3 ms·
Right or wrong, this has to be due to the repackaging of content and charging for it. Perhaps the response would be different if the app was free? Excluding ra
by AlexBlom 15y ago
Right or wrong, this has to be due to the repackaging of content and charging for it. Perhaps the response would be different if the app was free?
Excluding radios (which don't repackage in the same way, but I understand the authors point) are there any precedents supporting the repackaging of public content?
- jrockway 15y agoA good example is all those Wikipedia and Stack Overflow content-suckers. Perfectly legal. All this application is is a nice interface to "curl http://radio-stream.whatever/ http://radio-stream.whatever/ > /dev/dsp". If this application is illegal, so is anything capable of speaking HTTP.
- pilom 15y agoI was under the impression that SO "could" for instance copyright all user submitted content. In that case the republication of that content without the permission of the copyright holder would be illegal.
- sp332 15y agoYou own the copyright on everything you write. The site can only claim copyright if you transfer it to them during the comment submission process.
- PotatoEngineer 15y agoAnd many sites specifically state that you're signing over the copyright as part of posting.