> On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, Bonnie Scott wrote:
> > >
> > > At 4:46 PM -0800 1/2/97, Stan Ryckman wrote:
> > >
> > ...snipped
> >
> > There is an essential difference. Alta Vista is not re-publishing. They
> > aren't making a copy available to others. They had the right to
> > one copy, which they look at, slice, dice and shred, and their output
> > is something they have done to analyse its properties. They are NOT
> > making copies of the works for other people. Deja News is. They are
> > offering someone else's works at a time and in a method that the original
> > author did not intend by making the original posting.
>
> Just to clear this up for me a bit. I understand your comment regarding
> AltaVista slicing/dicing to create links to original content. But, they do
> have that 'Search Usenet' option and that seems to work just like
> DejaNews, with links to copied content that resides on their own servers.
> Am I right -or wrong?
Sorry--I forgot about AltaVista's news search. I though we were talking about
the Web search index.
Digital DOES provide access to a copy of the news postings, but I don't see
any older than the second week of November. Would there be a different verdict
against Altavista (hypothetically speaking) if
- the results of the search were displayed using a special application that
translated the standard news spool into HTML at the time of the link
- the messages themselves were stored in a relational database and
regurgitated when needed
Just a thought. The second would (I think) obvoiusly be copyright
infringement. The first is not so obvious. You're talking about a different
type of news reader, in a way.
Bonnie Scott
> Milt Webb
References:
|
|
