Echoing other conversations I’ve seen around the web (wait for 12/14 to post)….Scott pings the Big Concept that while the folks building Google now are clearly well intentioned, we are creating an asset in Google together that someday may be out of our collective control. In Salon’s blog, Scott Rosenberg comments:
But Google is a public company. The people leading it today will not be leading it forever. It’s not inconceivable that in some future downturn Google will find itself under pressure to “monetize” its trove of books more ruthlessly.
Today’s Google represents an extremely benign face of capitalism, and it may be that the only way to get a project of this magnitude done efficiently is in the private sector. But capitalism has its own dynamic, and ad-supported businesses tend to move in one direction — towards more and more aggressive advertising.
Since we are, after all, talking about digitizing the entire body of published human knowledge, I can’t help thinking that a public-sector effort — whether government-backed or non-profit or both — is more likely to serve the long-term public good. I know that’s an unfashionable position in this market-driven era. It’s also an unrealistic one given the current U.S. government’s priorities.
3 thoughts on “Rosenberg Chimes In”
If they. gained a proprietary right to the
The people over at resourceshelf have a list of other projects that are already digitizing books. Internet Archive is one.
This document was filed with the United States courts. I take full responsibility for any thing said in it. It is all true. You may print my name address and phone #
Of the First Circuit
February 12, 2006 Peter Macdonald 465 Packersfalls rd Lee NH 03824 603-659-6217
Complaint No 420 U. S. court of appeals NO 05-1433
Chief Circuit Judge Boudin
Petition for review
Now Comes; Peter Macdonald and so clearly states, when a United States natural born citizen files discrimination and other constitutional complaints against sitting judges (whom took an oath to “Protect the character of brothers members of the American Bar Association” that these so mentioned judges did knowingly with intent to cause harm violate the United States Constitution and the New Hampshire Constitution) this complaint must be heard by an impartial jury. NH Const. Part First Art. 35 “It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual” “It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as impartial as the lot of humanity will admit”. Every judge and court that has ruled on this case clearly knows that I am 100% mentally and physically service connected disabled United States Marine. The court clearly understands that I do not have the mental or physical ability to understand or remember the rules of law of the court. Judge Fauver made me a lawyer for the sole purpose of taking advantage of my disabilities so he could rule in friends of the courts favor. All the courts are well aware of this intentional act of discrimination by Judge Fauver. The court is aware that Judge Fauver committed or allowed others (friends of the court) to commit 29 +or- Constitutional crimes. Judge James O’Neill heard a clear and uncontested record of these crimes and ruled that Judges Fauver’s rulings were “Constitutional” Clearly to protect the character of a brother attorney. These were uncontested facts and O’Neill still ruled in the friends of the court favor. The NH Supreme Court clearly had documented and stated case of these constitutional crimes uncontested and ruled the case “Moot” case # 2003-0477 to protect brother attorneys. These were uncontested facts and the NHSC still ruled in the friends of the court favor. Judge McAuliffe of United States District Court Concord NH had a copy of the NH Supreme Court case and a petition clearly explaining said Constitutional crimes. Judge McAuliffe ruled Judges have “Immunity from constitutional crimes committed with their decision”. This criminal act is a clear and uncontested act of discrimination to inflict intentional harm on United States Citizens. Intentional discrimination committed by judges can not be tolerated. Before the colonist would ratify the constitution a documented recorded statement was made that “any one constitutional right of any one individual can not be violated or that government must be abolished and a new one started“. The court of appeals made a discriminatory ruling violating the Constitution by stating judges are immune and dismissing the case. Now Chief Circuit Judge Boudin dismisses the case. Judges are bound to obey the law. This criminal act of intentional discrimination can not be tolerated. These judges also violated the Americans with disabilities act with intent to cause harm.
NH Constitution Part First art. 14 “Every subject of this state is entitled to a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws”. This is a Constitutional law. These judges have inflicted injury on this innocent Madbury NH family and my person, property and character with intent to cause harm and the judicial branch of the government has become perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual. Judges are protecting judges knowingly inflicting harm of natural born citizens of the United States. I have clearly stated and prove it. This is a criminal act of intentional discrimination and no judge is above the law as your ruling states.
The Madbury NH government clearly did not deny under oath that they were using the power entrusted in them by the voters to seek personal revenge on a Madbury NH family. This Madbury NH family when the courts would not listen to them and the lawyers representing them depleted all their money asked me for help. I volunteer my time to help fellow American citizens because I came back from a conflict alive and I should not have. I took and oath when I joined the United States Marine Corps to Protect and Defend the United States Constitution with my life if necessary.
The NH Government in 1999 clearly stated to the people “Today the fight for individual rights will most likely take place in a courtroom or on the letters to the editor page of a local newspaper, rather than on a battlefield”. The courts clearly show they can not be trusted to violate the oath to protect brother attorneys and up hold the rights guaranteed every individual by the United States Constitution. This is Discrimination. The Newspapers refuse to print the truth because they either believe a mentally and physically handicapped United States Marine can not know what he is saying. Does this leave the Battle field? 1999-2000 NH Const. Booklet page 22
We the People have to believe that the United States Judicial branch of government will protect every individual. This contemptible, discriminating, biased, ruling by Chief Circuit Judge Boudin must be over turned. Judges can not dismiss a case, for the sole act to protect a brother judge. A unbiased 12 ordinary citizens jury must judge the facts. This is a guaranteed Constitutional right, further NH Const. Part Two art 5 “so the same be not repugnant or contrary to this constitution” Art. 90 “Existing laws continue if not repugnant” For the Judges in this case to make rules or laws to protect the interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men, brings me to NH constitution Part First art. 10 I ask the court why should violence be necessary?
Where fore; I have followed the constitutional procedures to bring this case to court. Each step of the way the courts discriminate to protect friends of the court. I have filed a “Redress of Wrongs” with the NH government and was arrested under the Patriot Act and lost my freedom for 6 months. I have attempted to have the newspapers inform the public. They refuse claiming liability, and other selfish reasons. The NH Government clearly tells me a battlefield is next. We live in a civilized society violence should not be necessary. What does the court believe that I should do next?
I certify a copy has been made available to all parties concerned.
I respectfully submit this document. I hope the court stop violating the constitution and returns the rights to We the people.
Peter Macdonald Sgt USMC “Semper Fi” Submitted this 16 day of February 2006
A copy is mailed to the United States Supreme Court, NH governor, newspapers and others.
I ask every one whom reads this court document to tell your friends and e-mail this to firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Newstips@bostonherald.com email@example.com