Slashback: OpenOffice, SuitSat, Google Books 177
Sutor says "no way" to VNUnet OpenOffice story. Andy Updegrove writes "Earlier today a story by Tom Sanders at Vnunet.com covered by Slashdot didn't make sense to me, as it ran counter to the joint determination of Sun and IBM to make ODF succeed. In part, the story relied on an email exchange with Bob Sutor, IBM's Vice President of Standards and Open Source, so I asked Bob whether the story got it wrong. The answer? Sutor said: 'To be more clear, and on the record, IBM and Sun are working together happily and effectively on the OpenDocument Format. I think we've made a terrific amount of progress in the last year and that's because of the broad cooperation by the community. I'm not sure why we were dragged into the referenced story, but it was certainly nothing we initiated.'"
Google forgives BMW after delisting. dbucowboy writes "According to Matt Cutts, Google has re-included BMW.de in the Google index due to their willingness to cease supposed blackhat SEO practices." From the article: "I appreciate BMW's quick response on removing JavaScript-redirecting pages from BMW properties. The webspam team at Google has been in contact with BMW, and Google has reincluded bmw.de in our index. Likewise, ricoh.de has also removed similar doorway pages and has been reincluded in Google's index."
SunComm vows to make right their DRM debacle. Rinisari writes "SunnComm, creators of the highly controversial MediaMax DRM implementation on a number of Sony BMG and indie CDs have issued a statement through the EFF that they are committed to notifying consumers and issuing updates/patches to fix security holes caused by the software. MediaMax is one of the two copy protection schemes about which Sony is being sued class-action style."
SuitSat-1 weak but not dead. zark22 writes "Suitsat, the amateur radio transmitter stuffed inside a surplus Russian spacesuit and chucked out the International Space station is alive and well, if somewhat weak and staticky. Users can still follow its progress at the Suitsat webpage."
UMich President defends Google book search. eaj writes "University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman defended the legality and ethics [PDF] of the Google Book Search project to a meeting of the Association of American Publishers on Monday. The AAP is suing Google over the book scanning involved in the project. From the article: '[We] believe this is a legal, ethical, and noble endeavor that will transform our society. Legal because we believe copyright law allows us the fair use of millions of books that are being digitized. Ethical because the preservation and protection of knowledge is critically important to the betterment of humankind. And noble because this enterprise is right for the time, right for the future, right for the world of publishing, right for all of us.' CNet news also has a video."
Local Connection (Score:4, Funny)
I also see there's noone with WTF in their callsign tracking it. Bummer.
OpenOffice, OpenDocument, who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OpenOffice, OpenDocument, who cares? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm a bit mystified that Andy Updegrove, when writing the blurb, failed to write it to cover the overall subject material, after covering it accurately in the linked article. I wouldn't be surprised if he'd written it as a full article, and the slashdot editors cut it down for slashback to a portion that wasn't a good summary.
Suit Sat (Score:5, Interesting)
--KC0QBP
Re:Suit Sat (Score:2)
Re:Suit Sat (Score:2)
Really, I don't have the right equipment. Besides the antenna, having multiple radios (so I could tune around looking for a doppler shift) would probably be a BIG help, but I just have my one little HT.
Just a curiosity thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Suit Sat (Score:3, Informative)
http://science.nasa.gov/Realtime/jtrack/Amateur.h
Try heavens-above.com (Score:2, Informative)
Put BMW in a Suit (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder if Google's mercenary tactics to fight BMW's mercenary tactics were justified? Did they give BMW a day to remove the doorway page?
Re:Put BMW in a Suit (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think it's so one-sided. Anyone in Germany who wants to buy a BMW is going to find BMW's web site with the second URL they enter, even if Google was the first. OTOH, if Google was the first, and trying to search for a major name brand resulted in a whole load of spin-off pages and not showing the home page for the brand in question, then Google's index loses credibility.
Personally, I think Googl
Re:Put BMW in a Suit (Score:2)
I'm just using IBM as a theoretical. We all know ibm.com exists, but this case I described is true for some other sites.
What is debatable here is how we right that wrong.
Re:Put BMW in a Suit (Score:3, Insightful)
Impulse buying, while applicable to $10 Pokemon Clocks on eBay, is generally not something one does with $60,000 luxury cars. Even assuming averages to try and theorize how many people checking out "what's happening on the web" actually dropped sixty grand to congratulate themselves on finding bmw.de in the Google index, I'd guess this was a rather ineffectual marketing ploy.
Re:Put BMW in a Suit (Score:2)
I know people who, when they want to read their hotmail account, google search "hotmail" instead of typing www.hotmail.com in the address bar. One of my uncles in particular is very reluctant to just type in URLs, he will google search EVERYTHING, even if it's a domain name.
So, yes, the website for BMW is one that some people need to search for.
Re:Put BMW in a Suit (Score:2)
Only for BMW? (Score:3, Insightful)
So I guess if your site has been delisted, all you have to do is remove it, email Google, and watch it be re-listed. Right? More likely, if you are anyone other than a Fortune 500 company, you're email will never be answered. Or unless you pay some cash.
Re:Only for BMW? (Score:3, Funny)
Now, about zaht webzite?
Re:Only for BMW? (Score:2)
Just because you've had a bad experience with AT&T Wireless, or Comcast, or something, doesn't mean other companies are like that.
Godaddy is the #1 domain registrar on the internet, and a top hosting provider to boot. Their service response times are exceptional. T-mobile is a nationwide mobile phone carrier, and with a small amount of effort you can get them to go back and forward with you, in wr
Re:Only for BMW? (Score:3, Interesting)
Many companies do provide exceptional customer service. Telus, one of the ISPs in my area, has horrible customer service, so bad that I ditched their service. Shaw, the othe
Too much power (Score:5, Interesting)
Google owns their search engine of course, but I think it's just a little evil to essentially make an entire company disappear from teh interwebs. If they weren't so pervasive then this would be a non-issue, but when I see these stories I get a little worried. Hopefully they won't expand their definition of "cheating" to include things we might think are OK.
Re:Too much power (Score:5, Insightful)
I say you might as well use the competing search engines if it is too bothersome, because the power that you think they have too much of was power given to them by users.
It's getting that way (Score:2)
Yes, I think Google currently has way too much power, and is getting away with things it shouldn't.
During the last round of Google/BMW fun, I suggested a less favourable way to view that kind of web site [slashdot.org]. I think the web is in serious danger of going down the same path as books and media, where big name middleman sites (search engines, portal sites, archives, etc.) pretend to be doing the public a favour, while actually gathering disproportionate amounts of influence in exchange for services that may not
Re:Too much power (Score:2)
Then again, this is Slashdot...
Re:Too much power (Score:2)
Then again, this is Slashdot...
dedazo, and some of the replies, are probably M$ marketing astroturfers. M$ marketing drones appear to have been trying to deflect attention from M$ to google the last few weeks.
Of course; completely ignoring the fact that, unlike M$, competition for google is just a mouse click away.
---
Astroturfing "marketers" [wikipedia.org] are lying lowlife, misrepresenting company propaganda as a personal opinion.
Re:Too much power (Score:2)
There is a certain Burns and Smithers quality about it all, isn't there?
Burns: My name is Mister Snrub and I think we should invest that money back in the nuclear power plant
Smithers: I like the way this Snrub thinks!
Time to form an angry mob, perhaps? It worked in The Simpsons...
Re:Too much power (Score:2)
Now I also happen to think that the OP is wrong, but that doesn't make him an "M$" shill. It just makes him wrong.
Domain names were never supposed to matter (Score:2)
Re:Too much power (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope.
I mean, who needs domain names anymore?
People who don't want Google to get too much power. Or Yahoo! Or MSN, or any of the other search engines...
I just type what I'm looking for into Google ...
I knew someone once who insisted on travelling everywhere by bus, and always used the same company. He thought the bus company were evil because they didn't fly to Chicago or do Caribbean cruises. We all thought he was an idiot.
You want to explain to me why your laziness and your inflexibility should be Google's problem?
I think it's just a little evil to essentially make an entire company disappear from teh interwebs
Just typical, I spend my last mod point, and then I find a troll like this. Please reassure me that you are not really this stupid.
If they weren't so pervasive then this would be a non-issue
It is a non-issue. You can aways choose to use a different search engine.
when I see these stories I get a little worried
Let me guess - Osama bin Laden is standing behind you and he's going to shoot you in the head if you use Yahoo, right? You can aways choose to use a different search engine.
Hopefully they won't expand their definition of "cheating" to include things we might think are OK.
Well, if they do, you can aways choose to use a different search engine. Come on, fire up a couple of those brain cells. This really isn't that difficult.
But will Google forgive me? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But will Google forgive me? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But will Google forgive me? (Score:2)
If google can do it, then we all can do it! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If google can do it, then we all can do it! (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I see it is: If Google allows you to search in books and provides snippets of the work, that is fair use.
What I do not think falls within the perview of fair use, is the wholesale scanning of libraries.
I realize you can't have the one without first engaging in the other... but the Copyright owner may NOT want to give Google permission to do this.
Google's book scanning shouldn't be an Opt-Out kind of deal. Copyright laws specifically make it an Opt-In issue. Like anyone else, Google can use a portion of the material for fair use.
Google is violating the publishers'/authors' copyright by doing what they're doing. From a legal standpoint, what they intend to do shouldn't be relevant. They are copying the whole book, and AFAIK, fair use doesn't allow for that. I fail to see why they should get any special exemption(s).
Re:If google can do it, then we all can do it! (Score:2)
On a strictly legalistic sense, you may be right; thouigh I assume Google has lawyers who could dispute it somehow. However:
Re:If google can do it, then we all can do it! (Score:3, Insightful)
You may have individual, constitutional right to protect your work from unauthorized copying, but the public also has a publi
Re:If google can do it, then we all can do it! (Score:2)
Ah, the naivete of youth. Go read some Adam Smith, why dontcha?
Re:If google can do it, then we all can do it! (Score:2)
Re:If google can do it, then we all can do it! (Score:2)
Extremely poor analogy.
Re:If google can do it, then we all can do it! (Score:2)
In short Google shoudn't get any special exemptions. You are unaware of your own fair
Re:If google can do it, then we all can do it! (Score:2)
They are copying the whole book, and AFAIK, fair use doesn't allow for that. I fail to see why they should get any special exemption(s).
Copyright is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". I fail to see why existing copyright holders should get any special exemption(s).
See how changing viewpoint changes what "consistency" and "exemptions" are? In every situation you can categorize things in different ways and as a result change what these words mean. In this case you are automatically as
Re:If google can do it, then we all can do it! (Score:2)
You have the legal right to check out a book at the library. You have a legal right to scan the book. You do not have the right to access the scanned book after returning the library book.
As long as google employees don't have unfettered access to the scanned books, I think they're okay.
Re:If google can do it, then we all can do it! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:If google can do it, then we all can do it! (Score:2)
OK, I'll play. Can you name any country where the duplication of a complete work in this manner is clearly legal?
Weird article by Andy Updegrove (Score:2)
Apart from that it surprised me to see Andy make a comparison with the Linux kernel. Linus accepts contributions to the Linux kernel as long as such contributi
CD copy protection patches? (Score:2)
Just a thought.
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:5, Funny)
I recommend picketing your nearest public library at once.
dom
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:5, Insightful)
I can understand why this action may not have much appeal. After all, public libraries and used bookstores hardly have Google-sized wallets. But then... Amazon and eBay sell used books too.
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
I shop regularly at a couple of used bookshops, and both owners are quite well versed in the battle to eliminate their livelihood. Brussels (the Commission and the Parliament) have been heavily lobbied by publishers to change the rights around "right of first sale", and criminalise the re-selling of books. The lobbying currently is following in the footsteps of the recording industry, in the hopes of making a comple
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:3)
The library purchased all of the books it loans.
Google did not.
Incorrect (Score:2)
I am shocked I tell you, shocked!
Re:Incorrect (Score:2)
Re:Incorrect (Score:2)
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
Google is building the world's largest index of electronic books, and is physically stealing each and every one of those books.
Bookshops of the world, beware! Googlites come for YOU tonight!
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
If some innocent congresscritters get burned ot the ground as well... that is a small price to pay to protect the FREEDOM of authors from the TERRORISTS known as readers.
Join the FIGHT NOW! Bludegon the next person you see loaning a book to someone! overturn the tables at these ILLEGAL garage sales! and bring an angry mob the the unholiest of unho
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
What's to stop someone from writing a bot that downloads the whole book by using the last words in a blurb as the next search term and concatenating the blurbs?
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
Try it. Google won't let you get more than a few pages from any one book. You could set up elaborate proxies and thousands of Google identities (you need to be signed in to do most of this). But these books are in libraries. There's nothing (except geography) stopping you borrowing the books and scanning them yourself. Every current bestseller and
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
I didn't say copying books wasn't a violation. I was saying that Google isn't enabling copying more than (actually, less than) libraries already do. So Google is not exposing copyright owners to new risks.
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
Well, what new risks?
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:5, Insightful)
Then I remembered Google's book search, which came up with at least five or six solid hits that actually helped - the books were in my local library, and their titles/subjects had absolutely nothing to do with what I was looking for, but the info was there. Without Google book search, I'd still be looking through stacks at the library. There's a time and a place for reading every available book tangentially related to a subject, but there are other times when an indexing service simply speeds up research.
I should point out that most of the pages I needed to read were blocked by Google; they only allow you to look at random pages out of certain books. But they index the entire book & tell you on exactly what pages you can find word references. A very, very useful tool, one that I will use in the years to come. I hate to sound like a shill for Google, but for what it's worth, this has been my experience with the service, and for this very specific and uncommon topic, it was very helpful.
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2, Offtopic)
But even google books could not tell you what movies [imdb.com] to watch. You should have just posted to "Ask Slashdot"...
Google Scholar levels the playing field (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Google Scholar levels the playing field (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
I looked for instances of a certain term in a database that doesn't display the full-text of most books. I then took these references, most of them long out of print, and looked them up in a library. Yup, call the police, I'm definitely abusing the system!
If you honestly think that Google Scholar will lead to the propagation of facism and the obliteration of civil liberties in the world, you need to take a good, hard look at
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:5, Insightful)
But when the effort of doing so exceeds the reasonable effort of walking into the library and scanning the entirety of said literary work, I would contend that Google has met it's burden (though I am sympathetic of the rights-holders desires). If you make the argument that it's a rare and unique book, then I think that the rights-holders arguments fall apart. I think in that case, those are the books most deserving of digital preservation.
A case could be made that someone could garner this same information from the Library of Congress by sitting there for hours on end. One thing that Google print brings is the possibility that a book will gain more exposure, and therefore potentially more revenue for it's owner.
Except for scripting (Score:3, Interesting)
The analogy breaks down when someone goes to copy a second book. Presumably, a second trip to the copy machine at the library will take just as long as the first. OTOH, once a hole is discovered in Google's book protection, it could be scripted/otherwise automated such that downloading their entire catalog takes
wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
nom it is not a 'fundamental' right. It is a privilage granted by congress, which is a representation of the people.
Read the constitution.
Nice strawman you threw in there. Illegal search and seazure is written into the constitution.
Rights (Score:2)
All legal rights are like that, including physical property rights, free speech, due process, etc.
The natural default is that might is right. The only "natural rights" you truly have are those you are prepared to die defending; anything else can be taken from you with sufficient force.
With time and evolving society, we have discovered that making agreements among the population to resp
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of either is to get you to buy the book. The publishers should be praising Google for making their books searchable.
I personally have bought several books based on text I have searched for using Google Book search.
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
Regardless of the morality, there sure as hell is a legal distinction. Don't be so quick to assume that what you think should be right, is legal.
And as one legal blogger [authorslawyer.com] has pointed out many times, the publishers don't necessarily have anything to do with this. It's the authors who retain copyright, not the companies which sell their books.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
Every author/publisher contract should contain a termination clause; generally it says something like when a book is "out of print" (defined in the contract, but certainly if the book is not on sale it's "out of print") for a defi
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:5, Insightful)
This is probably the reason why she (and many other people and institutions) believe that Google is in the right on this issue, and why the publishers are trying to use allegations issued in the press, rather than the courts to fight against it.
If the publishers had a reasonably strong case in court for this issue, they probably wouldn't be trying their "ham-handed appeals" in their press releases and in the popular press.
Unfortunately, Google is proposing to do something which would be of great benefit to all of mankind, and it might have a negative impact on some publisher's profits, and they are fighting claw, tooth, and nail to avoid that!
I'm both an author and a publisher, but I welcome this change -- I'd love to see my work reach wider audiences and I'm not too worried about losing a few percentage points of profits. In fact, it might be that if more people could easily find my work on Google, more of them would go out of their way to purchase it!
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
Only if you define "everyone else on the planet" as "United States citizens." Britian, Canada, Australia and some other countries have what is termed Fair Dealing [wikipedia.org]. It is a related, but ultimately different, doctrine from Fair Use. I haven't studied it enough to comment on it beyond it generally gives less protection to society at large than Fair Use does.
Other countries may or may not have a Fair Use or Fair Deali
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:3, Insightful)
Conceptually, Google makes two copies of the book in order to offer it for searching - an entire copy of the book stored on its servers, and snippets of that copy offered for public consumption.
I contend that neither copy meets requirements for fair use. In the first copy, Goo
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
And what about books published 50 years ago, author dead, publisher bankrupt, but in copyright still for another or so?
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2, Interesting)
The answer to this is to fix the copyright laws, not give Google a free pass to break copyright. Copyright should require maintenance, so that abandoned works get put into the public domain. I also think something like 10 years should be the extent of copyright, not the insane amount of time it is now.
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
You're assuming that they are breaking copyright. Obviously this is arguable. Like their Google News service, they are not publishing anything that could replace the original work. The cases publishers make against it are, in my opinion, either bloody-minded obstructiveness, or atttempts to go for the deep pocket.
Fair Use is not considered a right in the US. (Score:2)
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:5, Informative)
# Why can't I read the entire book?
We respect copyright law and the tremendous creative effort authors put into their work. So, unless any given book's publisher has given us permission to show sample pages, you'll only be able to see the Snippet View which, like a card catalog, shows information about the book plus a few snippets - a few sentences of your search term in context. If the book isn't under copyright at all, you can browse the entire book in the Full Book View, but the aim of Google Book Search is to help you discover books and learn where to buy or borrow them, not read them from start to finish. It's like going to a bookstore and browsing - with a Google twist.
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
no, it's the role of the people.
this is no different then a book review magazine where they include an index and some snipetts of the text.
I do not need to ask the publisher if I can talk about a book I read.
I don't need to get permission to give someone a book.
I don't need permission to resell the book.
" Isn't it reasonable to assume that Google doesn't have the right to do that without my permission? "
If your photo is taken in public, then goog
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
When I publish my health and business records, you'll have a point. Otherwise, it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed.
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
If Google's use is fair, however, Google does not need to pay the publisher anything. I don't find it particularly evil that they use fair use. It exists for a reason, and it doesn't automatically preclude commercial gain.
Google may have the right to put your likeness up on its web site. Are you a public figure? Are yo
at least think about it first... (Score:3, Insightful)
[sarcasm] Yeah, and libraries have no right to purchase books and throw them on shelves for anyone to check out for free. Heaven forbid someone quote a book in a scholarly paper! Those writings are the work of the author, and shouldn't be stolen by those wanting to piggy-back off their labors! [/sarcasm]
It's called "fair use". So, the debate is (or at least should be) whether Google's project consitutes fa
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright is not property. The books are the property of whoever owns the individual books. The right to copy those books are something entirely different.
No - privacy concerns and Governmental checks-and-balance have nothing to do with this issue; not even remotely. The interesting thing here is while Copyright is very useful, it also takes AWAY the public's rights. This is why people are so concerned about Copyright being truely limited. And this is also why there exists Fair Use within the very laws that establish Copyright. It might also be worth stressing that while much of our law is based on property, Copyright is not property - even with the use of snazy memes like "intelectual property".
Indeed. The easy access you're describing is called... a book. The access is already there in the form of book stores, public libraries, and personal libraries. If keeping something from being copied is your concern, don't publish.
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. So if Google wanted to establish a service where it kept a gigantic room that contained a copy of every book in publication, and you could call up Google on the phone and give an operator a snippet of text you wanted to find, and a guy would leaf through every one of those books and mark down where he found the text, then it would be perfectly
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:3, Interesting)
YET! We have a great deal of legal precedence that says taking snippets of already published books, and including them into an "index" is perfectly legal. This was done for centuries before the inter
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
Since the very beginning, Google has said that it's just providing a search service. Unless you're going to somehow find out that a single quote is in a book and plan to buy the book to get that one quote, Google is not costing publishers any money.
I can understand that publishers are leery of this being "the beginning of the end"
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
why does factually inaccurate nonsense get moderated as insightful? Anybody?
It's probably publishers' marketing drones using sock puppets [wikipedia.org] to astroturf and mod [wikipedia.org]. Also posting Dorothy Dix'ers [wikipedia.org]. Anything to get their viewpoint as much mindshare as possible. At the expense of every other viewpoint of course.
There are probably dozens of such lying lowlifes on slashdot, and possibly hundreds or even thousands. They justify their lying by claiming that "the message speaks for itself" and "marketers have a righ
ham! (Score:2)
I'm not trying to be funny here, but as long as Google buys the books before scanning them they are the rightful owners. I mean, what are we talking about here? Google is in the business of information searching and these books have information in them to be searched through. As long as Google isn't just scanning books for electronic distribution then they
Re:The copyright owners like to think they do. (Score:2)
Exactly, these kind of statements are no more than than a EULA familiar from software, and do not have the force of law, though the publisher wants you to think so.
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:5, Funny)
They won't touch content that you tell them they can't index.
Every book published whould include in the preface.
robots.txt
Disallow:
problem solved
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
Re:I'm tired of these ham-handed appeals to morali (Score:2)
It is not necessarily up to those who hold the copyrights. If it's a fair use, it's not up to them. If it's not a fair use and does not fall into any other copyright e