Have you got one where it's Paul, Ringo, and dogs filling in for John and George? If it's halfway decent, they could get the band back together.
God bless those Satanists
Well, we don't know that Mr. Fusion was available in 2015. Doc Brown might have traveled further into the future, after all.
I'll start: "You blew it up! You BASTARDS!"
In business, they have a standard "due diligence", before any transaction is completed, both parties are given enough time to determine if the transacion is all it seems. On the internet, there's a site called letmegooglethatforyou.com. Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
Because if there's any place in the entire world where you want to put decommissioned WMDs, it's in the middle of a sea too large for effective policing and too shallow to put them out of the reach of wreck divers
First, you stop asking sefl-defeating questions. The question is not "how do you protect privacy when its out of your control", it's "how do I control things in order to increase my privacy" You ask how to maintain your privacy when your friends all have cameras, why do you have friends that pull out a camera at the drop of a hat again? You ask about protecting personal data that's collected by banks and companies that have horrible IT, why are you doing business with them again? Your privacy is literally your own business, and if you don't mind it, someone else will.
Obviously, government need not "slavishly enforce" conditions which are against the law.
Well, the entire point of the discussion has been about changing what the law is. There isn't a fixed, universal law of contracts, remember; it's whatever arbitrary things we want it to be. If the law is changed so that ratios concerning pay must be adhered to for the contract to be enforceable, then that's how it is.
It is morally wrong because it requires intervention to prevent two parties from engaging in what both deem is a mutually-beneficial contract.
And yet, we do this all the time.. Plus, you forget that there is a difference between an agreement and a contract. Two parties can agree to something all they like. Contracts only become relevant when they disagree and need a third party to resolve the dispute. If two contracting parties are going to rely on the government to handle disputes, the government now has a perfectly legitimate opportunity to set the rules which will govern the agreement. It need not slavishly enforce whatever happens to have been put on a signed piece of paper.
It is cited in the opinion as the Clancy declaration, with the specific paragraph noted. You can probably dig it up yourself. This would've been available not only to the judge, but also to the opposing side, and they had the opportunity to present evidence to the contrary. Apparently they either didn't or didn't provide anything more convincing than what Google had. Part of what courts do is settle disputed questions of fact. If this was disputed, it is now settled so far as this case goes: the links are not ads. And as this is a generally applicable precedent, other companies are free to do the same ad Google and expect to also be protected.
How do you know that it generates revenue for Google? Further, how do you know that the links always generate revenue for Google (as opposed to it depending on the book displayed on the page, the book's copyright status, and any pertinent license agreements between Google and the book's copyright holder)?
You may not be able to get the full text of the copyrighted work, but Google can and has. Google are profiting from an unauthorised copy made of a copyrighted work. If google are allowed to do it, why can't I? I only want to make one copy of each book from the library. I don't intended to sell that unauthorised copy to anyone, heck I don't even intend to let anyone else see even snippets of it. What's the difference? Why are Google allowed to make copies for their own purposes but I am not? Is it because they are a rich company who can afford lawyers to override copyright laws?
You can. Provided that it's a fair use. Any use can be fair, but not every use is; it depends on the circumstances. There's a four factor analysis that's usually done in order to determine whether a use is fair or not, though sometimes one factor can outweigh the others, and it's a good idea not to lose sight of the big picture.
If you copy books for your own use as a substitute for buying them, my guess is that this is not a fair use. OTOH what Google does is copy books not in order to use them itself, but to aid others in searching them, and when it presents information unauthorizedly copied from copyrighted books to users, it only provides a tiny amount, not the entire thing. This makes the search a useful adjunct to the books, but not a substitute.
When the book in question was written in year 1776 the situation isn't quite that simple. If I buy their scanned copy, and then OCR it can I then sell it or make it available for free? The copyright isn't there anymore, I'm only dealing with the data in the book, I believe I could legally print and sell it, right?
Well, the book might be copyrighted anyway; it depends largely on when it was originally published, not just on when it was written. But assuming that it is in the public domain, and that you haven't agreed to some contract to not make and sell copies of it (as a prerequisite to get access to it, for example), then yes, you can make more copies and distribute them as you like.
To clarify, in the US at least, you can get sued for downloading, it's just unlikely.
The usual plaintiffs prefer to go after targets toward the other end of the food chain because it's more effective and more efficient (e.g. A single suit against Napster was more beneficial to them than a million cases against Napster users would've been). And if you're merely downloading, you're harder to catch.
Still though, it is typically illegal to download copyrighted material without authorization, and the remedies that might get employed against you can be substantial.
That seems like an odd example. I thought that Sinclair hated government involvement in business (unless he could get money without losing control, anyway).