11–20 of 100 posts
Whether or not it is "technically" copyright infringement, it is going to be impossible for a publisher to argue that in court considering they themselves have to publish an AMP-compatible version of their page in the first place, and caching is sold as a core feature of AMP ( https://www.ampproject.org/learn/overview/ ).
I think we are just all over thinking this stuff. The purpose of the web is to share things with other people.
I prefer to share things with other people without a corporation injecting itself into the middle of that transaction for the purposes of surveillance and ad revenue.
Whether or not it is "technically" copyright infringement, it is going to be impossible for a publisher to argue that in court considering they themselves have to publish an AMP-compatible version of their page in the first place, and caching is sold as a core feature of AMP ( https://www.ampproject.org/learn/overview/ ).
Yup, feeding AMP to consumers is a lot different than, say, https://outline.com/ which is straight up copyright infringement.
But don’t you have to opt-in to AMP to begin with? Wouldn’t there be some sort of implicit permission in providing the AMP formatted content to begin with?
Any communications channel transmitting data is committing copyright infringement. It’s not like the source bit is deleted once received at the destination. That’s how the internet works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_...
Whether or not it is "technically" copyright infringement, it is going to be impossible for a publisher to argue that in court considering they themselves have to publish an AMP-compatible version of their page in the first place, and caching is sold as a core feature of AMP ( https://www.ampproject.org/learn/overview/ ).
Yup, feeding AMP to consumers is a lot different than, say, https://outline.com/ which is straight up copyright infringement.
I think we are just all over thinking this stuff. The purpose of the web is to share things with other people.
How does that in any way remove the need for a sound legal framework defining the limits of IP rights for this use case? Do you think everything put on the web should be considered public domain?
Whether or not it is "technically" copyright infringement, it is going to be impossible for a publisher to argue that in court considering they themselves have to publish an AMP-compatible version of their page in the first place, and caching is sold as a core feature of AMP ( https://www.ampproject.org/learn/overview/ ).
Yup, feeding AMP to consumers is a lot different than, say, https://outline.com/ which is straight up copyright infringement.
Outline is a browser in a browser.
If it were accessing unauthorised content in a shady way I would say they have a leg to stand on, but serving up content to Google different from what it serves to the user is already borderline illegal for a variety of reasons. (It's a misrepresentation) I don't think anyone is wanting to go down that road.
Remember with the law intent is usually what matters most.
The technical stance that outline is serving up content that the user requests from another site is by design not redistribution.
The funny part is that the argument that allows this is the same stupid argument that permits copyright to exist in a world where everytime you open or read a file you are technically copying it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, feeding AMP to consumers is a lot different than, say, https://outline.com/ which is straight up copyright infringement.
What if outline.com simply did a GET request on the source from the browser, stripped out paywalls and ads and served the content from the source server. Is that still copyright infringement?