Copyright

Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <in0cq35071r7mmhk25akcb81cj2l4hefl9.DeleteThis@news.markshouse.net>,
> Mark Goodge <usenet.DeleteThis@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Don't be so stupid. Just because you've permitted one organisation to
>> use your material doesn't mean you've permitted every organisation to
>> use it.
>
> But that's my "stupid" point: you haven't permitted *anyone* to use it,
> other than by the conventions necessary to move the data around the
> Internet. Those conventions are a double-edged sword, so regardless of
> how stupid I am, you're pretty dumb yourself for trying to prevent
> copying while using a medium that requires copying.

Doc, I would really like to know which copyright attorney you're getting
YOUR advice from. He's the one who needs to be disbarred.
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <js-dnYpD3uennDvanZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d.DeleteThis@comcast.com>,
> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex.DeleteThis@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Doc O'Leary wrote:
>>> In article <7fidnb-CMvkMWjnanZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d.DeleteThis@comcast.com>,
>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex.DeleteThis@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> What part of "passing along" did the paragraph break make you forget?
>>>
>> Nothing. But you don't see the difference between private use of an XML
>> feed and republishing it. One is legal. One is not.
>
> Then go sue Google if you're so certain, Future Internet Millionaire.
> You're welcome.
>

You really don't understand, do you. Even though others have tried to
explain it to you.

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

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:08:55 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>In article <in0cq35071r7mmhk25akcb81cj2l4hefl9 DeleteThis @news.markshouse.net>,
> Mark Goodge <usenet DeleteThis @listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Don't be so stupid. Just because you've permitted one organisation to
>> use your material doesn't mean you've permitted every organisation to
>> use it.
>
>But that's my "stupid" point: you haven't permitted *anyone* to use it,
>other than by the conventions necessary to move the data around the
>Internet.

The permission granted is what it says on your website's copyright and
licence statement. I think you'll find that most sites which publish
an RSS feed have one. Sure, there are some dumb website operators out
there who don't put any form of licence on their re-publishable
content, but they';re not the ones that define how copyright law
works.

> Those conventions are a double-edged sword, so regardless of
>how stupid I am, you're pretty dumb yourself for trying to prevent
>copying while using a medium that requires copying.

There is a difference between the type of copying required for the
normal operation of a website and the type of copying employed to
republish content from one site on another.

Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"My shallow heart's the only thing that's beating"
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:18:02 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>In article <Xns9A3998B279D3Ccastleamber.RemoveThis@130.133.1.4>,
> John Bokma <john.RemoveThis@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>> I have always the feeling that people who can't produce anything worth to
>> copyright are the ones the most desperate. Moreover, they would probably
>> get extremely upset if I use, for example, their car to do my shopping.
>> Hey, fair use, and it helps the planet as well (and no, I don't pay a
>> single penny for the usage).
>
>You make me laugh. I also do desktop software development, providing
>both binaries and some source on my site. You know what I would do if I
>found you mirroring any of that copyrighted work on your site? I'd
>probably thank you for taking a bit of load off my server.

Would you feel the same way if you were selling the software, but
someone else was offering it as a free downoad from their site?

Would you feel the same if your site was advertising-supported, and
the income from the ads not only covered all your necessary hosting
and bandwidth costs (thus meaning that you don't need mirrors) as well
as paying for the time you spend developing it, but then someone else
was offering your software as a download from a site where the
advertising revenue goes to them instead of you?

If you're still happy for anyone to redistribute your software and
keep any advertising revenue for themselves, then let me know the URL
of your site and I'll put up an ad-suported mirror myself.

Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about you?
"If this world makes you crazy"
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

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

> In article <Xns9A3997229155Ecastleamber.TakeThisOut@130.133.1.4>,
> John Bokma <john.TakeThisOut@castleamber.com> wrote:

[..]

>> Where does Google infringe on copyright? (For example with my site, see
>> sig).
>
> I'm beginning to tire of having this elementary grade level discussion
> with someone who is supposed to be a webmaster:
>
> <http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:HvUvR5RmrtQJ:johnbokma.com/+bokma>

Thanks, I just wanted to know *which* service, instead of guessing. Since
I am mostly a programmer, clear communication is a must to me and my
customers. ("It doesn't work" versus: "I got the following error message
when I did this and then that")

> Now go sue them for copying the content of your site.

Since I've given them permission to do so (or maybe better: since I
haven't excluded them), why would I? If I decide today that they have to
stop, I can contact them and remove all indexed & cached pages, and can
stop them from indexing & caching again in the future. At any time in the
(near) future I can allow them to cache again.

Google, like other search engines, follow a clear protocol: they add you
default (of course we can discuss if that's the right way to do thinks,
see below), and they can be stopped by modifying a single file.

The problem with copyright infrignement I've seen so far is that they
don't check for robots.txt, nor don't follow the "rules" in this file.
They are a pain in the ass to track down, a pain in the ass to contact,
and in rare cases a pain in the ass to stop (Microsoft for example).

If you want to discuss that the default opt-in is wrong (as in: I *must *
add lines to my robots.txt to stop spiders), we can keep it short, I agree
with you.

If you want to discuss that should be able to show my stuff like Google,
unless I explicitely disallow them in robots.txt, we can again be short:
if there is an obvious way to know they are doing so, and to stop it by
adding lines to robots.txt, I agree with you.

I know Google is doing it, Google rings my doorbell (checks robots.txt), I
can easily confirm myself that it's happening (and what), they have a way
to remove already indexed (and cached) pages, and I can easily stop it.

But a webmaster could have thought this all up himself

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

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:56:16 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>In article <Xns9A3997229155Ecastleamber.DeleteThis@130.133.1.4>,
> John Bokma <john.DeleteThis@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet.DeleteThis@1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Just because an ISP follows the DMCA doesn't mean you're in the right.
>> > And you can save your Internet Tough Guy act for the day you actually
>> > go after the (what you should consider) big infringers like Google.
>>
>> Where does Google infringe on copyright? (For example with my site, see
>> sig).
>
>I'm beginning to tire of having this elementary grade level discussion
>with someone who is supposed to be a webmaster:
>
><http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:HvUvR5RmrtQJ:johnbokma.com/+bokma>

That's only an infringement if it's not permitted. How do you know
that John isn't permitting Google to archive his site?

Copying something is not an infringement of copyright. Unauthorised
copying is an infringement of copyright. And the copyright owner gets
to decide who is authorised. What's so difficult abut that?

Mark
--
Blog: http://Mark.Goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"We ate the food, we drank the wine"
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

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

> In article <in0cq35071r7mmhk25akcb81cj2l4hefl9.RemoveThis@news.markshouse.net>,
> Mark Goodge <usenet.RemoveThis@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Don't be so stupid. Just because you've permitted one organisation to
>> use your material doesn't mean you've permitted every organisation to
>> use it.
>
> But that's my "stupid" point: you haven't permitted *anyone* to use
> it, other than by the conventions necessary to move the data around
> the Internet.

And not having a line in robots.txt. See my other reply. I *have* a
robots.txt. If all infringement would go via robots.txt we wouldn't need
to have *this* discussion. We could have a short one if it should be opt-
in instead of opt-out (currently it's opt-out).

But if I did:

User-Agent: *
Disallow: /

User-Agent: Googlebot [1]
Allow: /

And it would stop anybody from infringement *except* Google, I would be
all for it. Sadly, my experience with infringement are that it are cheap
rats in for a free ride, or people who have no idea what they are doing.
The latter I ignore if it goes away shortly (for example, a photo posted
to a message board).

> regardless of how stupid I am, you're pretty dumb yourself for trying
> to prevent copying while using a medium that requires copying.

So the record industry is stupid, because they use a medium that needs
copying to be reproduced (the bits must be copied one by one of the disk,
to the hardware that turns it into sound).

> know it. I'm not sure how some of you people got to be webmasters if
> you don't understand the basics.

Maybe you should wonder aloud why you're the only one crying wolf.

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

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

> In article <Xns9A3998B279D3Ccastleamber.DeleteThis@130.133.1.4>,
> John Bokma <john.DeleteThis@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>> I have always the feeling that people who can't produce anything
>> worth to copyright are the ones the most desperate. Moreover, they
>> would probably get extremely upset if I use, for example, their car
>> to do my shopping. Hey, fair use, and it helps the planet as well
>> (and no, I don't pay a single penny for the usage).
>
> You make me laugh. I also do desktop software development, providing
> both binaries and some source on my site. You know what I would do if
> I found you mirroring any of that copyrighted work on your site?

^^^^ maybe *that* is a keyword here.

You come up with an example you don't mind mirroring. I don't mind if
people mirror my robots.txt. They are free to do so.

Nor do I mind if people use the Perl programs I have posted on my site
with the Artistic license following this license.

> I'd
> probably thank you for taking a bit of load off my server. In short,
> you're acting like a dick for no good reason. You have yet to explain
> why you care so much about "republishing" on a networked medium where
> copying is a necessary component.

I already gave a good example:

"they would probably get extremely upset if I use, for example, their car
to do my shopping. Hey, fair use, and it helps the planet as well (and no,
I don't pay a single penny for the usage)."

Furthermore, I welcome each and every webmaster who quotes a part of a
page I've written, links to it, and discusses it.

I am sure that people who host your source don't pretend they have written
the code, but write something about what you've written, link to your
site, and host the source for you.

Most infringement I've had experience with doesn't credit, and attempts to
make it look like they have done the job. An example:
<http://toxicice.com/images/infringement.png> [1]

I contacted the "Author", he said it was a service to his customers.

Just curious, how many people have taken the load off your server?


[1] After I had contacted the author, he took the page down immediately,
so I have done some attempts to remove his name and hints from the
screen dump.

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

Mark Goodge <usenet DeleteThis @listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:56:16 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>>In article <Xns9A3997229155Ecastleamber DeleteThis @130.133.1.4>,
>> John Bokma <john DeleteThis @castleamber.com> wrote:

[...]


>><http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:HvUvR5RmrtQJ:johnbokma.com/+bokma
>>>
>
> That's only an infringement if it's not permitted. How do you know
> that John isn't permitting Google to archive his site?

He could check for himself even:

<quote>
# robots.txt for http://www.johnbokma.com/

User-agent: *
Disallow:
</quote>

http://johnbokma.com/robots.txt

Or: I give any spider that reads robots.txt explicit permission to crawl
my site, and to put the pages in a cache.

It would be nice if:

- each person who want to cache like Google does, or copy my material
would check robots.txt using a program
- such a program would have an unique id, so I can exclude it / include
it

In short, currently the big difference is that Google announces itself,
and checks if it's allowed to use my copyrighted material.

Sites that I've contacted so far on infringement don't.

I can only wonder why...

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

On 2 Feb, 19:40, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck... DeleteThis @attglobal.net> wrote:

> It [RSS] was never meant to republish copyrighted content.

RSS has _always_ been intended to republish copyrighted content, and
most versions of RSS have included features to support this, in a way
that allows the expression of copyright ownership and licence terms
stating exactly what may be done with it afterwards.

Dan Libby's ancient Netscape RSS 0.91 spec from 1999
<http://web.archive.org/web/20001204093600/http://my.netscape.com/
publish/formats/rss-spec-0.91.html>

includes a "copyright" element, to allow copyright to be stated. So if
RSS "was never meant to republish copyrighted content", why would such
an element have been needed?
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

On 5 Feb, 11:58, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck... RemoveThis @attglobal.net> wrote:
> Andy Dingley wrote:
> > On 2 Feb, 19:40, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck... RemoveThis @attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> It [RSS] was never meant to republish copyrighted content.

> Because by law the content is copyrighted, and therefore its
> republishing restricted. But the authors knew this,

Indeed the authors did know this, and put measures in place to support
it.

However you're claiming that RSS isn't meant to be used for
republishing copyrighted content _at_all_.
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 2 Feb, 19:40, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck....RemoveThis@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> It [RSS] was never meant to republish copyrighted content.
>
> RSS has _always_ been intended to republish copyrighted content, and
> most versions of RSS have included features to support this, in a way
> that allows the expression of copyright ownership and licence terms
> stating exactly what may be done with it afterwards.
>
> Dan Libby's ancient Netscape RSS 0.91 spec from 1999
> <http://web.archive.org/web/20001204093600/http://my.netscape.com/
> publish/formats/rss-spec-0.91.html>
>
> includes a "copyright" element, to allow copyright to be stated. So if
> RSS "was never meant to republish copyrighted content", why would such
> an element have been needed?
>

Because by law the content is copyrighted, and therefore its
republishing restricted. But the authors knew this, so they created the
copyright element to specify exactly under which terms the feed can be
distributed.

The presence of the element does not mean it was meant to be
distributed. Lacking a specific statement to the contrary, the feed may
not be legally republished. The copyright element only provides a
common place to specify the copyright. The copyright can be specified
in other locations and still be valid.

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

In article <Xns9A3A764FFD14Bcastleamber.RemoveThis@130.133.1.4>,
John Bokma <john.RemoveThis@castleamber.com> wrote:

> I already gave a good example:
>
> "they would probably get extremely upset if I use, for example, their car
> to do my shopping. Hey, fair use, and it helps the planet as well (and no,
> I don't pay a single penny for the usage)."

No, that is a particularly *terrible* example. A car is a material
item, but a feed is not. Taking a car involves depriving the owner of
it, but copying a feed is *necessary* in order to use it. In fact, many
copies are made as it moves through the Internet to get to the user. If
you don't understand that, you need to go offline.

> Most infringement I've had experience with doesn't credit, and attempts to
> make it look like they have done the job. An example:
> <http://toxicice.com/images/infringement.png> [1]

That is not relevant to the discussion here. We're talking about the
use of feeds in site sidebars and other such places. I never claimed
that there was no copyright infringement on the Internet, just that some
of you people seem to be taking the stance that *everything* is
copyright infringement.

> Just curious, how many people have taken the load off your server?

Since I don't get my undies in a bunch, I haven't bothered to figure it
out. I have received specific requests from a few magazines in Japan
who wanted to include software on CDs, and I know through referrer links
that oreilly.com was mirroring one package. Beyond that, who knows?
The very nature of the Internet is to copy, so I'm not sure why I
shouldn't want some remote ISP to use a caching proxy server when they
can to make my content immediately available to their users.

--
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