4 ms·
" ... when you’re reading a linked page, you may still be “at” awesomestuff.com, as clicking the back button on your browser can instantly confirm. Effectively,
by galaxyLogic 12y ago
" ... when you’re reading a linked page, you may still be “at” awesomestuff.com, as clicking the back button on your browser can instantly confirm. Effectively, awesomestuff.com has stolen content from newyorker.com "
This I think is based on misunderstanding of how http and the web work.
Somebody at awesomestuff created a link to newyorker.com. They basically just told you the ADDRESS of newyorker.com. They created a ROAD-SIGN and YOU followed that. You clicked the link and the website newyorker.com willingly served you the content. That content was NEVER COPIED to the server at awesomestuff.com.
So only thing newyorker could accuse them of doing is telling people their website address. If they have told you that address and you write it down and copy that surely that is not copyright infringement because New Yorker has NEVER CLAIMED they own the right to their website address. It is public information.
- legulere 12y agoThe best comparison for IFrames would be that they cut the article out of a new yorker and glued it into the book
- galaxyLogic 12y agoThat I think would be fraudulent misrepresentation of who owns the content in question. In practice nobody would do that a thousand times and if they did it would still not be "copying". They would have had to pay for all the "copies" of the paper from which they cut off the article. They would have paid for all those "copies" and thus they would have the right to distribute them (unless a private contract prohibited that). Misrepresenting the origin of the content could be considered fraud. But if you never implied that you created that content then maybe not.
- TheLoneWolfling 12y agoNo. More like they provided instructions for you to cut the article out of a new yorker and glue it into the book. Important difference.