Forum Moderators: not2easy
When the owner of the articles emailed the offender, the reply they got back was a bit disturbing. The copyright infringer basically said that when she had taken the articles, she had emailed the owner to let her know she was taking them and that if it was not okay for her to publish them, then let her know. Her logic was then that if she got no response, that is basically permission given to publish.
Of course, in today's world of spam filters, I am not sure why the offender thought this was a good idea, but in doing a bit of investigation, apparently there are a fair number of people who think this is okay to do.
It's nothing new really, but just one more thing to watch out for.
All that reply represents, to me, is an easy excuse for content lifting.
If you are feeling spiteful, check the original source of all other articles on that site and email the owners just to let them know about the theft. 100 complaints from 100 angry webmasters sounds more than enough to make the infringer change his ways!
I'm sure it could be worded better, but you get the idea, and it would give you an easy "out" in these circumstances. She's claiming that you should be aware of every e-mail that you never saw (and that likely was never sent); you can certainly expect her to be aware of the usage policy of the site she's scraping.
Eliz.
but it doesn't take long to send a response saying "No".
And if it goes into your junk box or filter, from a person you don't know? I don't open that stuff. Beyond that, it takes 1 second more effort than I should have to take.
It doesn't take much effort either for these people to wait for a "yes".
I blame the web's opt-out delusion on the SEs. If they can help themselves, unless you opt-out, it must be OK for everyone...
A further oft missed point is an authors moral rights. These can not be given or sold, only explicitly waived. This means content cannot be distorted or modified in any manner that may be prejudicial to the author and the authors name usually must remain associated with the work. Show me the contract, show me the signature.
I detest these opt-out people even more than the outright scraper thieves who don't hide behind quasi-legal BS. So far this year: 2-sites closed down with nine remaining up after paying infringement penalties/costs (I love the idiots with sites in their own names so personal property is seizable upon judgement), content removed, and written undertakings to play nice in future. Four of them played the opt-out card without effect (I have never seen or heard of it working - knock wood).
I like making content thieves pay. One should maximise every possible revenue stream :-)
Let's be very clear: copyright must be explicitly transfered. Show me the contract, show me the signature.
By itself, that statement is true. However it doesn't address the issue raised by the OP, in which the person sending the "opt-out email" is assuming, by lack of response from the copyright holder, that a licence to publish is granted.
It doesn't alter the breach of copyright which subsequently takes place, but in the context of the issue at hand, please don't confuse transferral of copyright with granting of a licence {or license for those of you in the US ;) }
However it doesn't address the issue raised by the OP, in which the person sending the "opt-out email" is assuming, by lack of response from the copyright holder, that a licence to publish is granted.
I thought I had. However, their ignorance does not excuse them from the error of their ways.
It is certainly irritating. But then the average 'webmaster' appears to suffer extreme ignorance of basic internet tech, business, and accounting as well as copyright. And also appears unable to do basic search, read, and learn on their own.
There is no 'opt-out' in law, including copyright. That some either assume there is or (quite likely) hope to trick one into it, on their terms, after the fact is immaterial. Either way I look on it as a fight against web-flu. If they won't pay, shut them down.
