将中文译成英语
Imagine it is the mid-90's smart to think of a brilliant computer science at Cambridge University's new method of searching the Internet for several students. Them out of school, began to try the so-called Google's business - and give up, because they found the UK copyright regime is too strict.
The process is just a story, but an important - because it is the law. Inspire our major government review of copyright issues when David Cameron announced that Hargreaves will review the intellectual property system behind the growth in November, he said:
"Google's founders said they could never have started in the Britain.The their service company, they provide all the content at any time to take a snapshot of the Internet depends on the copyright system, they think we are not as such innovation-friendly as it is. in the United States " Now, Hargreaves Review Panel, whose members visited Google and other Silicon Valley companies, is due to their hands during the month by the final survey results. Entertainment industry has lobbied hard against any major change in the copyright system, and complained that the government seems more inclined to listen to our economy even more than Google to the contribution of creative enterprises in the UK far.
So two questions - this is true, Google is not in here, and if so what should change?
First, it is very difficult to find out when and under what circumstances, said the founders of Google - they explain what, if they are more in-depth meaning. After all, this is clearly a variety of factors, which means that Google in Silicon Valley began sorting - culture, the availability of capital, and in fact, Page and Brin at Stanford University students: a long history of innovation and entrepreneurship where .
But his speech in East London, the Prime Minister referred to last year's fair use provisions of the United States, "Some people think that giving companies more breathing space, and create new products and services."
British law to do some protection to the enterprise you want to copy the material online, but not in bed, the provisions of the U.S. fair use exists. Hargreaves, in its submission to the review, Google suggested that Britain should learn from U.S. experience: "We believe that the U.S. government - its inherent flexibility - a better way to get off the ground and ensure that new untested innovation, was not killed. "
However, this review is about the future of the ground more fertile Google - so I asked a small British search engine if it thinks that our copyright system, a threat to its existence.
The real knowledge is a fast-growing semantic search business - or "answer engine" because it describes itself - founded in Cambridge, William Tunstall - situation Pedoe. He told me it was too simple to say that the British copyright system will prevent the birth of Google - it apparently did not stop, his company has been ground.
"There is only one Internet and many internationally recognized standards," he said, as an example to the robot exclusion standard, meeting management how search engines crawl the network are allowed or prohibited content.
Mr Tunstall - Pedoe circumstances and that the UK would benefit from more clear on copyright law: "It will not change, but will be helpful," he said.
Hargreaves then we can expect? In view of the review established under, you might think this is a car would certainly recommend the United States in the United Kingdom, through the rational use of the system.
But there is one interesting thing - from who is framed so concerned about the review now appears a lot more relaxed way of creative industries, said an angry customer. "This will be a damp squib," one of them told me this week.
Has repeatedly attempted to tinkering recently with the UK copyright regime, the most of the Gowers Review of 2006. The main effect is to prevent music copyright 95 years to extend the regime to strengthen the record.
Now, we wait to see this latest decision to review the balance in the protection of our creative industries and encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. Currently, the media giant seems confident that Google's story is not convincing Hargreaves panel because it did not prove to the Prime Minister.
The process is just a story, but an important - because it is the law. Inspire our major government review of copyright issues when David Cameron announced that Hargreaves will review the intellectual property system behind the growth in November, he said:
"Google's founders said they could never have started in the Britain.The their service company, they provide all the content at any time to take a snapshot of the Internet depends on the copyright system, they think we are not as such innovation-friendly as it is. in the United States " Now, Hargreaves Review Panel, whose members visited Google and other Silicon Valley companies, is due to their hands during the month by the final survey results. Entertainment industry has lobbied hard against any major change in the copyright system, and complained that the government seems more inclined to listen to our economy even more than Google to the contribution of creative enterprises in the UK far.
So two questions - this is true, Google is not in here, and if so what should change?
First, it is very difficult to find out when and under what circumstances, said the founders of Google - they explain what, if they are more in-depth meaning. After all, this is clearly a variety of factors, which means that Google in Silicon Valley began sorting - culture, the availability of capital, and in fact, Page and Brin at Stanford University students: a long history of innovation and entrepreneurship where .
But his speech in East London, the Prime Minister referred to last year's fair use provisions of the United States, "Some people think that giving companies more breathing space, and create new products and services."
British law to do some protection to the enterprise you want to copy the material online, but not in bed, the provisions of the U.S. fair use exists. Hargreaves, in its submission to the review, Google suggested that Britain should learn from U.S. experience: "We believe that the U.S. government - its inherent flexibility - a better way to get off the ground and ensure that new untested innovation, was not killed. "
However, this review is about the future of the ground more fertile Google - so I asked a small British search engine if it thinks that our copyright system, a threat to its existence.
The real knowledge is a fast-growing semantic search business - or "answer engine" because it describes itself - founded in Cambridge, William Tunstall - situation Pedoe. He told me it was too simple to say that the British copyright system will prevent the birth of Google - it apparently did not stop, his company has been ground.
"There is only one Internet and many internationally recognized standards," he said, as an example to the robot exclusion standard, meeting management how search engines crawl the network are allowed or prohibited content.
Mr Tunstall - Pedoe circumstances and that the UK would benefit from more clear on copyright law: "It will not change, but will be helpful," he said.
Hargreaves then we can expect? In view of the review established under, you might think this is a car would certainly recommend the United States in the United Kingdom, through the rational use of the system.
But there is one interesting thing - from who is framed so concerned about the review now appears a lot more relaxed way of creative industries, said an angry customer. "This will be a damp squib," one of them told me this week.
Has repeatedly attempted to tinkering recently with the UK copyright regime, the most of the Gowers Review of 2006. The main effect is to prevent music copyright 95 years to extend the regime to strengthen the record.
Now, we wait to see this latest decision to review the balance in the protection of our creative industries and encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. Currently, the media giant seems confident that Google's story is not convincing Hargreaves panel because it did not prove to the Prime Minister.
没有评论:
发表评论