Quote:
Originally Posted by oblonsky
Now as far as robots.txt I agree this has no bearing on RIPA but it does on copyright control. Any person publishing a web page and is happy to have their page read and classified by an automated process e.g. Google is unlikely to win damages from Phorm. My view, and I qualify that by saying only for "published" content, i.e. non of the Fipr specific cases apply (password protected etc).
|
There is
more at stake when Phorm profile the unique personal exchange of website content between a webmaster and the website visitor for profit, without the informed consent of the webmaster. The arguments about content are not confined to the issue of intellectual property and civil actions from webmasters against Phorm - although publishing something on the web does not give someone else the right to profit by profiling it. As the webmaster of a couple of charity sites, I feel particularly strongly about that.
When I have asked questions from a webmaster perspective I always couch them in terms of "the unique personal exchange of website content between a webmaster and the website visitor for profit, without the informed consent of the webmaster" - as far as that exchange is concerned, and from the perspective of the webmaster, there remain a number of legal issues that are being questioned by Nicholas Bohm and to which I have not yet seen a detailed rebuttal from Phorm/Webwise ISP's. And I want to see their rebuttal so I can make an informed choice about Webwise.
I think it is significant that although I have managed to get a fair number of responses from BT about Phorm/Webwise, they have not picked up a single one of the webmaster issues except to keep insisting that they can presume consent to monitor that private exchange, between webmasters and website visitors, without bothering to ask for it. (except they never talk about any unique private exchange of data - just "websites")
They have not yet explained how they read body text Webwise exclusions on site pages. They refuse to give details on robots.txt. They have not yet explained how they will find the non-listed http webmail pages unless those webmail site owners tell them.
On an issue like this we all have our various hobby horses and varying focus - and personally I think that is a strength of a diverse community. Best to communicate what is going on, and let people pursue their particular interest (in consultation) rather than say that a particular avenue of complaint is not important - unless there is an absolutely clear mistake being made.
I have benefited from that here, when sharing things I thought would be a good idea to do - and the comments of others have helped me see that a particular idea would NOT be helpful - or needed particular care. But once we start the ad-hominem stuff we're finished.