It's a question of copyright, see

[Darren Dirt]

hehe, yeah no kidding, I found that site because I did a Google search for "favicon.ico robots.txt". Because I also have a site that has tons of 404s and so even though it's harmless, I was annoyed.



And since I'm a bit OCD at times, I just had to correct it. Pretty easily fixed the robots.txt 404 (was lazy; Agents: *, Disallow: [blank]) but the icon was a bit more work: I found this nice online editor, it allows loading/saving of the .ico files, it's built in Java but allows importing of other image files from your local hard drive or direct from the web too (for example, I loaded in MSNBC's favicon.ico direct from their url).



http://www.imageauthor.com

[Shayne]

The Association of American Publishers, based in Washington, D.C., sued the Mountain View, Calif., company on behalf of members The McGraw-Hill Companies, Pearson Education, Penguin Group (USA), Simon & Schuster and John Wiley & Sons. The suit seeks a court declaration that Google infringes the rights of copyright holders when it scans entire books and stores the digitized versions in its massive database. The trade group also wants a court order requiring Google to first obtain permission from copyright holders.



Patricia Schroeder, AAP president and a former Colorado congresswoman, said the suit was filed after talks broke down. The AAP had proposed that Google use each book's unique ID number to determine if the work is under copyright, and then seek permission from the book's owner. For more than 30 years, most books have carried an ISBN identification number, which is machine readable.



Google, according to Schroeder, refused.



?If Google can scan every book in the English language, surely they can utilize ISBNs," Schroeder said in a statement. "By rejecting the reasonable ISBN solution, Google left our members no choice but to file this suit.?

Those are some pretty big publishing companies in the lawsuit.  Perhaps Google is getting to cocky for its own good?  I guess a large settlement and/or damage penalty will straighten them out.  Obviously with such a massive law suit, it really isnt for show.

[Thorin]

If Google truly tried to Not Be Evil, they would have embraced the ISBN solution.  With Larry and Sergei no longer in charge, Google seems to be becoming less trustworthy and more like all other corporations.  Makes me wonder about keeping my GMail account :|

[Shayne]

I keep my gmail account because of its killer interface, 2GB+ storage, a fantastic spam filtering system, and the link to talk.google



THough i agree that google is getting a little "large".  Wallstreet doesnt see it though.

[Darren Dirt]

Agreed, GMail is offering lots of nice things all in one place. I use it as email, file transferring/backup, and a sorta-surfing-history-collector.



Back on topic: Google Print -- great debate on Farber's list

On Dave Farber's Interesting People list, a gang of luminaries like EFF's Cindy Cohn, Julian Dibell, Seth Finkelstein and Tim himself have been hashing out the debate over Google Print this weekend -- it's fascinating reading, and Tim has provided links to the best of the debate:



So what are the Authors Guild and the publishers complaining about? They're complaining that Google hasn't offered to share the profits that might accrue thanks to ads Google may someday display, or that are attributable to the marginal increase in general Google traffic. But on what basis do they claim entitlement to that brand new revenue stream? The money is not based on the public copying the book -- which is what copyright protects against -- it's based on the public FINDING the book in the first instance.



Now I suppose that the Authors Guild folks want to claim that they should get a share of any way of making money related to locating their works. That's an interesting argument, but it's not a copyright claim. If copyright owners approached libraries and demanded a share of library funds because of the existence of the card catalog it would be difficult to stifle the giggles. Yet isn't the same thing going on here? Stealing an analogy from law Prof Tim Wu, we have never given real property owners the right to "opt out" of any mechanism that helps people find their property -- maps. That's just not in the bundle of rights you get when you buy a home and preventing location tools is also not in the bundle of rights that come with copyright.



Link

(From BoingBoing)



- - -



Also interesting and *brief* summary at radar.oreilly.com -- "Author's Guild Suit, and Google's Response: My Thoughts"

[Darren Dirt]

new events unfolding re. Google Print (i.e. print.google.com oops I mean books.google.com)



http://news.com.com/Google+to+broker+online+book+sales/2100-1025_3-6049002.html?tag=cd.top

Right now, Google Book Search users can view free snippets of copyright books catalogued by its service but cannot read entire books online. They have the option of perusing a full version by clicking on links to outside booksellers or library catalogs.



The new offering would allow people to sign in and purchase immediate, browser-based access to books, Google said on its site.

article above mentions the possibility it might even help self-publishers, increase promotions, etc.



A few centuries pass, and *finally* the mainstream book publishers will have to reinvent how they do business? One can hope.

[Darren Dirt]

what makes Google Books work?
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/10/inside-the-google-books-algorithm/65422/