3 ms·
The sites copied by Google Search explicitly allow it. The books copied by Meta, explicitly disallow it, and require payment for distribution.
by shakna 2y ago
The sites copied by Google Search explicitly allow it.
The books copied by Meta, explicitly disallow it, and require payment for distribution.
- yreg 2y agoInformation wants to be free.
- shakna 2y agoPerhaps. However, information won't be produced, if the already tenuous financial positions of authors is removed. Things should be free, as in speech, not as in beer. Especially in this case. The giants of Silicon Valley could in fact purchase these rights. Few authors care about people personally enjoying a product through otherwise means. They do care about mass distribution without attribution, without royalty, and without regard.
- amanaplanacanal 2y agoInformation isn't copyrightable, at least in the US. Only creative works. But I get what you are saying.
- idiotsecant 2y agoThat's fine and dandy as part of a free as in beer ethos. When 'information' wants to pad the quarterly earnings statement of a gigantic corporation that exists only by grinding the suffering of fellow humans into a fine marketable paste I am somewhat less sympathetic. Information should be free. To people, for non-commercial use.
- roenxi 2y agoThe sites indexed often don't explicitly allow it. I can see my website in the index of web search engines that I never opted in to. I'm not unhappy about it; but was never consulted.
- axus 2y agoLinking is different from copying, and fortunately the last case I remember allows it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticketmaster_Corp._v._Tickets.com,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticketmaster_Corp._v._Tickets.....
- amne 2y agoTell me you've never googled lyrics without telling me.....
- mcursa 2y agoSources are linked below the lyrics though!
- amanaplanacanal 2y agoBut how did can Google index a site without copying it to their servers?