Copyright Content Protection and Permission

Free content used as "pay-per-use" by other companies.

[fathom]

Not looking for legal advice -- just opinions.

As a software developer, a demonstration of content has been repositioned as Shockwave applets on the web site to promote the value of products to our visitors. To protect against (unknown) copyright infringement, tracking code was embedded in the applets so that among other things the serving IP would be displayed. In theory, this should always be our IP address and a change in IP address would be a clear violation. This has not occurred to date.

However, after receiving numerous queries from password protected portals which are "pay-per-use" we have contacted many of these companies to request access.

Some have allowed access others have exercised their Pay-per-view rights and have politely indicated a subscription to their portal is for their information only and external links are free from charge. (Personally, I believe these external resources add value to their users continued subscription fee).

Of the ones we have had access to...

In some instances, external links are provided to users, but popped into a framed for direct access back to the portal.

In other instances the applet was requested without the html page and popped into a frame where our copyright statement is no longer present.

In all instances no-one has ever asked for permission to use our copyrighted "free" content for a pay-per-use model, let alone permission to add or remove content to what is clearly not their content.

A quick solution to this is removing the content and provide them dead links... and at the expense of our visitors, but...

Question -- we all link to each other (you and me), where do you drawn the line between linking and infringement.

1. Would it be lack of permission,

2. Change of public to private model or, no fee to user fee,

2. Content removed from context and copyright,

3. Framing the content (regardless of model), or simply

4. The cost of online business, since this is somewhat of a grey area?

[Grumpus]

A lot of it will come back to your "terms of use" statement. Usually a removal of copyright and not quoting the source combined with framing content and presenting it as your own is a good place to start. Yahoo has it in their TOS that you can't frame their content and has been very successful in enforcing that on it's own merits - though I'm not sure there's been a case where it's actually gone into the court system. You've also got grounds on the "bandwidth theft" issue which is becoming a more and more popular way to prosecute as the laws aren't as gray as the whole copyright thing.

G.

[Hemsell]

In keeping with the Admins request to cut down on starting new topics I will add my question to this Topic, as it is almost identical.

As to the previos posters question.. Can't you add a few lines into the code that will make it not run if it is not dished out of your url?
Or a line that makes it look to see if it is the parent in the frameset? I am not a programmer but I have a few lines like that at the top of every page I have. It lets me bust out of About.com and Hotmail.

My Question...
I was searching the net for a definition to a word, actually an explanation. I found it using Google, however the site is no longer online. I got the info from Googles cache.

If I think this is a good explanation of a term and should be available to ppl.. how "bad" is it if I cut and paste it into one of my pages?
and If I credit the source saying the site no longer exists and I tried to preserver the data?

Todd

[ScottM]

I don't like it.

Cutting and pasting is not good. A 'summary' with a reference to the original is quite fine for 'fair use'.

[fathom]

Ask permission, for use of content. This is my greatest considered, no one ever asked... to use (in or out of context that the original was provided) and make money with content developed by me.

[Grumpus]

Another thing I do if I'm going to cut and paste something into my website is (well, in addition to linking to the original source) write a quick note to the webmaster telling them where it is and that I'm willing to remove it if they'd like. I've NEVER had anyone ask me to remove it if the proper link is in place and it has often resulted in a link back to me.

G.

[Hemsell]

The website url (domain) is no longer valid. All email sent to the address posted at the bottom of the cache copy bounces.

I cannot link to a nonexistent site. If the site was still online I would just link to it. It is a good resource , i.e they had a good definition of a difficult networking term.

I think I am going to publish it, with an expalnation of where it came from. I will do os in about a week, to be certain the site is "gone" and not just having issues.

Todd

Thanks for the replies.