It's only a matter of time before Google Books starts scanning newspaper archives too, so that's something.
At least the New York Times is still in print. You can still go to them to ask permission for projects like this and they have well organized archives for people to access.
Good luck doing that with defunct journals and newspapers. You aren't able to find who to ask, but you can't risk a lawsuit either, so it's basically lost history and culture.
It's really going to hit us hard in a couple of decades when people want access to all the newspapers that were killed by the internet and no copies are to be found.
So the problem and possible solution.
They weren't terrorists. They were rebels and revolutionaries - and very successful at it.
I'd much rather have 3-5 candidates and a divided vote than an overwhelming majority between two candidates.
Actually, they don't care if you pull the lever either. Best to just stay home and let them pick.
He should have been even more honest and said, "That's none of your business."
You speak as if Google removes it, then it's gone from the internet.
What happens 10 years from now if another search engine is popular? Suddenly it's all there again.
We can argue about whether or not Google actually publishes something, but removing something from Google does nothing to fix the problem, which is why "Right to Be Forgotten" is nonsense because it doesn't fix the problem. All it does is weaken Google compared to other search engines, which is why I guess the Google haters like it.
I agree that Google needs more competition, but frankly, if I were defamed on the internet, I'd rather not spend the rest of my life playing whack-a-mole with various search results.
Your local bookstore is charging more than that for public domain books. That's what's great about the public domain. Nobody has to ask permission to sell the stuff.
Google doesn't choose the snippets! Why can't you understand that?
The snippets are provided by the website - the website published the snippet, and the website has the editorial control. The website can change the snippet anytime they want to anything they want, which is why Google isn't liable.
Take away the website, and it's gone from Google. Take it away from Google, and the website is still there. That's why attacking Google is stupid.
It should be blindingly obvious to anyone that uses the internet that Google isn't the internet.
Because a copy was made. If he had gone to his friend and borrowed his copy, it wouldn't be an issue.
It's much closer to if you go to a friends and watch their cable, you are a thief.
Current copyright covers all creation equally - and doesn't vary based on intent or medium or commercial value or educational value.
The only "empty entertainments" that cost millions to make are films. Music, books, photographs, poetry, etc. are ridiculously cheap to make in comparison and still get the exact same protections. It's commercial film and film alone that has skewed copyright beyond reason.
So if you really believe one thing is fine and another thing is not, then we really just need a special copyright for movies.
In fact, considering the cost of academic research, most of those research papers probably cost more to make than most albums and books.
And if you actually believe that "empty entertainment" retard progress, then you have no respect for art or artists - or you just watch a lot of bad movies.
Except if you remove the offending text from the website that published it, you also remove them from Google, so Google is not actually publishing anything. It is merely showing you what is written on the website.
Except if you remove the offending text from the website that published them, you also remove them from Google, so Google is not actually publishing anything. It is merely showing you what is written on the website.
It'd take a whole lot more than that to foment rebellion. Most Americans aren't interested in giving up their cozy lives for little things like rights.
Pretty easy to knock down an artist that sticks her neck out and talks about copyright, and then claim to be the greater artist and yet hide, presumably so your corporate masters won't ostracize you.
Re:
For most local events, newspapers may be the only source available. It's better than nothing.