View Single Post
Old 11-19-2013, 03:19 PM   #71
eschwartz
Ex-Helpdesk Junkie
eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eschwartz ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
eschwartz's Avatar
 
Posts: 19,421
Karma: 85400180
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: The Beaten Path, USA, Roundworld, This Side of Infinity
Device: Kindle Touch fw5.3.7 (Wifi only)
Quote:
Originally Posted by speakingtohe View Post
I was quoting you on Google making money as it appeared to be your closing argument. Perhaps you meant it differently. I think it has a bearing on their intent and in fact making money is not a bad thing.

My personal interest in Google being a better search engine does not seem that important in the grand scheme of life. Sometimes I have to use another engine.

Google does honor takedown notices in regards to other website's content as I am sure you are aware, but seem to feel they themselves should be exempt because it would cost them money. What's up with that do you think?

Helen
I meant it somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
Making money isn't bad at all, it's HOW they make money that's a problem. It seems to me that Google is not making money through exploitation of copyright, so it's all good.

GOOGLE feels it is important to be the best, which is all that matters -- for them. It is their motivation to be what they are.

What takedown notices have they refused on the grounds it is too expensive?
eschwartz is offline   Reply With Quote