There’s a lot of good stuff in there, but I can’t let this slide:
On the Web, the general rule—known as a “take-down notice”—is that you can post almost anything as long as you take it down when the rights holder complains.
That’s just wrong. If Overlawyered decided to copy that entire New Yorker article instead of linking to it, they’d almost certainly be liable, whether or not they took it down upon a complaint being received.
The rule only applies to what OTHER people post. So if I were to repost the entire New Yorker article in a comment, then Overlawyered would not be liable (so long as they took it down upon complaint and otherwise complied with the applicable law.) But the New Yorker could still sue me.
The Web doesn’t work like that. You really have been transported and it’s virtual only in the sense that you didn’t physically move to “take the book off the shelf”. The bytes that cause your browser to create the image of the New Yorker article when you click on the URL embedded in the awesomestuff.com page come from a different physical server in a different physical location than from the servers located in the data center hosting the awesomestuff.com website. If the New Yorker website is not functioning, you won’t see anything. If The New Yorker takes down the content, you won’t see it because the awesomestuff.com site doesn’t have it. Just because your browser shows an awesomestuff.com page when you hit the back button and cause the browser to retrieve data from their site, not The New Yorker’s, doesn’t mean that awesomestuff made a copy. It means your browser changed source websites. It really is like taking another book off the electronic shelf and not like copying that content into a compilation.
Apologies for the misuse of blockquote, which obscured the text I was citing
This is wrong as well:
“When you click on a link, you have the sensation that you no longer are at a place called awesomestuff.com but have been virtually transported to an entirely different place, called newyorker.com. A visual change is experienced as a physical change. The link is treated as a footnote; it’s as though you were taking another book off the shelf. … when you’re reading a linked page, you may still be “at” awesomestuff.com, as clicking the back button on your browser can instantly confirm. Effectively, awesomestuff.com has stolen content from newyorker.com, just as the compiler of “Most Thoughtful Essays” stole content from me. ”
The Web doesn’t work like that. You really have been transported and it’s virtual only in the sense that you didn’t physically move to “take the book off the shelf”. The bytes that cause your browser to create the image of the New Yorker article when you click on the URL embedded in the awesomestuff.com page come from a different physical server in a different physical location than from the servers located in the data center hosting the awesomestuff.com website. If the New Yorker website is not functioning, you won’t see anything. If The New Yorker takes down the content, you won’t see it because the awesomestuff.com site doesn’t have it. Just because your browser shows an awesomestuff.com page when you hit the back button and cause the browser to retrieve data from their site, not The New Yorker’s, doesn’t mean that awesomestuff made a copy. It means your browser changed source websites. It really is like taking another book off the electronic shelf and not like copying that content into a compilation.
3 Comments
There’s a lot of good stuff in there, but I can’t let this slide:
That’s just wrong. If Overlawyered decided to copy that entire New Yorker article instead of linking to it, they’d almost certainly be liable, whether or not they took it down upon a complaint being received.
The rule only applies to what OTHER people post. So if I were to repost the entire New Yorker article in a comment, then Overlawyered would not be liable (so long as they took it down upon complaint and otherwise complied with the applicable law.) But the New Yorker could still sue me.
This is wrong as well:
Apologies for the misuse of blockquote, which obscured the text I was citing
This is wrong as well:
“When you click on a link, you have the sensation that you no longer are at a place called awesomestuff.com but have been virtually transported to an entirely different place, called newyorker.com. A visual change is experienced as a physical change. The link is treated as a footnote; it’s as though you were taking another book off the shelf. …
when you’re reading a linked page, you may still be “at” awesomestuff.com, as clicking the back button on your browser can instantly confirm. Effectively, awesomestuff.com has stolen content from newyorker.com, just as the compiler of “Most Thoughtful Essays” stole content from me. ”
The Web doesn’t work like that. You really have been transported and it’s virtual only in the sense that you didn’t physically move to “take the book off the shelf”. The bytes that cause your browser to create the image of the New Yorker article when you click on the URL embedded in the awesomestuff.com page come from a different physical server in a different physical location than from the servers located in the data center hosting the awesomestuff.com website. If the New Yorker website is not functioning, you won’t see anything. If The New Yorker takes down the content, you won’t see it because the awesomestuff.com site doesn’t have it. Just because your browser shows an awesomestuff.com page when you hit the back button and cause the browser to retrieve data from their site, not The New Yorker’s, doesn’t mean that awesomestuff made a copy. It means your browser changed source websites. It really is like taking another book off the electronic shelf and not like copying that content into a compilation.