Brave Search launches own image and video search

Post by memefrog » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 12:19 PM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #115

bastawhiz wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say I pay for Kagi. Kagi is a tool that I'm using to avoid doing hard work manually. With relatively few exceptions, I can probably accomplish what I use a search engine for manually, but with much more time and effort. So I'm paying for a tool to assist me with my use of the web. A "user agent", you might even say. It simply doesn't sound right to say which tool a user can use. It's literally the same as argui…

> With relatively few exceptions, I can probably accomplish what I use a search engine for manually, but with much more time and effort. So I'm paying for a tool to assist me with my use of the web. A "user agent", you might even say 1. User agents should identify themselves 2. A crawler is not a User agent - it's an agent for Brave >I don't think there's any court at this point that would back you up that freely pub…

Post by onli » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 12:20 PM UTC

user_named wrote: post #138

onli wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A publisher publishes. Once something is published, once something is public, the control a publisher has over the published thing is limited. For example, a publisher can not choose who reads a book after it is sold, who reads an article after it got printed. It is not a given at all that a publisher should have any say about being indexed. The search engine relies on a public fact - X wrote Y. That's legal (limitat…

You are completely wrong. A publisher controls the publication of a work, text or other, including it's duplication and licensing. Other companies cannot xerox a book and sell it. Clear?

Post by waithuh » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 12:31 PM UTC

jaharios wrote: post #85

pierrefar wrote: post #71

The major problem with Brave search is their position about indexing and licensing content against the wishes of the website publisher. Their robot does not identify itself, meaning the publisher cannot use the standard robots.txt to block its crawling if the publisher so wishes. Incidentally, the robots.txt file has been used in court cases litigating if a search engine is legal or not. Even worse, they state that B…

This make me want to use Brave search now. When I use a tool I expect it that it serves me, not the material it provides. > A publisher should have full control to discriminate which search engine indexes the website's content If you want someone to not see what you publish block him yourself. Also why would you want to do that? Do you want google to own the web or something?

Post by waithuh » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 12:37 PM UTC

ignitionmonkey wrote: post #14

cheald wrote: post #2

I'm very glad for this! I've been using Brave search almost since it launched, and the standard results have gotten great, but it's always been a bummer to have to go out to Bing/Google for images/video. It's really nice having an alternative that isn't just wrapper around someone else's search index.

Same here. Much like Firefox, I think it's important to use a search index that isn't tied to the larger players (Bing and Google in this case). I tried Brave a couple of months ago[1], I found the results better than Bing, but without image search it wasn't usable. Now I can give it another go. [1]: https://jahed.dev/2023/07/01/trying-brave-search/

Post by user_named » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 2:23 PM UTC

onli wrote: post #143

user_named wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are completely wrong. A publisher controls the publication of a work, text or other, including it's duplication and licensing. Other companies cannot xerox a book and sell it. Clear?

Clear?! I specifically gave the example of selling it not being covered by what I'm talking about. But other parties can definitely "xerox" a book and read it. Use its content. Talk about what is written in it. Quote it. There are limits to the controlling rights of a publisher.