For example, we understand that the FBI’s new policy requires FBI agents to obtain a search warrant whenever a cell-site simulator is used as part of a FBI investigation or operation, unless one of several exceptions apply, including (among others): (1) cases that pose an imminent danger to public safety, (2) cases that involve a fugitive, or (3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
First of all the Napster of now and the Napster of old have nothing to do with each other other than the name
Are you trying to say that using the Napster name didn't have a hand in the new service's success? If you are, I disagree.
, why should Google be rewarded with exclusive rights to books, which the authors has to opt-out of Google getting, after blatantly ignoring other people's copyrights?
This isn't even getting into the fact that not even all the authors that Google will be making money off of will get anything out of this.
This is where my original point came in. What google did was messed up, I agree with that. However, by doing this, publishers and authors are shutting out an additional avenue for potential revenue and sales. Why would they deliberately do that? How is it a good idea to shut down more ways to earn money instead of coming to an agreement where everyone benefits?
The computing field is always in need of new cliches. -- Alan Perlis