> 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.