I've been in the technology industry for a long time. I've participated and watched the genesis and growth of the Internet since the beginning. I've invented a lot of software, beta tested a lot of hardware, built data centers and handled billions of records. Idiot? Sure, at times but I believe in property rights and google built their company on property owned by others. That is something you cannot dispute no matter how smart you may think you are.
Anyone that watched the genesis of google could see that they had a really bright idea. Good for them. But to say that they have some right to other peoples content was and still is wrong headed from a property rights standpoint. I could provide you with numerous analogies regarding property you may likely own that if the possession and use of such property was infringed upon you in the same fashion google infringes on property you would likely think it prudent to take up arms. But I suspect such things would exceed the height of your the apex between your ears.
Considering you line of thinking I wonder if you think it absurd or ironic that today google polices and scrubs content that they decide is unworthy of providing. Recently they decided to censor (yea, I understand the true meaning of the word) web pages that may have words that say things like "gun for sale". If they can decide what content to provide or not provide cannot you see the comedy in your "first amendment" assertion?
The idea that what is yours is yours but it is mine too is a very odd to me. How anyone can think that simply because something like google is a valuable tool that means that they should realize profit off the work of others is indeed idiot to me. But, the cat is out of the bag when it comes to google and a lot of other electronic systems that hold and provide information either constructed by other or ON others.
An easy way to avoid having Google index a site is to not put it out on a public server.
I put them on public servers because I want people to find them. Google and others help me achieve that goal. They should pay me for helping me?
I apologize. I didn't mean to come across that harsh.
Anyone that watched the genesis of google could see that they had a really bright idea. Good for them. But to say that they have some right to other peoples content was and still is wrong headed from a property rights standpoint.
Anyone has the right to cite the work of anyone else without paying. The fact that Google and others cite stuff on a really large scale with a convenient user interface (and make a fortune by selling ads to go with) has no bearing on that basic fact. Other than their vastly better technology, Google is really no different than the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature or a library's card catalog.
If search engines had been required to pay web authors, they never would have got off the ground, and the web would be a far less useful thing.
Considering you line of thinking I wonder if you think it absurd or ironic that today google polices and scrubs content that they decide is unworthy of providing. Recently they decided to censor (yea, I understand the true meaning of the word) web pages that may have words that say things like "gun for sale".
According to the article, they are not going to accept gun ads. It doesn't say anything about filtering pages. For instance, if I search for Bushmaster XM-15 rifle, I get plenty of hits, including potentially useful related search suggestions, but no ads, even though I mentioned a specific brand name and model number. If I search for Bushmaster XM-15 manual, Google's lead hit is this PDF. Now, that's downright helpful! But if I search for a non-gun product, e.g., Sangean PR D15, I get a large pile of hits and Google shopping results and a slew of ads. Interestingly, if I try the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle query on Bing, I do get one ad, from Amazon.com/sports (free 2-day shipping).
How anyone can think that simply because something like google is a valuable tool that means that they should realize profit off the work of others is indeed idiot to me.
That's how a market economy works. The successful participants are constantly profiting from the work of others as they produce their outputs. And we, the customers, through our buying decisions, decide how to value the contributions of the various producers. Free tutorial, brought to you by Google.