3 ms·
That's a functionally meaningless distinction. If you setup a web server that responds to requests, then you're choosing to make content available because your
by XorNot 2y ago
That's a functionally meaningless distinction. If you setup a web server that responds to requests, then you're choosing to make content available because your server can choose to not respond to requests. The entire protocol includes mechanisms to negotiate access.
- jokethrowaway 2y agoGranting access and granting right to redistribute (even just title + snippet) and use your content commercially are two completely different things.
- XorNot 2y agoAnd yet it is legal to produce and redistribute summaries as sufficiently transformative derivative works, and this has been court tested[1]. Of course in Australia we passed rather specific laws to the contrary, because lo and behold Rupert Murdoch wanted money and gosh darn it our government was going to give it to him[2]. [1] https://www.practicalecommerce.com/Search-Engines-Indexing-and-Copyright-Law https://www.practicalecommerce.com/Search-Engines-Indexing-a... [2] https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/copyright-and-the-digital-economy-ip-42/caching-indexing-and-other-internet-functions/ https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/copyright-and-the-digita...
- eviks 2y agoThis is a meaningless simplification. In this framework "robots.txt" has no role, because your server "can choose" not to respond. Heck, even DDOS is fine, because "protocol"