71–80 of 100 posts
Best way to kill AMP is to increase bandwidth limits on mobile internet. That's the only justifiable reason for this monstrosity to exist. I can't wait to see AMP die until then I will bide my time...
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.
I doubt many contracts are written for specific domain names. I expect most contracts allow for a publisher to use it in their publications without specifying exactly whether that publication is a website, magazine, publisher branded app, or an Apple News article.
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?
But the way Google uses AMP goes way beyond caching, at least in the way news articles are presented. Do I really give anyone an implied license to republish AMP content on their own properties as soon as I put some AMP pages online? There might be some limited control by using robots.txt but that's rather coarse-grained. My main irk with AMP is that it's mostly an all-or-nothing solution. I'd love to publish AMP pag…
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.
that's not really a valid defense. the default state is copyrighted unless otherwise stated, this assumes the contrary.
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?
As discussed in the article, some content management systems (like hosted WordPress.com instances) produce AMP variants of each published page. The author/rightsholder may not be aware of this and thus has neither expressly or implicitly agreed to anything of the sort.
If wordpress by default said on the footer "content licensed under CC", how would it be my fault if I reuse the content, just because the author didn't bother to change that?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the OP stated a "what if", ie "What if CORS didn't exist?" I also think you could argue "What if outline loaded articles in an iframe?" (and at the same time "what if same-origin policy wasn't a thing?") If it was technologically possible, would it be infringing?
> If it was technologically possible It's actually pretty easy, you can start chrome with --disable-web-security flag [1] > I also think you could argue "What if outline loaded articles in an iframe?" I'm sure this would be legal as it's equivalent to loading the site in a tab. The parent site wouldn't be able to manipulate any of the content/ads/paywalls/functionality, and the content site gets the full hit. [1] htt…
What? What do we disable CORS for if not to allow Javascript from one domain manipulate content in an iframe of an other domain? Am I missing something?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
> Do you think everything put on the web should be considered public domain? In my personal opinion -- Emphatic yes. Copyright law is tyrannical and should be abolished. If you don't want to serve the content then don't serve the content.