tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post8007252815381362089..comments2024-03-26T10:41:35.852+00:00Comments on The 1709 Blog: Breaking the internet: a responseMarie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-6360829901241923162013-03-30T06:41:14.297+00:002013-03-30T06:41:14.297+00:00The fact that the NLA have only hit media monitori...The fact that the NLA have only hit media monitoring firms and our clients should not reassure anyone else who visits the Guardian or Telegraph websites at work. <br /><br /><a href="http://presswire.com/monitoring.php" rel="nofollow"> Media Monitoring</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14055400903924385698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-43068407140114598352012-10-01T00:57:00.083+01:002012-10-01T00:57:00.083+01:00Notwithstanding the allegation that Simon Clark fa...Notwithstanding the allegation that Simon Clark failed to disclose an interest in the <i>Meltwater</i> case, I find it hard to see where he has going awry in his analysis.<br /><br />James Mackenzie may like paragraph 103 of the decision of Proudman J, as a basis for his argument, but it seems to me that paragraph 109 (quoted by the Court of appeal at [32]) is more pertinent:<br /><br /><i>Thus the temporary copies exception is solely concerned with incidental and intermediate copying so that any copy which is 'consumption of the work', whether temporary or not, requires the permission of the copyright holder. A person making a copy of a webpage on his computer screen will not have a defence under s. 28A CDPA simply because he has been browsing. He must first show that it was lawful for him to have made the copy. The copy is not part of the technological process; it is generated by his own volition. The whole point of the receipt and copying of Meltwater News is to enable the End User to receive and read it. Making the copy is not an essential and integral part of a technological process but the end which the process is designed to achieve. Storage of the copy and the duration of that storage are matters within the End User's control. It begs the question for decision whether making the copy is to enable a lawful use of the work. Moreover, making the copy does have an independent economic significance as the copy is the very product for which the End Users are paying Meltwater.</i><br /><br />I note that Proudman J has used the phrase "begs the question" correctly, i.e. "to carry on a false argument where one assumes as proved the very point that is being argued, or more loosely, to evade the issue at hand".<br /><br />I am sure that Clark is correct when he says in his article that:<br /><br /><i>Most websites are designed to be accessed by members of the public. The operators of those websites add content to their website with the very intention of wanting people to read it. They have given an implied, free-of-charge copyright licence to the reader to make a copy of their content on the reader’s computer screen so that they can view it. As such, most acts of browsing will be entirely legal and will not infringe copyright.</i><br /><br />But the point being made by Proudman J (with which the Court of Appeal agreed) is that this is not relevant to the issues actually put before her in this case. Companies like Meltwater and Cutbot charge end users for the services they provide, and end users gladly pay for these services. The content providers are understandably miffed that they are being excluded from the commercial benefits of these transactions.<br /><br />The point the courts are making here is that both scraping by aggregators and viewing by end users involve the commission of acts falling within the providers' copyrights. If unlicensed, these acts are infringements.<br /><br />Whether or not there is an implied license, or other authorisation, for any of these acts is a separate issue, which the courts have made very clear is <b>not</b> what they were being asked to decide here.<br /><br />There is, perhaps, a separate case to be made that the implied licence inherent in open publishing online covers at least the activities of the end user. But it seems to me that where payments are made to a third party for aggregation of copyright content, there is unlikely to be an implied licence which is broad enough to cover this kind of commercial use to the exclusion of the copyright holder.<br /><br />For those of us browsing for free, however, the internet remains un-broken.<br /><br />MarkAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06157794228297387928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-62288681809485872332012-09-28T16:04:57.681+01:002012-09-28T16:04:57.681+01:00That can't be a comment from a member of NLA s...That can't be a comment from a member of NLA staff. surely? They normally post under their own name ;)<br /><br />Anyway, whoever you are, you've clearly not read the actual rulings I'm quoting from, especially §103 from the High Court above. No-one using our service "publishes" any copyright content except insofar as the courts have ruled that the copy of a legitimate and freely-provided article that your web browser makes is republication.<br /><br />I can assure you we're well aware of the law as it applies to us, and we are not continuing our objection because of some competitive advantage we think it can give us. If we had managed to change the law to protect browsing and link-sharing it would probably have been much more of a help to our larger competitors. <br /><br />The only real change in competitiveness would be with international firms: this regime is handing business to companies in America and elsewhere and stifling entirely innocent copyright-respecting UK operations.<br /><br />Also, please don't presume to know how innovative our system is until you've tried it.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14644673713851357873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-31134854135973053342012-09-28T15:31:01.867+01:002012-09-28T15:31:01.867+01:00"All browsing of copyright material is a pote..."All browsing of copyright material is a potential infringement ..."<br /><br />No, it isn't. This is deeply misleading. The infringement is in the publication, not the reading. Publishing without a license is not permitted.<br /><br />Some context is useful to remember here.<br /><br />Cutbot is a new entrant into a competitive and mature market of service companies providing customised headline aggregation, with its own derivative product. The law is clear: aggregators require a license. <br /><br />Either Cutbot does not want to pay the license fee, hoping to steal an advantage by lowering its costs. Either it is ignorant of the law, which constitutes negligence, or it is hoping the law doesn't apply to Cutbot.<br /><br />I would prefer all companies, large or small, to compete on their merits, rather than lobbying to change the law to their advantage. <br /><br />We are increasingly seeing internet startups using the cry of "innovation" to claim special privileges and avoid paying for their material. They would be better by actually doing some innovation.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com