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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>
>> 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.
BTW, dipshit, you failed to mention that within days of that notice,
the AP also retracted that request. On the basis of hundreds of
complaints it received for even considering such a move.
If a blogger is found to be guilty of infringement for using so few
words, then yahoo, google, and any other search engine is equally
guilty.
Not to mention the thousands of websites that utilize newsfeeds from
the AP on a regular basis.
There was a case a few years ago invovling M$ and a kid by the name of
"Mike Rowe". Some young overzealous attorney in the M$ camp decided
the web site name infringed on the trademark. Luckily, M$ had a heart
and not only dropped the case, but helped the kid get back online.
Your case, though, is attempting to undermine the very sanctity of the
users of Internet all over the world. If you win, the world loses.
