I predict this argument will continue to go around in circles but if you want to know why so many normally loyal readers are at odds with you, it is this: We do not feel that Microsoft is "improving its algorithm" by this. We feel that Microsoft is directly copying Google results without doing anything that REQUIRES an algorithm. It looks to me like Bing does its own work via its own algorithm to find results, then hedges its bets by pasting in whatever Google says should be #1. If Bing learned something that allowed their own algorithm to find things, that would be one thing but that isn't what happened here. Bing never found those results, it just knew that Google had and slapped them into its own results. I know this doesn't convince you so I think that you and us dissenters will just have to agree to disagree.
Wow, spent 5 minutes rewording my comment to get it right, hit send, came back and saw a slew of virtually identical posts. I love TechDirt but I'm pretty sure you got this one wrong Mike.
I'm baffled that this post is from the same person who wrote about and defended the use of social mores in cases like the Joe Rogan / Carlos Mencia kerfuffle. You yourself said that publicly calling out Carlos Mencia for copying other comedians jokes was a rational way to pressure him to stop copying by negatively affecting his professional reputation, therefore encouraging him to stop. Google didn't sue, they simply called out Microsoft in a public way that negatively affects their professional reputation, therefore encouraging them to stop. Could you explain why you see these seemingly identical situations differently?
I normally agree with TechDirt's conclusions but I whoeheartedly disagree on this one. Take the phrase "if others can monetize our content better than we can, we deserve some of that cash." It doesn't matter how well someone is monetizing whatever content. If they didn't create it or legally acquire rights to it, they shouldn't be allowed to divert whole chunks of income away from those who DID create that content or legally acquire rights to it. In the music biz, someone can record and sell a previously-distributed song that I wrote without getting my permission BUT there is a compulsory that forces them to pay me a portion of the profit they make by doing so. Maybe that's what we need, a statuatory literary compulsory rate?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by GassyLittleElf.
Re: Re: Mike I usually almost ALWAYS AGREE with you but...
I predict this argument will continue to go around in circles but if you want to know why so many normally loyal readers are at odds with you, it is this: We do not feel that Microsoft is "improving its algorithm" by this. We feel that Microsoft is directly copying Google results without doing anything that REQUIRES an algorithm. It looks to me like Bing does its own work via its own algorithm to find results, then hedges its bets by pasting in whatever Google says should be #1. If Bing learned something that allowed their own algorithm to find things, that would be one thing but that isn't what happened here. Bing never found those results, it just knew that Google had and slapped them into its own results. I know this doesn't convince you so I think that you and us dissenters will just have to agree to disagree.
Re: Childish? Not according to you awhile back
Wow, spent 5 minutes rewording my comment to get it right, hit send, came back and saw a slew of virtually identical posts. I love TechDirt but I'm pretty sure you got this one wrong Mike.
Childish? Not according to you awhile back
I'm baffled that this post is from the same person who wrote about and defended the use of social mores in cases like the Joe Rogan / Carlos Mencia kerfuffle. You yourself said that publicly calling out Carlos Mencia for copying other comedians jokes was a rational way to pressure him to stop copying by negatively affecting his professional reputation, therefore encouraging him to stop. Google didn't sue, they simply called out Microsoft in a public way that negatively affects their professional reputation, therefore encouraging them to stop. Could you explain why you see these seemingly identical situations differently?
Not with you on this one
I normally agree with TechDirt's conclusions but I whoeheartedly disagree on this one. Take the phrase "if others can monetize our content better than we can, we deserve some of that cash." It doesn't matter how well someone is monetizing whatever content. If they didn't create it or legally acquire rights to it, they shouldn't be allowed to divert whole chunks of income away from those who DID create that content or legally acquire rights to it. In the music biz, someone can record and sell a previously-distributed song that I wrote without getting my permission BUT there is a compulsory that forces them to pay me a portion of the profit they make by doing so. Maybe that's what we need, a statuatory literary compulsory rate?