this case with google reminds me of something. a few years ago, it was illegal to use others' photographs because they were privately owned. then a case went through that made it perfectly legal to put up thumbs of others' photographs without violating their copyright. i believe the thumb size was not originally specified, but in any event, some might large "thumbs" seem to have fallen within that law. i personally thought that was pretty messed up. i wouldn't want the photos i shoot to be used by anyone, but by this law they are as long as they're not too big.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor514ce
Quite the opposite. Please carefully re-read my posts, if you choose. I am very cognizant that Google avoided judgment by means of this settlement. Make of that what you will. My opinion is that, knowing that they faced an adverse judgment, and not wanting to allow a precedent that undermines their entire business model, they chose instead to settle.
|
i work with a company that makes millions per month. they recently settled a suit from the ftc NOT because they thought they would lose but because they felt it would cost them more and be much more disruptive to their business if they fought the suit for years in court. i'd guess they were right because another company fought it and won - and was on their way to doing so when the other company's settlement was reached - but the second company also ended up going out of business as a result of years in hearings, laywers' offices and court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor514ce
And, as long as Google can simply buy their way out of legal judgment, arguing the legality of their actions is moot.
|
google is FAR from the only company to come to a settlement, or "buy" their way out of legal judgement, and while it tends to make people assume that the large companies are the bad guys, that isn't always the case. in fact, in many of those cases, the large company might have won - or at least not lost fully enough to satisfy all.