Copyright

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> Doc O'Leary wrote:
>>>> In article <Xns9A3675CADE00Dcastleamber.TakeThisOut@130.133.1.4>,
>>>> John Bokma <john.TakeThisOut@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet.TakeThisOut@1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. The thing you're missing is that a web site displaying a
>>>>>> feed should be considered just another specialized browser or feed
>>>>>> reader.
>>>>> http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
>>>>>
>>>>> From the summary:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and
>>>>> don't grant you any permission to do further copying except perhaps
>>>>> the sort of copying the poster might have expected in the ordinary
>>>>> flow of the net."
>>>>>
>>>>> Law is not how you feel it should be.
>>>>
>>>> Funny, but what you quote indicates it is *exactly* how I feel it
>>>> should be. Your eyes seems to have glazed over the "expected in the
>>>> ordinary flow" part. For feeds, it is very much the expectation of
>>>> any sane webmaster that they will be processed and used in a
>>>> non-specific fashion. They will be incorporated into widgets,
>>>> screensavers, specialized readers, and monitoring software of all
>>>> kinds. If you don't like it, stop going to the extra effort of
>>>> providing an XML file that can easily be used for the purpose of
>>>> it's design.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How you feel is not the law. Els is correct in her statements.
>>>
>>> When an artistic work (including web pages, rss feeds, etc.) is
>>> created, the person creating it (or, in the case of an employee, the
>>> employer) has an implicit copyright to it. Other than fair use (i.e.
>>> quoting excerpts), you cannot copy or use it in any manner.
>>>
>>> Republishing a feed, even if it's a public feed, is a copyright
>>> violation and can be subject to both civil and criminal penalties.
>>>
>>
>> Which is the huge flaw in all this "Web 2.0" stuff.
>>
>
> And how is that? Nothing I know of in Web 2.0 violates copyright laws.
> But then I don't know everything about Web 2.0.
>

Well this was the point I was trying to make. Can't argue on one had
that people are leeching content that you publish on RSS into other
formats... but then say it's perfectly alright if falls in the realms of
W2.0 stuff.

I just think the whole area is very grey, and content ownership is
something that far to many people just ignore. There are *many* web
sites out there, for example, that republish feeds from all kinds of
news services, other folks blogs, web2.0 apps... so on, and I doubt much
thought is ever given by the user of these services to who owns what.
Who polices the leechers of leechers?

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

SpaceGirl wrote:
> John Bokma wrote:
>> SpaceGirl <nothespacegirlspam RemoveThis @subhuman.net> wrote:
>>
>>> What if the specialized reader is, say, a Flash application built into
>>> my web site? The Flash client is a browser in its own right, and any
>>> application you write in it is running on the *users* computer, not
>>> the internet... even if it is feeding off XML on your web site. So...
>>> fair use? Or not...
>>
>> Someone makes a photo, and would it be OK if I publish that photo on
>> my site using flash, but not if I use img? Come on, how naive can one be?
>>
>
> I was just posing the argument If you publish data with the express
> goal of providing it in a format that can be read by "RSS readers", how
> do you define an RSS reader?
>
>
>
>

The problem here is not is "what is an RSS reader". Rather, it's how
the information is used. If you read my feed in your house or office,
no problem. But if you republish it on your website, big problem.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex RemoveThis @attglobal.net
==================
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

SpaceGirl wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> SpaceGirl wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> Doc O'Leary wrote:
>>>>> In article <Xns9A3675CADE00Dcastleamber.TakeThisOut@130.133.1.4>,
>>>>> John Bokma <john.TakeThisOut@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet.TakeThisOut@1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. The thing you're missing is that a web site displaying a
>>>>>>> feed should be considered just another specialized browser or
>>>>>>> feed reader.
>>>>>> http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From the summary:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and
>>>>>> don't grant you any permission to do further copying except
>>>>>> perhaps the sort of copying the poster might have expected in the
>>>>>> ordinary flow of the net."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Law is not how you feel it should be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny, but what you quote indicates it is *exactly* how I feel it
>>>>> should be. Your eyes seems to have glazed over the "expected in
>>>>> the ordinary flow" part. For feeds, it is very much the
>>>>> expectation of any sane webmaster that they will be processed and
>>>>> used in a non-specific fashion. They will be incorporated into
>>>>> widgets, screensavers, specialized readers, and monitoring software
>>>>> of all kinds. If you don't like it, stop going to the extra effort
>>>>> of providing an XML file that can easily be used for the purpose of
>>>>> it's design.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How you feel is not the law. Els is correct in her statements.
>>>>
>>>> When an artistic work (including web pages, rss feeds, etc.) is
>>>> created, the person creating it (or, in the case of an employee, the
>>>> employer) has an implicit copyright to it. Other than fair use
>>>> (i.e. quoting excerpts), you cannot copy or use it in any manner.
>>>>
>>>> Republishing a feed, even if it's a public feed, is a copyright
>>>> violation and can be subject to both civil and criminal penalties.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which is the huge flaw in all this "Web 2.0" stuff.
>>>
>>
>> And how is that? Nothing I know of in Web 2.0 violates copyright
>> laws. But then I don't know everything about Web 2.0.
>>
>
> Well this was the point I was trying to make. Can't argue on one had
> that people are leeching content that you publish on RSS into other
> formats... but then say it's perfectly alright if falls in the realms of
> W2.0 stuff.
>

One of these days they'll leach it from the wrong people. And they'll
learn the hard way.

> I just think the whole area is very grey, and content ownership is
> something that far to many people just ignore. There are *many* web
> sites out there, for example, that republish feeds from all kinds of
> news services, other folks blogs, web2.0 apps... so on, and I doubt much
> thought is ever given by the user of these services to who owns what.
> Who polices the leechers of leechers?
>

While "fair use" is open to some interpretation, copyright law is pretty
clear. Unfortunately, in most cases it's a civil violation and the
person being republished has to file a lawsuit against the infringer.

There are some criminal statutes, at least here in the U.S., but I don't
think the government is going to get involved with two small sites
arguing over copyrights.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex.TakeThisOut@attglobal.net
==================
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

In article <Xns9A3771F6A3B50castleamber RemoveThis @130.133.1.4>,
John Bokma <john RemoveThis @castleamber.com> wrote:

> No it hasn't. The question is: can copying feed content 1:1 to a website
> with AdSense next to it be considered "the ordinary flow"?

Yes, it can. It is very common for sites, including Google, to display
feeds from other sites of interest. Whether or not they also include
ads is irrelevant to the matter of infringement of *your* copyright.

> I doubt that the design included people republishing a feed on their own
> site 1:1 with adsense slapped on it. Anyway, it doesn't matter what your
> opinion is on this. What matters to me is that as soon as it happens with
> *my* stuff and I report it to the hosting provider that either the page or
> the whole site is removed from the net.

Hey, Internet Tough Guy, why don't you go take down Google? They'll
display your pages without your permission and they'll do the same with
your feeds. Until you jokers actually sue such obvious deep pockets
over matters you "know" you're right about, I'm left to laugh at your
legal argument.

> Also, Google doesn't seem to love sites that do nothing but using feed
> search engines to get content and slap AdSense on it (Google kicks you out
> of the index, and cancels AdSense).

Where do they state that it is done for copyright reasons? More to the
point, why do you expect Google would take side on your copyright
*claims* against another party?

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

In article <1uol84qrglsip.1agjcrikebgyt.dlg RemoveThis @40tude.net>,
Els <els.aNOSPAM RemoveThis @tiscali.nl> wrote:

> Doc O'Leary wrote:
> >
> > Funny, but what you quote indicates it is *exactly* how I feel it should
> > be. Your eyes seems to have glazed over the "expected in the ordinary
> > flow" part. For feeds, it is very much the expectation of any sane
> > webmaster that they will be processed and used in a non-specific
> > fashion.
>
> No it isn't. As far as I can see I'm entirely sane, and I'm not
> expecting a full republishing of my entire feed.

Your self evaluation is invalid. You've obviously gotten people to
agree with you, but my second opinion is that you're a bit of a control
freak who would rather control someone else's server than their own.

> > They will be incorporated into widgets, screensavers,
> > specialized readers, and monitoring software of all kinds.
>
> Not in other people's websites.

It is trivial for me to add a feed to iGoogle. Any site could do the
same and/or allow their users to do the same.

> > If you don't
> > like it, stop going to the extra effort of providing an XML file that
> > can easily be used for the purpose of it's design.
>
> That's the same as saying I shouldn't write a website in HTML if I
> don't want my content republished because it can be scraped too
> easily.

Here's a news flash: the web is world wide. Things are linked and
blogged and republished all over the gorram place. Nobody is making you
play the game, so if you don't like that the extent of fair use on an
XML feed is more than that of an HTML page, STOP SUPPLYING THE FEED!

> XML is used so that subscribers can read my content in specialized
> readers, not so that you can republish it.

No, XML is used *precisely* because people were scraping HTML and having
problems due to layout markup. Site owners who weren't idiots said "I
want to spread my content far and wide, so here is an XML file you can
use instead." As thanks they get you people who seem to think supplying
a feed is great, so long as nobody can legally see it.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

In article <112141d5kcyi6.4p9hmu4c3gdr$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Els <els.aNOSPAM.TakeThisOut@tiscali.nl> wrote:

> Google isn't doing that at all. It takes small bits and displays them
> so that people can find my site. When clicking the link on Google,
> people go to my site, not to a Google version of it. And if you mean
> cached pages, it's only one page at a time, which very clearly states
> that it is not the original page, it gives a link to the original, and
> when clicking any link in the page itself, it's going to the original
> site. That, plus everybody knows it's a search engine's search result.

Translation: it's in my best interest not to rail against the way Google
does it, but I'll throw a fit over anybody else doing something even
close.

> Not so when you republish my site or feed on your own domain.

I somehow think, though, that you're OK with the way iGoogle does it.

> > Is a caching HTTP proxy republishing?
>
> Please, don't try to diffuse the subject here.
>
> > You're going to have to explain the material difference.
>
> No, I'm not. I'll let you explain how a proxy is a website.

A proxy can add and remove content. Often times it is configured to
remove ads, depriving your site of revenue. If anything, that is a more
serious infraction of copyright than simply showing your feed in
someone's sidebar. Yet another case of you willfully ignore a real
problem because it's not an easy target.

> Hey, if I'm letting you publish my entire site and people get to it
> via Google, I'm also paying for less bandwidth, and have less
> visitors. You make it sound like that's a good thing. It isn't.
> My visitors are mine, not yours

Incorrect. If everything a user needs can be had via your feed, you
don't have a visitor at all. It matters not one whit *how* they see
that feed.

> I have no strange 'zero links in' system. It's just what you portray
> it to be. It's not. I love the traffic I get through Google. I'd take
> measures against anyone who republishes my website though.

Google republishes your website, yet you take no measures against them.
In fact, you love the traffic they give you! Honestly, when you
immediately contradict one sentence with the very next, I think you're
trolling me.

> My feed *is* my site. In a different format. But on my own domain, for
> my own visitors. What you seem to describe, is a totally different
> thing, being a feed that is *intended* to be republished on other
> sites, with just very short teasers with links to the full articles.
> Not all feeds are like that, and just because both types of feeds use
> XML, does not mean they're all up for grabs.

Yes, yes it does. You don't get to place the burden of figuring out
what kind of feed you offer on the developer of a generic feed reader.
Things like podcasts are an even more content-intensive use of feeds,
yet would be foolish to argue that nobody gets to actually use the links
to the media files they're for.

> > Don't like it? Don't offer a feed.
>
> Don't want me to steal your website's content and republish it? Don't
> put it online. (that's your logic)

Hardly. I'm not asking you to be bulletproof if you don't want to get
shot, I'm asking you acknowledge the reality of the publishing medium
you've chosen. I don't see the material difference between a software
developer writing a custom app and a web developer writing a custom
page. Both display your XML to the developer's wishes, and that was
always the intent of feeds.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <1uol84qrglsip.1agjcrikebgyt.dlg DeleteThis @40tude.net>,

<snip>

> No, XML is used *precisely* because people were scraping HTML and having
> problems due to layout markup. Site owners who weren't idiots said "I
> want to spread my content far and wide, so here is an XML file you can
> use instead." As thanks they get you people who seem to think supplying
> a feed is great, so long as nobody can legally see it.
>

No, XML was created to facilitate B2B communications. For instance, the
ability to automate order processing, so a company can input a purchase
order to their system and the system can automatically pass the order on
to the supplier(s). Another use is to standardize real estate listings
to allow searching with specific parameters - also via an automated process.

Its use in RSS was meant to be able to automate information retrieval,
passing along information of interest to the receiver, while discarding
the data not of interest.

It was never meant to republish copyrighted content.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex DeleteThis @attglobal.net
==================
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <1uol84qrglsip.1agjcrikebgyt.dlg.TakeThisOut@40tude.net>,
> Els <els.aNOSPAM.TakeThisOut@tiscali.nl> wrote:

>>> For feeds, it is very much the expectation of any sane
>>> webmaster that they will be processed and used in a non-specific
>>> fashion.
>>
>> No it isn't. As far as I can see I'm entirely sane, and I'm not
>> expecting a full republishing of my entire feed.
>
> Your self evaluation is invalid.

Get a professional sanity evaluator to back you up.

> You've obviously gotten people to
> agree with you, but my second opinion is that you're a bit of a control
> freak who would rather control someone else's server than their own.



[snip]

> Here's a news flash: the web is world wide.

Duh.

> Things are linked

Yes.

> and blogged

Yup.

> and republished all over the gorram place.

Give me an example of a feed of full articles that is republished
elsewhere in its entirety.

> Nobody is making you
> play the game, so if you don't like that the extent of fair use on an
> XML feed is more than that of an HTML page,

It isn't. If you think it is, supply definite proof from an official
source.

> STOP SUPPLYING THE FEED!

Stop screaming, it doesn't make you right.

Besides - who are you to tell me what I should or shouldn't publish?
As long as I'm not publishing your content, you shouldn't care?

>> XML is used so that subscribers can read my content in specialized
>> readers, not so that you can republish it.
>
> No, XML is used *precisely* because people were scraping HTML and having
> problems due to layout markup.

That's not what I've heard. Is there a W3c page about the origins of
XML that explains it that way?

> Site owners who weren't idiots said "I
> want to spread my content far and wide, so here is an XML file you can
> use instead." As thanks they get you people who seem to think supplying
> a feed is great, so long as nobody can legally see it.



(done with this subject now - hope you can live with that )

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

SpaceGirl <nothespacegirlspam.DeleteThis@subhuman.net> wrote:

> John Bokma wrote:
>> SpaceGirl <nothespacegirlspam.DeleteThis@subhuman.net> wrote:
>>
>>> What if the specialized reader is, say, a Flash application built into
>>> my web site? The Flash client is a browser in its own right, and any
>>> application you write in it is running on the *users* computer, not
>>> the internet... even if it is feeding off XML on your web site. So...
>>> fair use? Or not...
>>
>> Someone makes a photo, and would it be OK if I publish that photo on my
>> site using flash, but not if I use img? Come on, how naive can one be?
>>
>
> I was just posing the argument If you publish data with the express
> goal of providing it in a format that can be read by "RSS readers", how
> do you define an RSS reader?

How do you define a photo viewer?
How do you define a web browser?

--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet.TakeThisOut@1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:

> Hey, Internet Tough Guy, why don't you go take down Google? They'll
> display your pages without your permission and they'll do the same
> with your feeds. Until you jokers actually sue such obvious deep
> pockets over matters you "know" you're right about, I'm left to laugh
> at your legal argument.

Since you don't have those deep pockets, like most people who infringe
copyright, I have the last laugh.

Moreover, can you name a service that Google has that shows *my* content
which I can't control (i.e. make Google stop doing that?)

I am curious.

>> Also, Google doesn't seem to love sites that do nothing but using
>> feed search engines to get content and slap AdSense on it (Google
>> kicks you out of the index, and cancels AdSense).
>
> Where do they state that it is done for copyright reasons?

Where did I state this had to do with copyright reasons?

--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet.TakeThisOut@1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:

> an XML feed is more than that of an HTML page, STOP SUPPLYING THE
> FEED!

Heh, now I see a little kid with a red face stamping his foot on the
floor.

The world doesn't work how you want it. If someone republishes my feed, I
will report it to the hosting provider. If someone republishes my web
pages, I'll report it. I've done so in the past, and the pages are taken
down faster then you can write your next post.

I don't care how you *want* things to work, I care how it works now. Your
childish screaming for "stop supplying the feed" is like asking music
companies to stop putting music on CDs I can rip with my computer. Like:
HEY STOP USING AN EASY TO RIP DIGITAL FORMAT. Everybody with a computer
can rip them, so get a life.


--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:33:18 -0500, Jerry Stuckle put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Tony wrote:
>>
>> The biggest problem with your arguments is that you seem to miss the
>> last point there - if you infringe, you can get sued. It doesn't mean
>> you will get sued, but you expose yourself to that liability. And just
>> because I don't sue today doesn't mean that I can't sue next year. Also,
>> if two sites infringe, I can sue one but not the other, and there
>> remains no legal argument to be made.
>>
>
>Actually, in the U.S., at least, if you sue one but not the other, you
>may lose the case - the courts may determine that by not suing one
>company, you have given up your rights to copy protection.

No, that's not the case. Not in the US as far as I'm aware, and
certainly not anywhere that's signatory to the Bern Convention. You
may be confusing it with trademark and patent protection, which have
oto be explicitly asserted in order to exist and can lapse if
undefended, but copyright exists by default and cannot lapse if
undefended - the choice of whether to enorce copyright is always the
decision of the rights holder.

Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"So rock and roll, so corporate suit"
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:33:18 -0500, Jerry Stuckle put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>> Tony wrote:
>>> The biggest problem with your arguments is that you seem to miss the
>>> last point there - if you infringe, you can get sued. It doesn't mean
>>> you will get sued, but you expose yourself to that liability. And just
>>> because I don't sue today doesn't mean that I can't sue next year. Also,
>>> if two sites infringe, I can sue one but not the other, and there
>>> remains no legal argument to be made.
>>>
>> Actually, in the U.S., at least, if you sue one but not the other, you
>> may lose the case - the courts may determine that by not suing one
>> company, you have given up your rights to copy protection.
>
> No, that's not the case. Not in the US as far as I'm aware, and
> certainly not anywhere that's signatory to the Bern Convention. You
> may be confusing it with trademark and patent protection, which have
> oto be explicitly asserted in order to exist and can lapse if
> undefended, but copyright exists by default and cannot lapse if
> undefended - the choice of whether to enorce copyright is always the
> decision of the rights holder.
>
> Mark

Mark,

Nope, I'm not. According to my attorney, if you do not enforce your
copyright, that can be used as a defense against you.

I didn't say you lost the copyright - you don't. But you might as well,
because you lose all rights to enforce it.

And even if you do enforce your copyright religiously, you generally
won't be able to get any damages unless you've registered the copyright.
Otherwise about all you can do is get the offending party to stop.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex.RemoveThis@attglobal.net
==================
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright