Quote:
Originally Posted by rryles
Also, here is the problem with the implied licence argument:
Quote:
|
you have an implied licence where all the circumstances suggest that the copyright owner expected you to use his or her copyright material in the way you are going to use it
|
Plenty of websites have explicit copyright licences and therefore an implied licence cannot exist. |
Even if there is no detailed copyright licence, or even no copyright notice at all (because copyright is assumed to exist by default), is it reasonable to assume that copyright holders will welcome their content being used to promote their competitors, enrich Kent Erdfsfd, and enrich Internet Service Providers?
I doubt it.
I'm glad I'm not paying BT's lawyers. I'd want all my money back. (Solicitors Complaints Bureau might be able to help BT).
Pete
---------- Post added at 11:53 ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudonym
Instead of installing a Webwise proxy in an ISP (and paying the ISP), they could simply set up a webwise proxy server on the internet, register a suitable domain name eg "MoreRelevantAdverts.com" and inform customers how to set up a proxy in the browsers they (claim) to support - port 666 might be a good choice  |
Brilliant. Given BT's Market Research its a surefire winner.
I'm starting to think Kent's a genius (bet you never thought I'd say that! for avoidance of any doubt it is indeed sarcasm). No doubt it gets quoted on their blog in 15 mins "'Kent's a genius' says harshest critic".
He's got BT to pay for his Market Research and product development/testing, yet all he has to do is advertise some proxy settings, and there will be a stampede of customers who want relevant ads.
Then he can cut BT adrift.
And there was I thinking it was BT who'd want to cut Phorm adrift.
No wonder Ian Livingston was so heistant to discuss Phorm. He must be very worried about Phorm cutting him out of the action.
Is it too late to buy Phorm shares?