Re: copyright

HI Andie,

a point of clarification:

Here in the US of A, also copyrights exist at the point of inception of the
work being created.

But to sue somebody you first must register the works that you are planning
on fighting in court.

as far as the caching of the sites they are your sites with your credits and
copyrights intact and no derivate of such work is being claimed.  You can go
to google and see that they also cache sites.

This is entirely legal.

bob


----- Original Message -----
From: "Andie Maranda" <infomail(at)cogeco.ca>
To: "HWG-techniques" <hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: copyright


> I think it is kind of ironic that you can use a site like www.archives.org
> to look at your old site to prove copyright infringements when
> www.archives.org themselves are infringing copyrights by archiving sites
> there in the first place.
>
> It is clear on my sites that they cannot be reproduced, copied, downloaded
> or archived in any manner, shape or form without my written permission,
yet
> my site is clearly archived on their servers.
>
> By the way, even if they showed five different dates for one of my old
> sites, the site that comes up is my current site.
>
> As far as I know in Canada you do not need to register a copyright before
> suing. The copyright exists as soon as the work is created. I do agree
with
> Bob that meta tags will probably not be grounds for copyright
infringement.
> It is frustrating that, Michael, that you found an exact replica of what
you
> wrote but my question is, if the old site is no longer there, why is it a
> problem? Just wondering. Code is lifted of web sites all the time and that
> is definitely copyright infringement but just like recipe books who knows
> where the original came from.
>
> Just my .000000000000000000002 Canadian cents worth.
>
> Andie
>
> P.S.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Laurence" <webguy(at)re-data.com>
> To: <hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org>; "Michael Muehlendorf" <haoka(at)wi.tds.net>
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 3:00 PM
> Subject: Re: copyright
>
>
> >
> >
> > Hi Michael
> >
> > First off to prove copyright infringement is one thing.
> > To file suit or any legal action the copyright must first be registered.
> > $30
> >
> > You may see your old site at www.archive.org.
> > Great source for this type of situation :)
> >
> > 2 great sources for this
> >
> > http://www.whatiscopyright.org
> > www.ivanhoffman.com
> >
> >
> > meta tags are not grounds for copyright infringement (too ambiguous)
> unless
> > they contain your company's name and/or trademark in them. A great deal
of
> > meta tags are generated by software.
> >
> > I am not a lawyer but I do know a great deal about this.
> >
> > Save your dime ;)
> >
> > Many users of the same software will generate an optimized page for the
> > search engines and it could be that this was optimized by this type of
> > software.
> >
> > The legal stuff again: I am not a lawyer and this is not meant to be
> > construed as legal advice.
> >
> > bob L
> > RE-Data.com
> > Thought For The Day:
> > I know no time which is lost more thoroughly than that
> > devoted to arguing on matters of fact with a disputant
> > who has no facts, but only very strong convictions
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Muehlendorf" <haoka(at)wi.tds.net>
> > To: <hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 11:03 AM
> > Subject: copyright
> >
> >
> > > Hello List -
> > >
> > > Something strange happened to me last night. I had been doing searches
> > from
> > > AltaVista, MSN, Yahoo, etc. for a site that I recently did, just to
see
> > how
> > > its standing was percolating up (or down). It's doing way beyond my
> > > expectations.
> > >
> > > When I was done, just for the heck of it, I did a search for an old
site
> > > that I did in 1996 for a local manufacturing company which no longer
> > > exists, and no longer has a site. When I had done the search engine
> > > registration on this site, the results were absolutely phenomenal. I
> used
> > > techniques that I had picked up on these lists, and other places (plus
I
> > > sacrificed a couple of chickens...hehehe). In any case, some search
> terms
> > > for this particular site would bring it up as number one in Yahoo,
MSN,
> > > Lycos, etc. etc. It was great.
> > >
> > > Well, when I did this "fun" search last night, there was a URL that
came
> > up
> > > in the results, call it xyz.com, and the synopsis that the search
engine
> > > gave was, word for word, the "description" meta tag from my old site.
> So,
> > I
> > > clicked the link, went to the site, and viewed the HTML source. The
meta
> > > tags for "description" and "keywords" were VERBATIM from my old site
> from
> > > 1996, and this site was published in 1998. I immediately felt that
> whoever
> > > did this site "stole" my meta tags because of the great results they
> got,
> > > hoping that they would get the same good results.
> > >
> > > Well, I was flabbergasted. Then, I was p*ssed! I started to write an
> email
> > > to the webmaster, but had second thoughts. I think I just want to
retain
> a
> > > lawyer. What do you guys think?
> > >
> > > Any comments or help would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > TIA,
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA