+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Another stupid copyright decision

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    St. Louis, MO (almost)
    Posts
    2,910

    Another stupid copyright decision

    I don't see how you can tell someone they can't LINK to content that is published on the web!

    But, apparently, you can...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    NJ and Miami
    Posts
    616
    I see this as a complicated issue. SFX owns the videos, provides them free of charge to their visitors and forces those visitors to see sponsor ads. This is probably how they make money. When someone provides a direct link to a video why would anybody come to SFX website any more and see those annoying ads thus causing SFX to lose members and money. I can see the reasoning behind this lawsuit.
    "This is business: the light at the end of the tunnel is usually an oncoming train!"

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    SEO Refugee
    Posts
    1,282
    I can understand the issue, but if it is that important they should just redirect external visitors to a page containing the file.It is a simple .htaccess hack + one extra template.
    If you don't know what the frak to do start having more fun!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    online
    Posts
    5,608
    I'm with Sorv on this one. If they can't figure out how to keep people from linking directly to the movie then they deserve not to get paid for the ads.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    NJ and Miami
    Posts
    616
    Isn't this simple?!?!? And that should have been done from the moment the site was built!!! I think they sued him for what he already "stolen"
    "This is business: the light at the end of the tunnel is usually an oncoming train!"

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    St. Louis, MO (almost)
    Posts
    2,910
    It's this simple: if you broadcast or publish it in an open format on an open platform, I should be able to point to it. Can you imagine the New York Times suing me for pointing out an article to the guy next to me just because I had the paper folded in a way that he couldn't see the ads?

    And, if the ads are so important to them, put them in the video and see if anyone still watches.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    NJ and Miami
    Posts
    616
    True, but when you point to an article in NYT the reader will see sponsor ads unless of course you cut the article out. But when you cut it out theoretically it could be considered as intent to distribute (pure speculation on my part) and theoretically NYT could go after you. In reality of course this would never happen. But listen, in our country you should not be surprised to hear about stupid lawsuits. People suing McD for being fat so what else can you say.
    "This is business: the light at the end of the tunnel is usually an oncoming train!"

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    SEO Refugee
    Posts
    1,282
    http://www.alistapart.com/articles/hotlinking/
    Last edited by Sorvoja; 12-22-2006 at 04:42 PM.
    If you don't know what the frak to do start having more fun!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Inverness, FL
    Posts
    2,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Sorvoja View Post
    I can understand the issue, but if it is that important they should just redirect external visitors to a page containing the file.It is a simple .htaccess hack + one extra template.
    I think preventing such access via .htaccess or other means is a necessary step from here. Further, it should have been done in the first place. However... (see below)

    Quote Originally Posted by faremax View Post
    I see this as a complicated issue. SFX owns the videos, provides them free of charge to their visitors and forces those visitors to see sponsor ads. This is probably how they make money. When someone provides a direct link to a video why would anybody come to SFX website any more and see those annoying ads thus causing SFX to lose members and money. I can see the reasoning behind this lawsuit.
    ... I'm with faremax on this one. I, too, understand the reasoning behind the lawsuit (although I think cost more to sue than they will ever collect and they could have saved money by simply blocking access from his site via .htaccess). The article states (oh, no, here's a possible copyright violation),
    The court agrees that if Davis is not enjoined from providing unauthorized Webcast links on his Web site, SFX will lose its ability to sell sponsorships or advertisement on the basis that it is the exclusive source of the Webcasts, and such loss will cause irreparable harm.
    The bold section is the part that should be emphasized. SFX promotes itself to potential advertisers as the exclusive source of that info. Therefore, if there is another source of the same info, then that will harm them and the other source is ripe for a civil suit.

    I think the pointing out of an article in the NY Times is not as accurate an illustration. What this guy did is the equivolent of someone copying NYT news articles verbatim on his website w/o a subscription necessary or ads. He has it setup where the person simply clicks a link or visits his site and gets the same articles the NYTimes has on its site, but they get it by bypassing NYTimes.com and their ads. NYTimes could sue that guy for copyright infringement and for costing them money. The potential is advertisers would not be as willing to pay to advertise on NYTimes.com because people will stop using that site and will start using that third party site.

    While I think the lawsuit was meant more as a statement, I think it's like swatting a gnat with a sledgehammer. The best solution would be to close the door and not let the gnats in (block access via .htaccess or other means).
    God knows where you are, but Google may not. SEO is the key that unlocks search engine success (and a plugin isn't enough).

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    6,216
    If I put my PC on the front lawn I'd expect someone to take it. But wait, I'd want to protect it so I'd make a big sign that says "don't steal this computer or I can sue you". Would that do the job?

    Another example would be Tivo. Or even VCRs. They let people skip the commercials. Should these technologies be banned?

    Or say I air by leapard-skin boxers for my neighbors to see them. Do I C&D them to not talk about them?

    Managing human behaviour through the courts to protect "your property" is silly and an uphill battle. Of course poeple will link to the source because that is what is easiest and most convenient for the viewers. If youwant to force ads on people like some prehistoric caveman TV broadcaster it's you job to work out the technical details, not force the rest of the world to play by your rules because you are lazy and "it isn't fair!"

    Hopefuly the correct solution gets to the courts and they see this. My concern is the judge won't understand the technology involved. It doesn't sound like anyone is really stealing anyting, just providing faster access to content - those bastards!
    |
    Clue in soon!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts