Quote:
Originally Posted by rryles
|
However I would like to add a Glass Houses caution. I for one have many past sins in this field, although now even every single piece of music I have on my PC is purchased.
That is why I dislike the copyright angle, as it throws the light on so much more than Phorm. A few years ago I was working on a news scraper. Without saying too much I was involved with a major national newspaper and their attitude to infringement was: We will not stand for people ripping us off, however we will rip off everyone else as long as we can get away with it, including photo royalties etc. They would literally buy the first edition of a rival paper and scan and clean up a photo and include in their own, and let legal sort it out if anyone complained.
I'm not making such a clear point here, but it is unlikely that a lot of content providers will kick up too much of a fuss in this arena because their own practices may come under scrutiny.
I thought elements of what we were doing with the scraper infringed copyright but it also brought a genuinely new dimension. Alas the service was never launched.
I guess I'm wary that copyright law derives from the middle ages when printing presses were first invented, and let him without sin cast the first stone at the likes of Phorm in the internet age as far as copyright is concerned. However there is RIPA, and I've always thought that this angle is rock solid against Phorm and the ISPs.
I know many of you have differing views on this, and I respect you on those views, no need to ingnite another flame, I'm just pointing something out.