Just an old retired girl from Ontario (though sometimes, I'm just tired). Retired photographer, doing freelance and stuff for fun now. Not very politically motivated, but there are some things that can get me riled up some...
I suppose that's true, but in this case ... what exactly whas trademarked? A phrase with 3 words in it.
Funny that though ... I checked my gmail account tonight and the first email was titled "Winter is Coming" ... and it contained an updated game from G5 games (not related to the Game of Thrones).
The use of the phrase is all over the web, and doesn't appear to have generated any angst (so far) from HBO, so it seems odd they would have picked on a child's drawing which appears to be unrelated to the show in any way.
Doesn't make sense, but the full story isn't always what we see either.
Hopefully, someone with a sane mind will see that they lose the tradement.
The phrase is used constantly in the northern hemisphere ... it's simply part of many statements in this area. How can they be allowed to trademark a phrase which has existed for years, and that people use all the time (long before this show, or any thought of the show existed)?
This book was printed in 1873, with a poem titled "Winter is Coming" ...
Not much I can to that. What did you think would happen though?
Google exists to make money. Not to be 100% altruistic. If they were, they wouldn't be able to provide relief funds for disaster responses; they wouldn't be able to provide advertising for charities ... they wouldn't be able to take on publishers all over the world. They wouldn't be able to develop things like eye implants, or provide internet service to very remote people, or many of the other good things they do. You think all of this doesn't cost money?
And no, I don't particularly agree with everything Google does, nor the way they sometimes to do it.
But, if someone can do it better then I hope someone does.
[I think there is a huge difference between a news site that links to the occasional NSFW pic (when needed for context) vs a porn listing site that links to nothing but NSFW pics.]
Yes I would think so too. But sometimes it doesn't work that way. People complain. Notices get sent.
[The problem here is that the policy only concerns itself with content not context.]
In some cases that particularly true. I've run afoul of it with the word "naked" (as in "naked genius" or "naked tree") and ads would not show on that page no matter what. That was the "bot" that crawls. It didn't like that I had a word related to adult content.
But of course, they own the service and most advertiser's don't complain about ads on Google's own search results. They actually pay a hefty fee for it, so I'd guess the rules for those advertisers (which are outside of the publisher network) are probably a lot different than for the advertisers whose ads appear on the publisher network.
When you own a company, you tell employees what they can or can't do at work but I doubt you tell the CEO what they can or can't do.
[Now, Google is a private company that obviously has the right to choose who it wants to do business with and how it does business, but this seems particularly ridiculous. This does raise questions for us as a media property and whether AdSense is compatible with news reporting.]
So ... have you actually read their policies? It does seem ridiculous to most people, but even linking to "prohibited contents" is a violation.
Having been a reader of this site for ages (a supporter at one point ... need to do that again) and a forum regular at AdSense, I can tell you ... TechDirt appears to have much more leeway than the average publisher does. I could pick out dozens of violations if I wanted to, and many more in the form of comments (for which publishers are responsible as well).
AdSense is pretty much influenced by what the advertisers want, and what they complain about.
A lot of news/reporting type sites run into issues with AdSense. Whether you decide to keep it or not usually depends on whether the adjustments are worth it for the publisher.
[Charter's $79 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks.]
That's a shame. We've been using Brighthouse in Florida, and compared to others, they were amazing. Reasonable pricing, good service, decent customer service. Better than the service we have in Canada for almost 3 times the price.
I'd rather like Brighthouse to stay as they are, so I hope that Charter isn't going to change the service or the pricing.
But I am thankful that me and my home still live in the "lost world". I admit it, I'm a dinosaur.
What's wrong with walking over to the thermostat and changing it yourself? Or turning on your lights using your hands instead of some "device"?
Tales like this one make me wonder how society would survive without all their little electronic gadgets and doodads.
Things like having internet, or phones or TV are fine, but they shouldn't be the things that run our lives and it seems that the more forward thinking the devices become, the less people enjoy life and worry more about the devices working.
Spent the last few months away from home without all of that stuff and we found ourselves a lot happier.
... just sayin' don't buy "things" to run your life for you.