I've had an awesome week. I got paper on Google and Ebay. Google are a good long term investment (Youtube was a great aquisition). Now is the time to buy! Ebay are great to make short-term gains (esp. when you buy between $24-28 ;).

when is google going to split the sotck??? or do they believe against it?

James Sharp
www.Duplicators4Less.com

I'll answer your "directed" question first Brian, then I'll give my point of view on the issues of content usage which you addressed earlier.

Can / will Google reach $500? YOU BET! For me it's predicated on these couple principles, continued diversification of focus and continued use of intelligence. These are the two factors which are growing Google so strongly and rapidly. Google will continue to push their stock value higher by spreading their influence. That is the single most comforting asset in their investors eyes. Google has made it clear that they will have nothing to do with the "all the eggs in one basket" mindset. They keep picking up new baskets and then they do exciting things with them. They have agressive forward view and they act on it. The stock value continues to rise because the earning potential does.


Now on this content issue, really folks it should not be such an upset. It has some well established rules for guidance and the rest should be dictated by common sense.

Content placed on the internet is public domain unless it carries it's own protections. Copyrights and trademarks need to be respected but again I say, we have to use some common sense.

If a news agency is going to post a story, that is essentially public record. If that same news agency is going to tell me that they have exclusive rights to that story, well honestly, they can kiss my (monitor).

BUT,

They do have a need to claim an exclusive right to their own PRESENTATION of that content. At the very least, if someone is copying and pasting the news agency's actual original content, that could be plagarism. If that copied content is not declared as a quote or presented with proper citation then the copier and re-presenter is playing in a very dangerous minefield.

As far as the issue of exploiting URL's for connections to content, let's be realistic, can someone claim exclusive rights to a road map? Should you tell someone, "Hey, come over to my house, but don't you dare tell anyone what street I live on!"? What about sharing a link with your friend? A web site cannot restrict usage of a URL, but it CAN restrict entry to the site once you get there. I even think that the selling of URL lists is acceptable but you should not "sublease" the actual site content without permission or agreement of some kind with the owner. If they wish to restrict access to their content it's really kind of simple... isn't it?

In some ways, I think some of the objections being raised are similar to a magazine publisher issuing notice to their subscribers that they cannot leave the publisher's magazine on their coffee table because a non-subscriber might look at the cover. What a foolish notion. For something like that to even be imaginable would mean that at time of subscription they'd need to enter into contract.

"This magazine is copyrighted material and is intended for the exclusive use of the subscriber. All other potential viewers are hereby informed that by looking at the cover of this magazine they are in violation of it's declared intended use and may be subject to penalties both civil and criminal."


Ummm, give me a break.


I'll finish my night here by giving just one admonishment, and you'd best pay attention. I warned you about this a couple months ago. We just got our first taste with the touted, Internet Gaming Law.

If you guys don't get this copyright noise taken care of and take well crafted documents to the government for approval and enactment, those fine legislators are going to design the rules themselves, sign them and jam them right where we don't want them.


Now quit the games and get it done or the government will just make it happen.


They already screwed up internet gaming.

What more proof do you want!?!

..
U

Google is not an investment I like.Why pay $480.00 for a stock with no dividend yield.$1.00 adds up to a increase of .02.There are better buys out there.