- Stealing other's copyrighted material (such as this story)
- Intentionally using Java - even when knowing that they had no right to it
- Copying books without permission from the authors
- Stealing the look and feel of iOS
If you had read my entire comment, you would have realized I don't disagree with you. My point was the core search engine, and the ad engine don't seem in any legal trouble. Any website can choose for google to not index them by including a simple robots.txt file.
However, their ancillary products (which is what you mention, (2) Android (3) Books (4) Android) are what may be in trouble for copyright abuse, and/or illegally using their search/ad monopoly to destroy competition.
You were doing OK until you brought up the copying book authors works without permission. Unfair use, Google didn't need permission. I agree with most of the other things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Let's see what we can come up with:
- Stealing other's copyrighted material (such as this story)
- Intentionally using Java - even when knowing that they had no right to it
- Copying books without permission from the authors
- Stealing the look and feel of iOS
There is plenty of evidence for all of the above to make a strong case for each. Google has demonstrated a very, very clear propensity to ignore everyone's intellectual property but its own.
If you had read my entire comment, you would have realized I don't disagree with you. My point was the core search engine, and the ad engine don't seem in any legal trouble. Any website can choose for google to not index them by including a simple robots.txt file.
However, their ancillary products (which is what you mention, (2) Android (3) Books (4) Android) are what may be in trouble for copyright abuse, and/or illegally using their search/ad monopoly to destroy competition.
It could be argued, and I would support such an argument, that one should opt-in, not opt-out, of having their information examined and recorded. It's like saying it's perfectly fine for someone to go from house to house peeking in through the windows, even tearing down the shades, unless you put up a sign that says "Please don't look in my house".
You were doing OK until you brought up the copying book authors works without permission. Unfair use, Google didn't need permission. I agree with most of the other things.
This and the Java thing may spell trouble for Google. I am not sure I agree with this probe. Google does not charge for Android (AFAIK) and expects to make money on services.
It could be argued, and I would support such an argument, that one should opt-in, not opt-out, of having their information examined and recorded. It's like saying it's perfectly fine for someone to go from house to house peeking in through the windows, even tearing down the shades, unless you put up a sign that says "Please don't look in my house".
Except unlike a house a website is open to visitors, it is more like driving down a street - if the street is private then the owner is responsible for explicitly showing that.
There was actually some concern back at the start of the internet era that any user accessing a website was committing a criminal offence in the UK by breaking the anti-hacking law which made it a crime to access any computer system without express permission. Fortunately wiser heads prevailed.
Classic Google. Blatant theft of copyrighted material - and they don't understand why it's wrong.
Is it copyrighted material? I mean in the case of Yelp the material was user supplied, so there may not be any copyright. Rather like this forum thread - who owns the copyright there? Does anybody?
I don't use Yelp, for all I know they have a big terms and conditions thing that new users agree to in which all copyright is given over to Yelp itself. Can anybody shed any light?
Except unlike a house a website is open to visitors, it is more like driving down a street - if the street is private then the owner is responsible for explicitly showing that.
There was actually some concern back at the start of the internet era that any user accessing a website was committing a criminal offence in the UK by breaking the anti-hacking law which made it a crime to access any computer system without express permission. Fortunately wiser heads prevailed.
If Google is truly scraping subscriber only info from websites as has been claimed, they don't seem to care if a street is private or not.
All this weariness after three whole posts? Maybe you just came here from someplace where good news about Google and bad news about Apple is the order of the day. Just sayin', complaining newbies and lurkers don't get much cred.
Lol, don't get me wrong here. I love Apple products and use them every day. Heck, I'm about to buy an MBA in a week or two. But come on...this is AppleInsider...what does this article have anything to do directly with Apple? Yes, they are a competitor...but does that mean they should start posting everything to do with all major competitors of Apple? Besides, AppleInsider doesn't report news about Google but just negative news about Google.
If this was some general tech news site, that's one thing but I thought, and I guess I was wrong, that this site was about Apple.
It's getting to the point where this site isn't for those who just loves Apple products.
It's a site for those who love all things Apple AND hate all things Google.
You were doing OK until you brought up the copying book authors works without permission. Unfair use, Google didn't need permission. I agree with most of the other things.
Bull. Copying books without permission is illegal. Google can not copy a book and put it on the Internet without the author's permission. They're TRYING to get the copyright rules changed, but so far, Congress hasn't given them permission to steal others' work.
You were doing OK until you brought up the copying book authors works without permission. Unfair use, Google didn't need permission. I agree with most of the other things.
You think it is perfectly acceptable for Google to copy the work of authors and offer huge amounts of the work available online diverting the revenue the author was making and feeding it Google and their ad engines?
Really?
Are you for real? Google's Google Book project should always have been an opt-in and not an opt-out (where they make it next to impossible to opt-out) policy.
Except unlike a house a website is open to visitors, it is more like driving down a street - if the street is private then the owner is responsible for explicitly showing that.
There was actually some concern back at the start of the internet era that any user accessing a website was committing a criminal offence in the UK by breaking the anti-hacking law which made it a crime to access any computer system without express permission. Fortunately wiser heads prevailed.
The house may not be open, but there's nothing actually stopping you from staring in the windows, other than common decency.
Is it copyrighted material? I mean in the case of Yelp the material was user supplied, so there may not be any copyright. Rather like this forum thread - who owns the copyright there? Does anybody?
I don't use Yelp, for all I know they have a big terms and conditions thing that new users agree to in which all copyright is given over to Yelp itself. Can anybody shed any light?
It's also important to note that Google Pulled yelp reviews from places:
So that point really isn't relevant anymore (though I'm sure the government will continue to harp on it) Side note on places: There is some great stuff you can do as a business owners with places, and I know of more than a few local businesses who used it as a "landing page" of sorts until they got their own website up and running. One of the reasons for this was because of the massive amount of reviews it has. Not trying to make a judgement here about whether to aggregation was right or wrong. Just saying that there were benefits to it when it came to business owners as well as consumers.
As for the android thing, I'm not sure how this is an issue. At all. Android OS is open sourced so that anyone can put it on a device of their choosing. What google has that it can control is Market Access and access to GApps. I don't see how withholding access to their apps without agreeing to their terms is somehow illegal.
As for ranking, I'm really hoping they can foster evidence instead of "My site should be higher because it's awesome" Messing with search is a serious thing, and if Google is guilty they should be taken to task about it, but I also think that IF google was filtering results, one of the countless black hat groups would've hacked them and laid out the data. That kinda publicity would be huge.
Is it copyrighted material? I mean in the case of Yelp the material was user supplied, so there may not be any copyright. Rather like this forum thread - who owns the copyright there? Does anybody?
I don't use Yelp, for all I know they have a big terms and conditions thing that new users agree to in which all copyright is given over to Yelp itself. Can anybody shed any light?
You could of course actually look at the Yelp terms of service to answer your question, where you would find that user contributed material is owned by the individual contributor, who thus also holds the copyright on it. Unless the terms of service for a site specifically state that the copyright is assigned in some way, the creator of the content is the owner and copyright holder.
So, effectively, Google engages in a distinct violation of copyright law for every user review they scrape off of Yelp and is liable for damages to each individual whose review they steal. There is no fair use exemption because fair use does not allow use for commercial purposes other than for news reporting, which this is not.
It seems this site isn't just about Apple but Apple plus anything anti-Google (or Android). Well truthfully it's more like Apple + anything bad happening to competitors (of which mostly is Google these days).
We get it, Google Evil, don't need to be told this endlessly day after day after day after...
Getting rather tired of it.
Wish it would just go back to just informing us about Apple.
AI makes money from its customers, mainly Google. They sell us, the readers, to Google, and the more we click, the more Google pays AI. We are AI's product, not the stories. The stories are merely here to entice us into clicking them. AI's real product is you and me.
So far, it seems that AI can get more product to sell (meaning more of us who click on the stories) by running Google stories than running Apple stories. Every time DED runs his anti-Google stuff, we all provide AI with product/clicks to sell in the market. We are like farm animals gobbling up entrails, getting fat for the slaughter.
So as long as we all read these non-Apple stories and post comments, AI can sell us to Google. Stop clicking on the non-Apple stories, and they will dry up.
Or keep gobbling up the slop, and keep getting sold down the river by AI. It is our choice what to do.
AI makes money from its customers, mainly Google. They sell us, the readers, to Google, and the more we click, the more Google pays AI. We are AI's product, not the stories. The stories are merely here to entice us into clicking them. AI's real product is you and me.
So far, it seems that AI can get more product to sell (meaning more of us who click on the stories) by running Google stories than running Apple stories. Every time DED runs his anti-Google stuff, we all provide AI with product/clicks to sell in the market. We are like farm animals gobbling up entrails, getting fat for the slaughter.
So as long as we all read these non-Apple stories and post comments, AI can sell us to Google. Stop clicking on the non-Apple stories, and they will dry up.
Or keep gobbling up the slop, and keep getting sold down the river by AI. It is our choice what to do.
Is it copyrighted material? I mean in the case of Yelp the material was user supplied, so there may not be any copyright. Rather like this forum thread - who owns the copyright there? Does anybody?
I don't use Yelp, for all I know they have a big terms and conditions thing that new users agree to in which all copyright is given over to Yelp itself. Can anybody shed any light?
Please at least learn the basics of copyright law. When you create something new (such as this post), a copyright automatically exists and you are the owner. You don't need to register that copyright, nor do you need to explicitly state that it's copyrighted. Simply creating the work creates a copyright. There is ALWAYS a copyright on original work.
Once you create a copyrighted work, you can do what you want with it. You can transfer the copyright to someone else, for example. Yelp's terms of service may actually state that you're transferring the copyright to Yelp. But it doesn't matter. The copyright belongs either to the creator or to Yelp. Google has no right to use it without permission.
If this was an isolated incident, it might be one thing. But Google's long history of violating copyrights suggests that it's not an isolated incident. Furthermore, how do you 'accidentally' end up copying Yelp posts? They had to have gone out of their way to do so.
Please at least learn the basics of copyright law. When you create something new (such as this post), a copyright automatically exists and you are the owner. You don't need to register that copyright, nor do you need to explicitly state that it's copyrighted. Simply creating the work creates a copyright. There is ALWAYS a copyright on original work.
Once you create a copyrighted work, you can do what you want with it. You can transfer the copyright to someone else, for example. Yelp's terms of service may actually state that you're transferring the copyright to Yelp. But it doesn't matter. The copyright belongs either to the creator or to Yelp. Google has no right to use it without permission.
If this was an isolated incident, it might be one thing. But Google's long history of violating copyrights suggests that it's not an isolated incident. Furthermore, how do you 'accidentally' end up copying Yelp posts? They had to have gone out of their way to do so.
Just for clarification, because it was so easy to locate, from Yelp's terms of service:
Quote:
5. Content
...
B. Our Right to Use Your Content
We may use Your Content in a number of different ways, including publicly displaying it, reformatting it, incorporating it into advertisements and other works, creating derivative works from it, promoting it, distributing it, and allowing others to do the same in connection with their own websites and media platforms ("Other Media"). As such, you hereby irrevocably grant us world-wide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable rights to use Your Content for any purpose. You also irrevocably grant the users of the Service and any Other Media the right to access Your Content in connection with their use of the Service and any Other Media. Finally, you irrevocably waive, and cause to be waived, against Yelp and its users any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to Your Content. By "use" we mean use, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of Your Content.
C. Ownership
As between you and Yelp, you own Your Content. We own the Yelp Content, including but not limited to visual interfaces, interactive features, graphics, design, compilation, computer code, products, software, aggregate user review ratings, and all other elements and components of the Service excluding Your Content, User Content and Third Party Content. We also own the copyrights, trademarks, service marks, trade names, and other intellectual and proprietary rights throughout the world (the "IP Rights") associated with the Yelp Content and the Service, which are protected by copyright, trade dress, patent, trademark laws and all other applicable intellectual and proprietary rights and laws. As such, you may not modify, reproduce, distribute, create derivative works or adaptations of, publicly display or in any way exploit any of the Yelp Content in whole or in part except as expressly authorized by us. Except as expressly and unambiguously provided herein, we do not grant you any express or implied rights, and all rights in and to the Service and the Yelp Content are retained by us.
The headline was pretty clear what the article was about.
Apparently you are getting so tired of these articles that not only did you click through and read it, but also went ahead and posted a comment on it...
Comments
How much did Google pay you for that gem?
Let's see what we can come up with:
- Stealing other's copyrighted material (such as this story)
- Intentionally using Java - even when knowing that they had no right to it
- Copying books without permission from the authors
- Stealing the look and feel of iOS
If you had read my entire comment, you would have realized I don't disagree with you. My point was the core search engine, and the ad engine don't seem in any legal trouble. Any website can choose for google to not index them by including a simple robots.txt file.
However, their ancillary products (which is what you mention, (2) Android (3) Books (4) Android) are what may be in trouble for copyright abuse, and/or illegally using their search/ad monopoly to destroy competition.
Let's see what we can come up with:
- Stealing other's copyrighted material (such as this story)
- Intentionally using Java - even when knowing that they had no right to it
- Copying books without permission from the authors
- Stealing the look and feel of iOS
There is plenty of evidence for all of the above to make a strong case for each. Google has demonstrated a very, very clear propensity to ignore everyone's intellectual property but its own.
If you had read my entire comment, you would have realized I don't disagree with you. My point was the core search engine, and the ad engine don't seem in any legal trouble. Any website can choose for google to not index them by including a simple robots.txt file.
However, their ancillary products (which is what you mention, (2) Android (3) Books (4) Android) are what may be in trouble for copyright abuse, and/or illegally using their search/ad monopoly to destroy competition.
It could be argued, and I would support such an argument, that one should opt-in, not opt-out, of having their information examined and recorded. It's like saying it's perfectly fine for someone to go from house to house peeking in through the windows, even tearing down the shades, unless you put up a sign that says "Please don't look in my house".
You were doing OK until you brought up the copying book authors works without permission. Unfair use, Google didn't need permission. I agree with most of the other things.
This and the Java thing may spell trouble for Google. I am not sure I agree with this probe. Google does not charge for Android (AFAIK) and expects to make money on services.
It could be argued, and I would support such an argument, that one should opt-in, not opt-out, of having their information examined and recorded. It's like saying it's perfectly fine for someone to go from house to house peeking in through the windows, even tearing down the shades, unless you put up a sign that says "Please don't look in my house".
Except unlike a house a website is open to visitors, it is more like driving down a street - if the street is private then the owner is responsible for explicitly showing that.
There was actually some concern back at the start of the internet era that any user accessing a website was committing a criminal offence in the UK by breaking the anti-hacking law which made it a crime to access any computer system without express permission. Fortunately wiser heads prevailed.
Classic Google. Blatant theft of copyrighted material - and they don't understand why it's wrong.
Is it copyrighted material? I mean in the case of Yelp the material was user supplied, so there may not be any copyright. Rather like this forum thread - who owns the copyright there? Does anybody?
I don't use Yelp, for all I know they have a big terms and conditions thing that new users agree to in which all copyright is given over to Yelp itself. Can anybody shed any light?
Except unlike a house a website is open to visitors, it is more like driving down a street - if the street is private then the owner is responsible for explicitly showing that.
There was actually some concern back at the start of the internet era that any user accessing a website was committing a criminal offence in the UK by breaking the anti-hacking law which made it a crime to access any computer system without express permission. Fortunately wiser heads prevailed.
If Google is truly scraping subscriber only info from websites as has been claimed, they don't seem to care if a street is private or not.
All this weariness after three whole posts? Maybe you just came here from someplace where good news about Google and bad news about Apple is the order of the day. Just sayin', complaining newbies and lurkers don't get much cred.
Lol, don't get me wrong here. I love Apple products and use them every day. Heck, I'm about to buy an MBA in a week or two. But come on...this is AppleInsider...what does this article have anything to do directly with Apple? Yes, they are a competitor...but does that mean they should start posting everything to do with all major competitors of Apple? Besides, AppleInsider doesn't report news about Google but just negative news about Google.
If this was some general tech news site, that's one thing but I thought, and I guess I was wrong, that this site was about Apple.
It's getting to the point where this site isn't for those who just loves Apple products.
It's a site for those who love all things Apple AND hate all things Google.
I.e. AppleInsider-AntiGoogleInsider
You were doing OK until you brought up the copying book authors works without permission. Unfair use, Google didn't need permission. I agree with most of the other things.
Bull. Copying books without permission is illegal. Google can not copy a book and put it on the Internet without the author's permission. They're TRYING to get the copyright rules changed, but so far, Congress hasn't given them permission to steal others' work.
What Google was doing is NOT fair use.
You were doing OK until you brought up the copying book authors works without permission. Unfair use, Google didn't need permission. I agree with most of the other things.
You think it is perfectly acceptable for Google to copy the work of authors and offer huge amounts of the work available online diverting the revenue the author was making and feeding it Google and their ad engines?
Really?
Are you for real? Google's Google Book project should always have been an opt-in and not an opt-out (where they make it next to impossible to opt-out) policy.
Except unlike a house a website is open to visitors, it is more like driving down a street - if the street is private then the owner is responsible for explicitly showing that.
There was actually some concern back at the start of the internet era that any user accessing a website was committing a criminal offence in the UK by breaking the anti-hacking law which made it a crime to access any computer system without express permission. Fortunately wiser heads prevailed.
The house may not be open, but there's nothing actually stopping you from staring in the windows, other than common decency.
Is it copyrighted material? I mean in the case of Yelp the material was user supplied, so there may not be any copyright. Rather like this forum thread - who owns the copyright there? Does anybody?
I don't use Yelp, for all I know they have a big terms and conditions thing that new users agree to in which all copyright is given over to Yelp itself. Can anybody shed any light?
It's also important to note that Google Pulled yelp reviews from places:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-200...s-from-places/
So that point really isn't relevant anymore (though I'm sure the government will continue to harp on it) Side note on places: There is some great stuff you can do as a business owners with places, and I know of more than a few local businesses who used it as a "landing page" of sorts until they got their own website up and running. One of the reasons for this was because of the massive amount of reviews it has. Not trying to make a judgement here about whether to aggregation was right or wrong. Just saying that there were benefits to it when it came to business owners as well as consumers.
As for the android thing, I'm not sure how this is an issue. At all. Android OS is open sourced so that anyone can put it on a device of their choosing. What google has that it can control is Market Access and access to GApps. I don't see how withholding access to their apps without agreeing to their terms is somehow illegal.
As for ranking, I'm really hoping they can foster evidence instead of "My site should be higher because it's awesome" Messing with search is a serious thing, and if Google is guilty they should be taken to task about it, but I also think that IF google was filtering results, one of the countless black hat groups would've hacked them and laid out the data. That kinda publicity would be huge.
i think this may be another evidence against Google. Using it's search engine monopoly to leverage it's other business.
http://www.slashgear.com/google-offe...only-03169368/
Is it copyrighted material? I mean in the case of Yelp the material was user supplied, so there may not be any copyright. Rather like this forum thread - who owns the copyright there? Does anybody?
I don't use Yelp, for all I know they have a big terms and conditions thing that new users agree to in which all copyright is given over to Yelp itself. Can anybody shed any light?
You could of course actually look at the Yelp terms of service to answer your question, where you would find that user contributed material is owned by the individual contributor, who thus also holds the copyright on it. Unless the terms of service for a site specifically state that the copyright is assigned in some way, the creator of the content is the owner and copyright holder.
So, effectively, Google engages in a distinct violation of copyright law for every user review they scrape off of Yelp and is liable for damages to each individual whose review they steal. There is no fair use exemption because fair use does not allow use for commercial purposes other than for news reporting, which this is not.
It seems this site isn't just about Apple but Apple plus anything anti-Google (or Android). Well truthfully it's more like Apple + anything bad happening to competitors (of which mostly is Google these days).
We get it, Google Evil, don't need to be told this endlessly day after day after day after...
Getting rather tired of it.
Wish it would just go back to just informing us about Apple.
AI makes money from its customers, mainly Google. They sell us, the readers, to Google, and the more we click, the more Google pays AI. We are AI's product, not the stories. The stories are merely here to entice us into clicking them. AI's real product is you and me.
So far, it seems that AI can get more product to sell (meaning more of us who click on the stories) by running Google stories than running Apple stories. Every time DED runs his anti-Google stuff, we all provide AI with product/clicks to sell in the market. We are like farm animals gobbling up entrails, getting fat for the slaughter.
So as long as we all read these non-Apple stories and post comments, AI can sell us to Google. Stop clicking on the non-Apple stories, and they will dry up.
Or keep gobbling up the slop, and keep getting sold down the river by AI. It is our choice what to do.
AI makes money from its customers, mainly Google. They sell us, the readers, to Google, and the more we click, the more Google pays AI. We are AI's product, not the stories. The stories are merely here to entice us into clicking them. AI's real product is you and me.
So far, it seems that AI can get more product to sell (meaning more of us who click on the stories) by running Google stories than running Apple stories. Every time DED runs his anti-Google stuff, we all provide AI with product/clicks to sell in the market. We are like farm animals gobbling up entrails, getting fat for the slaughter.
So as long as we all read these non-Apple stories and post comments, AI can sell us to Google. Stop clicking on the non-Apple stories, and they will dry up.
Or keep gobbling up the slop, and keep getting sold down the river by AI. It is our choice what to do.
Or, you can just block all that stuff.
Is it copyrighted material? I mean in the case of Yelp the material was user supplied, so there may not be any copyright. Rather like this forum thread - who owns the copyright there? Does anybody?
I don't use Yelp, for all I know they have a big terms and conditions thing that new users agree to in which all copyright is given over to Yelp itself. Can anybody shed any light?
Please at least learn the basics of copyright law. When you create something new (such as this post), a copyright automatically exists and you are the owner. You don't need to register that copyright, nor do you need to explicitly state that it's copyrighted. Simply creating the work creates a copyright. There is ALWAYS a copyright on original work.
Once you create a copyrighted work, you can do what you want with it. You can transfer the copyright to someone else, for example. Yelp's terms of service may actually state that you're transferring the copyright to Yelp. But it doesn't matter. The copyright belongs either to the creator or to Yelp. Google has no right to use it without permission.
If this was an isolated incident, it might be one thing. But Google's long history of violating copyrights suggests that it's not an isolated incident. Furthermore, how do you 'accidentally' end up copying Yelp posts? They had to have gone out of their way to do so.
Please at least learn the basics of copyright law. When you create something new (such as this post), a copyright automatically exists and you are the owner. You don't need to register that copyright, nor do you need to explicitly state that it's copyrighted. Simply creating the work creates a copyright. There is ALWAYS a copyright on original work.
Once you create a copyrighted work, you can do what you want with it. You can transfer the copyright to someone else, for example. Yelp's terms of service may actually state that you're transferring the copyright to Yelp. But it doesn't matter. The copyright belongs either to the creator or to Yelp. Google has no right to use it without permission.
If this was an isolated incident, it might be one thing. But Google's long history of violating copyrights suggests that it's not an isolated incident. Furthermore, how do you 'accidentally' end up copying Yelp posts? They had to have gone out of their way to do so.
Just for clarification, because it was so easy to locate, from Yelp's terms of service:
5. Content
...
B. Our Right to Use Your Content
We may use Your Content in a number of different ways, including publicly displaying it, reformatting it, incorporating it into advertisements and other works, creating derivative works from it, promoting it, distributing it, and allowing others to do the same in connection with their own websites and media platforms ("Other Media"). As such, you hereby irrevocably grant us world-wide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable rights to use Your Content for any purpose. You also irrevocably grant the users of the Service and any Other Media the right to access Your Content in connection with their use of the Service and any Other Media. Finally, you irrevocably waive, and cause to be waived, against Yelp and its users any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to Your Content. By "use" we mean use, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of Your Content.
C. Ownership
As between you and Yelp, you own Your Content. We own the Yelp Content, including but not limited to visual interfaces, interactive features, graphics, design, compilation, computer code, products, software, aggregate user review ratings, and all other elements and components of the Service excluding Your Content, User Content and Third Party Content. We also own the copyrights, trademarks, service marks, trade names, and other intellectual and proprietary rights throughout the world (the "IP Rights") associated with the Yelp Content and the Service, which are protected by copyright, trade dress, patent, trademark laws and all other applicable intellectual and proprietary rights and laws. As such, you may not modify, reproduce, distribute, create derivative works or adaptations of, publicly display or in any way exploit any of the Yelp Content in whole or in part except as expressly authorized by us. Except as expressly and unambiguously provided herein, we do not grant you any express or implied rights, and all rights in and to the Service and the Yelp Content are retained by us.
...
And, by the way, the above is fair use in action
The headline was pretty clear what the article was about.
Apparently you are getting so tired of these articles that not only did you click through and read it, but also went ahead and posted a comment on it...
roflmao ..... brilliant !!!