 |
|
|
|
Next: IIS -related BSOD - minidump included
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 593
|
(Msg. 91) Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>www>webmaster (more info?)
|
|
|
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet DeleteThis @1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:
> In article <crheq391uhgunuh7h3sn0br6c35beoa43v DeleteThis @news.markshouse.net>,
> Mark Goodge <usenet DeleteThis @listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> That's only an infringement if it's not permitted. How do you know
>> that John isn't permitting Google to archive his site?
>
> Then it would have been intellectually dishonest for him not to reveal
> that in the course of this discussion.
You could have checked this with a simple check of the robots.txt on my
site. I expect some clue from people in this group, but it looks like I
was wrong.
--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 593
|
(Msg. 92) Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet RemoveThis @1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:
> In article <Xns9A3A7DBFF8374castleamber RemoveThis @130.133.1.4>,
> John Bokma <john RemoveThis @castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>> He could check for himself even:
>
> I already referenced the fact that you weren't blocking Google
> earlier.
Moreover, I give them *explicit permission* (and any other spider) to do
so.
> Check your logs from a few days back for a HEAD followed by
> a GET. That's me! 
>
>> Or: I give any spider that reads robots.txt explicit permission to
>> crawl my site, and to put the pages in a cache.
>
> That's not what your robots.txt does,
Yes. I allows any spider to crawl my site. Hence I have given Google et
al *explicit* permission to do so.
> nor is robots.txt a legal document.
I am sure it would rise questions if I sue Google in court.
> You have one generic rule that does nothing; you might as
> well have an empty file.
Again you clearly show how little you know. An empty file causes a 404.
The file I use doesn't. Moreover, the generic rule might do nothing, it
*does* show what the rules are:
User-agent: *
Disallow:
Which translates to: there are no restrictions on spidering for any User
agent. It amazes me that you can't make the difference between no rules
at all and a rule stating that any user agent can spider my site.
> To be explicit, you'd have to at least
> *name* the bots in question.
Every user agent doesn't leave any doubt now does it? Hence it *is*
explicit.
> Also, robots.txt is an optional
> *exclusion* protocol. It doesn't spell out what is granted, but only
> that which is prohibited.
In short: if you write a spider, visit my site, you check robots.txt.
And since you're not excluded, you are allowed to spider.
> It states nothing about caching behavior.
True. However, you can be quite sure that if your UA is not allowed to
spider, you're not allowed to spider my site to create a cache (note we
are talking about Google's cache, not about the cache of your ISP).
> in a fantasy world and deal with reality. In reality, *every* feed
> reader I know of caches content in order to keep track of what is new.
We're (or at least I am) talking about:
- someone spiders my feed daily
- turns each entry in the feed into a HTML page
- publishes those pages to the public.
And not:
- oh, boy: in order voor Google's online RSS feeder, Google
needs to cache my feed.
I don't care about the latter. And if I did, I would block Google.
> I can immediately think of half a dozen different ways to uniquely
> identify visitors,
And I can think of a full dozen of failures in your ideas.
> so I'm not sure why I'd waste my time wishing for
> something that's not going to happen when I could have a technological
> solution by the end of the day (it's a slow day if I wanted one.
In that case: stop making a fool of yourself on Usenet, and contact
someone who can help you drafting a patent.
> I'm sure you're at least a good enough webmaster to figure out from
> your logs if someone is abusing your servers and take action.
No idea what that has to do with 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...
>
> If we're talking about feed readers, probably because they *aren't*
> infringing.
Odd, I, like several other people here, have been talking the whole time
(mostly that is) about how copying the contents of a feed to webpage(s)
is infringement. You seem to back off to something like Google's RSS
reader. I can live with that, because it's way different from RSS
scraping.
If you don't get that, you really have to find someone else to discuss
that.
--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 593
|
(Msg. 93) Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet RemoveThis @1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:
> In article <Xns9A3A7208B15E9castleamber RemoveThis @130.133.1.4>,
> John Bokma <john RemoveThis @castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> But they don't *have* to. It's not a legal requirement, and all of
> the arguments from your side seem obsessed with what you can do
> legally.
Odd: I have stated much earlier that I don't care about that. What I
care about is that if someone starts to scrape the contents of my RSS
feed, and turns it into HTML pages, that I just contact the hosting
provider.
If my experience with photos and complete HTML pages is right, the
hosting provider either deletes the entire site (oops), or kindly asks
his customer to clean the stuff up asap.
If a page of mine gets into Google, and I don't want it there, I contact
Google, and have it removed.
I don't *have to* take legal actions, or so it seems.
> I still haven't heard a cogent argument on why I should
> consider one feed reader to be OK but another to be lawsuit-worthy.
OK, no argument, but how it works for me:
- if you create a feed reader for your visitors: people sign up,
enter a feed address, and can read it, and only people who sign
in to the account can read it: I won't bother you
- if you scrape my feed on, say, a daily basis, and turn each
page into a HTML page which you let pick up by search engines:
I contact your hosting provider.
To me this are different things. To you they are the same. I have no
doubt that we're not going to agree on this in the near future. You want
to look at the bits. I look at how it's presented.
>> 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).
>
> I hear you on those technical issues (I've personally taken to
> blocking live.com/MSN by IP), but please stick to the issue of feeds.
> I'm tired of people trying to make this about every potential abuse
> instead of how feeds are simply used every day. Whether robot.txt is
> used or not, whether a cache is on a server or desktop, all of that
> stuff is missing the mark. I provide a feed; tell me why I should
> police what feed reader is used.
I've no problem with feed readers. I've problems, like others here (e.g.
Els) with feed scraping (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog_scraping
).
On bit level they can be argued to be identical, but on presentation
level, no.
--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/ >> Stay informed about: Copyright |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 593
|
(Msg. 94) Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet DeleteThis @1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:
> In article <djheq39gjcnjcdsta1ch558ju5b4fe624j DeleteThis @news.markshouse.net>,
> Mark Goodge <usenet DeleteThis @listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> That's not a parity example and you know it.
Now that is odd: using software inherently involves copying and
republication. I mean, if I insert a CD in my computer the software has to
be copied / republished somewhere to work (several places: main memory,
video memory, swap (if I am unlucky), harddisk (suspend to disk).
--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/ >> Stay informed about: Copyright |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 07, 2008
Posts: 39
|
(Msg. 95) Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:01 am
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <UPmdnZG-pNe-XjXanZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d DeleteThis @comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex DeleteThis @attglobal.net> wrote:
> Andy Dingley wrote:
> > On 5 Feb, 18:00, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck... DeleteThis @attglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Andy Dingley wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> It [RSS] was never meant to republish copyrighted content.
> >
> >>> However you're claiming that RSS isn't meant to be used for
> >>> republishing copyrighted content _at_all_.
> >> Ok, to be more clear. It was not meant for republishing copyrighted
> >> content WITHOUT PERMISSION.
> >
> > Lovely.
> >
> > Now who is suggesting that we use it for any such purpose _without_
> > permission?
> >
>
> Doc O'Leary.
Not true. I'm not "suggesting" it. I'm saying it's being done already.
Every day. By huge companies with deep pockets like Google. Nobody
here seems to be suing them. It is a simple observation on my part, and
I'm not sure why everyone else here is denying reality.
--
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 07, 2008
Posts: 39
|
(Msg. 96) Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:24 am
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <Xns9A3B9740A9E94castleamber.TakeThisOut@130.133.1.4>,
John Bokma <john.TakeThisOut@castleamber.com> wrote:
> OK, no argument, but how it works for me:
>
> - if you create a feed reader for your visitors: people sign up,
> enter a feed address, and can read it, and only people who sign
> in to the account can read it: I won't bother you
> - if you scrape my feed on, say, a daily basis, and turn each
> page into a HTML page which you let pick up by search engines:
> I contact your hosting provider.
>
> To me this are different things. To you they are the same.
I never said they were the same; I asked *why* they were considered so
very different. My point is that it is wrong for you to make an a
posteriori call on what is OK. Spell out your restrictions, or accept
that feed readers come in all shapes and forms.
> I've no problem with feed readers. I've problems, like others here (e.g.
> Els) with feed scraping (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog_scraping
> ).
But you draw no line. Your so-called problem amounts to hardcore
pornography: "I know it when I see it." That's awfully non-specific
from someone who needed the URL to the Google cache of their content.
--
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 07, 2008
Posts: 39
|
(Msg. 97) Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:35 am
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <lqehq3lvkkk3f9drj7cb658ngilrlkju6a.RemoveThis@news.markshouse.net>,
Mark Goodge <usenet.RemoveThis@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> >> 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?
> >
> >That's not a parity example and you know it.
>
> Why not? The material being copied is exactly the same. Why should the
> circumstances in which it is displayed make a difference? According to
> your argument it doesn't. If you think that the circumstances of the
> copying make a difference, then you're admitting that I'm right.
Please. OK, I'll play your ignorance game. There is nothing wrong with
the copying itself. The problem lies in that the software is (likely)
licensed for use. Having an executable is not the same as running an
executable. There is a ton of software that is both sold and mirrored,
thanks to registration keys and the like. That is why you bringing it
up is an irrelevant tangent. Please stick to the topic on hand.
> The law (at least in any sensible country) allows for the type of
> intermediate copying necessary for a web browser, or a feed reader, to
> function. It doesn't allow for the uncontrolled repbilication of the
> material which is transmitted via those means.
So go sue Google, or any of the dozen other big proxies that I'm sure
show up in your logs as much as mine. I'm tired of you making that
claim to me when millions of Euro await your oh-so-in-the-right court
case.
--
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 07, 2008
Posts: 39
|
(Msg. 98) Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:47 am
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <Xns9A3B942AD7CF5castleamber RemoveThis @130.133.1.4>,
John Bokma <john RemoveThis @castleamber.com> wrote:
> Moreover, I give them *explicit permission* (and any other spider) to do
> so.
Then this whole thread is moot if you intentionally give explicit
permission for everyone to do everything. I guess you win.
>
> Again you clearly show how little you know. An empty file causes a 404.
Fix your server.
> Which translates to: there are no restrictions on spidering for any User
> agent. It amazes me that you can't make the difference between no rules
> at all and a rule stating that any user agent can spider my site.
It doesn't amaze me you don't know how exclusion works.
--
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 07, 2008
Posts: 39
|
(Msg. 99) Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:53 am
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <4behq3dsosfe35qlmtdkjao2gpq3pslcb1.TakeThisOut@news.markshouse.net>,
Mark Goodge <usenet.TakeThisOut@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> >Yes, they are. Copyright law is defined by the entire legal process.
>
> Law is defined by the people who write it.
Sucks to be you. Some of us use a system of checks and balances. It's
not perfect, but it certainly sounds better than bowing to your Lords.
> >> 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.
> >
> >Yet you never name that difference.
>
> I don't know what the actual wording in US law is. But, in the UK, a
> copy is not an infringement of copyright if it is "a temporary copy
> which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential
> part of a technological process" which is for "a transmission of the
> work in a network" or for a "lawful use of the work"[1]. Similar
> wording exists in the law of several other countries[2].
I didn't ask you to spell out the letter of the law. I asked to to
spell out how one feed reader can significantly differ from another feed
reader that turns it from "good" to "bad". It's not hard to do, really.
I could actually make your case for you, but it's frankly amusing that
you hold your position seemingly without any solid reason for doing so.
--
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 07, 2008
Posts: 39
|
(Msg. 100) Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:50 am
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <Xns9A3B8FF767A34castleamber RemoveThis @130.133.1.4>,
John Bokma <john RemoveThis @castleamber.com> wrote:
> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet RemoveThis @1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:
>
> > ... You're sounding the those morons ...
>
> Clear argument. You really have a good point there. Maybe you should work
> on you English first before diving into Latin.
Bwahahahaha! Oh, look, you've skillfully discovered a typo! That
*certainly* undermines my position! You caught me deciding between
"like the morons" and "like those morons", only to have my fingers
betray me. I look forward to the day you insult a handicapped person
who can only use error-prone voice recognition software to type. What a
jackass you are to sink beyond even logical fallacy. I'm done with you.
--
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 07, 2008
Posts: 39
|
(Msg. 101) Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:54 am
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <13qhg0cd5na0u65 DeleteThis @corp.supernews.com>,
Tony <nospam DeleteThis @example.com> wrote:
> Doc O'Leary wrote:
> >
> > Really? Argumentum ad populum? That's your closer? Show me I am wrong
> > if I am wrong. Engaging in simple logical fallacies undermines your
> > position.
>
> It isn't possible to show someone they're wrong if they refuse to accept
> that they're wrong no matter what is said.
I don't see how a logical fallacy helps. More to the point, *I* am not
the one refusing to accept reality. I'm actually quite open to hearing
a *valid* argument about feed reader differences, but you've simply not
provided one. I assure you that at least one point could be made in
your favor that I haven't seen mentioned, but fat chance I'm going to do
your job for you.
--
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 593
|
(Msg. 102) Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet.TakeThisOut@1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:
> In article <Xns9A3B9740A9E94castleamber.TakeThisOut@130.133.1.4>,
> John Bokma <john.TakeThisOut@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>> OK, no argument, but how it works for me:
>>
>> - if you create a feed reader for your visitors: people sign up,
>> enter a feed address, and can read it, and only people who sign
>> in to the account can read it: I won't bother you
>> - if you scrape my feed on, say, a daily basis, and turn each
>> page into a HTML page which you let pick up by search engines:
>> I contact your hosting provider.
>>
>> To me this are different things. To you they are the same.
>
> I never said they were the same; I asked *why* they were considered so
> very different.
I don't have the energy to explain this. Maybe someone else is interested.
> My point is that it is wrong for you to make an a
> posteriori call on what is OK. Spell out your restrictions,
There is no need to, I have copyright without spelling it out.
> or accept
> that feed readers come in all shapes and forms.
I have no problem with feed readers. I have problems with feed scrapers.
>> I've no problem with feed readers. I've problems, like others here
>> (e.g. Els) with feed scraping (see:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog_scraping ).
>
> But you draw no line.
Yes, I already did. The problem is you keep forgetting to wear your
glasses. (It's quoted at the top of this message, maybe increase the font
size to 38 pt?)
> That's awfully non-specific
> from someone who needed the URL to the Google cache of their content.
To be sure what you were talking about. You seem to be confused at best. I
didn't want to waste time on something vague.
--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/ >> Stay informed about: Copyright |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 593
|
(Msg. 103) Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet.RemoveThis@1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:
> caches and provides web based feed readers like Google does.
I doubt anyone has a problem with those. Again, most people here *have* a
problem with feed scraping.
> The burden
> is not on me to show a difference, since I am not the one crying to my
> lawyer. The burden is on you, and you have failed to make your case.
Just one email to the hosting provider is enough in most cases is my
experience. The only exception so far has been Microsoft.
--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/ >> Stay informed about: Copyright |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 25, 2005
Posts: 345
|
(Msg. 104) Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:53:45 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>In article <4behq3dsosfe35qlmtdkjao2gpq3pslcb1.DeleteThis@news.markshouse.net>,
> Mark Goodge <usenet.DeleteThis@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >Yes, they are. Copyright law is defined by the entire legal process.
>>
>> Law is defined by the people who write it.
>
>Sucks to be you. Some of us use a system of checks and balances. It's
>not perfect, but it certainly sounds better than bowing to your Lords.
If you want to be derogatory about the country that gave the world the
concept of democracy, you could at least make the effort to get your
facts right.
>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >Yet you never name that difference.
>>
>> I don't know what the actual wording in US law is. But, in the UK, a
>> copy is not an infringement of copyright if it is "a temporary copy
>> which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential
>> part of a technological process" which is for "a transmission of the
>> work in a network" or for a "lawful use of the work"[1]. Similar
>> wording exists in the law of several other countries[2].
>
>I didn't ask you to spell out the letter of the law. I asked to to
>spell out how one feed reader can significantly differ from another feed
>reader that turns it from "good" to "bad". It's not hard to do, really.
It's nothing to do with the reader. It's to do with whether or not the
copies made by the reader are solely for the purpose of allowing the
user of the reader to read the material.
I could create a web-based feed reader for my personal use, or even
make it possible for other people to add their own feeds to it and use
it for their personal use, and it isn't an infringement of copyright.
But, once I take the material from that reader and re-publish it
elsewhere, then it becomes a potential infringement.
>I could actually make your case for you, but it's frankly amusing that
>you hold your position seemingly without any solid reason for doing so.
Go on, then try and make my case for me.
Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about you?
"I need someone to hide under, should the sky fall on my car" >> Stay informed about: Copyright |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 25, 2005
Posts: 345
|
(Msg. 105) Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:35:51 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>In article <lqehq3lvkkk3f9drj7cb658ngilrlkju6a RemoveThis @news.markshouse.net>,
> Mark Goodge <usenet RemoveThis @listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >> 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?
>> >
>> >That's not a parity example and you know it.
>>
>> Why not? The material being copied is exactly the same. Why should the
>> circumstances in which it is displayed make a difference? According to
>> your argument it doesn't. If you think that the circumstances of the
>> copying make a difference, then you're admitting that I'm right.
>
>Please. OK, I'll play your ignorance game. There is nothing wrong with
>the copying itself. The problem lies in that the software is (likely)
>licensed for use. Having an executable is not the same as running an
>executable.
In my scenario, I'm not running the executable. I'm simply taking a
copy of it and then making it available to other people. In return for
making it available to them, I charge them for it. What's wrong with
that?
>> The law (at least in any sensible country) allows for the type of
>> intermediate copying necessary for a web browser, or a feed reader, to
>> function. It doesn't allow for the uncontrolled repbilication of the
>> material which is transmitted via those means.
>
>So go sue Google, or any of the dozen other big proxies that I'm sure
>show up in your logs as much as mine. I'm tired of you making that
>claim to me when millions of Euro await your oh-so-in-the-right court
>case.
I have already explained that I won't be suing Google, because I've
given Google permission to copy my material. I might, however, sue
someone else that doesn't have permission.
(That's actually fairly unlikely, since I release nearly all of my
material under a Creative Commons Licence, so I am in fact giving
permission for it to be copied by pretty much everyone. But I don't
have to do so, and I might sue someone if they used my material
commercially without permission)
Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about you?
"Viens vivre un Amour Suprême" >> Stay informed about: Copyright |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Image copyright - Hi If I take an image at a sports event (for example) do I own the copyright to that photo or does the subject maintain some kind of control over the image? I am building a sports related site and have photos of people partaking in the particular sport..
Copyright violation - A client has spotted that part of their website has been duplicated on another site without their permission. How can I ascertain who their ISP is in order to make a complaint please? whois only gives me the registrant's info.
Copyright notices - Everyone remember to update their copyright notices?? Reason I mention it is, I forgot, until now that is! -- Charles Sweeney
Copyright question? - Firstly is there anywhere online I can check the copyright of someone in Australia like I can here with US copyright? Secondly I get this request from a gentleman asking me to credit him for a poem I put on my site as written by author unknown. The..
Copyright Protection ? - How do I recieve copyright protection for my website ? SBA |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
