4 ms·

"Will someone please inform Mr. Cuban that Google's opt-out procedure is entirely voluntary on their part and there's nothing that says they have to continue to

by qeorge 17y ago

"Will someone please inform Mr. Cuban that Google's opt-out procedure is entirely voluntary on their part and there's nothing that says they have to continue to offer it or abide by it?" Google's policy is irrelevant. NewsCorp owns the intellectual property in question, they decide if and how it may be syndicated. The "thing that says they have to" is United States law. " I don't understand why anyone cares what this person who doesn't seem to understand any of the basic concepts involved thinks about it." I'm guessing you have no idea who Mark Cuban is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cuban http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cuban

djcapelis 17y ago
Copyright law doesn't cover google indexing the page for its search engine anymore than it covers me posting a list of my favorite songs on my blog. Would you argue that someone can't develop a song recommendation engine without acquiring a license for every song in their database? By your argument this very site is infringing the copyrights of all the authors HN ever links to. I know how to use wikipedia too and did in fact use it. Why should his opinion on this be relevant?
- qeorge 17y ago
  "Copyright law doesn't cover google indexing the page for its search engine anymore than it covers me posting a list of my favorite songs on my blog. Would you argue that someone can't develop a song recommendation engine without acquiring a license for every song in their database? By your argument this very site is infringing the copyrights of all the authors HN ever links to." This is a straw man. Posting links is different than sending thousands of requests to a server (Googlebot) and archiving the contents. Obviously fair use applies, but Google would not be Google if restricted to fair use. "Why should [Mark Cuban's] opinion on this be relevant?" A number of reasons. First that he's been advocating this exact play as the way to beat Google since May 2008 [1]. Second, his experience at the intersection of content and superdistribution (the web) qualifies him to comment on the viability of such a model. He's founded, invested in, and sold more web content companies than any one else I know of (e.g., HDNet, Weblogs Inc, Broadcast.com). And he bankrolled Grokster when MGM took them to the Supreme Court, so he's got a vocal opinion on content usage rights. All that info is available on Wikipedia of course, but I don't believe you read it and are still asking why his viewpoint is relevant to this discussion. [1] http://blogmaverick.com/2008/05/14/beating-google/ http://blogmaverick.com/2008/05/14/beating-google/

by qeorge 17y ago

djcapelis 17y ago

Copyright law doesn't cover google indexing the page for its search engine anymore than it covers me posting a list of my favorite songs on my blog. Would you argue that someone can't develop a song recommendation engine without acquiring a license for every song in their database? By your argument this very site is infringing the copyrights of all the authors HN ever links to. I know how to use wikipedia too and did in fact use it. Why should his opinion on this be relevant?

qeorge 17y ago
"Copyright law doesn't cover google indexing the page for its search engine anymore than it covers me posting a list of my favorite songs on my blog. Would you argue that someone can't develop a song recommendation engine without acquiring a license for every song in their database? By your argument this very site is infringing the copyrights of all the authors HN ever links to." This is a straw man. Posting links is different than sending thousands of requests to a server (Googlebot) and archiving the contents. Obviously fair use applies, but Google would not be Google if restricted to fair use. "Why should [Mark Cuban's] opinion on this be relevant?" A number of reasons. First that he's been advocating this exact play as the way to beat Google since May 2008 [1]. Second, his experience at the intersection of content and superdistribution (the web) qualifies him to comment on the viability of such a model. He's founded, invested in, and sold more web content companies than any one else I know of (e.g., HDNet, Weblogs Inc, Broadcast.com). And he bankrolled Grokster when MGM took them to the Supreme Court, so he's got a vocal opinion on content usage rights. All that info is available on Wikipedia of course, but I don't believe you read it and are still asking why his viewpoint is relevant to this discussion. [1] http://blogmaverick.com/2008/05/14/beating-google/ http://blogmaverick.com/2008/05/14/beating-google/