On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:26:21 -0400, "Ray Gordon, creator of the
\"pivot\""
cybersheet.com> wrote:
>> Mr. Parker, with all due respect, did you know it is possible to deny
>> search engines the "right" to search your website?
>> Most generally used a fixed IP. You can deny access to your site based
>> on that IP.
>
>That is "opt-out" copyright protection. I told the judge that under the
>current law, I am not required to opt out of anything, and that by
>registering my work I was opting out.
No sir you are not. The copyright license only grants you an exclusive
to your work for profit. You created it, you are entitled to the
profit.
I can legally take an excerpt from your work and publish it. As in a
commentary or for educational purposes. That, is fair use.
Search engines are doing the same thing. They have not infringed on
your copyright.
>
>I'm not out to deny anyone access to my site, just to ensure that no one
>republishes my registered, copyrighted works.
>
>With "opt-out" protection, I have to constantly monitor infringement, since
>the burden is on me to remove it rather than them not to engage in it. This
>has never held up in any court before.
>
>Radios have to pay royalties to ASCAP when they play music. They have the
>right to play the song, as long as they pay the "compulsory license" which
>is set by law.
You know very little in this area as well.
I'm no expert either. But at least I do have a background in the area.
Radio stations get what are called "promotional copies". These copies
can not be sold. I'm not sure how it all works, but used to be that
the stations would pay the publisher, not ascap, a certain amount of
money each time their recordings were aired.
>
>A search engine could do the same thing with my content. This would also
>ensure accountability of any site that is searchable, i.e., if you want to
>be in Google, anyone who sues your site can find you based on the permission
>you gave them. That would eliminate anonymous harassment and anonymous
>defamation as well as protecting copyrights and ensuring royalty.
>
>
>> There are many other ways to deny robots access. I would suggest you
>> speak to your host.
>
>I don't need to. Material with a registered copyright is verboten under
>current law.
Horsehockey!
You put in on a web site, you give anyone with access a license to
read it.
>
>The best defense is actually Fair Use. I told the court I had plans for any
>type of ruling, but needed the law settled, and that the defendants should
>have expected a lawsuit over their brazen, potentially infringing, conduct.
>
>Once settled, everyone can plan accordingly.
So if you win, the entire world loses and down comes the internet.
If no one can access a website because of copyright infringement, then
why have it?
>
>
>> Search engines also do not display enough of anyone's website to the
>> point of infringement. Under copyright laws, "fair use", allows for
>> the use of copyrighted material without being infringement. This is
>> how search engines work.
>
>The AP recently sent a blogger a takedown notice over the use of 39 words in
>its results.
Uh-huh. And the Chrysler Corp. Sued a domain owner for the illegal use
of their trademark "jeep" and for displaying jeeps with bikini clad
women on them.
He could have won that case but decided not to fight it.
The use of 39 words is hardly legal grounds for infringement.
It was a scare tactic that worked.
>
>Google News doesn't have sponsored links. Ever wonder why? The second they
>do, their source material providers will sue them just as they did in
>Belgium, a case which Google LOST.
>
>The defendants argued "implied license" as in Field v. Google, but I
>countered by asking if the NY Times gave ME an implied license to
>"automatically" archive its content "temporarily." I also pointed out that
>the engines cut deals with the big boys as they rip off the poor, little
>indies.
>
Geee. Isn't that what you do when you visit a website?
Do you realize you now have possession of it's content and can access
it offline? Thusly, violating copyright according to you.
>
>> You are claiming that there is some sort of profit being realized by
>> displaying contents of your site.
>
>Search engines are not charities. Care to read their SEC filings about how
>they plan to make money? "Monetizing search" is a large part of it.
>
>If my content is worthless, don't put it in your engine, and if it's worth
>something, pay me and/or license it. Compulsory royalties are standard in
>this type of situation. If in fact I've given an "implied license" then an
>"implied payment" can be given in return.
>
Here's the heart of the argument. "Pay me or stay out".
>ASCAP's model works brilliantly for this. A central processor for interner
>royalties would work fine.
What about the RIAA? They claim copyright infringement continously and
yet I'll bet not a dime of what they get for it goes to the artists.
>
>
>>Well sir, have you looked at a
>> newspaper lately? Isn't a newspaper comparable to a search engine?
>
>No. In fact, a newspaper that aggregated other published works without
>permission would be sued into bankruptcy for it.
Depending on how much was printed. One or two paragraphs of "war and
peace" would not be infringement.
>
>Opt-out copyright has never held up in any court.
No such thing.
>
>> You read a story and beside it are advertisements?
>
>The story is written by the newspaper. A similar situation would be if the
>newspaper published MY work and sold ads next to it.
Or any part thereof and you want compensation. You should make that
clear to the newspaper before they print it. Guess what? No check, no
print.
>
>
>> Your lawsuit against google was interesting and ludicrous.
>
>It was different. The main issues in it were not addressed there; this case
>dealt with issues not raised in that case.
>
>> This lawsuit against yahoo is just plain ignorant and laughable.
>
>The judge would not have held an 80-minute oral argument hearing if she
>thought the case was that much of a slam dunk for the defense. She was
>extremely skeptical of several points raised by the defense, and noted that
>while precedent for other media is on my side, that this is a different
>situation with search engines.
>
>She also said the fair-use question was not appropriate for a motion to
>dismiss, so if it comes to that, this case likely goes to trial.
>
>
>--
You really are a clown.
