Simple, write to the FTC on google (if you found google's privacy violations disturbing)

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by woo, Dec 5, 2005.

  1. woo

    woo Guest

    (Product Name: Google Groups Beta) The reason I am writing is
    because of very unfair business practices by Google Inc. The
    main problem is privacy and copyright. Google offers limited
    privacy solutions, but that is not acceptable. In California
    law requires websites to remove private information upon
    request, Google does not correspond. In a sense its like
    "Google on people", overriding the privacy rights of the masses
    for Google's money. I know millions are unsatisfied ever since
    usenet was archived by a corporation (DejaNews, 1995). Google
    purchased DejaNews in 2001, and remained the primary abuser
    of privacy online and carrying harsh corporate policies sticking to
    the "post-mainstream" totalitarian abuse of the unaware masses
    worldwide.

    Also Google scanned 15 million books from libraries
    without checking for copyright, forcing people and book
    companies worldwide to contact Google for resolving book
    copyright disputes. Google claims its a good soliciting for
    the writers but its stealing. There needs to more people
    complaining, please, do something. Google's carelessness is
    too extreme.

    If you remember 1995 and all the people complaining
    about privacy when DejaNews began archiving usenet,
    you will probably agree. Please send your complaint to
    www.ftc.gov, takes two minutes.
     
    woo, Dec 5, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. woo

    woo Guest

    > (Product Name: Google Groups Beta) The reason I am writing is
    > because of very unfair business practices by Google Inc. The
    > main problem is privacy and copyright. Google offers limited
    > privacy solutions, but that is not acceptable. In California
    > law requires websites to remove private information upon
    > request, Google does not correspond. In a sense its like
    > "Google on people", overriding the privacy rights of the masses
    > for Google's money. I know millions are unsatisfied ever since
    > usenet was archived by a corporation (DejaNews, 1995). Google
    > purchased DejaNews in 2001, and remained the primary abuser
    > of privacy online and carrying harsh corporate policies sticking to
    > the "post-mainstream" totalitarian abuse of the unaware masses
    > worldwide.
    >
    > Also Google scanned 15 million books from libraries
    > without checking for copyright, forcing people and book
    > companies worldwide to contact Google for resolving book
    > copyright disputes. Google claims its a good soliciting for
    > the writers but its stealing. There needs to more people
    > complaining, please, do something. Google's carelessness is
    > too extreme.
    >
    > If you remember 1995 and all the people complaining
    > about privacy when DejaNews began archiving usenet,
    > you will probably agree. Please send your complaint to
    > www.ftc.gov, takes two minutes.


    In these days of patriotism and madness which keeps these
    issues from listened to, we can do something normal for a change.
     
    woo, Dec 5, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. woo

    Tony Guest

    "woo" <> wrote in message
    news:_G3lf.50$...
    > (Product Name: Google Groups Beta) The reason I am writing is
    > because of very unfair business practices by Google Inc. The
    > main problem is privacy and copyright. Google offers limited
    > privacy solutions, but that is not acceptable. In California
    > law requires websites to remove private information upon
    > request, Google does not correspond. In a sense its like
    > "Google on people", overriding the privacy rights of the masses
    > for Google's money. I know millions are unsatisfied ever since
    > usenet was archived by a corporation (DejaNews, 1995). Google
    > purchased DejaNews in 2001, and remained the primary abuser
    > of privacy online and carrying harsh corporate policies sticking to
    > the "post-mainstream" totalitarian abuse of the unaware masses
    > worldwide.
    >
    > Also Google scanned 15 million books from libraries
    > without checking for copyright, forcing people and book
    > companies worldwide to contact Google for resolving book
    > copyright disputes. Google claims its a good soliciting for
    > the writers but its stealing. There needs to more people
    > complaining, please, do something. Google's carelessness is
    > too extreme.
    >
    > If you remember 1995 and all the people complaining
    > about privacy when DejaNews began archiving usenet,
    > you will probably agree. Please send your complaint to
    > www.ftc.gov, takes two minutes.
    >
    >


    Google are not producing any additional information that cannot be obtained,
    without paying, from a library.
    By reproducing extracts from the books Google are likely to stimulate
    sufficient interest for the book to be purchased.

    Are you saying that all libraries should be closed because they allow free
    access to books?

    Woo constantly posts off topic articles in newsgroups.
    Woo cross posts to more than three newsgroups which is unacceptable
    Woo steals bandwidth
    Woo is nothing more than a spammer
    Woo is a hypocrite by breaking the same standards he complains about
     
    Tony, Dec 5, 2005
    #3
  4. Writing in
    news:24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.www.webmaster,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,comp.ai.philosophy
    From the safety of the cafeteria
    Tony <> said:

    [follow-ups suggested]

    >
    > "woo" <> wrote in message
    > news:_G3lf.50$...
    >> (Product Name: Google Groups Beta) The reason I am writing...

    >
    > Woo constantly posts off topic articles in newsgroups.
    > Woo cross posts to more than three newsgroups which is unacceptable
    > Woo steals bandwidth
    > Woo is nothing more than a spammer
    > Woo is a hypocrite by breaking the same standards he complains about


    all you say is true (and I doubt anyone disagrees with your sentiment) -
    however, please strip AWW (alt.www.webmaster) from your replies. we've
    read it all before and most of us have the twat safely filtered. tnx.
    --
    William Tasso

    Save the drama
    for your Mama.
     
    William Tasso, Dec 5, 2005
    #4
  5. woo

    Tony Guest

    "William Tasso" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > Writing in
    > news:24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.www.webmaster,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,comp.ai.philosophy
    > From the safety of the cafeteria
    > Tony <> said:
    >
    > [follow-ups suggested]
    >
    >>
    >> "woo" <> wrote in message
    >> news:_G3lf.50$...
    >>> (Product Name: Google Groups Beta) The reason I am writing...

    >>
    >> Woo constantly posts off topic articles in newsgroups.
    >> Woo cross posts to more than three newsgroups which is unacceptable
    >> Woo steals bandwidth
    >> Woo is nothing more than a spammer
    >> Woo is a hypocrite by breaking the same standards he complains about

    >
    > all you say is true (and I doubt anyone disagrees with your sentiment) -
    > however, please strip AWW (alt.www.webmaster) from your replies. we've
    > read it all before and most of us have the twat safely filtered. tnx.
    > --
    > William Tasso
    >
    > Save the drama
    > for your Mama.


    Sorry, I was going to snip before I posted but forgot. Apologies.
     
    Tony, Dec 5, 2005
    #5
  6. woo

    woo Guest

    > > (Product Name: Google Groups Beta) The reason I am writing is
    > > because of very unfair business practices by Google Inc. The
    > > main problem is privacy and copyright. Google offers limited
    > > privacy solutions, but that is not acceptable. In California
    > > law requires websites to remove private information upon
    > > request, Google does not correspond. In a sense its like
    > > "Google on people", overriding the privacy rights of the masses
    > > for Google's money. I know millions are unsatisfied ever since
    > > usenet was archived by a corporation (DejaNews, 1995). Google
    > > purchased DejaNews in 2001, and remained the primary abuser
    > > of privacy online and carrying harsh corporate policies sticking to
    > > the "post-mainstream" totalitarian abuse of the unaware masses
    > > worldwide.
    > >
    > > Also Google scanned 15 million books from libraries
    > > without checking for copyright, forcing people and book
    > > companies worldwide to contact Google for resolving book
    > > copyright disputes. Google claims its a good soliciting for
    > > the writers but its stealing. There needs to more people
    > > complaining, please, do something. Google's carelessness is
    > > too extreme.
    > >
    > > If you remember 1995 and all the people complaining
    > > about privacy when DejaNews began archiving usenet,
    > > you will probably agree. Please send your complaint to
    > > www.ftc.gov, takes two minutes.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Google are not producing any additional information that cannot be obtained,
    > without paying, from a library.
    > By reproducing extracts from the books Google are likely to stimulate
    > sufficient interest for the book to be purchased.
    >
    > Are you saying that all libraries should be closed because they allow free
    > access to books?
    >
    > Woo constantly posts off topic articles in newsgroups.
    > Woo cross posts to more than three newsgroups which is unacceptable
    > Woo steals bandwidth
    > Woo is nothing more than a spammer
    > Woo is a hypocrite by breaking the same standards he complains about


    Go psycho!
     
    woo, Dec 5, 2005
    #6
  7. woo

    woo Guest

    > Writing in
    > news:24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.www.webmaster,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,comp.ai.philosophy
    > From the safety of the cafeteria
    > Tony <> said:
    >
    > [follow-ups suggested]
    >
    > >
    > > "woo" <> wrote in message
    > > news:_G3lf.50$...
    > >> (Product Name: Google Groups Beta) The reason I am writing...

    > >
    > > Woo constantly posts off topic articles in newsgroups.
    > > Woo cross posts to more than three newsgroups which is unacceptable
    > > Woo steals bandwidth
    > > Woo is nothing more than a spammer
    > > Woo is a hypocrite by breaking the same standards he complains about

    >
    > all you say is true (and I doubt anyone disagrees with your sentiment) -
    > however, please strip AWW (alt.www.webmaster) from your replies. we've
    > read it all before and most of us have the twat safely filtered. tnx.
    > --
    > William Tasso
    >
    > Save the drama
    > for your Mama.


    Common William,
    your brain works.
     
    woo, Dec 5, 2005
    #7
  8. woo

    woo Guest

    > > Writing in
    > > news:24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.www.webmaster,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,comp.ai.philosophy
    > > From the safety of the cafeteria
    > > Tony <> said:
    > >
    > > [follow-ups suggested]
    > >
    > > >
    > > > "woo" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:_G3lf.50$...
    > > >> (Product Name: Google Groups Beta) The reason I am writing...
    > > >
    > > > Woo constantly posts off topic articles in newsgroups.
    > > > Woo cross posts to more than three newsgroups which is unacceptable
    > > > Woo steals bandwidth
    > > > Woo is nothing more than a spammer
    > > > Woo is a hypocrite by breaking the same standards he complains about

    > >
    > > all you say is true (and I doubt anyone disagrees with your sentiment) -
    > > however, please strip AWW (alt.www.webmaster) from your replies. we've
    > > read it all before and most of us have the twat safely filtered. tnx.
    > > --
    > > William Tasso
    > >
    > > Save the drama
    > > for your Mama.

    >
    > Common William,
    > your brain works.


    this about usenet. man. one day.
     
    woo, Dec 5, 2005
    #8
  9. woo

    woo Guest

    > >>> (Product Name: Google Groups Beta) The reason I am writing...
    > >>
    > >> Woo constantly posts off topic articles in newsgroups.
    > >> Woo cross posts to more than three newsgroups which is unacceptable
    > >> Woo steals bandwidth
    > >> Woo is nothing more than a spammer
    > >> Woo is a hypocrite by breaking the same standards he complains about

    > >
    > > all you say is true (and I doubt anyone disagrees with your sentiment) -
    > > however, please strip AWW (alt.www.webmaster) from your replies. we've
    > > read it all before and most of us have the twat safely filtered. tnx.
    > > --
    > > William Tasso
    > >
    > > Save the drama
    > > for your Mama.

    >
    > Sorry, I was going to snip before I posted but forgot. Apologies.


    Very stupid.
     
    woo, Dec 6, 2005
    #9
  10. woo

    woo Guest

    > > > (Product Name: Google Groups Beta) The reason I am writing is
    > > > because of very unfair business practices by Google Inc. The
    > > > main problem is privacy and copyright. Google offers limited
    > > > privacy solutions, but that is not acceptable. In California
    > > > law requires websites to remove private information upon
    > > > request, Google does not correspond. In a sense its like
    > > > "Google on people", overriding the privacy rights of the masses
    > > > for Google's money. I know millions are unsatisfied ever since
    > > > usenet was archived by a corporation (DejaNews, 1995). Google
    > > > purchased DejaNews in 2001, and remained the primary abuser
    > > > of privacy online and carrying harsh corporate policies sticking to
    > > > the "post-mainstream" totalitarian abuse of the unaware masses
    > > > worldwide.
    > > >
    > > > Also Google scanned 15 million books from libraries
    > > > without checking for copyright, forcing people and book
    > > > companies worldwide to contact Google for resolving book
    > > > copyright disputes. Google claims its a good soliciting for
    > > > the writers but its stealing. There needs to more people
    > > > complaining, please, do something. Google's carelessness is
    > > > too extreme.
    > > >
    > > > If you remember 1995 and all the people complaining
    > > > about privacy when DejaNews began archiving usenet,
    > > > you will probably agree. Please send your complaint to
    > > > www.ftc.gov, takes two minutes.
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > > Google are not producing any additional information that cannot be obtained,
    > > without paying, from a library.
    > > By reproducing extracts from the books Google are likely to stimulate
    > > sufficient interest for the book to be purchased.
    > >
    > > Are you saying that all libraries should be closed because they allow free
    > > access to books?
    > >
    > > Woo constantly posts off topic articles in newsgroups.
    > > Woo cross posts to more than three newsgroups which is unacceptable
    > > Woo steals bandwidth
    > > Woo is nothing more than a spammer
    > > Woo is a hypocrite by breaking the same standards he complains about

    >
    > Go psycho!


    The meaning of simple is very hard.

    Why worry about psychoing others explicitely, write to the FTC on Google, and its
    not even something weird in the careless decade following the 90's of sharing.

    Product Name: Google Groups Beta and Google's Library Project

    The reason I am writing is because of very unfair business practices by Google Inc.

    The main problem is privacy and copyright. Google offers limited privacy solutions,
    but that is not acceptable. In California law requires websites to remove private
    information upon request, Google does not correspond. In a sense its like "Google
    on people", overriding the privacy rights of the masses for Google's money. I
    know millions are unsatisfied ever since usenet was archived by a corporation
    (DejaNews, 1995). Google purchased DejaNews in 2001, and remained the primary
    abuser of privacy online and carrying harsh corporate policies sticking to the
    "post-mainstream" totalitarian abuse of the unaware masses worldwide.

    Also Google scanned 15 million books from libraries without checking for copyright,
    forcing people and book companies worldwide to contact Google for resolving book
    copyright disputes. Google claims its a good soliciting for the writers but its stealing.
    There needs to more people complaining, please, do something. Google's
    carelessness is too extreme.

    If you remember 1995 and all the people complaining about privacy when DejaNews
    began archiving usenet, you will probably agree. Please send your complaint to
    www.ftc.gov, takes two minutes.

    In these days of patriotism and madness which keeps these issues from listened to,
    we can do something normal for a change.
     
    woo, Dec 6, 2005
    #10
  11. woo

    Mitch Guest

    In article <dn2i8v$c4i$>, Tony
    <> wrote:

    > Google are not producing any additional information that cannot be obtained,
    > without paying, from a library.
    > By reproducing extracts from the books Google are likely to stimulate
    > sufficient interest for the book to be purchased.


    Sorry, but that's none of our business.
    The people that own the rights to any book are not subject to what
    random individuals think MIGHT be a good idea, or MIGHT promote it, or
    MIGHT make it look good.

    > Are you saying that all libraries should be closed because they allow free
    > access to books?


    A library pays for the books (or had paid books donated). In other
    words, a controlled amount of people get to see it and someone was
    compensated.

    I am very strongly in favor of Web sites publishing or giving access to
    works in the public domain.
    I don't see how anyone can sensibly allow commercial works or
    privately-owned works to be made public. That's just nonsense.
     
    Mitch, Dec 6, 2005
    #11
  12. woo

    Toolman Tim Guest

    In news:051220051713474164%,
    Mitch spewed forth:
    > In article <dn2i8v$c4i$>, Tony
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Google are not producing any additional information that cannot be
    >> obtained, without paying, from a library.
    >> By reproducing extracts from the books Google are likely to stimulate
    >> sufficient interest for the book to be purchased.

    >
    > Sorry, but that's none of our business.
    > The people that own the rights to any book are not subject to what
    > random individuals think MIGHT be a good idea, or MIGHT promote it, or
    > MIGHT make it look good.
    >
    >> Are you saying that all libraries should be closed because they
    >> allow free access to books?

    >
    > A library pays for the books (or had paid books donated). In other
    > words, a controlled amount of people get to see it and someone was
    > compensated.
    >
    > I am very strongly in favor of Web sites publishing or giving access
    > to works in the public domain.
    > I don't see how anyone can sensibly allow commercial works or
    > privately-owned works to be made public. That's just nonsense.


    Concur. Public domain works made public makes good sense. But I wonder what
    would make online 'lending libraries' work? After all, someone has to cover
    the cost of the archive space, web traffic, etc. Why would someone pay an
    online use fee for something they can check out from their local library? So
    the online providers must have some commercial backing or foundation/grants
    to generate income.
     
    Toolman Tim, Dec 6, 2005
    #12
  13. woo

    Mitch Guest

    In article <7v7lf.1586$>, Toolman Tim
    <> wrote:

    > Concur. Public domain works made public makes good sense. But I wonder what
    > would make online 'lending libraries' work? After all, someone has to cover
    > the cost of the archive space, web traffic, etc. Why would someone pay an
    > online use fee for something they can check out from their local library? So
    > the online providers must have some commercial backing or foundation/grants
    > to generate income.


    Well, groups that need those kinds of files (like a university) very
    strongly benefit from having a library full of searchable text.
    But libraries already have complex indexing systems for much of that
    (even though most libraries aren't up to speed with much of it).

    The best part of that problem is that none of the works change. It's
    just archiving, so it doesn't require any support money after it's
    done.

    Again, though, that only works for the groups with one of the most
    valid reasons to want digital texts.

    It seems to me the problem is providing the works whole; if you could
    only search the text from a Web site (effectively removing the whole of
    the material from public viewing), then maybe a good practical function
    could be achieved without exposing the work for free.
     
    Mitch, Dec 6, 2005
    #13
  14. In news:051220051750034736%,
    Mitch spewed forth:
    > In article <7v7lf.1586$>, Toolman Tim
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Concur. Public domain works made public makes good sense. But I
    >> wonder what would make online 'lending libraries' work? After all,
    >> someone has to cover the cost of the archive space, web traffic,
    >> etc. Why would someone pay an online use fee for something they can
    >> check out from their local library? So the online providers must
    >> have some commercial backing or foundation/grants to generate income.

    >
    > Well, groups that need those kinds of files (like a university) very
    > strongly benefit from having a library full of searchable text.
    > But libraries already have complex indexing systems for much of that
    > (even though most libraries aren't up to speed with much of it).
    >
    > The best part of that problem is that none of the works change. It's
    > just archiving, so it doesn't require any support money after it's
    > done.


    That's true - and with the ability to significantly compress text files, it
    isn't even that large of a storage/bandwidth problem. It's all this stuff in
    HTML that has bloated the web <g>

    > Again, though, that only works for the groups with one of the most
    > valid reasons to want digital texts.
    >
    > It seems to me the problem is providing the works whole; if you could
    > only search the text from a Web site (effectively removing the whole
    > of the material from public viewing), then maybe a good practical
    > function could be achieved without exposing the work for free.


    --
    We put the "K" in "Kwality"!
     
    Quirk E. Dude, Dec 6, 2005
    #14
  15. woo

    Trax Guest

    Mitch <> wrote:

    |>In article <7v7lf.1586$>, Toolman Tim
    |><> wrote:
    |>
    |>> Concur. Public domain works made public makes good sense. But I wonder what
    |>> would make online 'lending libraries' work? After all, someone has to cover
    |>> the cost of the archive space, web traffic, etc. Why would someone pay an
    |>> online use fee for something they can check out from their local library? So
    |>> the online providers must have some commercial backing or foundation/grants
    |>> to generate income.
    |>
    |>Well, groups that need those kinds of files (like a university) very
    |>strongly benefit from having a library full of searchable text.
    |>But libraries already have complex indexing systems for much of that
    |>(even though most libraries aren't up to speed with much of it).



    |>The best part of that problem is that none of the works change. It's
    |>just archiving, so it doesn't require any support money after it's
    |>done.

    <VBG> It's suppose to take 300 years to archive the info
    http://tinyurl.com/e2zvk

    |>Again, though, that only works for the groups with one of the most
    |>valid reasons to want digital texts.
    |>
    |>It seems to me the problem is providing the works whole; if you could
    |>only search the text from a Web site (effectively removing the whole of
    |>the material from public viewing), then maybe a good practical function
    |>could be achieved without exposing the work for free.


    --
    Hubble DVD's - Free downloads
    http://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/archive/topic/dvd//
    Hubble Hall of Fame
    http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/archive/bestof/
     
    Trax, Dec 6, 2005
    #15
  16. woo

    tadchem Guest

    "Mitch" <> wrote in message
    news:051220051713474164%...
    > In article <dn2i8v$c4i$>, Tony
    > <> wrote:


    <snip>

    > > Are you saying that all libraries should be closed because they allow

    free
    > > access to books?

    >
    > A library pays for the books (or had paid books donated). In other
    > words, a controlled amount of people get to see it and someone was
    > compensated.
    >
    > I am very strongly in favor of Web sites publishing or giving access to
    > works in the public domain.
    > I don't see how anyone can sensibly allow commercial works or
    > privately-owned works to be made public. That's just nonsense.


    IOW, you are only opposed to the concept of *public* libraries, i.e.
    libraries that permit public access to copyrighted works without charge, as
    defined here:
    http://www.onelook.com/?w=public library&ls=a
    http://www.bartleby.com/61/46/P0644600.html
    http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/public library
    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=public library&r=66
    and elsewhere.

    Is that right?

    The success and preservation of a fascist bureaucracy depends on the control
    of public access to ideas; ideas that could possibly be dangerous *must* be
    kept out of the reach of those with no vested interest in maintaining
    secrecy.

    The final destruction of the Library at Alexandria was occasioned by the
    persecution of the pagans by the Christian church in the late 4th century
    under Emperor Theodosius and Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_alexandria
    as Paulus Orosius admitted in his History against the pagans.

    In opposing the existence of public libraries you have chosen some
    'interesting' companions.


    Tom Davidson
    Richmond, VA
     
    tadchem, Dec 6, 2005
    #16
  17. woo

    Mitch Guest

    In article <>, tadchem
    <> wrote:

    > IOW, you are only opposed to the concept of *public* libraries, i.e.
    > libraries that permit public access to copyrighted works without charge, as
    > defined here:

    <snipped defs>
    > Is that right?


    No; in a library, every copy has been paid for. And since these are
    physical copies, there is a limit to how much they can circulate.
    Those are both fair compromises to having material totally free and yet
    compensating the authors and creators.

    > The success and preservation of a fascist bureaucracy depends on the control
    > of public access to ideas; ideas that could possibly be dangerous *must* be
    > kept out of the reach of those with no vested interest in maintaining
    > secrecy.

    Then you're fighting the wrong end of the problem; you should be
    fighting for mandatory circulation of all manuscripts. You can't fight
    for free access to ideas when you're limited to just what six
    publishing companies think you can have.

    > In opposing the existence of public libraries you have chosen some
    > 'interesting' companions.

    Wow -- I certainly never claimed to oppose libraries -- that should
    have been obvious.

    You are making a very odd equivocation -- that a public library is the
    same thing as a Web site distributing whole commercial texts. Those are
    obviously different, and I don't see where your examples affect it.
     
    Mitch, Dec 6, 2005
    #17
  18. woo

    Mitch Guest

    In article <>, Trax
    <> wrote:

    > |>The best part of that problem is that none of the works change. It's
    > |>just archiving, so it doesn't require any support money after it's
    > |>done.
    >
    > <VBG> It's suppose to take 300 years to archive the info
    > http://tinyurl.com/e2zvk


    A strange press release.
    My point is, after that is all archived, it's done. You won't have to
    continue checking the texts for updates or changes.

    As far as archiving problems, I sympathize more with the astronomers --
    there are several groups trying to go through historical prints to
    generate historical studies of the moon, planetary observations, etc.
    Some of the stuff that has ben used is fragile; all have very delicate
    surfaces, and it sounds like most have been badly stored.
     
    Mitch, Dec 6, 2005
    #18
  19. woo

    Ray Gordon Guest

    >> If you remember 1995 and all the people complaining
    >> about privacy when DejaNews began archiving usenet,
    >> you will probably agree. Please send your complaint to
    >> www.ftc.gov, takes two minutes.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Google are not producing any additional information that cannot be
    > obtained, without paying, from a library.
    > By reproducing extracts from the books Google are likely to stimulate
    > sufficient interest for the book to be purchased.


    By playing songs on the radio, the radio stations create interest in the
    albums. Why don't they pay royalties then?

    Also, if you allow Google to do it, what's to stop 1,000 others from the
    doing the same thing?


    > Are you saying that all libraries should be closed because they allow free
    > access to books?


    I do not allow libraries to keep copies of my work. My books are
    nontransferable.



    <snip>

    You sound rather obsessed with Woo.
     
    Ray Gordon, Dec 6, 2005
    #19
  20. woo

    PD Guest

    Ray Gordon wrote:
    > >> If you remember 1995 and all the people complaining
    > >> about privacy when DejaNews began archiving usenet,
    > >> you will probably agree. Please send your complaint to
    > >> www.ftc.gov, takes two minutes.
    > >>
    > >>

    > >
    > > Google are not producing any additional information that cannot be
    > > obtained, without paying, from a library.
    > > By reproducing extracts from the books Google are likely to stimulate
    > > sufficient interest for the book to be purchased.

    >
    > By playing songs on the radio, the radio stations create interest in the
    > albums. Why don't they pay royalties then?


    Uh, they do. Every time they play a song.

    >
    > Also, if you allow Google to do it, what's to stop 1,000 others from the
    > doing the same thing?
    >
    >
    > > Are you saying that all libraries should be closed because they allow free
    > > access to books?

    >
    > I do not allow libraries to keep copies of my work. My books are
    > nontransferable.
    >
    >
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > You sound rather obsessed with Woo.
     
    PD, Dec 6, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. MjrTom
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    637
    Toolman Tim
    May 1, 2004
  2. nosredna

    disturbing print problem: Canon i960

    nosredna, Nov 19, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,216
    nosredna
    Nov 20, 2003
  3. Lionel
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    419
    Lionel
    May 24, 2004
  4. FAQmeister
    Replies:
    56
    Views:
    1,483
    Hamilcar Barca
    Jun 22, 2004
  5. The Man With No Name

    Re: A disturbing trend in DVd's....

    The Man With No Name, Jun 27, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    361
    PETER NEEGER
    Jun 28, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page