Quote:
Originally Posted by oblonsky
As I've been careful to say, I was questioning not dictionary attacks but your assertion about random alphanumeric strings. But as Mick points out this is OT so PM me.
If you re-read my original post that seemed for some reason to have caused so much controversy:
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post6037.html
I said "Phorm insist that they will respect robots.txt"
I heard them say that in one of Cpt. Jamie's videos. I saw it in Clayton. I had reasonable grounds to say exactly and precisely what I did.
Now I know what I said was maybe an unpopular view, and maybe the moderators will do the courtesy of re-reading my original post, but I really don't think copyright holders do have a very strong legal argument against Phorm *if* what Phorm say is correct and they provide one or more mechanisms for content owners to opt-out.
I also stand by my original assertion that *some* lawyers will argue for the premise of implied consent on published works.
I still don't support what Phorm are doing, so why this original post caused such a wave of anger from some posters which lead to me being cast in a demonic light is beyond me. |
your view is not unpopular ,infact your the only person to bring it up AFAICS in this thread,we can explore that in a reasonable mannor and come to a consensus perhaps!.
its
your diversion from stating your view, was the point people took and take offence, nothing new there, attack someone, get berated for it......that isnt beyond your understanding is it, OC its not.
on the matter of your view as regards the not a very strong legal argument assuming they put in place this content owners opt-out.......
OK, so lets look at that...., you agree and understand that in the UK and EU there is infact an automatic right to copyright protection, and all the remedys that go with that, yes/no ?.
its always been my contension that a users content is also covered in this auto copyright legislation, but lets just concentrate on the website owner for your purposes for the moment...
so,admitedly not very long, but for the past 30 minutes iv looked for any and all UK statute regarding opting out of copyright, and at
no point can i find anything that does not reference the original
content owner signing a valid "legal notice" to give up their right to said ownership (PD)to make 3rd partys using it legal( fair use and the % of content not withstanding etc).
i didnt look at any EU legislation or statute....
can you find or give here, any UK OR EU legislation or statute, or even
non binding legally factual advice, or (
very )
strong legal argument anywere to move this content owner gives up their many legal right's with a mere (and this is a
KEY point)
3rd party provided opt-out option perspective forward ?