4 ms·

By being too small to bother with.

villageidiot 18y ago
So you think that once a mashup passes a certain threshold of popularity they need to deal with this legal issue but not before then?
- pmjordan 18y ago
  I guess it also depends on whether it generates traffic (revenue, awareness, whatever) for the sites from which it takes its content. Don't bite the hand that feeds you and all that.
  - redorb 18y ago
    lots of time it takes major funding or acquisition by another company to make them a target... (I.e. YouTube)
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      YouTube was a target before the acquisition, they just hadn't moved on it yet. The speed with which Google paid off all of the rights holders (at the same time they acquired them) would indicate that it was far from the first time they'd thought of that.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Most definitely. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. A suit by the RIAA calls major attention to the defendant, so it's not something they want to do until they feel they have to.
  - villageidiot 18y ago
    But given the possibility of suits like these down the line, why would a startup even risk it at the outset by using mashup data obtained through scraping, etc? Isn't it asking for trouble? Although geeks prefer the algorithmic approach, building business partnerships from the start and stating one's intention about sharing data seems to be the only viable starting point for a mashup startup (from a long-term view).
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      Lot of startup successes happened on the backs of copyright infringement. The goal is to just get traction and then deal with it. It works somewhat often, and it's actually fairly rare a startup is unable to license some sort of deal and survive. But no, I probably wouldn't do it personally. There's a tradeoff there, in that on one hand you're increasing your odds of success (potentially) by building on the backs of services that you know people want. On the other hand, there's some chance that if you're successful there will be a lawsuit.
      - villageidiot 18y ago
        When you say: "it's actually fairly rare a startup is unable to license some sort of deal and survive", I assume you mean "it's actually fairly rare a startup is able to survive without licensing sort of deal" rather than: "it's actually fairly rare a startup is unable to survive by licensing some sort of deal" Whoa, my head is spinning. In other words, usually a startup will be able to make a deal with the content owners which will allow the startup to survive. But I agree it's a risky ballpark to play in. One potentially big advantage, though, is if you're an unknown, this can raise your profile. So, even if this venture is unprofitable because of the legal costs and eventual revenue sharing with the content owners, by working on something that gains traction, you can leverage this reputation and experience on a future venture, which may put you in a more advantageous position than someone starting out from zero. Or the energy sucked out of you from the lawsuit might make you want to leave the field entirely.
sh1mmer 18y ago
Or by adding value. I believe Y! still unofficially ignore the scraping of our address books because it was adding value to our users even though the services that did it broke our Ts&Cs and used the username/password anti-pattern. In the future I think it will be more likely that we'll clamp down on that stuff because there is OAuth to authenticate with. However the main point is because it added value to our users we let the scrapers get away with it.

So you think that once a mashup passes a certain threshold of popularity they need to deal with this legal issue but not before then?

pmjordan 18y ago
I guess it also depends on whether it generates traffic (revenue, awareness, whatever) for the sites from which it takes its content. Don't bite the hand that feeds you and all that.
- redorb 18y ago
  lots of time it takes major funding or acquisition by another company to make them a target... (I.e. YouTube)
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    YouTube was a target before the acquisition, they just hadn't moved on it yet. The speed with which Google paid off all of the rights holders (at the same time they acquired them) would indicate that it was far from the first time they'd thought of that.
mattmaroon 18y ago
Most definitely. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. A suit by the RIAA calls major attention to the defendant, so it's not something they want to do until they feel they have to.
- villageidiot 18y ago
  But given the possibility of suits like these down the line, why would a startup even risk it at the outset by using mashup data obtained through scraping, etc? Isn't it asking for trouble? Although geeks prefer the algorithmic approach, building business partnerships from the start and stating one's intention about sharing data seems to be the only viable starting point for a mashup startup (from a long-term view).
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Lot of startup successes happened on the backs of copyright infringement. The goal is to just get traction and then deal with it. It works somewhat often, and it's actually fairly rare a startup is unable to license some sort of deal and survive. But no, I probably wouldn't do it personally. There's a tradeoff there, in that on one hand you're increasing your odds of success (potentially) by building on the backs of services that you know people want. On the other hand, there's some chance that if you're successful there will be a lawsuit.
    - villageidiot 18y ago
      When you say: "it's actually fairly rare a startup is unable to license some sort of deal and survive", I assume you mean "it's actually fairly rare a startup is able to survive without licensing sort of deal" rather than: "it's actually fairly rare a startup is unable to survive by licensing some sort of deal" Whoa, my head is spinning. In other words, usually a startup will be able to make a deal with the content owners which will allow the startup to survive. But I agree it's a risky ballpark to play in. One potentially big advantage, though, is if you're an unknown, this can raise your profile. So, even if this venture is unprofitable because of the legal costs and eventual revenue sharing with the content owners, by working on something that gains traction, you can leverage this reputation and experience on a future venture, which may put you in a more advantageous position than someone starting out from zero. Or the energy sucked out of you from the lawsuit might make you want to leave the field entirely.

sh1mmer 18y ago

Or by adding value. I believe Y! still unofficially ignore the scraping of our address books because it was adding value to our users even though the services that did it broke our Ts&Cs and used the username/password anti-pattern. In the future I think it will be more likely that we'll clamp down on that stuff because there is OAuth to authenticate with. However the main point is because it added value to our users we let the scrapers get away with it.