Copyright

In article <7fidnb-CMvkMWjnanZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d RemoveThis @comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex RemoveThis @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?

--
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 <Xns9A389E4098A67castleamber.DeleteThis@130.133.1.4>,
John Bokma <john.DeleteThis@castleamber.com> wrote:

> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet.DeleteThis@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.

Since I am not the one you would claim infringement against, you've
laughed too soon. Google *is*, by your argument, so it is the depth of
*their* pockets that should most interest you.

> 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.

As I wrote in another response, any action you take against Google could
just as easily be taken against another party. Since you're presumably
not suing Google, you have no cause to sue anyone else. At this stage I
think the burden lies with you to show what use of your content has
resulted in your taking legal action *successfully*.

> >> 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?

Why else would you bring it up during this discussion? Are you
admitting that you have trouble forming a cogent argument?

--
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 <Xns9A389DBE0A123castleamber DeleteThis @130.133.1.4>,
John Bokma <john DeleteThis @castleamber.com> wrote:

> 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?

We don't have to, since we're not the ones crying over how things are
used. The burden is on you to show that there is a material difference
between the different type of proxy services that all software must
provide in order to display anything other than the raw data.

--
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 <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.

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

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 09:10:30 -0500, Jerry Stuckle put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>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.
>
>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.

Well, that's certainly not the case, as I said, under the terms of the
Bern Convention. The US did, for a while, only apply part of the
convention, but as far as I'm aware it has now brought its copyright
laws into line with international standards in this respect. I suspect
that your attorney is a bit behind the times.

See http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html - question 5 covers
this situation.

Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about you?
"I feel dangerous 'cos I hunger for the truth"
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 09:10:30 -0500, Jerry Stuckle put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>> 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.
>> 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.
>
> Well, that's certainly not the case, as I said, under the terms of the
> Bern Convention. The US did, for a while, only apply part of the
> convention, but as far as I'm aware it has now brought its copyright
> laws into line with international standards in this respect. I suspect
> that your attorney is a bit behind the times.
>

If you will note, I did not specify anything about the Bern Convention.
My comments were limited to U.S. law only.

> See http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html - question 5 covers
> this situation.
>
> Mark

Nothing in his comments contradicts what my attorney has to say.

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

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:27:34 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>In article <Xns9A389E4098A67castleamber.RemoveThis@130.133.1.4>,
> John Bokma <john.RemoveThis@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet.RemoveThis@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.
>
>Since I am not the one you would claim infringement against, you've
>laughed too soon. Google *is*, by your argument, so it is the depth of
>*their* pockets that should most interest you.
>
>> 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.
>
>As I wrote in another response, any action you take against Google could
>just as easily be taken against another party. Since you're presumably
>not suing Google, you have no cause to sue anyone else.

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. In many cases, there are benefits to being included in search
engine archives, so there would be no reason to try to stop them using
your material. But, if there is no benefit to you of having your
material included on a totally different website, then you have every
reason to request that they don't republish it there - and, if
necessary, to take action through the courts to prevent them.

To use an analogy, I have the right to stop people entering my home.
Anyone who enters without permission is trespassing, and I can use
reasonable force to expel them or, if I want, take legal action
against them. But not everyone who enters does so without permission.
I permit the postman to enter my property in order to deliver the
post, the paper boy is permitted to deliver the paper, the window
cleaner is permitted to enter in order to clean windows, when I gat a
plumber or carpenter in to fix something then they're entering with my
permission. Just because I don't throw them all off the premises
doesn't mean I can't throw anyone else off.

In the same way, I give Google et al permission to use my website
contents because they're doing me a service by using it. Google isn't
the equivalent of some random person off the street wandering onto my
property, it's the equivalent of the postman or the window cleaner
entering my property to do something I want them to do. But some other
website out there that uses my material without my permission may well
be the equivalent of some random person walking onto my property from
the street, an I have every right to tell them that they have no
permission to do so.

Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about you?
"Take me or leave me, don't have to believe me"
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

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).

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

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

> In article <Xns9A389E4098A67castleamber RemoveThis @130.133.1.4>,
> John Bokma <john RemoveThis @castleamber.com> wrote:

[..]

>> 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.
>
> As I wrote in another response, any action you take against Google
> could just as easily be taken against another party. Since you're
> presumably not suing Google, you have no cause to sue anyone else. At
> this stage I think the burden lies with you to show what use of your
> content has resulted in your taking legal action *successfully*.

Can you name a service of Google?

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

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

> We don't have to, since we're not the ones crying over how things are
> used. The burden is on you to show that there is a material
> difference between the different type of proxy services that all
> software must provide in order to display anything other than the raw
> data.

We don't have to. I just email a hosting provider when someone thinks like
you. Until know this has worked perfectly, even with big boys like
Microsoft who at first asks for a bunch of papers to be filled in and sent
to them.

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).

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

On 1 Feb, 17:11, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use... RemoveThis @1q2008.subsume.com>
wrote:

> Anyone using their brain can see that not
> only is the purpose of a web site to draw visitors, but the further
> purpose of a feed is to draw readers to that same site *regardless* of
> how it gets displayed. Don't like it? Don't offer a feed.

Or offer a feed, but limit this to link and "teaser" content, not the
entire article. That's the original model for RSS, and still what most
site operators are looking for.

These days there's also a lot of interest in end-user RSS readers,
more than aggregators or embedded republishers. This is particularly
attractive for the intermittently-connected mobile market (palmtops
hitting WiFi hotspots occasionally, then being read off-line). The
question here (for news sites other than the BBC) is how to maintain
their ad viewing and revenue stream. RSS really isn't designed around
mandatory ad support, or embedding ads into the content of the
<description> element. Ad servers themselves are also poor at
supporting the notion of syndicated ads. As most online ads aren't
simply "ads" in the classic sense, they're actually a "call to
action" (marketing speak) and encourage you to click a link there and
then, it's far from obvious how this can be extended to work for the
offline-reader market at all.
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

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

> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet.TakeThisOut@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>

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

--
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 <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.

> But not everyone who enters does so without permission.

Unless you've configured your HTTP server to deny requests to everyone
except those on a white list, then everyone *does* enter without
explicit permission. Otherwise, you've given the implicit permission to
copy your content that is *necessary* for the web to work as we know it.
I'm not sure how some of you people got to be webmasters if you don't
understand the basics.

--
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