OTOH, Isn't this very similar to what "mp3 search" (wink, wink) engines like screemr, elbo.ws, and hypem do? I believe most of them allow you to play multimedia content without actually accessing the site where it's hosted. (And, of course, download them; I hear hypem are about to launch a Premium Service, where you actually get to watch video streams of the artists' children starving, in real time! ;-)
The reason dizzler might be so self-conscious about might be because of the recent scuffle between news companies and Google News, who were doing something equivalent with their articles. I think this is a complex issue, and I'm finding it hard to pass a judgment on it. It also seems fairly typical of the whole "semantic web" hysteria. I mean, my own blog is "syndicated" via inline RSS aggregators to my pages in at least two social networks. Now, I don't think I can legally stop anyone from doing the same on their own site. After all, I am consciously and intentionally offering an RSS feed. It's making me think of radio broadcasting. I mean, you might have legal and moral grounds to say "Please, don't tape this". But it would be ridiculous to ask people not to listen to your broadcast on S*ny radios, for example, or not to do it on mono receivers. It all has to do with publishing as in "making public". Kamen http://www.waitingforcargo.net On 19/11/2008, at 17:12, james of jwm-art net wrote: > I'm not going to try blocking dizzler via robots.txt, or even via > apache > access directives. On the plus side, dizzler is giving me one more > small > (and probably tucked away) point on the web where my stuff (might) get > noticed. > > The only reason I searched for my stuff is because when I see a new > site > providing referals to mine, I like to see it. > > Also, the only reason my site's URL is displayed (and I'm presuming > why > only six of my tracks are presented) is because I've been using > 'jwm-art.net' as the artist tag in the ID3 header when I can actually > be bothered to create them (the id3 tag). So that's one way in > which to > get dizzler's users to a site I guess. > > Cheers, > James. > > > On 17/11/2008, "Pall Thayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I would say it's pretty obvious that they know they're walking a >> tight- >> rope between right and wrong. Otherwise they wouldn't go to such >> great >> lengths to explain why it's "not" wrong. >> >> This might not be piracy according to strict legal definitions but >> it's unquestionable immoral to present someone elses work with no >> real >> reference to the owner of that work. Sure, they publish your server's >> name but they make sure not to provide any means for you to easily go >> there. >> >> Oh. I tried searching for something other than your stuff and they >> don't necessarily display the source URL. These are bad bad people >> and >> they know it. If someone truly challenges them to a legal battle, I >> don't think they'll survive. >> >> Pall >> >> On Nov 17, 2008, at 12:34 PM, james of jwm-art net wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Is anybody familar with dizzler.com? I've noticed it mentioned in my >>> website's logs several times and thought I'd find out what it's >>> about. >>> >>> Firstly a google search 'site:http://dizzler.com jwm' returns >>> nothing, >>> but on visiting the site, dizzler's inbuilt search returns six of my >>> audio tracks. >>> >>> Naturally I wonder how these got there. It turns out dizzler.com is, >>> more >>> or less, a search engine. It's position is interesting, on the one >>> hand >>> it mentions (briefly) it's software is copyright and patent >>> protected, >>> but on the other (their philosophy): >>> >>> * We believe that Intellectual property law should not serve >>> as a >>> brake on technological innovation. >>> * We believe that no one should arbitrarily limit or restrict the >>> access to content in the public domain. >>> * We believe that Dizzler is expanding the way people use the >>> information on the public Internet. >>> * We believe copyright holders must face the new realities of the >>> digital age by adopting a looser interpretation of how their content >>> is >>> used, "sampled” or licensed. Dizzler is ready to work with them in >>> negotiating this new world. >>> >>> Also interesting is the fact 'dizzler' cannot tell if material it >>> finds >>> is copyrighted or not, and they can present it until given a >>> takedown >>> notice, plus there is the 'framing' clause which allows them to >>> present something provided it's not 'copied' to their server. >>> >>> http://www.dizzler.com/public/about >>> >>> >>> I'm not sure how grateful I am that my material appears there. I've >>> not >>> had time to wait for the flash widgets to download (via dialup) >>> and to >>> see what happens, but: >>> >>> "This encryption prevents Dizzler users from accessing the actual >>> paths >>> to content in order to thwart inappropriate downloading, copying or >>> sharing of files." >>> >>> or in reality prevent users from actually visiting the real website >>> providing the content. >>> >>> Just wondered what other's might think to this? Kind of >>> exploitative I >>> think... ? >>> >>> James. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
