Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

ctrl.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 100 posts

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#61

Post by pbhjpbhj »

comboy wrote: post #53
kdeenanauth wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Caching can be disabled https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/79812?hl=en But per the wording "noarchive - Prevents Google from showing the Cached link for a page" - and it seems likes it is technically just avoiding showing the cached link.

But we are in the f up territory. Does EU law says anything about meta tags? If not, then unless explicitly allowed you can't copy it. On so many levels.

Copyright infringement is a tort though, so it's down to content owners to sue Google if they feel damaged by this "caching".

I think countries added workarounds for computer caching, allowing transient copies. But Google's "cache" or more of a short term archive, I'd guess they called it "cache" to semantically bypass the issue of it being an infringing copy.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#62

Post by pbhjpbhj »

NullPrefix wrote: post #55
kdeenanauth wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Caching can be disabled https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/79812?hl=en But per the wording "noarchive - Prevents Google from showing the Cached link for a page" - and it seems likes it is technically just avoiding showing the cached link.

I'm pretty sure you can disable AMP for your site too.

You can stop me copying all your works, just find me and ask nicely. So, I can never be successfully sued for copyright infringement now, because it's easy to "disable" my potential infringement. Yay. /s

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#63

Post by kretor »

Causality1 wrote: post #32

One thing I've never seen addressed is the way AMP hijacks android Chrome behavior. It hides and then locks out the address/menu bar until the user scrolls all the way to the top of the page and then drags down again. If any other website is allowed to do this I haven't seen it and would love a way to disable it.

Problem doesn't occur for me. Sounds like a bug

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#64

Post by pbhjpbhj »

nvahalik wrote: post #4

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?

You opt in to the internet by making content available on it too, so are we rolling back to the free copying of last millennium?

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#65

Post by vbezhenar »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #62
NullPrefix wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure you can disable AMP for your site too.

You can stop me copying all your works, just find me and ask nicely. So, I can never be successfully sued for copyright infringement now, because it's easy to "disable" my potential infringement. Yay. /s

So we returned to the original comment: "Google also caches and serves everything else its robot finds, so if this was a problem it was already a problem long before AMP."

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#66

Post by pbhjpbhj »

taytus wrote: post #42
joegahona wrote: post #18

As others have said, the publishers opt in to it... but I wondert whether litigious photographers could argue that their contracts never indicated their photos could exist anywhere but on the specific domain in the contract.

In any case, that wouldn’t be google’s fault.

Depends. If Google seek permission from the page owner and the owner warrants the fact that photos are licensed for AMP use, then it's all good.

If Google don't bother, just assuming they have the rights, then they're infringers. In copyright law the distributor is usually down for the largest punishment, that would be Google.

"I didn't bother to check if it was an infringement for me to distribute the work" doesn't seem like it would negate a claim of tortuous infringement?

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#68

Post by jrockway »

realusername wrote: post #60
icebraining wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DMCA ties the two by prohibiting users of copyrighted works from circumventing technological protection measures. It could be argued that bypassing CORS applies.

CORS isn't a technological protection like a DRM and isn't design as such, it's purely a security measure, by default you don't even specify it. Browsers are free to ignore them as they wish (but with increased security risks of course).

I agree. CORS is something my user agent does to protect me. It has nothing to do with the upstream site; I could easily browse it with a user agent that doesn't support CORS and nothing would break. CORS is just some annotations that lets my user agent determine "hey these scripts might be up to something shady". It is not a copy-protection mechanism by any means.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#69

Post by LoSboccacc »

kdeenanauth wrote: post #49
shereadsthenews wrote: post #7

Google also caches and serves everything else its robot finds, so if this was a problem it was already a problem long before AMP.

Caching can be disabled https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/79812?hl=en But per the wording "noarchive - Prevents Google from showing the Cached link for a page" - and it seems likes it is technically just avoiding showing the cached link.

that's not really a valid defense. the default state is copyrighted unless otherwise stated, this assumes the contrary.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#70

Post by tremon »

marktolson wrote: post #16
throwaway427 wrote: post #11

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?

Yes, it is. It's a form of republication, and as such, protected under copyright law. The difference between a third-party server side solution and client-side solutions is easy to see: client-side solutions don't redistribute.
Post reply on HN