| | |
Gmail to charge for storage
Please support our Pay-Per-Click Advertising advertiser: Get a Free Web Marketing Analysis!
0
•
•
•
•
I thought Copernic was just an app that scoured multiple search engines.
I remember using Northern Light for the longest time, till they went under.
That and Excite! but that was going back to 1997 if not earlier.
I remember using Northern Light for the longest time, till they went under.
That and Excite! but that was going back to 1997 if not earlier.
0
•
•
•
•
Privacy certainly ranks as one of the primary reasons many are opposed to Google and Gmail. Another concern is content appropriation and monetization.
I was a big fan of Google when they first came on the scene. I loved the relevance of their search results, plus all of the cool programmer-centric tools they offered. I didn't mind when they introduced AdWords – it seemed like a valid way for them to make money. We had legitimate search results, and we had "paid" search results, and the two were clearly separate.
At some point, though, Google stopped being a search engine, and became – something else. They weren't just indexing my pages (content I authored and own), but were storing complete copies on their own servers. Moreover, they use all that cached content to drive their advertising systems. I don't recall ever giving them permission to copy my copyrighted content. When did I become one of their "content providers"? Where’s my payment? If they are profiting from my content, shouldn't I get a cut?
Interestingly, I see the "Google Model: How to Profit from others' Content" paralleled in many online systems, including user forums such as Daniweb. It's certainly appropriate for a forum operator to sell advertising, and to dedicate page real estate to show ads. However, many sites (including this one) have crossed the line into selling off the very words members type. Again, a line has been crossed: sell your screen real estate? Fine. Sell my words, without my permission and without payment? Not Fine.
Aggressive monetization of third-party content is one of the saddest aspects of how the web has evolved. Keep your ads out of my posts, and keep my pages out of your cache. At least Google honors the "noarchive" meta tag. Where's our "no-IntelliTXT" tag?
In the early days of the web, there was the phenomenon of using HTML frames to wrap someone else's pages within your own. This caused considerable outcry, some lawsuits, and the proliferation of "frame-busting" scripts. Yet for some reason, we let Google cache and serve all of our content, in fact build a multi-billion dollar business around content theft, and they enjoy near cult status.
Pay to use Gmail? Google should be paying Gmail users and web site owners for the content!
I was a big fan of Google when they first came on the scene. I loved the relevance of their search results, plus all of the cool programmer-centric tools they offered. I didn't mind when they introduced AdWords – it seemed like a valid way for them to make money. We had legitimate search results, and we had "paid" search results, and the two were clearly separate.
At some point, though, Google stopped being a search engine, and became – something else. They weren't just indexing my pages (content I authored and own), but were storing complete copies on their own servers. Moreover, they use all that cached content to drive their advertising systems. I don't recall ever giving them permission to copy my copyrighted content. When did I become one of their "content providers"? Where’s my payment? If they are profiting from my content, shouldn't I get a cut?
Interestingly, I see the "Google Model: How to Profit from others' Content" paralleled in many online systems, including user forums such as Daniweb. It's certainly appropriate for a forum operator to sell advertising, and to dedicate page real estate to show ads. However, many sites (including this one) have crossed the line into selling off the very words members type. Again, a line has been crossed: sell your screen real estate? Fine. Sell my words, without my permission and without payment? Not Fine.
Aggressive monetization of third-party content is one of the saddest aspects of how the web has evolved. Keep your ads out of my posts, and keep my pages out of your cache. At least Google honors the "noarchive" meta tag. Where's our "no-IntelliTXT" tag?
In the early days of the web, there was the phenomenon of using HTML frames to wrap someone else's pages within your own. This caused considerable outcry, some lawsuits, and the proliferation of "frame-busting" scripts. Yet for some reason, we let Google cache and serve all of our content, in fact build a multi-billion dollar business around content theft, and they enjoy near cult status.
Pay to use Gmail? Google should be paying Gmail users and web site owners for the content!
Similar Threads
- file storage vs database storage (MS SQL)
- To charge $ or not to charge $.....Everyone comment (Promotion and Marketing Plans)
- You can use GMAIL for mass file storage!!! (Geeks' Lounge)
- Gmail now offering unlimited storage space! (Search Engine Optimization)
- View the Storage Devices That Are Displayed As "USB SCSI Storage Device" in Windows X (Windows tips 'n' tweaks)
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
advertising age amd android api apple avatar bing blogging bluegene botnet browser business cellphone censorship china chips cloudcomputing copyright crime data database development dos downloads economy email encryption energy enterprise facebook firefox games gaming gmail google government hacking hardware ibm ibm.news intelibm internet iphone ipod itunes law legal linux mac malware marketing medicine memory microsoft mobile mozilla music news openoffice opensource os pc phishing piracy porn privacy ps3 recession redhat research russia search security sex socialnetworking software spam statistics sun supercomputer supercomputing survey technology trends trojan twitter ubuntu uk video virus vista web windows windows7 working x86 xbox yahoo youtube



