Google still allows (several of) their APIs to be used for free. In fact their free versions don't even require a key.
What requires a key is Google Earth - which is free "to a point" and their mobile api which is much more limited.
This makes sense to me. The free API drive traffic to Google's sites and ad revenue. The pay-for APIs are really targeting the Apples and other large users - and as stated by previous posters - Google doesn't benefit from supporting their largest competitors who are not also driving ad-revenue back to them.
Also, not sure about the rest of the users here.... I'm not seeing the Exodus. Every once in a while I see a Bling map - and that is really it. And no one has an API that is as fast or as polished as Google's (and yes I'm talking about Google's free service) or as supported by such a huge developers community.
Every successful company will have its haters. But it's sad to see hating just because of success. Google's not abusing its power here, and I think they are well aware of where their success comes from - which parallels very closely the values found here on Techdirt.
Sure IP protection is part of it... but maybe it's really about creation. The Internet has become the distribution channel that anyone can utilize for virtually pennies. (probably 100% free if you tried hard enough).
It may not be a truly concerted effort, but listen to how media "controllers" have tried to stem their "members" from using Twitter and keeping reporters from "blogging" (See MLB, NFL, Reuters, AP, etc).
The democratization of publication is the real threat. Performers making (real) money without the need for record contracts or multi-million dollar tours / ad campaigns - wow - if that's not a threat to the recording industry.....
Plus honest reviews, people getting what they want, when they want it - wow again. The media strong hold is really losing control. They can't control the message, the merchandise, nor the content. What is their reason for being? No wonder they are freaked out.
I have an idea that I think would be fun to try. You see everything in digital form is nothing more than numbers. In fact the entire collection of all digital stuff can be boiled down to one single number (albeit a huge number).
But with a little math fun, you can make those number more accessible, and with a the right "player" you can turn those numbers into songs, videos, games, text, etc.
A sight can list Songs (or videos, or games, or stories, or PDF, or word docs or what-ever favorite content type is). And associated with that content will be number. That number can be a hash number.
So this is not linking to content. This is not holding content. This is not a copy of the content. It's simply a hash number of the digital streams of 1 and 0 that make up that content. The thing about hash codes it's that they are not unique. They are "unique enough" to verify content, but you can't simple look at the hash and figure out what the content was..... Unless you know how many iterations to go through.
So beside the hash code is an iteration count. So with three pieces of information: The title, the hash code for the content, and the iteration number of the hash, you could devise a player that could expand a hash-code to it's original content. The three pieces of information could even be spread out among 3 different servers.
My guess is that if this were to take off, new laws would eventually be created to prevent the hashing of copy-righted content. But in the meantime.....
I'm anxious for the day when Apple can't sell any of it's products, Sony can't import Playstation, Artist can't record music for record companies, and drugs can't be made by anyone.
When Fox Searchlight is kept from production because it's getting sued by Disney, when Pixar can't create new rendering techniques to show off in a new movie because they violate software patents, and the NFL can't be broadcasted over the air because it contributes to piracy.
That will be a good day. Because then all these media-moguls and patent abusers die. What will survive? The coming (3d) desktop revolution, indie productions, and direct-to-consumer goods, services, and entertainment.
As soon as as the law favors copy-right holders to the extent that simply thinking that someone is infringing requires a take-down notice, the first thing I'm going to do is write a script to send take-down notices for everything Viacom produces, everything Clear-Channel broadcasts, everything Disney exploits, and everything Fox reports on.
I disagree that it's incompetence. I think they fully know the law and know how to stall. In theory they could have been held in contempt of court....but they haven't been.
This is like watching a dance between the White House and Congress. From the outside it's bewildering. From the inside it's a well orchestrated chess match.
Clearly RightHaven is not going to win, but at this point they are playing not to loose. So all they have left is their king. They'll be moving that sucker all over the board hoping for a stale-mate.
Maybe they would rather go to jail than hand over documents or pay monies. Don't be surprised to find documents "accidentally" destroyed.
I love the show... but I noticed once the "Interns" started doing stuff that their approach to "safety" was much different than Adam's and Jamie's.
In one episode you could see Adam and Jamie seething with anger after "the kids" built a device in some sort of hanger that nearly killed them. After that episode it's been rare to see Adam and Jamie on the set when the "kids" were doing something explosives related.
This is just my impression - maybe wrongly.
**********
I also have a beef with Adam and Jamie. Those who watch and dare I say worship them, are the Makers and Geeks of the DIY / Open Source / Open Hardware / Open Data movement. They seem to be insulated from this fact, and I think it's sad.
"....My take is he wanted to show how LACK of creative people trickles down and eliminates jobs selling their products, while also stating that he thinks there IS a real shortage of creative people..."
Of course this is what Timberg is implying! But why do you agree with this? Amazon's making billions selling creative goods, iTunes is making billions selling creative goods, NetFlix is making billions, despite some very big f*ck ups lately, selling creative goods. And that's just the "creative goods" you and Timberg are focusing on.
Take a moment and branch out a bit. See Makezine, Thingiverse, Etsy, flickr, and YouTube. The world is full of creative people. Many of them are making a buck a two - some are making millions.
They just aren't selling their goods at Tower Records (which was Mike's point) - and THAT trickle down is killing the record shop business.
"...if people use pieces and bits of something to create something new others shouldn't be able ever to stop anybody from doing it...."
Is changing the title enough to claim it a "derivative art?" How about just the character names in a story other-wise copied word-for-word?
Is "incorporating" a 3 minute "bit" of a 4 minute video legal? How about 3:59? Or is okay claim all 4 minutes as yours? What if I run it backwards and call it "Your video - backwards". Is that a now a distinct piece of art that I can charge for and not give you a dime for your hard work?
I don't know where the limits are. Maybe there are none. Maybe all art should be free and artist should produce Art for nothing more than a free loft, a loaf of bread, and a blanket to make a bed out of.
I know as a software developer I would be ticked off if someone were to sell/give away my code without my permission. That is my livelihood, and unless you're paying me to write the code - then you don't have a right to change the colors and call it your own.
How about this. Take your idea - and screw the record industry. Keep turntable.fm operational, and use the Point-to-Point functionality of the (soon to be "standard") HTML 5 standard (or at least the web-sockets standard).
Google is already planning serverless applications (think Skype implemented in Javascript) - at least that's my understanding. What this means is that if there is a route - there's a way.
Example - Joe has access to Turntable.fm. You have peer-to-peer access to Joe. Now you have a live unblockable proxy to Turntable.fm.
Does it matter who "owns" the electronic "copy" if it is deemed that personal backups on cloud devices are legal (as I suspect they will be)?
In other words can John share his locker with Ben as long as they are not both listening to the music in two different places at the same time? In the same way that physical media can be borrowed?
If that is legal, then note: Why couldn't Pandora do the same? Or your local library for that matter? As long as only one device is receiving the stream at a time, then you could make the argument that if the service purchased the music, and as long as only a single person (device) was listening at a time, then there are no additional licensing that needs to be paid. And if you want to stream the same song to more than one device at a time? Easy - buy multiple copies. Still no need to pay recurring licenses from that point on.
I was the primary developer for the Rhode Island Open Meetings project for the Rhode Island Secretary of State.
The project required all of the governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to post their meeting notices within 24 hours of the meeting being held and voluntary posting of minutes after the fact. Basically if they did not post the notice with our system, then by law, the meeting didn't happen. It was a proud moment when the first constituent complaints started to trickle in, forcing local government boards to start doing a lot of explaining... and having to re-hold meetings until they started following the law.
What was most disturbing, and most predictable, was that the general assembly, probably the one governmental body that generates the most interest..... conveniently wrote themselves out of the law.
Ballsy and unscrupulous. Without resorting to extreme profanity, I have no idea how else to describe politicians.
XS - do you know for fact it's a service vs an app?
From the user perspective the difference is probably immaterial, but from a technology perspective it's key.
A service implies that ZITE is collecting, manipulating, and rebroadcasting content. If the App is reading publicly available web content, there is no law that states that the HTML code (markup) must be respected. Are you under a different impression?
Using the logos is probably the biggest issue here. You can't claim or imply that Time Mag consents, much less contributes to, your app when in fact they do not.
But as long as the App is not reaching behind a paywall (even a "free" paywall) then I would have to agree that this is really just a browser. There is no law that I know of that requires a browser to respect HTML markup. So if the content provider puts their content on the web for free-global consumption, then the content will be consumed by all.
If you don't get that, then you don't get the Internet. That simple.
Not so fast....
Google still allows (several of) their APIs to be used for free. In fact their free versions don't even require a key.
What requires a key is Google Earth - which is free "to a point" and their mobile api which is much more limited.
This makes sense to me. The free API drive traffic to Google's sites and ad revenue. The pay-for APIs are really targeting the Apples and other large users - and as stated by previous posters - Google doesn't benefit from supporting their largest competitors who are not also driving ad-revenue back to them.
Also, not sure about the rest of the users here.... I'm not seeing the Exodus. Every once in a while I see a Bling map - and that is really it. And no one has an API that is as fast or as polished as Google's (and yes I'm talking about Google's free service) or as supported by such a huge developers community.
Every successful company will have its haters. But it's sad to see hating just because of success. Google's not abusing its power here, and I think they are well aware of where their success comes from - which parallels very closely the values found here on Techdirt.
-CF
You still pay for TV?
Happily sans Cable since 2000.
-CF
I wonder if THIS is really it?
You may have nailed it.
Sure IP protection is part of it... but maybe it's really about creation. The Internet has become the distribution channel that anyone can utilize for virtually pennies. (probably 100% free if you tried hard enough).
It may not be a truly concerted effort, but listen to how media "controllers" have tried to stem their "members" from using Twitter and keeping reporters from "blogging" (See MLB, NFL, Reuters, AP, etc).
The democratization of publication is the real threat. Performers making (real) money without the need for record contracts or multi-million dollar tours / ad campaigns - wow - if that's not a threat to the recording industry.....
Plus honest reviews, people getting what they want, when they want it - wow again. The media strong hold is really losing control. They can't control the message, the merchandise, nor the content. What is their reason for being? No wonder they are freaked out.
-CF
How to outlaw numbers
I have an idea that I think would be fun to try. You see everything in digital form is nothing more than numbers. In fact the entire collection of all digital stuff can be boiled down to one single number (albeit a huge number).
But with a little math fun, you can make those number more accessible, and with a the right "player" you can turn those numbers into songs, videos, games, text, etc.
A sight can list Songs (or videos, or games, or stories, or PDF, or word docs or what-ever favorite content type is). And associated with that content will be number. That number can be a hash number.
So this is not linking to content. This is not holding content. This is not a copy of the content. It's simply a hash number of the digital streams of 1 and 0 that make up that content. The thing about hash codes it's that they are not unique. They are "unique enough" to verify content, but you can't simple look at the hash and figure out what the content was..... Unless you know how many iterations to go through.
So beside the hash code is an iteration count. So with three pieces of information: The title, the hash code for the content, and the iteration number of the hash, you could devise a player that could expand a hash-code to it's original content. The three pieces of information could even be spread out among 3 different servers.
My guess is that if this were to take off, new laws would eventually be created to prevent the hashing of copy-righted content. But in the meantime.....
-CF
Bite in the butt
I'm anxious for the day when Apple can't sell any of it's products, Sony can't import Playstation, Artist can't record music for record companies, and drugs can't be made by anyone.
When Fox Searchlight is kept from production because it's getting sued by Disney, when Pixar can't create new rendering techniques to show off in a new movie because they violate software patents, and the NFL can't be broadcasted over the air because it contributes to piracy.
That will be a good day. Because then all these media-moguls and patent abusers die. What will survive? The coming (3d) desktop revolution, indie productions, and direct-to-consumer goods, services, and entertainment.
As soon as as the law favors copy-right holders to the extent that simply thinking that someone is infringing requires a take-down notice, the first thing I'm going to do is write a script to send take-down notices for everything Viacom produces, everything Clear-Channel broadcasts, everything Disney exploits, and everything Fox reports on.
-CF
Re: And so history repeats itself
Except that Jobs isn't around this time to save them.
-CF
Re: LLC
LLC IS a Corporation (Limited Liability Corporation).
It's not incompetence
I disagree that it's incompetence. I think they fully know the law and know how to stall. In theory they could have been held in contempt of court....but they haven't been.
This is like watching a dance between the White House and Congress. From the outside it's bewildering. From the inside it's a well orchestrated chess match.
Clearly RightHaven is not going to win, but at this point they are playing not to loose. So all they have left is their king. They'll be moving that sucker all over the board hoping for a stale-mate.
Maybe they would rather go to jail than hand over documents or pay monies. Don't be surprised to find documents "accidentally" destroyed.
-CF
I love Myth Busters.... But....
I love the show... but I noticed once the "Interns" started doing stuff that their approach to "safety" was much different than Adam's and Jamie's.
In one episode you could see Adam and Jamie seething with anger after "the kids" built a device in some sort of hanger that nearly killed them. After that episode it's been rare to see Adam and Jamie on the set when the "kids" were doing something explosives related.
This is just my impression - maybe wrongly.
**********
I also have a beef with Adam and Jamie. Those who watch and dare I say worship them, are the Makers and Geeks of the DIY / Open Source / Open Hardware / Open Data movement. They seem to be insulated from this fact, and I think it's sad.
-CF
Re: "As far as I can tell..." -- Problem is your lack of acuity, then.
"....My take is he wanted to show how LACK of creative people trickles down and eliminates jobs selling their products, while also stating that he thinks there IS a real shortage of creative people..."
Of course this is what Timberg is implying! But why do you agree with this? Amazon's making billions selling creative goods, iTunes is making billions selling creative goods, NetFlix is making billions, despite some very big f*ck ups lately, selling creative goods. And that's just the "creative goods" you and Timberg are focusing on.
Take a moment and branch out a bit. See Makezine, Thingiverse, Etsy, flickr, and YouTube. The world is full of creative people. Many of them are making a buck a two - some are making millions.
They just aren't selling their goods at Tower Records (which was Mike's point) - and THAT trickle down is killing the record shop business.
-CF
Re: Re:
Screw fair use....If you advertise "unlimited" then you can't be mad because some uses it in an unlimited fashion. Period.
Re: Re: Re: Fight lobby with lobby?
This doesn't happen because even though Congress only gets a 25-30% approval rating, everyone likes "their" congressman.
The surest way to piss off the American people is to bilk the American taxpayer for billions of dollars.
The surest way to lose the next election is to leave billions of dollars of federal money on the table.
-CF
Just flip the argument
When ever I hear this argument (that NetFlix, Google, et al) are getting a free ride, I like to flip the argument.
How much should Google, NetFlix, etc, charge the ISP for access to their content?
How dare ISPs connect to all this content and services, web sites, and web apps - FOR FREE!!!???
Content providers should be charging the ISPs by the bitload!
-CF
Facebook to be come the game platform...for now
I've seen three distinct camps evolve since Google launched Google+
1. Google Fan Boys (of which I suppose I am one) joining G+ because it's just like Facebook - but it's not Facebook.
2. Facebook non-apologist who will stick with Facebook because they like the games.
3. Google haters who refuse G+ and will stick with FB until MS gets their Soc Net going....
-CF
Re: Re: To what limit?
"...if people use pieces and bits of something to create something new others shouldn't be able ever to stop anybody from doing it...."
Is changing the title enough to claim it a "derivative art?" How about just the character names in a story other-wise copied word-for-word?
Is "incorporating" a 3 minute "bit" of a 4 minute video legal? How about 3:59? Or is okay claim all 4 minutes as yours? What if I run it backwards and call it "Your video - backwards". Is that a now a distinct piece of art that I can charge for and not give you a dime for your hard work?
I don't know where the limits are. Maybe there are none. Maybe all art should be free and artist should produce Art for nothing more than a free loft, a loaf of bread, and a blanket to make a bed out of.
I know as a software developer I would be ticked off if someone were to sell/give away my code without my permission. That is my livelihood, and unless you're paying me to write the code - then you don't have a right to change the colors and call it your own.
-CF
HTML 5/web-sockets Rerouter
How about this. Take your idea - and screw the record industry. Keep turntable.fm operational, and use the Point-to-Point functionality of the (soon to be "standard") HTML 5 standard (or at least the web-sockets standard).
Google is already planning serverless applications (think Skype implemented in Javascript) - at least that's my understanding. What this means is that if there is a route - there's a way.
Example - Joe has access to Turntable.fm. You have peer-to-peer access to Joe. Now you have a live unblockable proxy to Turntable.fm.
Let the revolution commence!
-CF
Implication RE Internet Radio
So here is a question to the TD peeps.
Does it matter who "owns" the electronic "copy" if it is deemed that personal backups on cloud devices are legal (as I suspect they will be)?
In other words can John share his locker with Ben as long as they are not both listening to the music in two different places at the same time? In the same way that physical media can be borrowed?
If that is legal, then note: Why couldn't Pandora do the same? Or your local library for that matter? As long as only one device is receiving the stream at a time, then you could make the argument that if the service purchased the music, and as long as only a single person (device) was listening at a time, then there are no additional licensing that needs to be paid. And if you want to stream the same song to more than one device at a time? Easy - buy multiple copies. Still no need to pay recurring licenses from that point on.
Am I missing something?
-CF
Been there... Done that....
I was the primary developer for the Rhode Island Open Meetings project for the Rhode Island Secretary of State.
The project required all of the governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to post their meeting notices within 24 hours of the meeting being held and voluntary posting of minutes after the fact. Basically if they did not post the notice with our system, then by law, the meeting didn't happen. It was a proud moment when the first constituent complaints started to trickle in, forcing local government boards to start doing a lot of explaining... and having to re-hold meetings until they started following the law.
What was most disturbing, and most predictable, was that the general assembly, probably the one governmental body that generates the most interest..... conveniently wrote themselves out of the law.
Ballsy and unscrupulous. Without resorting to extreme profanity, I have no idea how else to describe politicians.
-CF
Re: Sorry Mike, you are wrong on this one
XS - do you know for fact it's a service vs an app?
From the user perspective the difference is probably immaterial, but from a technology perspective it's key.
A service implies that ZITE is collecting, manipulating, and rebroadcasting content. If the App is reading publicly available web content, there is no law that states that the HTML code (markup) must be respected. Are you under a different impression?
-CF
Use of logos to promote app
Using the logos is probably the biggest issue here. You can't claim or imply that Time Mag consents, much less contributes to, your app when in fact they do not.
But as long as the App is not reaching behind a paywall (even a "free" paywall) then I would have to agree that this is really just a browser. There is no law that I know of that requires a browser to respect HTML markup. So if the content provider puts their content on the web for free-global consumption, then the content will be consumed by all.
If you don't get that, then you don't get the Internet. That simple.
-CF