Verily I say unto thee, that RonB spake thusly:
> Tim Smith wrote:
>> Huh? There's no DRM involved in this.
Well that must be a first for the Vole.
Doing this also removes Microsoft from the line of fire regarding the
copyrights of published works. By limiting their spidering to content
posted by publishers and libraries, the onus of determining proper
ownership and rights falls to those who create such repositories.
So does this mean that so far they /haven't/ been enforcing publisher's
"rights" with DRM? Tsk, tsk ... bad Microsoft. And here they are,
champions of Intellectual Monopoly, and all.
> Nope. Just Microsoft being out-Googled again.
I see. I saw the word "demand" and just assumed that Microsoft was
selling something. If that "something" is media content, then I further
assumed they would "protect" it with DRM. If they're /not/ selling
something, then why would they allude to there being "no demand" for it?
"No demand" from whom? Who are these "customers" who are "not demanding"
this content? One does not typically refer to an act of altruism in
terms of "demand" ... or perhaps the Vole doesn't "get" that.
Of course we all know the /real/ motive behind this failed venture. It
was simply a case of spite - more ammunition to "fscking kill Google".
It failed, so now it's being discarded like a dud bullet. /That's/ not
what altruism is about either.
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 22.214.171.124-63.fc8
03:16:51 up 155 days, 23:52, 6 users, load average: 0.02, 0.11, 0.29