• From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
• To: "'Peter'" <pc.subscriptions@g...>, "'Michael Kay'" <mike@s...>, "'Jonathan Robie'" <jonathan.robie@r...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:33:56 -0500

Simply, it is altering the primary source without permission.

Inclusion over referencing of a primary source is the root.  Taking it and
modifying with a link means the user assumes no responsibility for clicking
the link.  That's basic W3C lore.  That is not an answer to modifying a
primary source though.  If the primary is modified, some boundary is crossed
but it creating an unnamed but situated relationship unintended in the
primary source.  The author assumes responsibility for the context of the
secondary source if these are part of an index.

In the case of Google, algorithms pick the links from how big a domain?

In the case of Stylus, however the links are chosen, to point only within
the Stylus domain, yes?  So their query is fairly narrow but it amplifies
through Google just as spam does.

That's about it.

The question remains if it is copyright infringement only if challenged;
otherwise, we're free to sample and represent to are heart's content.  

Bow can you prosecute a musician who samples and aggregates and not Google?

len


From: Peter [mailto:pc.subscriptions@g...] 
 
> Interestingly, though, it's only marginally different from Google's own
> business model: 

Perhaps a boundary was crossed? From reformatting, rearranging, embedding,
... to changing/adding links.

Peter

• References:
  • RE: Re: Abuse of this list
    • From: "Peter" <pc.subscriptions@g...>