Re: [NetBehaviour] dizzler?
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
Re: [NetBehaviour] dizzler?
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] dizzler?
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
Re: [NetBehaviour] dizzler?
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
