 |
|
|
|
Next: IIS -related BSOD - minidump included
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Jan 07, 2008
Posts: 39
|
(Msg. 76) Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:19 am
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>www>webmaster (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <djheq39gjcnjcdsta1ch558ju5b4fe624j.TakeThisOut@news.markshouse.net>,
Mark Goodge <usenet.TakeThisOut@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:18:02 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
> >In article <Xns9A3998B279D3Ccastleamber.TakeThisOut@130.133.1.4>,
> > John Bokma <john.TakeThisOut@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?
That's not a parity example and you know it. There is no need to
introduce spurious arguments when my position has been clearly stated
for rebuttal. I maintain that a feed reader is an abstraction you have
no control over, that the Internet inherently involves copying and
republication, and that you need to take that into account when you
*freely* provide your content online.
> 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?
Again, if you need to steer the topic away from open feeds it really
shows how weak you know your case to be. I never claim there wasn't
copyright infringement on the Internet. My point has always been that
if you *explicitly* make a feed available for general use, it makes no
difference what the viewer's preferred feed reader is. Since I
acknowledge the reality that ad blocking software already exists, I'm
not sure why I shouldn't "feel the same" about the mirror. I might not
like it, but that's the reality of the Internet.
> 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.
www.google.com
But, seriously, whether or not I'm "still happy" is not the issue. The
issue is seeing the reality of the Internet with regard to *inherent*
copying and acting accordingly to do the right thing. I have many sites
you could mirror, but there is also the larger issue of trademark
infringement. When it comes to distributing feeds, the actual topic of
this thread, I have no problem with you designing an ad-supported page
as a feed reader. Show me what you got and I'll even give you my feed
URLs so you can feature them directly! 
--
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Jan 01, 2004
Posts: 187
|
(Msg. 77) Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:53 am
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 5 Feb, 18:00, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck... RemoveThis @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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 15, 2007
Posts: 99
|
(Msg. 78) Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:59 am
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
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. >> Stay informed about: Copyright |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 07, 2008
Posts: 39
|
(Msg. 79) Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <3cheq39kfh5m9fjbf1jbfsmo8u6qi9ebii.TakeThisOut@news.markshouse.net>,
Mark Goodge <usenet.TakeThisOut@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.
Yes, they are. Copyright law is defined by the entire legal process.
Unless you're going to cite some precedence-setting case that covers
putting feeds in a sidebar, you need to change your position.
> 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. Nobody here is stepping up to the
plate to say what the real difference is between the myriad different
ways a feed will be copied as it moves around the Internet. That's all
I'm asking for: the one counterexample that shows why a feed on a site
is bad, but a feed going through a proxy to be displayed in skinnable
reader app is not. I'd like to do a heavy-handed lockdown of my content
as much as anyone, but none of you have provided a reasonable argument
that it is the right thing to do.
--
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. 80) Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:49 pm
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <13qeqejc15jhgb3.TakeThisOut@corp.supernews.com>,
Tony <nospam.TakeThisOut@example.com> wrote:
> Doc O'Leary wrote:
> > In article <in0cq35071r7mmhk25akcb81cj2l4hefl9.TakeThisOut@news.markshouse.net>,
> > Mark Goodge <usenet.TakeThisOut@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.
Here's a clue for you: you pay your attorney to give you the best advice
*you* want to hear. If that means you want to sue someone over nothing,
they'll do their best job to find the least outlandish way of doing so,
happily billing you for their efforts. If you really want a balanced
picture the next time you make an office visit, ask your attorney not to
represent your interests, but to advise you on how the *other* party is
best represented. I think you will find that many a frivolous lawsuit
wouldn't burden the courts if one party or the other stopped to question
if maybe, just maybe, they weren't in the right. In this matter, you're
not in the right, and I do wish you would question that more.
--
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: Nov 15, 2007
Posts: 99
|
(Msg. 81) Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:49 pm
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <13qeqejc15jhgb3.DeleteThis@corp.supernews.com>,
> Tony <nospam.DeleteThis@example.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Here's a clue for you: you pay your attorney to give you the best advice
> *you* want to hear. If that means you want to sue someone over nothing,
> they'll do their best job to find the least outlandish way of doing so,
> happily billing you for their efforts. If you really want a balanced
> picture the next time you make an office visit, ask your attorney not to
> represent your interests, but to advise you on how the *other* party is
> best represented. I think you will find that many a frivolous lawsuit
> wouldn't burden the courts if one party or the other stopped to question
> if maybe, just maybe, they weren't in the right. In this matter, you're
> not in the right, and I do wish you would question that more.
>
Ah, so you're not getting your information from an attorney, then? So
where are you getting it from? >> Stay informed about: Copyright |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 14, 2003
Posts: 1507
|
(Msg. 82) Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Andy Dingley wrote:
> 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_.
>
Ok, to be more clear. It was not meant for republishing copyrighted
content WITHOUT PERMISSION.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex RemoveThis @attglobal.net
================== >> Stay informed about: Copyright |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 07, 2008
Posts: 39
|
(Msg. 83) Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <crheq391uhgunuh7h3sn0br6c35beoa43v DeleteThis @news.markshouse.net>,
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:
> >
> >> 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?
Then it would have been intellectually dishonest for him not to reveal
that in the course of this discussion. The topic you need to stick to
is how *generally* everybody understand the Internet to work, regarding
RSS feeds in particular. If *your* argument is that all access that is
not *explicitly* permitted is illegal, you are not describing the way
the world (wide web) normally works. Your position is unscientific.
> 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?
An unpublished law is illegal. When open access is the norm, it is *not
right* for you to take submarine legal action over what you suddenly
deem infringement on a whim one day. Either you accept the reality of
common practices (e.g., providing a feed is independent of any
particular feed reader) or you shut it down. There is a limit, like it
or not, to how we all can protect our content. The professional thing
to do as a webmaster is to see that and advise accordingly.
--
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. 84) Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:23 pm
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
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.
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, nor is robots.txt a legal
document. You have one generic rule that does nothing; you might as
well have an empty file. To be explicit, you'd have to at least *name*
the bots in question. Also, robots.txt is an optional *exclusion*
protocol. It doesn't spell out what is granted, but only that which is
prohibited. It states nothing about caching behavior.
> 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
Yes, and if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak. Stop living
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.
I can immediately think of half a dozen different ways to uniquely
identify visitors, 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.
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.
> 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. They're simply accessing the machine-readable content you
make available *precisely* for the purpose of syndication.
--
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. 85) Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:38 pm
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <Xns9A3A7208B15E9castleamber DeleteThis @130.133.1.4>,
John Bokma <john DeleteThis @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. 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.
> 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.
--
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. 86) Posted: Tue Feb 05, 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:
> 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,
Oh, I am sure we can make an arrangement. I doubt if any car owner drives
around in it 24/7.
> 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.
Many copies are made of a music CD in a CD player here, when it travels
from the disc to the speakers on my audio system.
> If you don't understand that, you need to go offline.
Oh, wow, so you must be right, eh?
>> 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.
Of course it's relevant. What's the difference of someone publishing my
feed, or someone publishing my web page? To simplify things for you,
assume that I use a full content feed, and that the sucker on that page
just published my feed to the left of his image (and that the feed only
contained that article).
So my example is *perfectly* on topic in this discussion, while you seem
to be utterly confused all the time.
--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/ >> Stay informed about: Copyright |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 14, 2003
Posts: 1507
|
(Msg. 87) Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:10 pm
Post subject: Re: Copyright [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 5 Feb, 18:00, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck....TakeThisOut@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.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex.TakeThisOut@attglobal.net
================== >> Stay informed about: Copyright |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 25, 2005
Posts: 345
|
(Msg. 88) 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?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:21:32 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>In article <3cheq39kfh5m9fjbf1jbfsmo8u6qi9ebii.DeleteThis@news.markshouse.net>,
> Mark Goodge <usenet.DeleteThis@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Yes, they are. Copyright law is defined by the entire legal process.
Law is defined by the people who write it.
>Unless you're going to cite some precedence-setting case that covers
>putting feeds in a sidebar, you need to change your position.
There is precedent, at least in UK law, for website operators who have
been successfully sued for including content from another site without
permission.
>> 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].
>Nobody here is stepping up to the
>plate to say what the real difference is between the myriad different
>ways a feed will be copied as it moves around the Internet. That's all
>I'm asking for: the one counterexample that shows why a feed on a site
>is bad, but a feed going through a proxy to be displayed in skinnable
>reader app is not.
UK law makes that distinction, and so does the law in many countries.
>I'd like to do a heavy-handed lockdown of my content
>as much as anyone, but none of you have provided a reasonable argument
>that it is the right thing to do.
[1] http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032498.htm (section 
[2] http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0028/sec0087.html
is one example.
Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"All this talk of getting old, it's getting me down my love" >> Stay informed about: Copyright |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 25, 2005
Posts: 345
|
(Msg. 89) 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?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:19:39 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>In article <djheq39gjcnjcdsta1ch558ju5b4fe624j DeleteThis @news.markshouse.net>,
> Mark Goodge <usenet DeleteThis @listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:18:02 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>
>> >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? 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?
>
>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.
> There is no need to
>introduce spurious arguments when my position has been clearly stated
>for rebuttal. I maintain that a feed reader is an abstraction you have
>no control over, that the Internet inherently involves copying and
>republication, and that you need to take that into account when you
>*freely* provide your content online.
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.
Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Too sweet to be sour too nice to be mean" >> Stay informed about: Copyright |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 593
|
(Msg. 90) 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 <Xns9A3A73288D08Ccastleamber RemoveThis @130.133.1.4>,
> John Bokma <john RemoveThis @castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 robots.txt *cannot* be used in that manner because not all access
> is infringement, regardless of what client is used.
Of course it can be used exactly in that way. If you want to republish a
feed on a website, you check if you are allowed to spider the index.rss.
If not, you're out of luck.
> ... 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.
--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/ >> 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
