New Google Chrome Browser - Page 2

Taylor514ce · 09-02-2008, 05:32 PM

What? I'm not talking about "the internet". Again, privacy isn't the issue. Stay on track, here. I'm talking about web sites. Content I've created and made available for specific uses. When someone takes that content, copies it, and puts it to their own commercial uses, it's theft.

And to try to get this back on topic, I wouldn't use a browser from a company with Google's track record in regard to privacy and intellectual property.

pilotbob · 09-02-2008, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

<snip> - they are violating my copyrights and have stolen my intellectual property, and my copyright is NOT invalidated because I don't have a robots.txt file. Or even if I do - again, that has nothing to do with my rights.

Have you filed suit against Google? If you are correct then you probably can get a nice class action suit against them. However, I would expect that it would be ruled "fair use" and you would loose at summary judgment.

No I'm not a lawyer, but I would like to play one on TV.

BOb

acidzebra · 09-02-2008, 05:35 PM

And this web site was not in any way, shape, or form part of the larger internet (I'd call it world wide web but seriously, that battle was fought)? Did not link to other sites, did not have other sites link to it?

And again, here is Google's urgent removal request page:
http://www.google.com/support/webmas...62&topic=13511
and the "how do I stop google from spidering me" page:
http://www.google.com/support/webmas...08&topic=13511

Google will, if asked, remove your content. What more do you ask for? Not copying? Should I empty my browser cache every time I leave one of your pages? Fair use.

Taylor514ce · 09-02-2008, 05:44 PM

@pilotbob: there have been lawsuits. I have not been a part of them. Google has also been sued for indiscriminately scanning books... they scaled back their operation, but big business has won the day, for now.

@acidzebra: You are being vague in your terms. The "internet" and "the web" are not one and the same. Google doesn't own any part of "the internet" (well, except for their servers, but you know what I mean, I hope), nor do they own any part of any web site I've created, though they operate as if they do. Linking to other sites, or other sites linking to me, doesn't confer any rights to Google. I'm not sure where you're trying to go with your counterarguments, as they don't seem to address the points I've made.

Nor does the fact that if you ask them to, they'll remove your stuff from the cache, make things right. They have no right to cache my content IN THE FIRST PLACE. A polite thief who'll return your stuff "if you ask" is still a thief. I'll also note that these removal tools were only put in place after complaints and at least one lawsuit.

acidzebra · 09-02-2008, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

Nor does the fact that if you ask them to, they'll remove your stuff from the cache, make things right. They have no right to cache my content IN THE FIRST PLACE. A polite thief who'll return your stuff "if you ask" is still a thief. I'll also note that these removal tools were only put in place after complaints and at least one lawsuit.

Again, by publishing your content on the WWW you are releasing a measure of control over your work. You have given implicit consent that complete strangers cache your content. You do it too, whenever you visit a site.

To stay in the strained physical object analogy, the situation is not an unlocked house and people entering and taking your stuff, it is like having a zero-cost matter compiler and dumping a complete replica of the house including interior decorations on every casual passerby.

Taylor514ce · 09-02-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acidzebra

Again, by publishing your content on the WWW you are releasing a measure of control over your work.

Wrong.

Though Google certainly agrees with you, to the extent that they will actually make complete copies (Fair Use? No way, we'll take the whole thing.), and then re-purpose the content to drive advertising. My web site becomes a Google ad engine. That's quite a "measure" of control. I don't recall authorizing that.

It's interesting on a site where e-book piracy is a hot topic, that very few see Google as the biggest pirate on the planet.

acidzebra · 09-02-2008, 05:56 PM

Yes, the internet was much better without search engines. I find your stance bizarre, but hey, we are obviously beyond the sarcastic flair of the opening (and I can never resist a snark, it is a character weakness) and into the doggedly-guarded trenches. Which I personally find less interesting. So I suggest you review US copyright law, copyright infringement, and the enforcement of copyright and go to it.

Taylor vs. the WWW

To get back on track, I do miss my extensions. I've switched back for now, but I hope they adopt the Firefox extension model.

Taylor514ce · 09-02-2008, 06:04 PM

Search engines? We're talking about Google, a public company that makes the vast majority of its money by selling advertising space. And we were never talking about the mechanics of search... you've veered wildly off course again.

"Suggest I study"? Which arrogantly implies you have superior knowledge of the topics you allude to? Or that my position can only be held by an ignorant, intellectually impoverished mind? Yes. Let's end the discussion on that note.

acidzebra · 09-02-2008, 06:14 PM

Ending the discussion works for me, but I'm not really into dichotomies. I can't reconcile myself with your stance (in fact, I'm getting a headache just trying to take your viewpoint) and you seem to think mine is all over the place so there really isn't a lot to discuss.

I view caching content and search engines (including companies who operate them) as one of the basic functions and cornerstones of the net, and fair use is not restricted to "just a little bit of my content". You put it on the WWW, other people cache it. Sometimes they even save it offline (and, relevant to MR, format-shift it). Proxies habitually copy it. I can't count the number of search engines out there which might have your stuff cached so people can search through it.

Again, the unlocked door and people taking stuff view doesn't really apply here. I was actually rather happy with the zero-cost matter compiler and dumping raw copies on every passer-by idea.

RickyMaveety · 09-02-2008, 07:40 PM

An interesting discussion. And, as I think about it carefully, I think Taylor may be technically correct. The fact that a person makes a website publicly available does not mean that have placed that information (artwork, whatever) in the "public domain."

Given that it would still be protected under the copyright laws (but of which nation ... there's a question for you .... nation of the author or artist, or nation of the server on which it is hosted??), then it would be subject to fair use (but again ... fair use under the laws of which nation??).

Fair use does not (in general ... I live in the US, so I tend to think in terms of US law) allow for the use of an entire work for commercial gain ... and I would think that caching an entire website in order to promote certain advertising would be in violation of fair use. I doubt that the fact that there is advertising on the search results page, where only snippets of each website are shown, would be a violation ... but the issue of caching itself is thornier.

In addition, what if the author chooses to remove the artwork or text from the net altogether. In that case, should people still be able to search for it? Recover the entire site?

I fear that the technology is too far ahead of the law in this case ... and the fact that we're talking about something that is international adds layer upon layer to the complexity of the argument.

My brain is doing back flips over the number of issues involved. All I can say is there are valid points on both sides of every issue I can think of.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I'm trying out the Google browser, and so far I rather like it. It seems fast and it's easy to organize things with it. I think the one thing I would need to have working with it to really like it would be Roboform .... however, knowing those guys, they will fix that pretty soon.

And .... I just got a call .... I'm expected at a party. Well, of course ... and I'm covered with paint. This should be fun.

Enola · 09-02-2008, 08:46 PM

I'm debating on whether to install Chrome and try it out... but when I went to Cnet.com, I saw this article - Be sure to read Chrome's fine print - which is making me hesitate.

Point #1, I don't really like it when I don't get to control the whether&when for updating my software... kinda like automatic bill payments - I have the money, but I still want to be able to say yes before you take it. I'm going to download the software's updates (not being technically savvy enough to second guess the developers), but I'd like to keep the right to say "know what? I don't want that on my PC".

Also, not sure of the implications of #2 that the writer points out, but it makes me uncomfortable. While I put my stuff (pictures, writings, blog entries, etc) out in the public domain I don't like the idea of anyone having the right to use my stuff to make money, just because I used their browser instead of Firefox or IE. Am I misunderstanding point #2?

Ervserver · 09-02-2008, 11:52 PM

Good so far

RickyMaveety · 09-03-2008, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enola

I'm debating on whether to install Chrome and try it out... but when I went to Cnet.com, I saw this article - Be sure to read Chrome's fine print - which is making me hesitate.

Point #1, I don't really like it when I don't get to control the whether&when for updating my software... kinda like automatic bill payments - I have the money, but I still want to be able to say yes before you take it. I'm going to download the software's updates (not being technically savvy enough to second guess the developers), but I'd like to keep the right to say "know what? I don't want that on my PC".

Also, not sure of the implications of #2 that the writer points out, but it makes me uncomfortable. While I put my stuff (pictures, writings, blog entries, etc) out in the public domain I don't like the idea of anyone having the right to use my stuff to make money, just because I used their browser instead of Firefox or IE. Am I misunderstanding point #2?

Keep in mind that those are the same "terms of service" for ALL of the Google products .... so when you use Google Maps, or just the Google search engine, you are agreeing to exactly those terms of service.

Can I assume that everybody read the terms of service related to using the Google search engine?? Everybody real clear about what you have all already agreed to?? If not .... I suggest you pop over to Google and read the terms of service. They relate to every product Google makes. Every last one of them. These terms are not unique to the Chrome browser ... why the author of the article didn't see fit to point that out ... well, I'll never know. Then again, perhaps he or she has never bothered to read a terms of service for any other of the Google products.

So .... I figure, since I've been using the search engine for a long time now, and since in using that product, I've already agreed to their terms of service, then adding one more Google product to the line up isn't going to change much in my personal universe.

garygibsonsf · 09-03-2008, 12:21 AM

Some of us will have to wait until we can try it, since it isn't ready for Mac yet, unfortunately. But I did spend twenty minutes reading the forty page comic Scott McCloud did describing the browser's inner workings (much of which, alas, was too technical for my pointy little head). I don't have the address to hand,but I suspect typing "Scott McCloud" and "chrome" into your browser will get you there.

basschick · 09-03-2008, 01:52 AM

cheer up, Taylor514ce - some of us do get it. and i wish there was a way to allow google to spider and list sites without them downloading them at will. they do usually respond pretty well to a DCMA, btw, so there's no need to take them to court.

09-02-2008, 05:35 PM	#18
acidzebra Liseuse Lover Posts: 869 Karma: 1035404 Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Netherlands Device: PRS-505	And this web site was not in any way, shape, or form part of the larger internet (I'd call it world wide web but seriously, that battle was fought)? Did not link to other sites, did not have other sites link to it? And again, here is Google's urgent removal request page: http://www.google.com/support/webmas...62&topic=13511 and the "how do I stop google from spidering me" page: http://www.google.com/support/webmas...08&topic=13511 Google will, if asked, remove your content. What more do you ask for? Not copying? Should I empty my browser cache every time I leave one of your pages? Fair use. Last edited by acidzebra; 09-02-2008 at 05:45 PM.

09-02-2008, 05:56 PM	#22
acidzebra Liseuse Lover Posts: 869 Karma: 1035404 Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Netherlands Device: PRS-505	Yes, the internet was much better without search engines. I find your stance bizarre, but hey, we are obviously beyond the sarcastic flair of the opening (and I can never resist a snark, it is a character weakness) and into the doggedly-guarded trenches. Which I personally find less interesting. So I suggest you review US copyright law, copyright infringement, and the enforcement of copyright and go to it. Taylor vs. the WWW To get back on track, I do miss my extensions. I've switched back for now, but I hope they adopt the Firefox extension model. Last edited by acidzebra; 09-02-2008 at 05:58 PM.

09-02-2008, 06:14 PM	#24
acidzebra Liseuse Lover Posts: 869 Karma: 1035404 Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Netherlands Device: PRS-505	Ending the discussion works for me, but I'm not really into dichotomies. I can't reconcile myself with your stance (in fact, I'm getting a headache just trying to take your viewpoint) and you seem to think mine is all over the place so there really isn't a lot to discuss. I view caching content and search engines (including companies who operate them) as one of the basic functions and cornerstones of the net, and fair use is not restricted to "just a little bit of my content". You put it on the WWW, other people cache it. Sometimes they even save it offline (and, relevant to MR, format-shift it). Proxies habitually copy it. I can't count the number of search engines out there which might have your stuff cached so people can search through it. Again, the unlocked door and people taking stuff view doesn't really apply here. I was actually rather happy with the zero-cost matter compiler and dumping raw copies on every passer-by idea. Last edited by acidzebra; 09-02-2008 at 06:22 PM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
HTC Google Chrome OS tablet - more info	SameOldStory	News	5	08-23-2010 07:05 PM
Sony uses Chrome as default browser	pking36330	News	42	09-04-2009 03:54 PM
Wierd warning from google chrome!!	mklynds	Feedback	3	06-13-2009 02:30 AM
Google Planning Web Browser?	Liqiud	Lounge	0	01-27-2005 07:39 PM

09-02-2008, 05:32 PM	#16
Taylor514ce Actively passive. Posts: 2,042 Karma: 478376 Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: US Device: Sony PRS-505/LC	What? I'm not talking about "the internet". Again, privacy isn't the issue. Stay on track, here. I'm talking about web sites. Content I've created and made available for specific uses. When someone takes that content, copies it, and puts it to their own commercial uses, it's theft. And to try to get this back on topic, I wouldn't use a browser from a company with Google's track record in regard to privacy and intellectual property.

09-02-2008, 05:44 PM	#19
Taylor514ce Actively passive. Posts: 2,042 Karma: 478376 Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: US Device: Sony PRS-505/LC	@pilotbob: there have been lawsuits. I have not been a part of them. Google has also been sued for indiscriminately scanning books... they scaled back their operation, but big business has won the day, for now. @acidzebra: You are being vague in your terms. The "internet" and "the web" are not one and the same. Google doesn't own any part of "the internet" (well, except for their servers, but you know what I mean, I hope), nor do they own any part of any web site I've created, though they operate as if they do. Linking to other sites, or other sites linking to me, doesn't confer any rights to Google. I'm not sure where you're trying to go with your counterarguments, as they don't seem to address the points I've made. Nor does the fact that if you ask them to, they'll remove your stuff from the cache, make things right. They have no right to cache my content IN THE FIRST PLACE. A polite thief who'll return your stuff "if you ask" is still a thief. I'll also note that these removal tools were only put in place after complaints and at least one lawsuit.

09-02-2008, 06:04 PM	#23
Taylor514ce Actively passive. Posts: 2,042 Karma: 478376 Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: US Device: Sony PRS-505/LC	Search engines? We're talking about Google, a public company that makes the vast majority of its money by selling advertising space. And we were never talking about the mechanics of search... you've veered wildly off course again. "Suggest I study"? Which arrogantly implies you have superior knowledge of the topics you allude to? Or that my position can only be held by an ignorant, intellectually impoverished mind? Yes. Let's end the discussion on that note.

09-02-2008, 07:40 PM	#25
RickyMaveety Holy S**T!!! Posts: 5,213 Karma: 108401 Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: San Diego, California!! Device: Kindle and iPad	An interesting discussion. And, as I think about it carefully, I think Taylor may be technically correct. The fact that a person makes a website publicly available does not mean that have placed that information (artwork, whatever) in the "public domain." Given that it would still be protected under the copyright laws (but of which nation ... there's a question for you .... nation of the author or artist, or nation of the server on which it is hosted??), then it would be subject to fair use (but again ... fair use under the laws of which nation??). Fair use does not (in general ... I live in the US, so I tend to think in terms of US law) allow for the use of an entire work for commercial gain ... and I would think that caching an entire website in order to promote certain advertising would be in violation of fair use. I doubt that the fact that there is advertising on the search results page, where only snippets of each website are shown, would be a violation ... but the issue of caching itself is thornier. In addition, what if the author chooses to remove the artwork or text from the net altogether. In that case, should people still be able to search for it? Recover the entire site? I fear that the technology is too far ahead of the law in this case ... and the fact that we're talking about something that is international adds layer upon layer to the complexity of the argument. My brain is doing back flips over the number of issues involved. All I can say is there are valid points on both sides of every issue I can think of. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I'm trying out the Google browser, and so far I rather like it. It seems fast and it's easy to organize things with it. I think the one thing I would need to have working with it to really like it would be Roboform .... however, knowing those guys, they will fix that pretty soon. And .... I just got a call .... I'm expected at a party. Well, of course ... and I'm covered with paint. This should be fun.

09-02-2008, 08:46 PM	#26
Enola Member Posts: 22 Karma: 78 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Virginia Device: PRS-650	I'm debating on whether to install Chrome and try it out... but when I went to Cnet.com, I saw this article - Be sure to read Chrome's fine print - which is making me hesitate. Point #1, I don't really like it when I don't get to control the whether&when for updating my software... kinda like automatic bill payments - I have the money, but I still want to be able to say yes before you take it. I'm going to download the software's updates (not being technically savvy enough to second guess the developers), but I'd like to keep the right to say "know what? I don't want that on my PC". Also, not sure of the implications of #2 that the writer points out, but it makes me uncomfortable. While I put my stuff (pictures, writings, blog entries, etc) out in the public domain I don't like the idea of anyone having the right to use my stuff to make money, just because I used their browser instead of Firefox or IE. Am I misunderstanding point #2?

09-02-2008, 11:52 PM	#27
Ervserver Wizard Posts: 2,624 Karma: 1008294 Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Iowa, USA Device: Nook Simple Touch	Good so far

09-03-2008, 12:21 AM	#29
garygibsonsf Addict Posts: 321 Karma: 432192 Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Glasgow, Scotland Device: Amazon Kindle Paperwhite	Some of us will have to wait until we can try it, since it isn't ready for Mac yet, unfortunately. But I did spend twenty minutes reading the forty page comic Scott McCloud did describing the browser's inner workings (much of which, alas, was too technical for my pointy little head). I don't have the address to hand,but I suspect typing "Scott McCloud" and "chrome" into your browser will get you there.

09-03-2008, 01:52 AM	#30
basschick Wizard Posts: 1,096 Karma: 4695691 Join Date: May 2008 Device: Kindle Paperwhite	cheer up, Taylor514ce - some of us do get it. and i wish there was a way to allow google to spider and list sites without them downloading them at will. they do usually respond pretty well to a DCMA, btw, so there's no need to take them to court.

Advert

Advert