Question if Google will pull out of USA

[jimdagys]

I noticed that Google.cn pulled out of China because Google didn't want to be forced to censor. However, Google.com is forced to censor ( see screenshot). So I am wondering if Google will pull out of USA. Google could set up shop in Antigua (where AnyDVD is located).

[Baldrick]

Video news??? No. Off topic. Moving you.

[lordsmurf]

Censoring and copyright infringement are not even remotely the same thing.

[deadrats]

Censoring and copyright infringement are not even remotely the same thing.

actually if they are censoring results that are suspected of being associated with pirated material, then they are very much related.

censoring is censoring, the difference is that in the case of china it was at the behest of the chinese government, in the case of DMCA notices it's at the behest of a corporate entity.

interestingly enough godaddy followed google's lead and there are reports that dell will follow.

i say **** them, all american businesses should pull out of china, let their economy collapse.

[lordsmurf]

The results are removed because of DMCA, and nothing else. It's not just corporations either! I have to file at least 1 DMCA per month, because I see my editorials and articles being used by sites that did not pay for them! A lot of us writers have to not only spend time writing, but checking the web for thieving bastards.

"**** them" = sites that steal my stuff!

[deadrats]

The results are removed because of DMCA, and nothing else. It's not just corporations either! I have to file at least 1 DMCA per month, because I see my editorials and articles being used by sites that did not pay for them! A lot of us writers have to not only spend time writing, but checking the web for thieving bastards.

"**** them" = sites that steal my stuff!

in what way are they "stealing your stuff"? if someone is trying to pass off an editorial or article you wrote as their own, then i am 100 percent on your side, go after them.

if however someone is simply reprinting your articles/editorials, then i don't really see a problem with that, you put the content out there, if you don't want it "stolen" then don't publish it. the thought that "they didn't pay for" something you wrote is arrogant beyond belief (and this isn't targeting you per se), the thought that what you wrote is somehow so valuable that the general public should have to pay for the "privilege" the read it is laughable beyond belief.

incidentally, anyone reading this post should have pay pal'd me $5 prior to commencing reading operations, you now owe me an additional $2 as a penalty for "stealing" from me.

[gadgetguy]

Passing someone else's work off as your own is plagiarism. Reprinting someone else's work without permission is copyright violation. Reading something that someone posts publicly is not a crime in any way, even if the information presented is plagiarized or violates copyright in any other way. If I reprint an article that LS wrote on my website, then I have violated copyright and LS has a legitimate complaint, whether I claim credit for it or not. If I quote a sentence or two in reference to his work, whether positive or negative, it is fair use. The amount that I can quote is the only gray area, but in no case can the entire work be copied. These are not difficult concepts to understand. Just because someone "puts it out there" doesn't mean they give up their rights, and there's nothing laughable about expecting to be paid for something you wrote, whether for enlightenment or entertainment.

It's arrogant to assume that just because an article is posted on the internet means that it can be copied all you want.

[El Heggunte]

At the risk of going off-topic...

If I reprint an article that LS wrote on my website, then I have violated copyright and LS has a legitimate complaint, whether I claim credit for it or not. If I quote a sentence or two in reference to his work, whether positive or negative, it is fair use. The amount that I can quote is the only gray area, but in no case can the entire work be copied. These are not difficult concepts to understand.

In practical terms, unfortunately, things are not so simple as they seem. On the Internet, just because I write and sign an article, it doesn't mean it's automagically protected by the local and international copyright laws. To the best of my knowledge, we still lack a sufficient quantity of well-established and well-defined laws regarding ALL possible types of, let's say, written-stuff on the Internet. Which usually translates as, unless I happen to have a bunch of well-paid lawyers working for me, it's not of much use to expect everybody will gladly assume "everything is copyrighted, unless stated otherwise".

[Supreme2k]

if however someone is simply reprinting your articles/editorials, then i don't really see a problem with that, you put the content out there, if you don't want it "stolen" then don't publish it. the thought that "they didn't pay for" something you wrote is arrogant beyond belief (and this isn't targeting you per se), the thought that what you wrote is somehow so valuable that the general public should have to pay for the "privilege" the read it is laughable beyond belief.

How is that "arrogant"? Whether that something you wrote is an article, a song, or a whole book. It most certainly is worth something. How do you think that books are sold. You're not just paying for bound pages of paper and the content is thrown in for free.
I get paid for writing, and what is "laughable" (all the way to the bank) is how much they pay me for the privilege of reading it.

On the Internet, just because I write and sign an article, it doesn't mean it's automagically protected by the local and international copyright laws.

Actually, that's EXACTLY what it means. Creation = copyright.

[lordsmurf]

stuff on the Internet

This doesn't change anything. The Internet is another form of media, just like radio, TV or print.
It doesn't have special rules just because it's easier to copy/paste.

[El Heggunte]

OK, now I'd just like to know whether the quotes below have become outdated and/or impertinent:

Copyright

Source: Publishing tools

Typically an unqualified copyright statement.

( source: http://vancouver-webpages.com/META/metatags.detail.html )

Copyright of web pages is a murky and much-disputed issue. At this point it's not clear whether and to what extent existing copyright laws (which were written for printed documents) apply to the World Wide Web. Many web authors put a copyright notice in their page footers, something like the following:

© 1996, Robert Crooks

I used to do this myself, mainly because an HTML editor I was using at the time inserted the line automatically in its default template. I later removed these lines because a friend of mine who understands copyright law better than I do told me they served no purpose. His argument was that 1) if existing copyright law does apply to the web, then it covers all pages automatically, whether they bear the copyright symbol or not; and 2) if the laws don't apply to the web, then the symbol has no legal force. I bought the argument because I don't like to clutter my pages with unnecessary information. However, there's no harm in putting the copyright line on your own pages, and it will serve at least to inform users explicitly that you don't want your information redistributed without your permission (if you indeed don't want that).

( source: "ungoogleable" )

Seek legal advice to ensure you are protected properly.

[Supreme2k]

The quotes are not outdated, because the bullshit that they stated then is still bullshit. The author (and his friend) didn't know shit about copyright.

Copyright applies to digital media. We are all painfully aware of that. Web pages are digital media. Saying that it is not protected is like saying that (which many pirates argue) anything downloaded is not protected because it is not printed. You can't get mired in syntax, which has been outdated for decades now (the word "printed", for example).

[El Heggunte]

http://www.copyright.gov/

http://www.copyright.gov/eco/

http://www.copyright.gov/register/ <-- notice the word "register"

Sometimes, a URL can paint a thousand words.

[Jim44]

http://www.copyright.gov/register/ <-- notice the word "register"

Not sure what you're getting at, but under US copyright law, works do NOT have to be registered to be protected. They can be, but they don't *have* to be.

It's all in the FAQs.

[El Heggunte]

http://www.copyright.gov/register/ <-- notice the word "register"

Not sure what you're getting at, but under US copyright law, works do NOT have to be registered to be protected.

Not even to ensure that the author is the author himself, and not someone else?

Apologies if I sound "old-fashioned" or "bureaucratic", but THAT does look like a serious,
let's say, "design flaw".

[Jim44]

http://www.copyright.gov/register/ <-- notice the word "register"

Not sure what you're getting at, but under US copyright law, works do NOT have to be registered to be protected.

Not even to ensure that the author is the author himself, and not someone else?

Sorry, but I don't understand that, either. By definition, the "author" is the person who created the work.

The word "author" doesn't apply to anyone else.

Apologies if I sound "old-fashioned" or "bureaucratic", but THAT does look like a serious,
let's say, "design flaw".

How so? If you need/want to defend your copyright, then registration is required. But to be granted "copyright" one only needs to create the work in the first place. You're automatically protected the moment you create the work, that would seem like a good thing to me.

[Supreme2k]

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork

When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Copyright registration is like a lock on your door. You are still protected by the law without them, but both are additions to the basics.

[gadgetguy]

Registration is required to bring a case of copyright infringement to court, but the registration does not need to precede the infringement. Registration also does not prove authorship, but does place a higher burden of proof on the one claiming the registration to be in error.

[El Heggunte]

<!--
SNIPP
-->

I could mention several ways to give some big headaches to
people who will try to fight for their (violated/alleged) copyrights
without having these latter legally-registered...

And because "tangible medium" quite often doesn't go well with something
as "quicksandy" as the Internet, registering a virtual/digital work should be a "must-do".

Bottom-line: <IRONY>thank you very much</IRONY> for confirming the stereotype that
most "native speakers of English" (and especially the Unitedstatians)
are somewhat "slow-minded"...