New Google Chrome Browser

[Over]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Wow. Well, it hasn't crashed once for me in two days of using it ... so I'm amazed that you had that much trouble.

The strangest thing is that it loaded the webpage normally and then an overriding screen blocked the view saying something like "oops, this crashed, try reloading again". Reloading didn't fix it. Closing and opening the browser didn't either.

I guess google isn't my friend.

[jamesdmanley]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Well, that's nearly every company in modern day commerce ... so get ready to start not trusting a whole lot of people. Not saying you aren't right ... just that that's how it is. If you are really protective of your private information:

1. Don't register at any site anywhere. Not even a place like MR;
2. Don't make purchases anywhere online;
3. Don't apply for credit cards;
4. Don't purchase real property;
5. Don't use either a credit or debit card at the grocery store.

Yep ... even your local grocery store is collecting data on what you purchase and when ... unless you use cash.

So ... I understand your wish to keep your data private, I just wonder if you have any idea exactly how many companies are mining it for their use??

wow youre right! i should just forfeit my right to privacy regarding my browsing habits and subject myself to targeted advertising in the name of consumerism. ps, i have never once received junk mail from my grocery store. they track inventory no matter the payment method, and marketing is not their BUSINESS PLAN. maybe youre right about the MR thing though.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by jamesdmanley

wow youre right! i should just forfeit my right to privacy regarding my browsing habits and subject myself to targeted advertising in the name of consumerism. ps, i have never once received junk mail from my grocery store. they track inventory no matter the payment method, and marketing is not their BUSINESS PLAN. maybe youre right about the MR thing though.

I'm not saying that .... what I am saying, and thought I said fairly clearly, is that if you really want to protect your personal information, buying habits included, then there are some things you should seriously consider.

Your grocery store isn't sending you junk mail. How nice for you. Most of the ones I shop at do send out advertising circulars on a regular basis. However, all of the major chains in the United States do track individual shoppers purchases ... if they pay with either a debit or credit card. That way they they are able to target certain types of advertising to certain shoppers. This is nothing new, they've been doing it for something like 15 years now.

Of course they aren't in the business of collecting data. They are in the grocery business ... but does that mean that you trust that company with your personal data?? Because they sell groceries?? And, of course, you read the small print in the credit or debit ... or grocery store "membership" card ... the one that says the company may choose to share certain of your personal data to affiliated companies? You are aware that they do that sort of thing, right??

Hey ... make light of it if it makes you feel better. It's all water off my back. However, I do think that before you blast Google for collecting data, you should look long and hard at all of the companies that collect and even sell your personal data every day of the week.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Over

The strangest thing is that it loaded the webpage normally and then an overriding screen blocked the view saying something like "oops, this crashed, try reloading again". Reloading didn't fix it. Closing and opening the browser didn't either.

I guess google isn't my friend.

Hey, it happens. I was trying out Firefox ... and it apparently doesn't like me (or my computer) very much at all. I've never seen more blue screens of death than when I was using Firefox. So, right now I've got either three or four browsers on my system (it depends on whether or not I removed IE ... I honestly cannot remember) ... Maxthon, Firefox, and now Chrome.

I still like my old copy of Maxthon, if only because it's tab system is a bit more intuitive and I can use Roboform. Firefox will let me use Roboform, but I would prefer an option that allows me to force a new tab under most situations.

Chrome has a tab structure that I think I rather like ... but, as mentioned, I can't use my Roboform, and that's a downside.

Eh ... we'll see. It's possible that I'll just go back to Maxthon in the end.

[Taylor514ce]

I write a book. Sure, I want attention for that book. Do I get to decide how I market my book, or not? What about how it's packaged? If I decide to give it away for free, do I forfeit my right to publicize it how I choose? Does charging or not charging affect my rights?

If my neighbor gets my book, makes photocopies of it, then goes to advertisers and says "I have a book about X, do you want to advertise to people who are interested in X?", and sells advertising space on the photocopies of my book, pockets all the proceeds (after all, those photocopies cost money to make) and then distributes these indiscriminately around town, does that violate my rights? Should I turn a blind eye, because after all, it brings my book attention? If my neighbor gives away, or sells, copies of my book, without my permission, does that violate my rights, or not? Hey, if it's free, does it even matter? What if I want limited distribution? What if I want to track how many copies I distribute? What if I want, for whatever reason, for every reader to come directly to me for a copy of the book? Do I have that right, or not?

Do I have to explicitly forbid these actions, telling all my neighbors that they aren't allowed to make copies of my copyrighted work and re-purpose it for their own commercial gain?

What if I steal someone else's book, and give it to this "neighbor". Would they be an accomplice to distributing stolen work, or not?

What if this book was controversial or subversive, and the neighbor kept track of everyone they gave a copy of it to? Would that be alright? Would you trust this neighbor?

Substitute "Google" for "my neighbor" and "my book" for "my web page" and "site visitors" for "readers". Does that alter my rights?

This is my last post on the topic. Answer, or don't answer the questions, as they are rhetorical. I'll read any replies but won't respond, having already said all I have to say about it.

I'm posting this as food for thought, and to help those who genuinely want to understand my (unpopular) viewpoint.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

I was trying out Firefox ... and it apparently doesn't like me (or my computer) very much at all.

Firefox will let me use Roboform, but I would prefer an option that allows me to force a new tab under most situations.

Are you using Firefox 3? It is much more stable and menu friendly? I use Roboform with Firefox... what you do you mean "force a new tab? Firefox tabs are pretty customizable.

BOb

[acidzebra]

@Taylor: Metaphor... straining... sense... fading.

Seriously, how does google steal your site? If I go to the google search page to search on a keyword and your site comes up, I see a small excepts (and ads) while I am still on Google's page. Then I click the link, and I get taken to your page, where you can track to your heart's content. When I access the Google cache, it puts a big fat notice at the top. The rest of your examples have as far as I can tell no bearing at all to the whole Google issue, although I'm sure you feel they do.

If you don't want to get spidered on the internet, you put up a robots.txt. If you want more restrictions, use a challenge/response system. If you want even more restrictions, don't put it on the freaking internet to begin with.

I can just see any search engine company having to approach X billion content creators who post in a public place whether they can please access the publicly-posted content. Might as well close down the WWW.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

Substitute "Google" for "my neighbor" and "my book" for "my web page" and "site visitors" for "readers". Does that alter my rights?

I'm not sure how to state this more clearly. The US court system has already ruled that Google's cache is legal and does not infringe on copyright.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I'm not sure how to state this more clearly. The US court system has already ruled that Google's cache is legal and does not infringe on copyright.

And the US Court system only has jurisdiction in the United States. So .... what about the rest of the world?? Or, are they only allowed to cache from sites hosted in the US??

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Are you using Firefox 3? It is much more stable and menu friendly? I use Roboform with Firefox... what you do you mean "force a new tab? Firefox tabs are pretty customizable.

BOb

It says it is version 3.01 so yes. And .... I do use Roboform with Firefox. I mentioned that. It's only the new Chrome browser that does not use Roboform .... yet.

What I mean about the tabs is that Maxthon had an option that you could choose that opened up a new tab whenever you clicked on a link in an open page. So far, I have not found that same option in Firefox.

So, unless I specifically open the page in another tab, and THEN click on the link ... when I am using Firefox if I click on a link on a page ... then the page I was viewing is replaced by the new link. There are times I don't want that to happen ... mostly because I want to go back and forth between the pages (like, for example ... when someone brings up an article that they reference, and I want to post a reply that includes material from that article).

And ... that's what I mean when I say "force a tab" .... having the option to force the browser to create a new tab anytime you click a link. FF 3.01 doesn't do that for me. Maxthon and Chrome both do that.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

And ... that's what I mean when I say "force a tab" .... having the option to force the browser to create a new tab anytime you click a link. FF 3.01 doesn't do that for me. Maxthon and Chrome both do that.

Ok, I thought you meant something like that. Did you know if you "middle-click" you get a new tab... so you can decide. Left-click and your current tab is replaced with the new page, middle-click and a new tab opens. Also, in settings you can decided if you want a new tab to come to the front or stay in the background.

This also works for bookmarks. I use this all the time.

BOb

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

And the US Court system only has jurisdiction in the United States. So .... what about the rest of the world?? Or, are they only allowed to cache from sites hosted in the US??

Based on Taylor's profile he's in the US, so what the US courts have said apply to him. I don't know how other parts of the world have ruled on this (or even if they have yet).

[acidzebra]

From Gizmodo:

Google has responded with haste to the huge outcry about a section in Chrome's EULA that gives Google "a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license" to do all kinds of dirty stuff—in public no less—to content you post through Chrome. Rebecca Ward, Senior Product Counsel for Google Chrome, told Ars that it's actually an oopsie from basically copying and pasting the same EULA it uses in other products, and that they're updating it as fast as they can to remove the ridiculous terms.

She says that Google is

"working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service. This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome."

Stupid blunder, really. Even though they were rushed into a release, that was pretty sloppy. Or... were they? :shifty-eyes-icon:

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

And ... that's what I mean when I say "force a tab" .... having the option to force the browser to create a new tab anytime you click a link. FF 3.01 doesn't do that for me. Maxthon and Chrome both do that.

You want the Tabmix Plus extension. That allows complete freedom over when tabs should be opened, how they should be opened, and all kinds of nifty tab-related stuff. I've used it for a long time, the FF3 version is still in beta but works like a charm. You can also configure a lot of this using about:config.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Based on Taylor's profile he's in the US, so what the US courts have said apply to him. I don't know how other parts of the world have ruled on this (or even if they have yet).

Well, no ... that's not how it works. You see, copyright laws have as much to do with the jurisdiction in which the work is published as it does with where the author resides or where they actually wrote the work.

That's why it can be a lot more complex than just "well, Taylor is in the US, therefore US copyright laws apply." What if Taylor "publishes" his work on a server in Europe? Then, shouldn't the copyright laws of whatever European country the server is based apply?? Especially if Taylor specifically chose that company to host the work because he preferred the copyright laws of that country??

Even if I am an American author ... if my publishing house of choice is in Britain, British copyright laws apply to that work. It's not all just a matter of nation of birth for authors, although we tend to think of it that way because it is easier ... it's just not quite correct.

In addition, I think that no matter what the US Courts have held, Taylor still has a very valid point that he's trying to make (and taking a lot of flak for it). Some of the people more or less whacking him upside his virtual head are arguing "the law" .... however, "the law" is not always just, moral, or even correct. Whatever the courts have held ... even if it's the US Supreme Court, people make a giant assumption that the justices, or even the attorneys who argued the case, had a great handle on how the internet really works. The politicians in the US certainly don't (it's a truck ... no, it's a series of tubes), so why should the legal establishment??

Next point ... why is it people are willing to assume that, because a court (again, even the Supreme Court of the US) has made a decision ... that it's anything more than just the "law" and we should all just leave it alone?? What if it's the wrong decision?? If you have any thought that the Supreme Court of this country is not capable of some really bone headed decisions, I suggest you read Dred Scott v. Sandford,[1] 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), and more recently Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1954). Sure ... it's the "law" .... it's just bad law.

And lower courts?? Don't even get me started. I remember reading one case where the court held .... as a matter of law no less ... that it was impossible for a person to have premeditated a murder because of the brutality of the crime. Seriously?? Just because you stabbed your victim 150 times, by law you can't be guilty of first degree murder?? WTF??? Well, there's a roadmap for a murderer who's literate and has access to some law books.

So, Taylor feels like he is being robbed of his copyright because of caching by search engines such as Google. I can see how he feels that way, despite what the law may or may not be. And ... I am still not convinced that the entire debate (even with regard to Taylor here in the US) rests with the US Courts ... because I would have to look at every one of those cases to see if there was subject matter jurisdiction .... it's a pesky little requirement, but given the state of the internet it's just not all that cut and dried.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

So, Taylor feels like he is being robbed of his copyright because of caching by search engines such as Google. I can see how he feels that way, despite what the law may or may not be.

I do appreciate how Taylor feels. My reaction, however, is that "this is the way that the web works". Content DOES get cached, over and over, at every stage in the browsing process - on the end user's machine, by search engines, by cache servers that many ISPs (eg AOL) and companies use. If one publishes content on the web then of course I accept that one retains the copyright to that material (unless one explicitly places it in the public domain), but I think that one has to accept that caching constitutes "fair use" simply because that IS the way that the web operates, and it's not going to stop working that way because someone objects to it. There are mechanisms in place to allow a site owner to say "this content shouldn't be cached", and those can be used if one explicitly wishes to prevent a page being cached.

You have to accept the web the way that it actually is. Complaining about it is NOT going to change it.