10-26-2004, 11:00 PM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
Snipper -- Freeware Top News Reader
"Ever wish you could read news from major news sites like cnn.com on a Pocket PC device with the web page formatted specifically for a PDA? Most major news web sites do not offer their content to be easily viewed on mobile devices. The web pages include large graphics, ads, several columns, java script, and many other things. It isn't practical to view such web sites on a Pocket PC. Snipper is the first application available that makes it possible to view 3 of the Internet's most popular news web sites: CNN.com, MSNBC.com and the Jerusalem Post (jpost.com). Snipper retrieves the front page of these news sites without any graphics. It then extracts the various sections and recreates a web page that is optimally viewed on a PDA."
It only supports those three sites, but it's free.  You can download a copy from PocketGear.
|
| |
|
|
|
10-27-2004, 12:37 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,108
|
|
Re: Snipper -- Freeware Top News Reader
The Jerusalem Post is considered 'news' now? Why not just subscribe to the PNAC Gazette? I'd prefer the Haaretz any day of any week.
Ten points to anyone who understands all of what I just said.
|
| |
|
|
|
10-27-2004, 12:48 AM
|
|
|
10-27-2004, 01:15 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 229
|
|
...and MSN mobile
__________________
PDA stuff... Dell Axim 51v with 1g CF and SD card and a LOT of cool software.
|
| |
|
|
|
10-27-2004, 01:24 AM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 469
|
|
I'll bite when I see fox news there.
|
| |
|
|
|
10-27-2004, 05:58 AM
|
|
Oracle
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 841
|
|
This is probably the case of a solution looking for a problem. Most news sites have now a mobile version, and the majority have RSS feeds.
This also brings another problem to the front: most news sites are able to supply free content by actually making money out of advertising. Ad blockers, and filters like this program are actually using bandwidth but depriving these sites of their only revenue - unless we're talking about content purchashing, which I don't think is happening here.
Also, in terms of copyright, is it valid for a produtc to strip the content out of someone else's site, and use it? Note that the program is not claiming ownership of content, but even so, it's modifying the material. :roll:
|
| |
|
|
|
10-27-2004, 06:22 AM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 91
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by freitasm
This also brings another problem to the front: most news sites are able to supply free content by actually making money out of advertising. Ad blockers, and filters like this program are actually using bandwidth but depriving these sites of their only revenue - unless we're talking about content purchashing, which I don't think is happening here.
Also, in terms of copyright, is it valid for a produtc to strip the content out of someone else's site, and use it? Note that the program is not claiming ownership of content, but even so, it's modifying the material. :roll:
|
Exactly. It rather surprises me to see this program being promoted here on the front page, knowing how Jason thinks about things like this. In any case, the link does not seem to work anymore, so maybe other people think this is illegal as well.
EDIT: No, it seems PocketGear is having problems. Other pages refuse to load as well.
Quote:
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80004005'
[Microsoft][ODBC Driver Manager] Driver's SQLAllocHandle on SQL_HANDLE_DBC failed
/includes/inc_dbFunctions.asp, line 22
|
|
| |
|
|
|
10-27-2004, 06:35 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,108
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Leon
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by freitasm
This also brings another problem to the front: most news sites are able to supply free content by actually making money out of advertising. Ad blockers, and filters like this program are actually using bandwidth but depriving these sites of their only revenue - unless we're talking about content purchashing, which I don't think is happening here.
Also, in terms of copyright, is it valid for a produtc to strip the content out of someone else's site, and use it? Note that the program is not claiming ownership of content, but even so, it's modifying the material. :roll:
|
Exactly. It rather surprises me to see this program being promoted here on the front page, knowing how Jason thinks about things like this. In any case, the link does not seem to work anymore, so maybe other people think this is illegal as well. |
Are you the same guys who claim that it's illegal to get up and go to the bathroom during a TV commercial? Some people have really creepy ideas about what is and is not 'legal.'
Besides which, it's irrelevant. Despite what corporations would like you to think, the sacred cow of copyright is far from absolute. The core of copyright law here in the U.S. says that in effect, the copyright holder must show demonstrable financial impact--i.e. that they lost money or that the other guy was making money. Neither is the case here.
|
| |
|
|
|
10-27-2004, 07:28 AM
|
|
Oracle
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 841
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ADBrown
Are you the same guys who claim that it's illegal to get up and go to the bathroom during a TV commercial? Some people have really creepy ideas about what is and is not 'legal.'
|
Nope :? ... Think this way: television channels charge the advertiser regardless if the audience is in front of the TV set or in the bathroom.
Websites only make revenue if a banner is shown or clicked. If a user filters the banner then the only revenue the website can generate is gone. Unlike the television networks, advertisers on the Internet do not pay for ads that are not viewed.
I run a website and I have an idea of how many pages I serve per hour/day/week/month. I know that 45% of my users filter ads/banners. This is 45% of my potential revenue that I'm not realising.
I think this example shows the difference between television and Internet.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ADBrown
Besides which, it's irrelevant. Despite what corporations would like you to think, the sacred cow of copyright is far from absolute. The core of copyright law here in the U.S. says that in effect, the copyright holder must show demonstrable financial impact--i.e. that they lost money or that the other guy was making money. Neither is the case here.
|
Hmmm... Are you sure these companies are not losing revenue for not having ads showing, but having their bandwidth being used anyway? :roll:
|
| |
|
|
|
10-27-2004, 08:37 AM
|
|
Theorist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 291
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powder2000
I'll bite when I see fox news there.
|
Lets hope you are forever disappointed :|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
