4 ms·

If that is all you are doing, even if it were not legal, I do not think anyone would have any worry, but you mention that you might want to take away the annoyi

If that is all you are doing, even if it were not legal, I do not think anyone would have any worry, but you mention that you might want to take away the annoying ads from the content, which, changes everything completely and probably makes it illegal.

nolite 16y ago
Sorry, but people love to throw the "legal" word around loosely alot. Lets be specific here? What "law" would this be breaking? Who would enforce it, and under which jurisdiction? What case has set a precedent? If this is illegal, then what about search engine caches, the wayback machine?
- coderdude 16y ago
  >If this is illegal, then what about search engine caches, the wayback machine? The difference between what search engines/the Wayback Machine do and what a service like his does is that the former caches more of less complete copies of the content without the intent to strip anything out (save for the view as text only feature in Google's cache), while his service is stripping out the monetization schemes of the content owners. Although he links back to them (which he absolutely must do anyway), the content owners might become angry that they aren't getting the traffic and the chance to have their ads clicked. I think that is a reasonable viewpoint for the content owners to have, yet I also want to believe that a service like his should be able to exist. Perhaps some kind of middle ground can be achieved where he does show the ads but perhaps well organized at the bottom or middle of the article or something. What would the content owners be able to do though? Maybe send DMCA notices. This would fall under copyright infringement laws I think. I'm no lawyer though. I also think there should be some kind of allowances for these kinds of content repurposes.
  - msredmond 16y ago
    I think the big issue here is that if you own the content, and the other person is making money off that content without your consent, that's a problem (as in potential liability). One way around that is to make absolutely no revenue from it -- some publishers may not care. I don't know that would solve any problem, but do know that's worked for others (and in fact it's rumored -- or maybe even confirmed -- that that's the reason Google doesn't run ads on Google news, and for the most part they're not even using the full story)
- thomasz 16y ago
  > What "law" would this be breaking? What about copyright legislation? As a rule of thumb you should assume that you are forbidden to do anything with other peoples content that isn't explicitly allowed.

nolite 16y ago

Sorry, but people love to throw the "legal" word around loosely alot. Lets be specific here? What "law" would this be breaking? Who would enforce it, and under which jurisdiction? What case has set a precedent? If this is illegal, then what about search engine caches, the wayback machine?

coderdude 16y ago
>If this is illegal, then what about search engine caches, the wayback machine? The difference between what search engines/the Wayback Machine do and what a service like his does is that the former caches more of less complete copies of the content without the intent to strip anything out (save for the view as text only feature in Google's cache), while his service is stripping out the monetization schemes of the content owners. Although he links back to them (which he absolutely must do anyway), the content owners might become angry that they aren't getting the traffic and the chance to have their ads clicked. I think that is a reasonable viewpoint for the content owners to have, yet I also want to believe that a service like his should be able to exist. Perhaps some kind of middle ground can be achieved where he does show the ads but perhaps well organized at the bottom or middle of the article or something. What would the content owners be able to do though? Maybe send DMCA notices. This would fall under copyright infringement laws I think. I'm no lawyer though. I also think there should be some kind of allowances for these kinds of content repurposes.
- msredmond 16y ago
  I think the big issue here is that if you own the content, and the other person is making money off that content without your consent, that's a problem (as in potential liability). One way around that is to make absolutely no revenue from it -- some publishers may not care. I don't know that would solve any problem, but do know that's worked for others (and in fact it's rumored -- or maybe even confirmed -- that that's the reason Google doesn't run ads on Google news, and for the most part they're not even using the full story)
thomasz 16y ago
> What "law" would this be breaking? What about copyright legislation? As a rule of thumb you should assume that you are forbidden to do anything with other peoples content that isn't explicitly allowed.