On Sunday 21 August 2005 22:46, Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > Piracy is said to be one of the factors that allowed Microsoft to grow
>> > decades ago, thus disseminating their proprietary.
>>
>> Really? I had no idea that Microsoft was into the business of robbing
>> ships on the high seas.
>
> I think the statement is that Microsoft gained a lot of its market
> share by deliberately looking the other way while unauthorized copies
> spread around, during a certain period of its history. Once their
> stuff was on everyone's desktop, they controlled the computing world.
> And they got those copies out there without even having to pay for
> advertising.
That's what I was referring to: turning a blind eye to piracy. Software is
'duplicatable' and its cost of production is not affected by the number of
instances produced.
>> Getting back to the topic at hand, there are few parallels to be
>> drawn. I guess you could call Scroogle and/or routing Google queries
>> via Tor the rough equivalent of making unauthorized copies of Windows.
>
> No, users routing Google queries through proxies is not unauthorized
> as far as I can tell.
I think it depends on the domain under which it is routed. There are "Google
SERP as RSS" feeds that are scraped, but they still cite Google as the
referrer. I think people are pushing the limit when they do it without
Google's approval. A9, Webcrawler and other SE's that harvest from Google
do so perfectly legally.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz $> unzip; ping; mount /usr; grep; umount& sleep
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
