Wow, the title doesn't do this justice. "Google makes millions from Russian organized crime" might be better.
Did the Russian make money too??
In taxes maybe?
One of the world’s most visited websites that nobody is aware of (2017)
41–50 of 169 posts
Re: One of the world’s most visited websites that nobody is aware of (2017)
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a justification at all. Just to give you an example: UK company addresses are open to the public, and easily accessible through the government website. Many UK internet personalities have set up a company, and for many of them it's their house address (cause either they don't know about the register or they don't care enough). Would it be ok for me to make a blog post with their home address on it, just be…
Original text removed as I already stated below it was wrong but people keep complaining. Apparently it is illegal since the start of this year (in the Netherlands, as it is where the article is from) since may 2018 as the new AVG went into effect and it is considered personal data which requires approval for publishing.
> I'm going to post a comment that will get down voted immediately
... because it is wrong.
> but yes. Unless you are exiting violence or defamation is your goal.
What other goals would you have though? To cause embarrassment or inconvenience would count as harassment or bullying which are not legal in most jurisdictions.
What good reasons can you think of for publishing an individuals address without their permission?
It being able to be found elsewhere adequate justification: if it is that easy to find then what is your reason for republishing?
With regard to your edit (that happened while I was typing), legal concerns aside are there any morally justifiable reasons that spring to mind?
Re: One of the world’s most visited websites that nobody is aware of (2017)
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scraping, mostly no. Using them to make profit: yes. Since you then violate the copyright of the author as the original action was solely to make it public (assuming no profit was intended). edit: Rehosting is not allowed as far as I know in Dutch law if you are attempting to make profit of it by not requesting it from the original owner. Rehosting it and not taking advantage and linking to the original article is al…
If a file is available through non-auth http it’s unclear what the copyright is. I think it depends on the particular item whether copyright was violated. Making a file public without restriction doesn’t mean another can’t make profit (my ISP makes a profit by transmitting the file to me; gmail makes profit when I email the file to me; google makes a profit when they cache the file; archive makes a profit when they a…
This is a common copyright fallacy. So common that Brad Templeton was combatting it 20 years ago. Publication does not waive copyright.
Re: One of the world’s most visited websites that nobody is aware of (2017)
#44YouTube was full of pirated content when it started too. I don’t really see what he’s doing wrong.
YouTube was full of pirated content when I looked at it this morning...
Re: One of the world’s most visited websites that nobody is aware of (2017)
#45I read through the article and I’m baffled. I couldn’t watch the news video or understand what was going on at the bottom of the post... but were news outlets and the government involved for a site that’s skimming PDFs, hosting them and then slapping on ads? This isn’t something new and if I recall correctly SlideShare did the same thing to grow to where they are today. Is it legal, I don’t know, but these types of s…
I was thinking the same. It was hard to understand the conclusion of what happened at the end.The news video was not playable either.
Re: One of the world’s most visited websites that nobody is aware of (2017)
#46Sorry if i don't understand this totally, but why is scraping for pdf and ppt/pptx files and mirroring them illegal? If you can reach that files just scraping it means they are somehow open to public access. No joke, i am genuinely asking.
Just because they're published on the internet doesn't mean you can rehost them - that's copyright infringement. (The Internet Archive is very careful to skirt the edge of what's permissible and what they can get away with in this regard)
So copyright infringement of this form may or may not be immoral depending on who you ask. And may even be legal depending on where you live
Re: One of the world’s most visited websites that nobody is aware of (2017)
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scraping, mostly no. Using them to make profit: yes. Since you then violate the copyright of the author as the original action was solely to make it public (assuming no profit was intended). edit: Rehosting is not allowed as far as I know in Dutch law if you are attempting to make profit of it by not requesting it from the original owner. Rehosting it and not taking advantage and linking to the original article is al…
If a file is available through non-auth http it’s unclear what the copyright is. I think it depends on the particular item whether copyright was violated. Making a file public without restriction doesn’t mean another can’t make profit (my ISP makes a profit by transmitting the file to me; gmail makes profit when I email the file to me; google makes a profit when they cache the file; archive makes a profit when they a…
> If a file is available through non-auth http it’s unclear what the copyright is.
Protocol has nothing to do with copyright. “Non-auth http” doesn't suddenly make copyright murky.
> But by releasing a document publicly with unlimited access via URL the author explicitly allows unlimited distribution (and due to the nature of tcp/ip redistribution).
There is an implicit license to exactly the redistribution necessary to effect access by URL, sure, but this is not “unlimited distribution”.
Republishing is, particularly, not what is licensed.
Re: One of the world’s most visited websites that nobody is aware of (2017)
#48IANAL but it seem a good idea to put a copyright notice on all documents. One can hope a site like this doesn't scrape docs with copyright notices, but if they do it anyway wouldn't you have a better case to sue for damages.
Re: One of the world’s most visited websites that nobody is aware of (2017)
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scraping, mostly no. Using them to make profit: yes. Since you then violate the copyright of the author as the original action was solely to make it public (assuming no profit was intended). edit: Rehosting is not allowed as far as I know in Dutch law if you are attempting to make profit of it by not requesting it from the original owner. Rehosting it and not taking advantage and linking to the original article is al…
If a file is available through non-auth http it’s unclear what the copyright is. I think it depends on the particular item whether copyright was violated. Making a file public without restriction doesn’t mean another can’t make profit (my ISP makes a profit by transmitting the file to me; gmail makes profit when I email the file to me; google makes a profit when they cache the file; archive makes a profit when they a…
> If a file is available through non-auth http it’s unclear what the copyright is.
No. Everything that is copyrightable is either under copyright or the copyright has expired. There are no copyrightable works that are neither. What you can do with a file on "non-auth HTTP" depends on what rights the copyright holder grants you. Making it available implies you are allowed to read it. Doesn't imply you're allowed to copy it, print it, sell it, make money with it, ...
Re: One of the world’s most visited websites that nobody is aware of (2017)
#50> According to another source, a public address book at locatefamily.com, someone under the name Vladimir S. Nesterenko is living at [REDACTED] in Moscow. Vladimir lives according to Google Streetview it’s an apartment complex far away from the Moscow city center... Really? Someone investigating with journalists, and may be considered a journalists themselves (?), actually publishes the address of someone that they a…
I'd go with a). Very dumb move.
“Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence” said Napoleon.