5 ms·

How is mirroring geocities and/or supplying a torrent of the content using it commercially? Reocities even responds to takedown requests.

by wwortiz 16y ago

flipbrad 16y ago
Supplying the torrent isn't directly commercial but upping others' content with your own ads, is. And should be subject to claims to account to claimants for income received unless they published under a wide enough copy-left licence. However, a reform to copyright law I'd gladly see happen is that orphan content (which officially deleted websites arguably are) should be exempt from copyright. I mean, how can people seriously retain rights to profit from work which they OK'd (explicitly or implicitly) the deletion/ending the publication of? What reocities does, in my mind, whether commercial or not, is great. I also think there should be a default, opt-out licence covering all new content published, along the lines of CC share alike - attribution - noncommercial. Creators are free to opt out of the licence - explicitly - and reserve ALL rights if they want. Wouldn't cover CooksSource's actions (commercial) but it would stop you infringing my copyright when you forward my emails. Also, responding to a takedown is a completely non-sequitur to 'how is that commercial'. For better, or worse; commercial, or not; you have to comply. Insane that such a logical fallacy can attract such karma.
- timwiseman 16y ago
  I agree with that part of copyright reform needs to deal with orphan conent. However, approving having something deleted does not by itself make it an orphan work. After all, the copyright holder may have had it deleted in one place to publish it in another or had it removed so that it could be reworked into a new revision before being posted. Orphaned works are those where either the copyright owner no longer exists (a corporate entity that went out of business for instance) or where there is no practical way to identify the proper copyright holder. Not merely those that have been removed from one particular place of publication.
  - ghaff 16y ago
    As I recall, a lot of photographers were very opposed to orphan copyright law that was making its way through Congress at one point. The gist of the argument as I remember it was the concern that people would make a very perfunctory attempt to contact the copyright holder ("Oh, we would have asked for permission but we didn't have a current address so we just went ahead and used it.") And the overall situation with photography on the Web is probably much worse than writing. Even sites that wouldn't condone unattributed cutting and pasting of text routinely use all sorts of photos that I'm sure have been casually copied from somewhere on the Web.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >However, approving having something deleted does not by itself make it an orphan work. After all, the copyright holder may have had it deleted in one place to publish it in another or had it removed so that it could be reworked into a new revision before being posted. Destruction of a work I retain the copyright on is part of my [moral] right. For example an artist may not wish their earlier work to be seen, they should have the right to prevent it deleteriously affecting their reputation without that work being considered "orphaned" and fair game. Reocities bringing back my teenage webpages may mean that people find things authored by me that I no longer want to be available, I took the appropriate course in letting Geocities wipe their servers; what right do Reocities have to recover that without my say so? I don't care as it happens but I could and assuming that the servers are in a Paris Convention/TRIPS country I should win. TRIPS requires countries to treat commercial scale infringements as criminal! FWIW safe harbour only works if you know you're not holding works for which you don't have the copyright or a license. >Orphaned works are those where either the copyright owner no longer exists [...] or where there is no practical way to identify the proper copyright holder. The former are orphaned if their estates or business successors can't be found. The later are not orphaned, they're just a PITA.
    - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
      I of course mean Berne Convention, doh!
    - flipbrad 16y ago
pbhjpbhj 16y ago
You missed the ads? And got 17 upvotes (at least), well done. [Incidentally if Jacques is reading I'm not waging war against you.]

How is mirroring geocities and/or supplying a torrent of the content using it commercially? Reocities even responds to takedown requests.

by wwortiz 16y ago

How is mirroring geocities and/or supplying a torrent of the content using it commercially? Reocities even responds to takedown requests.

flipbrad 16y ago

Supplying the torrent isn't directly commercial but upping others' content with your own ads, is. And should be subject to claims to account to claimants for income received unless they published under a wide enough copy-left licence. However, a reform to copyright law I'd gladly see happen is that orphan content (which officially deleted websites arguably are) should be exempt from copyright. I mean, how can people seriously retain rights to profit from work which they OK'd (explicitly or implicitly) the deletion/ending the publication of? What reocities does, in my mind, whether commercial or not, is great. I also think there should be a default, opt-out licence covering all new content published, along the lines of CC share alike - attribution - noncommercial. Creators are free to opt out of the licence - explicitly - and reserve ALL rights if they want. Wouldn't cover CooksSource's actions (commercial) but it would stop you infringing my copyright when you forward my emails. Also, responding to a takedown is a completely non-sequitur to 'how is that commercial'. For better, or worse; commercial, or not; you have to comply. Insane that such a logical fallacy can attract such karma.

timwiseman 16y ago
I agree with that part of copyright reform needs to deal with orphan conent. However, approving having something deleted does not by itself make it an orphan work. After all, the copyright holder may have had it deleted in one place to publish it in another or had it removed so that it could be reworked into a new revision before being posted. Orphaned works are those where either the copyright owner no longer exists (a corporate entity that went out of business for instance) or where there is no practical way to identify the proper copyright holder. Not merely those that have been removed from one particular place of publication.
- ghaff 16y ago
  As I recall, a lot of photographers were very opposed to orphan copyright law that was making its way through Congress at one point. The gist of the argument as I remember it was the concern that people would make a very perfunctory attempt to contact the copyright holder ("Oh, we would have asked for permission but we didn't have a current address so we just went ahead and used it.") And the overall situation with photography on the Web is probably much worse than writing. Even sites that wouldn't condone unattributed cutting and pasting of text routinely use all sorts of photos that I'm sure have been casually copied from somewhere on the Web.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >However, approving having something deleted does not by itself make it an orphan work. After all, the copyright holder may have had it deleted in one place to publish it in another or had it removed so that it could be reworked into a new revision before being posted. Destruction of a work I retain the copyright on is part of my [moral] right. For example an artist may not wish their earlier work to be seen, they should have the right to prevent it deleteriously affecting their reputation without that work being considered "orphaned" and fair game. Reocities bringing back my teenage webpages may mean that people find things authored by me that I no longer want to be available, I took the appropriate course in letting Geocities wipe their servers; what right do Reocities have to recover that without my say so? I don't care as it happens but I could and assuming that the servers are in a Paris Convention/TRIPS country I should win. TRIPS requires countries to treat commercial scale infringements as criminal! FWIW safe harbour only works if you know you're not holding works for which you don't have the copyright or a license. >Orphaned works are those where either the copyright owner no longer exists [...] or where there is no practical way to identify the proper copyright holder. The former are orphaned if their estates or business successors can't be found. The later are not orphaned, they're just a PITA.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    I of course mean Berne Convention, doh!
  - flipbrad 16y ago

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

You missed the ads? And got 17 upvotes (at least), well done. [Incidentally if Jacques is reading I'm not waging war against you.]