up and down.
Which means... that you certainly don't want to stand behind Google
Google IS the new evil. Bring it on Google - they're ready and able to put you in you place and show what you truly are - a simple, slimy, knowing thief of others IP.
Aw c'mon, people. You know the rules: When Google is does it, it's not evil because Google's Not Evil, therefore, they must be righteous. The Taliban use the same logic to justify mass slaughter.
Same here. After that I will not need Google at all. I get by with Bing, which is improving (and Microsoft pays me points to use). I have Navigon on my iPhone for maps.
I suspect Google's Gmail will take a significant hit with the introduction of iCloud provided Apple rolls it out properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribbean_mac
Soon I,m switching to iCloud so to hell with Google.
One big massive email to all my contacts then that's it, Google is now my spam email
Your definition based on your first paragraph has nothing at all to do with this. Google isn't a performer, interpreting a composition. Even if they were, your example is wrong. If the work is under copyright, permission must be obtained for a recording. Payment for a public performance. They are a copier, violating copyright. They've added nothing of their own to this. Yet, they've stated that their intent was to charge universities and researchers to use their scans. All this with no intention to seek out and pay anyone involved with the works themselves, as international law requires.
It certainly isn't the exact same thing but it's analogous - converting a piece of copyrighted, or non-copyrighted material into another medium can produce another piece of copyrighted material. This is something that publishers have done for decades or more, slightly modifying a work and then claiming copyright on the derived version, this is why when a museum digitizes an artwork they can hold the copyright on the image, whether the art is an old master or by a living artist.
As to requiring permission, that's exactly where Google's fair use argument fell. Most of the books that it digitized were out of print with unclear rights, and thus the legal argument was that the requirement to get permission ceased to apply. In fact the requirement to get the author's permission is a relatively new one in law in most jurisdictions, and as far as I am aware it does not apply in the US, where music composers only get license fees. For example Shostakovich sought to prevent the use of one of his compositions in the US and was refused.
( Shostakovitch v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.).
The EU does have legal protection for so called 'moral rights' and so if you want to release your recording in Europe you do have to get the composer's permission, but this isn't universal.
Is infringing a patent really evil? If so good luck finding a software developer who isn't evil, hell will need an extra circle just for us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
If it's done knowingly, then yes.
There are also some situations where the patent issues are not clearly defined -- often a competitor will use the uncertainty to let the courts resolve the issue.
I do not believe, however, that there was any uncertainty in Google's use of Java.
I'm betting Google will weasel their way out of this
Normally, I would agree but I'm not too sure about that. Google has been pissing this judge off left and right. Google had the audacity to claim $0 in damages which the judge not only threw out but called "soviet-style.". Also, that draft email points out that Google not only had prior knowledge that they were infringing, but also intent to move forward anyway. That alone would triple Oracle's requested damages.
Yet, most religions would suggest stealing is morally wrong. Further, Google set it's own definition of evil by suggesting it will conduct itself by the highest ethical standard.
But infringement isn't stealing, which is why one can't be arrested and imprisoned for it.
The argument that Google has failed to meet 'the highest ethical standard' is a much better one, but that's a far cry from being evil. Even then it's not an open and shut case, because one has to ask if it is inethical to knowingly infringe a patent which you do not believe is or ought to be valid.
Why do people feel the need to bring ethics or morality into what is a purely legal issue? Google is potentially infringing a patent owned by a huge and determined software firm. It has gone to the courts and there will be a big legal bun fight at the end of which one of the two will come out a winner. It makes no more sense to paint Google as evil here than it does to paint Oracle as evil. It's hard to think of a time when an IT firm was uncontrovertibly inethical, MS destroying netscape perhaps?
You are correct, Google's postion was it owned the data base with all the images it scanned, not the content itself. Since Google paid to have people scan all the images I don't' see how Google was in the wrong. Microsoft (a big objector to Google's plan) could have paid to have somebody scan the same works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
I believe you'll find that google's claims of rights applied to the digitized images, not to the underlying content. This is akin to a performer recording a piece of music, the performer has the rights to the recording but it doesn't interfere with the composer's prior rights to the music.
The disagreement between Google and the publishers essentially created new law - as such it's unreasonable to claim that they should have behaved differently, there simply was no precedent to determine what 'fair use' meant, or what Google could reasonably claim over the images.
Comments
I believe you'll find that google's claims of rights applied to the digitized images, not to the underlying content. This is akin to a performer recording a piece of music, the performer has the rights to the recording but it doesn't interfere with the composer's prior rights to the music.
The disagreement between Google and the publishers essentially created new law - as such it's unreasonable to claim that they should have behaved differently, there simply was no precedent to determine what 'fair use' meant, or what Google could reasonably claim over the images.
What really happened was that Google was attempting to redefine it to their liking. After an agreement was made that turned out to represent the opinion of few actually affected by their actions, it was overturned. It's still in the courts. It hasn't been resolved.
Your definition based on your first paragraph has nothing at all to do with this. Google isn't a performer, interpreting a composition. Even if they were, your example is wrong. If the work is under copyright, permission must be obtained for a recording. Payment for a public performance. They are a copier, violating copyright. They've added nothing of their own to this. Yet, they've stated that their intent was to charge universities and researchers to use their scans. All this with no intention to seek out and pay anyone involved with the works themselves, as international law requires.
This is, as will all of Google's works, a matter of profits, and total disregard for others' rights.
Partial Quote
Can you imagine Adobe's approach to the smart phone market? (I kid here of course)
You can either buy The Master Phone suite of phones that do everything for $1,800 or an individual phone each able to do one thing for $695. The suite offers the Adobe Call phone, the Adobe Mapping phone, the Adobe Message phone, the Adobe Game phone ... and so on ... each of the 27 phones in the suite all do a masterful job at their designed function and can be used stand alone. If you purchase the entire suite you also get the Adobe Systems Phone that integrates all functions seamlessly into a single phone cleverly communicating with the other phones via another phone called the Adobe Comms phone. Each phone always calls Adobe first to ensure you are the legal registrant of that phone before allowing any call or use of any kind. The entire suite will be updated yearly with high upgrade costs and minimal changes.
LOL. You nailed it!
The word "evil" isn't a definition of law, it's a definition of morality. If you know you are doing something wrong, then what would you call it? Is evil just a level of immorality, or is it immorality itself? Do you want to get into a philosophical discussion over this?
Some people just don't get the fact that it was Google who set the parameters for the word "evil".
From Google's Code of Conduct:
The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put "Don't be evil" into practice. It's built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct.
http://investor.google.com/corporate...f-conduct.html
On edit:
In other words... I don't give a rat's ass what anyone else believes about the definition of evil... it was Google that set the terms... "measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct". Therefore, on Google's terms, anything outside of that can be considered evil.
... and this is about Google... not Apple, not Microsoft, not IBM or anyone else.... it was Google who said, "Don't be evil".
The word "evil" isn't a definition of law, it's a definition of morality. If you know you are doing something wrong, then what would you call it? Is evil just a level of immorality, or is it immorality itself? Do you want to get into a philosophical discussion over this?
Evil is indeed a discussion of morality, but patents are a matter of law, as is copyright. It's ludicrous to suggest that patent infringement is evil - I invite you to find a major religion with an injunction against it, or a moral philosopher with a cogent argument for it as 'evil' or immoral.
Evil is definitely used to mean extreme immorality. When George W Bush railed against the Axis of Evil, even americans didn't think he was including people who cheated on their spouses or double dipped their chips.
If Google is evil, then Apple is evil and no doubt even Ben and Jerries were evil. If everybody is evil then nobody is evil. A little sense of proportion would go a long way.
Wow!
That is neat and faster and more responsive than Google Maps ever is.
And with them, you're beholden to the Chinese government. From the frying pan into the fire.
I am not a big fan of Apple (the company), but I am a fan of their hardware and software. So I have a love/hate relationship with Apple.
After reading more and more about Google's actions I am seriously considering dumping everything Google in my life. Why does Google's action's bother me more than if another company were to to the same thing? Because of Google's motto "Don't be Evil". If they choose to use this motto (unofficial or not) I expect them to follow through.
Transitioning to a Google-free life will not be an easy process. My email is 100% Google. One of my smart phones is a Sony Xperia X10a running Gingerbread. I use Google Voice/Google Docs/Google Maps/Google Translate...etc. My browser of choice on both Mac and PC is Chrome.
All Google would have to do (for me) is to admit what they did wrong and then make the appropriate actions to fix the situation. Yes, it would cost money to pay the licences, but they should have done this long ago.
Soon I,m switching to iCloud so to hell with Google.
One big massive email to all my contacts then that's it, Google is now my spam email
dam i cant wait for Fall
Whatever became of Googles motto: "Do no evil"?
Actually, the motto maker at the printer moved some letters around...
It really was supposed to read:
"O NO Devil"
And their logo is really:
Right. Also, this is a very complex question. There is no absolute line where something is privileged and something isn't. For example if something is sent to the lawyer, and also sent to someone else on the same list, then it automatically loses privilege. If a lawyer is asked something, depending on what is asked, how it is asked, and when it is asked all relate to privilege.
But the justice department requires, in certain instances, that corporations give up that privilege when under investigation. So it isn't as cut and dry as some people think.
In your example, it isn't so cut and dry. If the email copies someone else in the company (Google) then the email would still be privileged because the client is Google and both parties are employed by Google therefore it is still attorney/client privilege. If the email copied someone outside the company, then you'd be correct.
Unfortunately for Google, none of that matters because the email was a draft and it's original content wasn't sent to the attorney. If I started a letter to my attorney saying I killed someone but didn't send it but sent another letter with similar information, privilege doesn't cover the original letter because I never sent it. This is why discovery is so crucial in these cases and why you see defendants "burying" the plaintiffs in discovery. In that strategy, you send any and all documents (relevant or not) in the hopes that the billable hours start to ratchet up for the plaintiff to the point where they get nervous about the litigation costs or their attorneys miss crucial info. This pressures the plaintiff into either settling the case quickly or dropping the suit altogether.
Actually, the motto maker at the printer moved some letters around...
It really was supposed to read:
"O NO Devil"
And their logo is really:
I think it actually was Go Ogle
Evil is indeed a discussion of morality, but patents are a matter of law, as is copyright. It's ludicrous to suggest that patent infringement is evil - I invite you to find a major religion with an injunction against it, or a moral philosopher with a cogent argument for it as 'evil' or immoral.
Evil is definitely used to mean extreme immorality. When George W Bush railed against the Axis of Evil, even americans didn't think he was including people who cheated on their spouses or double dipped their chips.
If Google is evil, then Apple is evil and no doubt even Ben and Jerries were evil. If everybody is evil then nobody is evil. A little sense of proportion would go a long way.
Like any magical energy however, karma can be "washed off" by spinning around three times under a full moon and spitting over your left shoulder while hopping up and down.
Which means... that you certainly don't want to stand behind Google
Google IS the new evil. Bring it on Google - they're ready and able to put you in you place and show what you truly are - a simple, slimy, knowing thief of others IP.
Aw c'mon, people. You know the rules: When Google is does it, it's not evil because Google's Not Evil, therefore, they must be righteous. The Taliban use the same logic to justify mass slaughter.
I suspect Google's Gmail will take a significant hit with the introduction of iCloud provided Apple rolls it out properly.
Soon I,m switching to iCloud so to hell with Google.
One big massive email to all my contacts then that's it, Google is now my spam email
dam i cant wait for Fall
Your definition based on your first paragraph has nothing at all to do with this. Google isn't a performer, interpreting a composition. Even if they were, your example is wrong. If the work is under copyright, permission must be obtained for a recording. Payment for a public performance. They are a copier, violating copyright. They've added nothing of their own to this. Yet, they've stated that their intent was to charge universities and researchers to use their scans. All this with no intention to seek out and pay anyone involved with the works themselves, as international law requires.
It certainly isn't the exact same thing but it's analogous - converting a piece of copyrighted, or non-copyrighted material into another medium can produce another piece of copyrighted material. This is something that publishers have done for decades or more, slightly modifying a work and then claiming copyright on the derived version, this is why when a museum digitizes an artwork they can hold the copyright on the image, whether the art is an old master or by a living artist.
As to requiring permission, that's exactly where Google's fair use argument fell. Most of the books that it digitized were out of print with unclear rights, and thus the legal argument was that the requirement to get permission ceased to apply. In fact the requirement to get the author's permission is a relatively new one in law in most jurisdictions, and as far as I am aware it does not apply in the US, where music composers only get license fees. For example Shostakovich sought to prevent the use of one of his compositions in the US and was refused.
( Shostakovitch v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.).
The EU does have legal protection for so called 'moral rights' and so if you want to release your recording in Europe you do have to get the composer's permission, but this isn't universal.
Is infringing a patent really evil? If so good luck finding a software developer who isn't evil, hell will need an extra circle just for us.
If it's done knowingly, then yes.
There are also some situations where the patent issues are not clearly defined -- often a competitor will use the uncertainty to let the courts resolve the issue.
I do not believe, however, that there was any uncertainty in Google's use of Java.
I'm betting Google will weasel their way out of this
Normally, I would agree but I'm not too sure about that. Google has been pissing this judge off left and right. Google had the audacity to claim $0 in damages which the judge not only threw out but called "soviet-style.". Also, that draft email points out that Google not only had prior knowledge that they were infringing, but also intent to move forward anyway. That alone would triple Oracle's requested damages.
Yet, most religions would suggest stealing is morally wrong. Further, Google set it's own definition of evil by suggesting it will conduct itself by the highest ethical standard.
But infringement isn't stealing, which is why one can't be arrested and imprisoned for it.
The argument that Google has failed to meet 'the highest ethical standard' is a much better one, but that's a far cry from being evil. Even then it's not an open and shut case, because one has to ask if it is inethical to knowingly infringe a patent which you do not believe is or ought to be valid.
Why do people feel the need to bring ethics or morality into what is a purely legal issue? Google is potentially infringing a patent owned by a huge and determined software firm. It has gone to the courts and there will be a big legal bun fight at the end of which one of the two will come out a winner. It makes no more sense to paint Google as evil here than it does to paint Oracle as evil. It's hard to think of a time when an IT firm was uncontrovertibly inethical, MS destroying netscape perhaps?
I believe you'll find that google's claims of rights applied to the digitized images, not to the underlying content. This is akin to a performer recording a piece of music, the performer has the rights to the recording but it doesn't interfere with the composer's prior rights to the music.
The disagreement between Google and the publishers essentially created new law - as such it's unreasonable to claim that they should have behaved differently, there simply was no precedent to determine what 'fair use' meant, or what Google could reasonably claim over the images.