> That's like making
> the argument that it's ok to copy a DVD (pick whichever one is your
> favorite
> at the moment) and posting it onto a website without the permission of
> the
> copyrightholder, since you're only "loaning" it.
Not really, because in this case, it's something already up on the
internet in electronic form and distributed electronically -- and in
most cases already ON a web site and already available without
restriction.
So one could argue in return that it's simply a public service, that
they're mirroring a web site to help increase availability. Mirroring
is a widely accepted practice; the GNU folks do it heavily, in fact.
And if you didn't say "don't copy my stuff", they could make a good
argument that you thought it was okay, since you didn't put any
restrictions on it and didn't document a restrictive clause on usage.
Either side could win that fight, actually. Depends on many factors.
It's not like copying a DVD at all. It's like grabbing a copy of the
Lord of the Rings Preview and putting it on your web site. Very
different beasts. One's already on the net, the only question is who
has the permission to host it.
> But feel free to test the boundaries of the law, if you'd like. I'd
> suggest that a reasonable case could be made that Google's caching of
> copyrighted web pages without express permission is likely illegal
> since the
> passage of the DMCA.
If they're on the web, not password protected and there's no overt
copyright notice on them? Doubtful as hell. If there is a copyright
notice? They'll happily remove them if they didn't catch it themselves.
> This is why it's _always_ better to assume a creation is protected
> under
> copyright than it is to assume it isn't, or that a given purpose for
> the copy
> qualifies as, "fair use."
The key word in all these arguments is "assume". No matter which side
you're on, if you assume a given usage is okay, or you assume others
will only use something a certain way, bad things will happen.
So don't assume. Make your wishes explicit on material you publish, so
there's no assumption necessary. Then you only have to worry about
those that don't pay attention, or feel your restrictions aren't legal.
And down those paths lie lawyers anyway....
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Architech
chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.chuqui.com/
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam my clothes down here, will you?
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
