The article also quite explicitly says that if you set up your (not really a) proxy server to serve a particular site, then you do not have any protection from copyright violation under DMCA.
My reading of the law and the EFF stuff is consistent with this interpretation. The original poster wants google to take action, which they are required to do to maintain their "safe harbor" status. I think he's right. -Joshua On May 7, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Jeff Schnitzer wrote: > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Joshua Smith <joshuaesm...@charter.net> > wrote: >> >> You can read more about these issues here: >> http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/01/16/debunking-the-dmca-caching-loophole/ > > That article strongly suggests that a proxy which rewrites URLs so > that content is faithfully reproduced to the end-user would qualify. > Just as Google Cache does. And let's be honest, a ton of "content" is > rewritten in any transmission in the form of network packet headers, > HTTP headers, etc. > > It should be plainly obvious that the issues here are not clearcut and > there will be nothing gained by waiting for a political solution. Use > the readily available technical solution or give up. > > Jeff > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google App Engine" group. > To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
