Copyright

In article <2b1kq3tdpn88mpncn85gisbj079i7npdd0.RemoveThis@news.markshouse.net>,
Mark Goodge <usenet.RemoveThis@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:53:45 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
> >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.

You're still not making a clear distinction. At what point does the
*long* chain of hardware and software between a server and a person turn
from bad to good? That's all I'm looking for.

> 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.

This furthers the confusion. You seem to be saying that it is OK for
someone to put a feed reader on their site, but if Google spiders that,
then *Google* is somehow infringing in a way they wouldn't be when they
spider the original site? Arguing that there is a limit of 1 to the
level of redirection isn't going to fly.

> >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.

When you actually sue someone over claims of infringement on your feed,
you are welcome to hire me as an expert witness.

--
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 <mi1kq3p3iiun6c09ulfmbevmlhb53cb4ng.TakeThisOut@news.markshouse.net>,
Mark Goodge <usenet.TakeThisOut@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:35:51 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
> >In article <lqehq3lvkkk3f9drj7cb658ngilrlkju6a.TakeThisOut@news.markshouse.net>,
> > Mark Goodge <usenet.TakeThisOut@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?

As I said, nothing. Even the GPL permits charging a fee for free
software. What you describe is also the backbone for many backup
services. Still, that doesn't prevent some random asshat from making a
copyright claim against you, even if only contributory infringement.
Since *I* am not an asshat, asking how I "feel" doesn't help your
scenario.

> 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.

I have already explained that you've (seemingly) not given Google
permission to do anything. At least not in any manner you've not also
given *everyone* permission to copy your material. Your
misunderstanding of how the web works would make it very easy to find
for the defense. I get a sense that you, like the others posting in
this thread, understand that deep down, and *that* is why you won't be
suing anybody any time soon. I just wonder why you're fighting so hard
to publicly deny 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 

In article <gs1kq35dg1tbh4j2r4n1u4ia3n9abhb827 RemoveThis @news.markshouse.net>,
Mark Goodge <usenet RemoveThis @listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:01:16 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
> >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.
>
> Some do. Like this, foor example:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6446193.stm

Since Viacom isn't posting here, referencing a year old big business
pissing match doesn't refute my argument. The article doesn't seem to
mention RSS news feeds at all, either. Hell, it's not even broadcast
TV, which would be more analogous to "infringement" of a feed. Please
go to a *little* more effort to make your case. Diversionary tactics
aren't going to do it. It's a simple enough question to answer: what
makes one feed reader "bad" and another feed reader "good"?

--
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 

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 08:25:58 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>In article <2b1kq3tdpn88mpncn85gisbj079i7npdd0 RemoveThis @news.markshouse.net>,
> Mark Goodge <usenet RemoveThis @listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:53:45 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>
>> >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.
>
>You're still not making a clear distinction.

That's because the distinction isn't particularly clear. There isn't a
simple, short sentence in any country's copyright law which makes this
definition. What there is is a set of principles which would be used
by the courts, if necessary, to determine whether a copy is infringing
or not.

> At what point does the
>*long* chain of hardware and software between a server and a person turn
>from bad to good? That's all I'm looking for.

Broadly speaking, it becomes bad when it's made available to be viewed
by someone other than the person reading it (or the equipment
delivering it to him so that he can read it).

>> 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.
>
>This furthers the confusion. You seem to be saying that it is OK for
>someone to put a feed reader on their site, but if Google spiders that,
>then *Google* is somehow infringing in a way they wouldn't be when they
>spider the original site?

No; in that case the person who puts the reader on their site is
infringing copyright. If it's available for Google to spider then it's
available to other people to read, and that's where the infringement
lies. To be non-infringing, it has to be available only to one person.

> Arguing that there is a limit of 1 to the
>level of redirection isn't going to fly.

That is, broadly speaking, the way the law defines it. It's about
*who* can read it, not about *how* they can read it.

>> >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.
>
>When you actually sue someone over claims of infringement on your feed,
>you are welcome to hire me as an expert witness.

Since I would never do such a foolish thing as to hire someone who
wasn't prepared to demonstrate their competence to me in advance, I'll
take that as an admission that you can't.

Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"We do what we like, and we like what we do"
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 08:49:16 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>In article <mi1kq3p3iiun6c09ulfmbevmlhb53cb4ng.DeleteThis@news.markshouse.net>,
> Mark Goodge <usenet.DeleteThis@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>I have already explained that you've (seemingly) not given Google
>permission to do anything.

Yes, I have. What makes you think I haven't?

>At least not in any manner you've not also
>given *everyone* permission to copy your material.

I've given other people a different type of permission.

>Your
>misunderstanding of how the web works would make it very easy to find
>for the defense. I get a sense that you, like the others posting in
>this thread, understand that deep down, and *that* is why you won't be
>suing anybody any time soon.

I'm not going to be suing anyone, at least in the foreseeable future,
because no-one is infringing my copyright. Why is that so hard for you
to grasp?

> I just wonder why you're fighting so hard
>to publicly deny reality.

The only reality I seem to be fighting is the reality that I'm never
going to get you to think outside your preconceptions, so I might as
well leave it at that.

Mark
--
Blog: http://Mark.Goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"So rock and roll, so corporate suit"
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 09:04:40 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>In article <gs1kq35dg1tbh4j2r4n1u4ia3n9abhb827.DeleteThis@news.markshouse.net>,
> Mark Goodge <usenet.DeleteThis@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:01:16 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> Some do. Like this, foor example:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6446193.stm
>
>Since Viacom isn't posting here, referencing a year old big business
>pissing match doesn't refute my argument.

Nobody here is suing them because nobody here thinks that Google is
infringing their copyright.

>The article doesn't seem to
>mention RSS news feeds at all, either.

Copyright is the same for any content. Whether it's formatted as RSS
or not doesn't change that.

> Hell, it's not even broadcast
>TV, which would be more analogous to "infringement" of a feed. Please
>go to a *little* more effort to make your case. Diversionary tactics
>aren't going to do it. It's a simple enough question to answer: what
>makes one feed reader "bad" and another feed reader "good"?

I have answered it. Just because you disagree with my answer doesn't
make it wrong. If you really can't do better than asking me to repeat
myself then there isn't much point in me trying to educate you any
futher. Thre's none so dumb as those who will not learn.

Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about you?
"Too sweet to be sour too nice to be mean"
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

In article <hduoq3hnq5720r9puqv3hbh4774jqqc573.RemoveThis@news.markshouse.net>,
Mark Goodge <usenet.RemoveThis@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> > At what point does the
> >*long* chain of hardware and software between a server and a person turn
> >from bad to good? That's all I'm looking for.
>
> Broadly speaking, it becomes bad when it's made available to be viewed
> by someone other than the person reading it (or the equipment
> delivering it to him so that he can read it).

Clear as mud. That's really no position from which to advise the whole
of the Internet.

> >This furthers the confusion. You seem to be saying that it is OK for
> >someone to put a feed reader on their site, but if Google spiders that,
> >then *Google* is somehow infringing in a way they wouldn't be when they
> >spider the original site?
>
> No; in that case the person who puts the reader on their site is
> infringing copyright. If it's available for Google to spider then it's
> available to other people to read, and that's where the infringement
> lies. To be non-infringing, it has to be available only to one person.

Every account shared by a couple is illegal? Every cache is illegal?
Again, keep in mind that Google *itself* makes feeds available to more
than one person via iGoogle home pages. If you really believe the
outlandish claims you're making, I am at a loss to why you haven't tried
collecting your millions.

> >When you actually sue someone over claims of infringement on your feed,
> >you are welcome to hire me as an expert witness.
>
> Since I would never do such a foolish thing as to hire someone who
> wasn't prepared to demonstrate their competence to me in advance, I'll
> take that as an admission that you can't.

Nice circular reasoning. I think the burden is still on you to show
some competence. I think the opportunity you discard only benefits your
opponents. It's going to take a lot more than some juvenile baiting on
Usenet to get me on your side when making outlandish copyright claims.

--
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 <couoq3dtgjuskhuahll1invorko0mcs4au RemoveThis @news.markshouse.net>,
Mark Goodge <usenet RemoveThis @listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> >I have already explained that you've (seemingly) not given Google
> >permission to do anything.
>
> Yes, I have. What makes you think I haven't?

The lack of evidence. It would be intellectually dishonest in this
discussion for you not to mention specific actions you've taken to allow
Google to distribute your content. Without such mention, the assumption
is that everything is moving around the Internet, per usual, with copies
being made all the time. Because that is *necessary* for the Internet
to work properly, you'd also have to mention how you explicitly
*prevent* unauthorized access to your copyright material.

> >At least not in any manner you've not also
> >given *everyone* permission to copy your material.
>
> I've given other people a different type of permission.

Stated, but not shown.

> I'm not going to be suing anyone, at least in the foreseeable future,
> because no-one is infringing my copyright. Why is that so hard for you
> to grasp?

What I grasp is that you're seemingly only willing to define
infringement after the fact. By your stated reasoning, *everyone* is
infringing. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

> The only reality I seem to be fighting is the reality that I'm never
> going to get you to think outside your preconceptions, so I might as
> well leave it at that.

The funny thing is that I have no preconceptions. I see how people are
using the Internet every day, and I see how your claims are inconsistent
with that. The burden is on you to resolve that inconsistency. Until
you do, your position isn't scientific since your theory doesn't even
pass the first step of observation.

--
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 <ifvoq3l54aee3roohc0r94ifipgehkqgr1 DeleteThis @news.markshouse.net>,
Mark Goodge <usenet DeleteThis @listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> Nobody here is suing them because nobody here thinks that Google is
> infringing their copyright.

The law doesn't care what you think. The law doesn't care that it is
Google or some small fry. It either is infringement or isn't. If
you're taking the literal side of the law, it would seem you should not
be online if you don't want your content copied.

> Copyright is the same for any content. Whether it's formatted as RSS
> or not doesn't change that.

You are incorrect. Not all content is covered by copyright. Even
content covered by copyright is subject to fair use. Reality has
conspired against you once again. Curses!

--
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 

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 11:32:07 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>In article <couoq3dtgjuskhuahll1invorko0mcs4au.RemoveThis@news.markshouse.net>,
> Mark Goodge <usenet.RemoveThis@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >I have already explained that you've (seemingly) not given Google
>> >permission to do anything.
>>
>> Yes, I have. What makes you think I haven't?
>
>The lack of evidence.

I have said that I have. In what way is that not evidence that I have?
Are you saying I'm a liar?

You could, of course, check any of my sites that appear in my sig, and
you'll find explicit evidence that I am permitting Google et al to
make copies. Assuming, that is, you know how to do so. I'm presuming
you don't, or you wou;dn't be making a fool of yourself by asserting
the opposite.

> It would be intellectually dishonest in this
>discussion for you not to mention specific actions you've taken to allow
>Google to distribute your content. Without such mention, the assumption
>is that everything is moving around the Internet, per usual, with copies
>being made all the time. Because that is *necessary* for the Internet
>to work properly, you'd also have to mention how you explicitly
>*prevent* unauthorized access to your copyright material.
>
>> >At least not in any manner you've not also
>> >given *everyone* permission to copy your material.
>>
>> I've given other people a different type of permission.
>
>Stated, but not shown.

Again, look at many of my sites and you'll see a Creative Commons
licence. Where shown, it gives permission to copy. Where not shown, no
permission is given.

>
>> I'm not going to be suing anyone, at least in the foreseeable future,
>> because no-one is infringing my copyright. Why is that so hard for you
>> to grasp?
>
>What I grasp is that you're seemingly only willing to define
>infringement after the fact. By your stated reasoning, *everyone* is
>infringing.

I have explicitly stated the difference between infringing and
non-infringing copies. Your assertiona bove, therefore, indicates one
of three things: either you haven't read my pprevious posts, or you
have read them but not understood them, or you have read and
understood them but are not deliberately making false statements about
me. None of those makes you look good.

>> The only reality I seem to be fighting is the reality that I'm never
>> going to get you to think outside your preconceptions, so I might as
>> well leave it at that.
>
>The funny thing is that I have no preconceptions. I see how people are
>using the Internet every day, and I see how your claims are inconsistent
>with that. The burden is on you to resolve that inconsistency.

The law on copyright is inconsistent. That is something which is a
source of great frustration to many people, including me, who work
with copyright material. If you think that you can derive copyright
law as it relates to the Internet from first principles by application
of pure logic, you are very much mistaken. There are cases where
something seems obviously acceptable, and yet is not, and cases where
something seems unacceptable and yet is permitted. The authors of
copyright law did not, for the most part, anticipate the existance of
the Internet and later attempts to update it to take it into account
have often served to further confuse, rather than clarify, the issue.
I am no friend of the lawmakers in this respect, and no great fan of
current copyright law as applied to the Internet. However, whether I
like it or not, I have to work with the law as it actually is, not how
I want it to be or how I logically think it ought to be. And so do
you. The law is defined by what's written by the lawmakers, not by
those who write Internet protocols, however much we may wish that the
latter were the case.

Mark
--
Blog: http://Mark.Goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"All I want is to find an easier way to get out of our little heads"
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 11:42:02 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>You are incorrect. Not all content is covered by copyright. Even
>content covered by copyright is subject to fair use. Reality has
>conspired against you once again. Curses!

Go read http://www.copyright.gov/ and come back when you can
demonstate that you've understood it. Don't worry, I know that will
take some time. We'll probably still be here when you've finished.

Mark
--
Blog: http://Mark.Goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"We're not the ones who're meant to follow"
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

In article <8gvrq3d43qphajugntpv0oflv2rpljv32a.DeleteThis@news.markshouse.net>,
Mark Goodge <usenet.DeleteThis@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> >The lack of evidence.
>
> I have said that I have. In what way is that not evidence that I have?
> Are you saying I'm a liar?

At this point, I think it's safe to say you're a filthy liar.

> You could, of course, check any of my sites that appear in my sig, and
> you'll find explicit evidence that I am permitting Google et al to
> make copies.

Funny thing is, I did just that. Yesterday, your robots.txt was
actually serving up an HTML file. Today it is not. Please disclose
exactly what you have done in that time, because it certainly seems like
a dishonest attempt to fabricate evidence. Further, your site doesn't
seem to include a notable mention of Google at all, let alone name them
in any legal agreement regarding the distribution of your copyrighted
content.

> Again, look at many of my sites and you'll see a Creative Commons
> licence. Where shown, it gives permission to copy. Where not shown, no
> permission is given.

In order to see that, the agent (be it spider or human) must have
already copied your content. It really seem like your line of argument
is that the entire Internet is illegal. You are again showing a
fundamental lack of understanding of how things work online.

> >What I grasp is that you're seemingly only willing to define
> >infringement after the fact. By your stated reasoning, *everyone* is
> >infringing.
>
> I have explicitly stated the difference between infringing and
> non-infringing copies. Your assertiona bove, therefore, indicates one
> of three things: either you haven't read my pprevious posts, or you
> have read them but not understood them, or you have read and
> understood them but are not deliberately making false statements about
> me. None of those makes you look good.

You completely neglect the forth option, which makes you look bad: you
have written them but not understood them. Again, and unlike you I'm
perfectly willing to repeat myself instead of vaguely referencing
previous posts, your argument seems to be that of infringement after the
fact. You don't make any mention what specific actions you've taken to
exclude copying in what is inherently a copy-centric system.

--
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 

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:45:31 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>In article <8gvrq3d43qphajugntpv0oflv2rpljv32a.RemoveThis@news.markshouse.net>,
> Mark Goodge <usenet.RemoveThis@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >The lack of evidence.
>>
>> I have said that I have. In what way is that not evidence that I have?
>> Are you saying I'm a liar?
>
>At this point, I think it's safe to say you're a filthy liar.

Ah well. Nothing like a bit of abuse to try and detract from the fact
that you're losing the argument, eh?

>> You could, of course, check any of my sites that appear in my sig, and
>> you'll find explicit evidence that I am permitting Google et al to
>> make copies.
>
>Funny thing is, I did just that. Yesterday, your robots.txt was
>actually serving up an HTML file. Today it is not.

Which one? The server has been having some problems recently, so not
everything is as it should be. Let me know which site you checked, and
what it was showing, and I'll fix it.
>
>> Again, look at many of my sites and you'll see a Creative Commons
>> licence. Where shown, it gives permission to copy. Where not shown, no
>> permission is given.
>
>In order to see that, the agent (be it spider or human) must have
>already copied your content.

Yes, but it it hasn't resulted in an infringing copy under the law as
it applies to my website. Not all copies of copyright mnaterial are
infringements of copyright.

> It really seem like your line of argument
>is that the entire Internet is illegal. You are again showing a
>fundamental lack of understanding of how things work online.

May I ask you a question? How long have you been working in an
environment where copyright law is directly relevant to you, and how
long have you been a professional user of the Internet?

>> I have explicitly stated the difference between infringing and
>> non-infringing copies. Your assertiona bove, therefore, indicates one
>> of three things: either you haven't read my pprevious posts, or you
>> have read them but not understood them, or you have read and
>> understood them but are not deliberately making false statements about
>> me. None of those makes you look good.
>
>You completely neglect the forth option, which makes you look bad: you
>have written them but not understood them. Again, and unlike you I'm
>perfectly willing to repeat myself instead of vaguely referencing
>previous posts, your argument seems to be that of infringement after the
>fact. You don't make any mention what specific actions you've taken to
>exclude copying in what is inherently a copy-centric system.

I haven't made any effort to exclude copying at all. But just because
it's physically possible doesn't mean it's necessarily permissible. Do
you understand the difference between what is possible and what is
permitted? Because you certainly give the impression that you don't.

Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"I let the melody shine, let it cleanse my mind, I feel free now"
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright