EU protects a database creator if there has been a qualitative or quantitative "substantial investment" in obtaining, verifying, or presenting the content, regardless of creative expression.
In USA copyright requires a minimum degree of original creativity in the selection, coordination, or arrangement of the data.
I think it's a rather grey line to say that Google search results are just facts, but eg maps are copyrightable. There's a rather large amount of effort involved in crawling and ranking the web - the PageRank itself should be copyrightable.
> I think it's a rather grey line to say that Google search results are just facts, but eg maps are copyrightable.
I don't think a map is a good example. A picture is probably a better one. A map, by its very definition, is not a replica of any part of the original artifact. Not merely because a map is not the territory, but also because it's not even a direct, unaltered view of the thing. There is clearly some creativity required in putting together a map, since it requires you to decide what to include, what to leave out, what to exaggerate, what to distort, etc... as evidenced by maps of the same area looking vastly different.
By contrast, search engine results are stitchings of various pieces of the text on the page, verbatim. How much creativity that embidies is probably akin to that within a photo.
Where it gets tricky is that, at least in past US case law, 'maps are facts' and thus cannot be copyrighted as easily (this is part of why published maps often have intentional, hopefully subtle errors in them) [0]
[0] - I believe a specific case was Nintendo vs Prima publishing, which was even involving a map of a fictitious construct.
> this is part of why published maps often have intentional, hopefully subtle errors in them
Yes I remember reading a few years ago about the Royal Australian Navy trying to find Sand Island which I think was some tiny island marked on maps of part of the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Australia - what they found was open ocean 1,100m deep, and concluded it was the map-maker's "mark".
The consensus was that Sandy Island was not a copyright “trap.” Some of the sightings may have been floating pumice from an undersea volcano, and the “confirmations” came from a chain of errors.
Well, there is precedence: Google can scrape the web, but you can't scrape Google. Laws around compiled databases exist for a reason: you can't just copy the phone book if effort has gone into compiling it, it is itself copyrightable
That varies by jurisdiction. In the United States, copying the phone book (or otherwise copying facts from someone else's collection) has been legal since 1991:
As a longtime Android user, I can't imagine going back to iOS for a number of reasons:
- Still no multiple-accounts feature in WhatsApp
- No app cloning (multiple versions of the same app with different logins)
- Crazy monthly storage fees with no ability to control photo storage on phone
- All google apps including Chrome, Gmail & Maps work better on Android and sync with Chrome on desktop
- No gemini built-in
- No fingerprint reader
- No multiple physical sims
- Slower charging
I'm really not sure why anyone would pay more for an iPhone besides social signalling.
Yep.
Basically the iPhone was very good at the start because Jobs smelled the future with his legendary intuition, but it was still a flawed product.
They won because it took competitors years to meaningfully catch up.
But now they are falling behind quite hard. In general, you just can't compete alone against a free market, and Apple gets a lot more profit compared to their volume, but they are unable to use it for meaningful improvement.
If nothing changes at Apple, I think they'll have a hard time in the next decade.
Apple being forced to rely on a competitor for AI is just the sign of complacency that will get them in trouble.
I suspect 99% of users have no use for multiple versions of the same app.
€10/month for 2TB storage is pretty good. I don’t use any google apps, or Chrome. Charge overnight so speed doesn’t matter.
Now the parts you didn’t mention:
- Apple makes great hardware, iPhones last forever (typing this from my virtue-signaling 2020 phone, my 2007 iPod touch still works).
- A similar spec Android costs about the same but usually has a flimsy plastic build and will become unsupported in 2-4 years
- Amazing integration with MacOS; continuity, camera, seamless sync for everything, seeing SMSes and calls on your laptop
And most importantly, despite the seriously degrading quality in the past years, the Apple ecosystem is still ahead in software and design. iOS apps are better designed, especially third party ones. They rarely crash, I go years without restarting my phone.
Android is definitely a lot closer than it was 7-8 years ago, but Material UI is still a complete clusterfuck and who wants to entrust Google with all their data? Apple not being an advertising company plays a huge role here.
I have an iPhone SE, and social signaling has literally not cross my mind at any point when deciding for it. It has the perfect size and form factor, I know it will be supported for at minimum 5y, and the cost is perfectly reasonable. That’s pretty much the only things I care about. It also has a fingerprint reader, and none of your reasons are things I do care about. I think I pay 2.99€ for monthly storage? Which is fine, that’s low enough that I couldn’t care less if that’s cheaper somewhere else
So, that’s a data point if you want to consider others perspective
Distributed ledgers were not a Bitcoin invention. Proof of Work was - largely a waste of electricity. There's no reason why SWIFT or any other institution can't have far more efficient real-time payments. It's already the case in most countries (UK & EU).
Distributed technologies have largely been useful to actors that wish to remain anonymous (Napster, Tor). Money transmission probably shouldn't be (if we want to avoid scams as a society).
Anonymous cash is good, but BTC is not really digital cash either - it doesn't work in a warzone without internet for example. Any real alternative to cash would have to work offline. And any real alternative to bank transfers would have to be regulated.
I've been toying with a concept for a cryptocurrency that works without internet access (like physical money) - peer to peer credit. I believe it is the only real use case for this technology.
You don't really need to. In IOU systems you extend credit to someone you know, based on ones reputation or credit score. How back in the day your local milk man would just keep a tab of what you owe.
In a way everyone has something to barter: you owe the milk man, your employer owes you. Identities form a web of trust in the physical world.
But how would you eventually reconcile and settle balances?
Would all payments be just non-fungible bilateral agreements? So if I paid the milkman for some milk, but there was no good or service I could later provide to him, he would be unable to take my payment to the butcher to buy some meat (unless the butcher was also willing to enter into a new bilateral agreement with me)?
Double spending & verifying identities isn't really an issue in a mutual credit system because credit lines are set between trusted parties. You’re replacing an algorithmic double‑spend check with a social credit check.
The butcher would have to trust the milkman in the real world to extend credit to him. At some point the butcher would go to a lender and borrow USD against the IOUs from the milkman. The lender knows the butcher, but can also evaluate the IOUs from the milkman by evaluating who owes the milkman, etc etc. Based on the level of trust the lender has in the butcher (and his IOUs) the lender can lend some hard USD to the butcher, and sell IOUs in exchange for USD to people wanting to join the network.
USD is also not backed by anything, and relies on trust. The important thing is that someone would be prepared to exchange IOU promises for USD/BTC/GLD - market makers. Demand for IOUs comes from people wanting to access the network.
That's only "fair" in a certain, academic sense, which claims that willingness to pay more money makes someone more "deserving" - completely ignoring socioeconomic status.
That also offends a lot of people who oppose the above reasoning.
How are concert tickets different to airplane tickets?
Allocation of scarce resources is based on demand for them, expressed in monetary terms. "Deserving" has nothing to do with it. I may deserve a ticket, but not even want to go.
The answer is mentioned in the article. Not all concerts want only people with means to attend. The venue might want to be accessible to low-income members of the community, or it might be a benefit concert, with free tickets and a donation drive.
You can't hand out money (which you're doing if you're giving away something of market value for nothing) without taking on the responsibility of deciding who gets it. Even charities have to put in the work.
In USA copyright requires a minimum degree of original creativity in the selection, coordination, or arrangement of the data.
I think it's a rather grey line to say that Google search results are just facts, but eg maps are copyrightable. There's a rather large amount of effort involved in crawling and ranking the web - the PageRank itself should be copyrightable.