Stop Google from Stealing From You!

[dave conz]

Originally Posted by Rivux

This isn't about the webmaster

Err, yes it is. This argument is entirely about webmaster rights - surfers "rights" have nothing to do with it. Are you suggesting that if I write an article I have no rights over my own intellectual property? I don't think that was ever the intention of the Internet. I do not give Google permission to make money from my content in this way. This is my content which I make money out of.

The are many vague parallels with other technologies but I don't see any other examples of companies altering my content so they can make money, quite possibly at my expense (if the reader clicks a Google link instead of my ads).

[bruced1]

Originally Posted by Rivux

For starters its more then the webmaster extension, maybe you should take a look at the other ones I mentioned. Obviously you have something against google and aren't willing to discuss this with any type of logic. So I will leave you to your nonsensical Google bashing.

If anyone disagrees with the almighty google, they are treated with nonsense like above or the good old standby tinfoilhat.

Google is modifying copyrighted works without consent for financial gain. That is copyright infringement. If it is not ok for MS it should not be ok for google, no matter how much pr google puts out about how wonderful it is.

[SN3]

I'm confused as to what they are trying to do, can someone explain?

[imaginemn]

Originally Posted by SN3

I'm confused as to what they are trying to do, can someone explain?

Basically if you have a street address on a web page the google toolbar will automatically insert a link linking to their/a map service.

Example:

Company: Nevermind
Address: 1800 mystreet
Phone: 000-000-0000

Your page would display a "look for map" link automatically. See my post #10 for screenshots.

Company: Nevermind
Address: Look for Map
Phone: 000-000-0000

At this point anyone who installs the beta has this feature enabled without an option to disable it.

imaginemn

[Rivux]

Originally Posted by bruced1

If anyone disagrees with the almighty google, they are treated with nonsense like above or the good old standby tinfoilhat.

This isn't about google, Im not sticking up for Google. Its about the fact that people are acting like this is the only tool/technology out there that modifies peoples content. If you want to outlaw ALL tools/technologies that alter a pages content then Im all for it, lets roundup the companies and go after it. But to single out google is rediculous, I listed in a previous post above that there are dozens of tools that surfers use to enhance their web experience that also alters a pages content, I don't see people trying to get those banned and getting all bent out of shape about those. Why is that?

Originally Posted by dave conz

Are you suggesting that if I write an article I have no rights over my own intellectual property? I don't think that was ever the intention of the Internet. I do not give Google permission to make money from my content in this way. This is my content which I make money out of.

Im suggesting that a surfer has the right to modify your content (remember, the surfer not another company) to enhance their reading of the content. If they want to bold certain sections, make some sections linkable, whatever it is. The surfer/reader has that right and will excersise that right. I can't even fathom how anyone is arguing this point as we all see that people use popup/ad/image blockers that take money directly from your pockets and modifies your content. But yet those are accepted, and lawful, but somehow the google toolbar is different?

[imaginemn]

I personally don't like it. Not because it's google but because of the feature. If it added the link without changing the text it wouldn't bother me because changing a style is different than changing the text and the visitor would still be able to read the street address.

I do however agree that it should be an all or nothing type of thing. If Google can't do it, Microsoft or Yahoo shouldn't be able to do it either.

If it becomes a problem for my sites. I guess I'll have to also encode my street address like I do my email address.

%31%38%30%30%20%6D%79%20%73%74%72%65%65%74

will display

1800 my street



imaginemn

[Rivux]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03...ogle_autolink/

Now, there are a few things critics of AutoLink have ignored. For instance, it's not enabled by default. A user has to push the AutoLink button every single time they want to enable its use on a page. Further, current links are not overwritten; only unlinked text is affected. Even so, I'm really torn about AutoLink. I use other services that rewrite the code of a web page in certain ways to benefit me, like the BetterSearch Firefox extension, for instance, which (ironically enough) rewrites Google results to display a thumbnail image of each search result's home page. And I'm a enormous, grateful fan of the Adblock extension, which allows me to remove advertisements and other annoyances from websites. I could go on. In all those cases, I'm in essence rewriting content on a web page that I'm viewing, which one could also argue is what AutoLink does.

[bruced1]

Originally Posted by Rivux

This isn't about google, Im not sticking up for Google. Its about the fact that people are acting like this is the only tool/technology out there that modifies peoples content. If you want to outlaw ALL tools/technologies that alter a pages content then Im all for it, lets roundup the companies and go after it. But to single out google is rediculous, I listed in a previous post above that there are dozens of tools that surfers use to enhance their web experience that also alters a pages content, I don't see people trying to get those banned and getting all bent out of shape about those. Why is that?

We are not singling out google. MS was already banned from doing this. But now because google is so beloved, the same feature introduced and banned by MS is acceptable from google. Copyright infringement is wrong for ALL tools and people that do it.

Originally Posted by Rivux

Im suggesting that a surfer has the right to modify your content (remember, the surfer not another company) to enhance their reading of the content. If they want to bold certain sections, make some sections linkable, whatever it is. The surfer/reader has that right and will excersise that right. I can't even fathom how anyone is arguing this point as we all see that people use popup/ad/image blockers that take money directly from your pockets and modifies your content. But yet those are accepted, and lawful, but somehow the google toolbar is different?

Pop up blockers are not the same thing. Blockers block content, they dont add content for revenue generation (which google will do once they start adding google adwords to the fray). Making money off other people's copyrighted work is CLEARLY forbidden by any interpretation of copyright law -- unless of course you are google or a google fan. Then it is simply unfathomable why you cant stick your ads into other peoples' content.

[Rivux]

Originally Posted by bruced1

We are not singling out google. MS was already banned from doing this. But now because google is so beloved, the same feature introduced and banned by MS is acceptable from google. Copyright infringement is wrong for ALL tools and people that do it.

If you read my post above you will notice the massive difference between MS and Google in this case. MS was doing it automatically, the user/surfer/reader had no choice. That is the exact opposite of whats going on here. This isn't about Google, this is about a users right to modify their surfing experience. The user had no choice with the MS case.

Originally Posted by bruced1

Pop up blockers are not the same thing. Blockers block content, they dont add content for revenue generation (which google will do once they start adding google adwords to the fray). Making money off other people's copyrighted work is CLEARLY forbidden by any interpretation of copyright law -- unless of course you are google or a google fan. Then it is simply unfathomable why you cant stick your ads into other peoples' content.

If you want to argue what may happen sometime in the future, how about a different thread, cuz we are talking about the real world and whats happening right now, so your 'google is going to insert ads in my page' arguement is crap. Posts like yours is why I called peoples arguement nonsensical. Right now Google isn't a)taking away anyones income or b)generating income for themselves directly or c)forcing it onto anyone. But yet people still try to make a case that any or all of those three are actually happening. Its almost like people are arguing because they have nothing else better to do, well maybe you should take a few minutes and read up on the matter before posting.

[noob_0001]

Rivux,
As for your statements, do you really believe what you are saying?

Right now Google isn't
a)taking away anyones income

If they cause someone to follow a link that was not mine they are taking money away from me.

b)generating income for themselves directly

Do you know this for a fact?

c)forcing it onto anyone.

They are forcing it on everybody who has created a site.


Have a nice day.

[bruced1]

this is not about the user because the user is not changing the content. G is. And real world example, where this is taking business from websites is barnes and nobles. Autolink is pointing all their books to amazon.

No company would be allowed to let the user change a DVD without the RIAA shutting them down, nor would a company be allowed to modify books and magazines without going to jail.

Why this bogus argument that the user has the right to use a tool that steals copyright material because it is on the web? Because it is a smokescreen argument to get fanatics to fight their agenda for them.

G is going to insert ads is not crap, that is what they do. They are an advertising company. they do it in search results, they do it in emails. But oh no, too much of a leap to expect the obvious.

Get your facts straight, rivux.

A) they are taking income from any book store that isnt amazon and hasnt actively changed their pages to prevent the autolink to their competitor amazon.

B) they are redirecting autolinking to their own properties. Taking customers from user websites to google websites.

C) Market it as a new feature for the toolbar and a huge majority of toolbar users will use it and forget about it.

[noob_0001]

Way to go bruced1. Very well said.