There’s a dense argument going on right now over whether or not software will be patentable in Europe. Not being the most politically educated person on the block, I found this recent overview, rebuttal, and re-rebuttal about the value of software patents quite enlightening.
The technology of Google’s AutoLink is dangerous no doubt, and the idea of inserting ads into someone’s content without their permission seems a bit dubious at first glance. Recently though, I hadn’t thought about AutoLink’s possible incompatibility with the non-commercial Creative Commons license I used to use, until Tim Bray pointed it out.
I thought this was a terrible legal fumble on behalf of Google, but then I realized that this isn’t Google pushing this type of behavior on people. Consumers are clicking a button that essentially asks Google to “add value” to the content that they are reading. Whether or not that value is indeed valuable to users remains to be seen, but that’s not the point.
An author’s right to control a work extends only as far the recipient’s right to consume, annotate, and discuss the work. You can’t enforce nor expect me to not highlight and annotate your work, yet. You can’t expect me to refrain from asking another person of their opinion. The only difference between my annotation and discussion of content with peers and AutoLink, is that AutoLink users are asking a commercial entity for annotations with the assistance of software.
I concede though, that I don’t know how AutoLink is implemented. If it’s storing these pages with added links and re-serving them to the client, I’d be inclined to say Google’s in the wrong because they’re actually redistributing this content. If they’re simply modifying the html on my screen, then I see no problems.
Today I learned that it is simply not enough to vote. I think Lawrence Lessig has best summarized how I feel about our new administration.
He is our President — legitimately, and credibly.
Our criticism of this administration must now focus narrowly and sharply: on the policies, not on the credibility of the man.