March 5, 2007 8:10 AM PST
Microsoft to blast Google over copyrights
- Related Stories
-
Google accused of aiding movie pirates
February 12, 2007 -
Microsoft to offer book search
October 25, 2005 -
Google's battle over library books
October 24, 2005 -
Publishers sue Google over book search project
October 19, 2005 -
Authors Guild sues Google over library project
September 20, 2005
Microsoft plans to launch a blistering attack on its rival for what the software giant argues is the Web search leader's "cavalier" approach to copyright protection.
The story "Microsoft to blast Google over copyrights" published March 5, 2007 at 8:10 AM is no longer available on CNET News.
Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.
has come at the expense of publishers of books, videos and
software."
How hypocritical can you be? Is that the best Microsoft's got?
That's like Ford complaining to the FCC that the Japanese
automakers have ruined the American auto-industry...
If all information was as tied up as a lot of it is now, the internet would have been another case of infant mortality. But I'm an extremist. Many OSS users still care about arguments like yours. If you'd like to point out exactly which patents you're accusing them of stepping on, be my guest.
BTW, If anyone needs help setting up a Linux system, feel free to contact me at ethana2@gmail.com
And, yes, I respond to hate mail too.
That might be, but not even big companies like Microsoft have the resources to check every patent to make sure they're not infringing. It's become really hard to maintain any respect for the patent office or the patents they grant. They recently granted a patent for the concept of a linked list to a company called LSI. Linked lists are one of the fundamental data structures in computer science. It's utterly disgraceful, and Microsoft has it's self applied for it's share of patents on pre-existing concepts.
It should be noted Microsoft is planning to start their own version of You Tube, assuming they can attract a similar size audience we'll see how they fair at preventing copyright infringement. It's Microsoft is pretty much following Google's lead at this point.
You are conveniently forgetting that Google Video service existed long before this, and was also a source of copyright violations. But no one cared because... Google said they motto is "DO NO EVIL", so they must be the good guys right? RIGHT?
that's absurd. Have you looked at Google's approach to aggregation? Their news.google.com site steals content (text/pictures) from 4500 sources across the globe to draw more traffic to their own servers - you think they do this after seeking for permissions from those content owners? Think again. See http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-6095656.html
Google's copyright violations are well known; they will need to pay for their cavalier approach to copyright and basking shamelessly in other people's hard work and warmth.
And they bought YouTube for the exact same reasons - they found someone bettter at attracting wannabe copyright-violators (aka YouTube members) than themselves.
As for the Microsoft, they're the world's biggest hippocrates. They're the last ones that should lecture anyone on business ethics. They blatantly rip off competitors and customers alike and just use their excess billions (stolen from customers) to buy their way out.
except me....
Oh, I see... a REPEATEDLY-CONVICTED ILLEGAL MONOPOLY (Microsoft)... Which has been, continually, found to have STOLEN other peoples work... And, who also has a decades-long history of VERY well-documented, elaborate, devious "FUD", and SMEAR, CAMPAIGNS (against ANYONE they think MIGHT be "competition")... a company, who has also committed numerous INTENTIONAL, and often CRIMINAL, "market-manipulations"... and who is, in fact, STILL in court over these very issues, around the world... Is now screaming that one of their greatest, current, "competitors" (Google)... is a "threat" to the very kind of, carefully-erected, "Intellectual-Property" SHAMS, and SHENANIGANS, that Microsoft, itself, has employed for decades.
Oh, wont somebody think of the POOR CORPORATIONS, ...and help protect Microsofts-monopoly..?
But...
Frankly, in my opinion, its about time that we finally dismantled this "Intellectual Property" FRANKENSTEIN, which has SO clearly been created, solely, to benefit a wealthy-few, ...at the extreme expense of the many. This LUMBERING SERVANT of the GREEDY and CORRUPT (LUDICROUSLY-EXTREME, and clearly-overreaching, BIG-BUSINESS claims of "Intellectual Property" ownership)... simply obliterate TRUE-CREATIVITY, INNOVATION, and COMMON-SENSE, ...not to mention the RIGHTS of common-citizens. In short,, it is completely CONTRARY to the GOALS OF ANY RATIONAL-SOCIETY,
And, honestly, ...I also think MOST people are actually quite thrilled that Microsoft is FINALLY, apparently, reaping the bitter-fruits of their own, long-term, unbridled-hubris.
I've never seen any Artificial Inteligence, neural network etc. system that had a copyright compliance included. Perhaps it's because it cannot be "intelligent" when too many restrictions are obeyed.
Do you think MicroSoft's IE doesn't copy copyrighted works without explicit permision? It allows anyone to copy anything and has no mechanism to prevent copyrighted works from being copied without permission. Probably most copyright infringement (in the technical sense) in the world is done using MSIE.
Copyright laws provide legel protection to authors, but authors are expected to complain about infringement. The law does not require any punishment or compensation unless the author (or the author's representative) demands it. It's not different from plain old theft: it's against the law, but someone is required to file a complaint and say what was stolen, otherwise the police does not have to do anything. The law doesn't automatically protect the taking of abandoned property. For the taking of property to be "stealing" requires proof that it was not allowed. And for the law to actively provide protection to copyright holders they need to actively ask for this protection. This is a basic assumption that is needed for proper balance in a world where everything is automatically protected by copyright - even when the author doesn't care about this protection. Almost all content copied by Google is content that the copyright holder doesn't mind Google's copying. Those that do mind are very few, and it seems that Google respects their rights if they ask Google to respect them, either in the standard way of providing instructions thru a robot.txt file or by asking for content to be removed. Publishing content on the web in a form that allows copying implies consent that the content would be copied.
Perhaps some RFCs should be ammended to make the use of http and some other protocols without specifically formatted restrictions into a legal explicit consent to copying.
>>>Almost all content copied by Google is content that the copyright holder doesn't mind Google's copying.
Google isn't being sued by publishers and authors for copying 'abandoned property'. Google is being sued because copying entire books without permission of the copyright owner does not constitute 'fair use.' That's a lot like taking your neighbor's work truck that has a painted business logo on the door, and then, without permission, using it to run your errands, pick up the kids from school, drive to the next state to visit the in-laws, and maybe haul a load of construction supplies to the job site where you've been hired to build a barn. And then, when the neighbor complains that you stole his truck, you have the gall to say - hey, I was doing you a favor because lots more people saw your logo while I was using your truck without permission and you might get some new customers from that exposure. How well do you think the 'fair use' defense would work in a car theft case? Why should intellectual property protected by registered copyright no less be treated with any less respect?
Theft is theft. Illegal use is illegal. Arguing otherwise is the tactic of naughty children caught with their fingers in the cookie jar.
IE7 - is an annoying P.I.T.A, I hear that Vista is no better and feel that the Apple commercial with the body guard / g-man is right on target.
Every time Balmer opens his mouth, he causes me to recoil. He simply lies, he kept yapping about how the sales of Vista were better than ever, it was simply not true.
MS keeps acting like it is mid '95, when they were a "cool, cutting edge company" and are getting ready to launch Windows95 ... sorry, but Microsoft is no cooler today than Oldsmobile. If they don't get with the program - making things that users want - and get away from this sue happy model, they are going to head straight down the tubes. At this point, I really can't say that an accelerated decline would be such a bad thing. Although, it would force me to learn a few things, but otherwise, I will adapt to whatever is the prevailing environment. Google is about to launch hosted apps for the enterprise - a direct shot across the bow of MS, and I for one am going to put some cash in the pockets of Google.
I think that secure, hosted applications are going to be the wave of the future and the apps will be platform independent. Basically, we will connect to the 'net via some type of device ... which at this point could even be the all in one cable / voip / internet browser thingy that sits in the living room or office.
From a practical standpoint, aside from the issues of data transmission security, it makes much more sense to lock all of the data behind one super secure fortress than to defend and secure thousands of mini-forti which all need to be updated, secured, and prevented from being lost by stupid (l)users - who must have a copy of the HR data and loose their damn notebook at Starbuck's in some caffeine induced chitchat frenzy.
Microsoft = Crooks
RIAA = Dumb *****
And it goes on and on...
Stock market = Corporate Greed
Consumer = Stupid idiot
HD-DVD = Rip-off
Blue-Ray = Rip-off
HD TV = Money for the government after the sale of the spectrum it will free up, which = Rip-off
Robert
Copyright infringement is something that has to be claimed on a per-case basis by the content's owner. Once sufficiently claimed, the distributor then has the obligation of ceasing distribution of just that material and nothing more -- and not before the claim is validated. Pure and simple. That's the way copyright has always worked from the dawn of time.
Content owners and publishers would get along with technologists so much better if they realized that no one can control the Internet -- not now; not ever. You can encrypt your stuff all you want -- you're only hurting your legitimate customers. Everyone else will find a way around the encryption. People need to accept that anything that can be translated into a digitized form cannot have its distribution controlled anymore the way the it did in the pre-Internet days. Such is the result of the technological world we've created.
Welcome to the information age, kids. Now grow up.
</sarcasm>
that only one thing can hurt M$ and thats competition. Its been
a fun ride for them so far... no choice for consumers made them
what they are.. but with Linux making head way (listen to your
customers DELL) Apple finally getting its due attention, and
google pushing into M$ application market I think that the
market overall is leaning or running away from M$ as fast as
they can.
Before some M$ stooge thats paid to find articles and spew FUD
all over the place praising the M$ crapware empire joins in and
tells us all we're stupid and should concede to that M$ is the
savior of earth.. go see what the DOT and FAA think about M$,
vista, IE, and Office. If well established obviously educated big
business IT Officers are more or less calling vista , IE, and office
pieces of crap... then who can argue with them... besides M$
and the FUD army they employee.
Remember when they complained about how Apple had a "locked" mp3 player software and how they had WMP and shared/ sold it with others. OPPPPSSS. Zune. locked is better, all you WMP people can bit MS butt. :-)
Bill Gates recently said on air, "MS Vista is secure, but Apple OS gets hacked every day."
I think MS is like a ship tipping over. Tilt, Tilt, then suddenly -- over she goes.
However, Google has asserted some bizarre perceived right that they can cache anything, anywhere, anytime, unless you opt-out.
That is exactly backwards from what would be the non-evil thing to do.
So if the libraries don't have to pay authors of intellectual works (other than buying the book) to show it to thousands of other people then how come so many authors make so much money??? Better yet, why should I have to pay for viewing a book on-line??? Sure it?s easier than going to the library, looking it up in the card index or computerized index, then walking around to actually find it, checking it out and driving home, but that is still FREE!!! It seems to me that Microshaft is just trying to create a problem where one does not exist and again trying to monopolize on their ability to make money in the electronic media arena and it seems mostly for themselves?
When the internet was first talked about all those many years ago, wasn?t it part of the advertising scheme of Microshaft to say, look at all of the free things that we can get on-line showing people reading virtual books and what-not? I have yet to be able to find books to read on-line as easily as Microshaft has advertised and claimed over the years? Microshaft has lied right from the beginning talking about free Internet information transfer? Yes there are people that abuse the downloading of information (music and videos specifically) but this does only applies to a small percentage of Internet users? What about Kristie Kid in high school doing a report and making those copies to show to the classroom or Crispy Charley in college trying to make a report on Thing-a-ma-bobs??? I think Bill Gates is a highly intelligent man and is looking for other ways to make revenue, not that he doesn?t have enough to spend as it is?
Look, up ahead, it?s the information superhighway and you have to stop and pay the toll?
I get $.04 cents everytime this is read so I can pay Rod Serling for the use of ?Look, up ahead, it?s?? so I can pay his royalties on that copyright and for the use of the word ?Thing-a-ma-bobs? as it is a real product in a store near me?
- The only important thing is...
-
by wbenton
March 10, 2007 5:54 AM PST
- >>>At the same time, Google has recently expanded into the business software market with a set of Web-based subscription services it sees as a major revenue generator which could chip away at Microsoft's 15-year dominance of computer software.<<<
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 41 Comments >>That's it... the rest is jibberish...
Somebody finally tries to topple Microsoft from their 15 year dominance position and Microsoft goes berzerk.
That's it... nothing more..
The rest is MS-Wash...
Walt