Oh, well that does make a difference. However, I do think google needs to look carefully at this trend of people setting up website clones on app engine. The Blake Field v. Google Cache case was a very narrow decision by a single judge. It didn't set any particular precedent, and it really is not OK to set up scraper sites under US law.
-Joshua On May 7, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Jeff Schnitzer wrote: > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Joshua Smith <joshuaesm...@charter.net> wrote: >> 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. > > It's been a long time since I looked at the domain in question > (wapfree-ec.appspot.com) and it's over quota right now, but IIRC it > was not specific to the OP's site. The OP even mentions this. The > proxy just happened to rank higher in Google that the original > content, probably due to the same technical ineptitude that caused him > to rant here on this list. > > 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.
