> That's like making > the argument that it's ok to copy a DVD (pick whichever one is your > favorite > at the moment) and posting it onto a website without the permission of > the > copyrightholder, since you're only "loaning" it.
Not really, because in this case, it's something already up on the internet in electronic form and distributed electronically -- and in most cases already ON a web site and already available without restriction. So one could argue in return that it's simply a public service, that they're mirroring a web site to help increase availability. Mirroring is a widely accepted practice; the GNU folks do it heavily, in fact. And if you didn't say "don't copy my stuff", they could make a good argument that you thought it was okay, since you didn't put any restrictions on it and didn't document a restrictive clause on usage. Either side could win that fight, actually. Depends on many factors. It's not like copying a DVD at all. It's like grabbing a copy of the Lord of the Rings Preview and putting it on your web site. Very different beasts. One's already on the net, the only question is who has the permission to host it. > But feel free to test the boundaries of the law, if you'd like. I'd > suggest that a reasonable case could be made that Google's caching of > copyrighted web pages without express permission is likely illegal > since the > passage of the DMCA. If they're on the web, not password protected and there's no overt copyright notice on them? Doubtful as hell. If there is a copyright notice? They'll happily remove them if they didn't catch it themselves. > This is why it's _always_ better to assume a creation is protected > under > copyright than it is to assume it isn't, or that a given purpose for > the copy > qualifies as, "fair use." The key word in all these arguments is "assume". No matter which side you're on, if you assume a given usage is okay, or you assume others will only use something a certain way, bad things will happen. So don't assume. Make your wishes explicit on material you publish, so there's no assumption necessary. Then you only have to worry about those that don't pay attention, or feel your restrictions aren't legal. And down those paths lie lawyers anyway.... -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.chuqui.com/ Very funny, Scotty. Now beam my clothes down here, will you?
