"www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/headlines/content/2000040401.html"
Hypertext Linking does not itself involve a violation of the Copyright Act
On March 27, 2000 federal Judge Harry L. Hupp for the Central District of California issued a first ruling in favor of Tickets.com in the case of Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com (99-7654) involving alleged copyright infringement for hypertext linking. Tickets.com is an online provider of entertainment, sports and travel tickets and provides hypertext links to Ticketmaster web pages for tickets not available at Tickets.com. Ticketmaster sued Tickets.com claiming such links constituted copyright infringement, among other claims.

In his ruling, Hupp concluded "hypertext linking does not itself involve a violation of the Copyright Act.since no copying is involved." The basis for this conclusion can be seen from the statutory language of the Copyright Act, Title 17 section 106 of the United States Code, describing the exclusive rights of copyright holders, which reads as follows:

"Subject to sections 107 through 120, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. "
17 U.S.C. sec. 106.
Hupp went on to describe the process of hypertext linking: "The customer is automatically transferred to the particular genuine Web page of the original author. There is no deception in what is happening. This is analogous to using a library's card index to get reference to particular items, albeit faster and more efficiently."
Such hypertext linking, therefore, does not involve the reproduction, distribution or preparation of copies or derivative works. Nor does such linking constitute a "display [of] the copyrighted work publicly�," as the web page called up by the user is the original web page created by the author.

Hupp's ruling, however, applies only to the act of linking from one Web site to another. Hupp let stand Ticketmaster's copyright infringement, unfair competition and false advertising claims against Ticket.com, noting that Ticketmaster alleges actual copying of its interior Web pages in the extraction of factual data by Tickets.com.

W. Thomas Gimple, co-chairman and CEO of Tickets.com, described the ruling as "support[ing] Tickets.com's position that consumers should be free to surf the Web and gain access to information, without unwarranted restriction."

Ticketmaster previously brought a similar suit against Microsoft in 1997. In Ticketmaster Corp. v. Microsoft (97-3055), Ticketmaster accused Microsoft of copyright infringement and trademark dilution through its use of unlicensed hypertext linking. The case was settled out of court.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: USAF_76_2_80,

quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixDark:
What happened to the various Read & Heeds, as well as other warning stickies?

Has management decided to solely use the TOS as the guide to acceptable/unacceptable behavior?

PD...
When I and the other 'plank owners' first came here...the TOS/TOU was THE only series of guidelines, except the "Moderator Guidelines", that governed this site.
This was long before "Monster.com" initiated the takeover.

This newest series of 'initiatives' will be interesting as far as overall acceptance is concerned.
As far as "coming from the 'Very Top'"...I believe that there is much more to this decision that is being mentioned here...

"google.com/search?hl=en&q=Internet%2C+linking%2C+copyright&aq=f&oq="

Everything you ever wanted to know about hyperlinking and copyrights

This message has been edited. Last edited by: USAF_76_2_80,

quote:

Originally posted by USAF_76_2_80:

quote:

Originally posted by SgtSchaeffersMom:
USAF,

Thanks for the explanation, . . .

It appears that my thinking about the issue was completely backwards. I thought that if you posted a link, that it was a GOOD thing, because then readers could click and get to the original site, where all the advertisers are. . . . thereby assuaging the original site's objections to using their materials, because they felt we were shortchanging their advertisers.

Oh, well, . . show's what I know.

Mom,
the advertisers want conclusive proof that the original web site was visited, and their ad banner was seen. Some sites charge "per view"
and get whanked when they think their chance to make a buck gets compromised.

IMO, this is one reason the issues being determined in congress about internet freedoms is important, and everyone should know where their representatives and senators stand.

Generally speaking I post a paragraph from the site I link to, (which is legally called "fair use.") and then a link so that people can read the entire article.

I also post images from my own site. Images, which I own.

None of this violates any laws or copyrights.

Dave

quote:

I wish they had not permanantly banned Machiavellean, but they have...

They did? I suppose that is a good thing since he really had a hard time fitting in....being the square peg that he was...

I am sure he will fair well.

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Buck II:
U.S.MilVets.com has no such rules. Many folks will go there......is that the mission?

Yes, it is a great place....a recent start up......but growing fast.

Regarding the Ticketmaster case I listed above. The specifics of that case involved the very reason discussed by USAF on page one of this thread: That "advertisers want conslusive proof that the original web site was visited". "www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/C13F7E6B-B05E-43DF-80D62B635DF9DD9F/"
(Deep Linking)

the types of links that bypass the front page are the ones that Military Advantage seems to be worried about...

"However, there is no law prohibiting deep linking, and no U.S. court has prohibited the practice. In one case decided in March 2000 [Ticketmaster], a federal court ruled that the use of deep links did not violate copyright law."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: USAF_76_2_80,

quote:

Originally posted by pken:

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Buck II:
U.S.MilVets.com has no such rules. Many folks will go there......is that the mission?

Yes, it is a great place....a recent start up......but growing fast.

Magpie's place???

Up to a 166 members I see. The place is hopping, like a one legged azz kicking contest.

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:

They did? I suppose that is a good thing since he really had a hard time fitting in....being the square peg that he was...

I am sure he will fair well.

Dave, I know you had your own personal issues with Mach, but he was an asset to this forum. He was a regular contributer and probably the smartest contributer this site ever had. The IQ of these forums dropped by half the moment they banned him. You've been a friend to me, Dave, but Mach has been a far closer one... and I take umbrage at your "square peg" shot.

It was also kind of underhanded the way they banned him without letting anyone else here know about it. No tag, no warning... just quietly left his posts intact and permanently denied him further access.

I guess they didn't want the brouhaha of people like me coming to his defense. I didn't mention it up till now because there really wasn't any purpose in doing so.

So I guess here's the upshot, my fellow Mil.com posters. None of us OWN this site, nor do we pay for it's use. AS such those that due oewn the site can make ANY rules they want. Therefore as I see it, we have one of 3 choice left to us.

1> STFU and live with the new rules.

2> Move on to another site that NOT so draconian

3> Keep screwing around until one of the Mods if forced to pick us off.

I think that about sums it up.

quote:

Originally posted by navy8086:
So I guess here's the upshot, my fellow Mil.com posters. None of us OWN this site, nor do we pay for it's use. AS such those that due oewn the site can make ANY rules they want. Therefore as I see it, we have one of 3 choice left to us.

1> STFU and live with the new rules.

2> Move on to another site that NOT so draconian

3> Keep screwing around until one of the Mods if forced to pick us off.

I think that about sums it up.

NO ONE IS TRYING TO PICK PEOPLE OFF. THIS WHAT THE OWNERS OF THE SITE WANT.

MAINEDAWG
MODERATOR

quote:

Originally posted by navy8086:
So I guess here's the upshot, my fellow Mil.com posters. None of us OWN this site, nor do we pay for it's use. AS such those that due oewn the site can make ANY rules they want. Therefore as I see it, we have one of 3 choice left to us.

1> STFU and live with the new rules.

2> Move on to another site that NOT so draconian

3> Keep screwing around until one of the Mods if forced to pick us off.

I think that about sums it up.

Yup, as inconvenient as 'cut and paste' is, I'm gonna miss 'the bikini' thread as this new policy will surely destroy the fun of looking at all those pretty, half nekkid women.

one more for the road:
http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/409192893/m/2030029171001
-notice NO link ?


LOL, this SITE is automatically adding the "url" tag to my link, this SITE has rules the site isn't following, interesting.

<edit>
"http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/409192893/m/2030029171001"

Above: the way the new rules want you to post a link.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MaddogK,

quote:

Originally posted by The_Bonesaw:

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:

They did? I suppose that is a good thing since he really had a hard time fitting in....being the square peg that he was...

I am sure he will fair well.

Dave, I know you had your own personal issues with Mach, but he was an asset to this forum. He was a regular contributer and probably the smartest contributer this site ever had. The IQ of these forums dropped by half the moment they banned him. You've been a friend to me, Dave, but Mach has been a far closer one... and I take umbrage at your "square peg" shot.

It was also kind of underhanded the way they banned him without letting anyone else here know about it. No tag, no warning... just quietly left his posts intact and permanently denied him further access.

I guess they didn't want the brouhaha of people like me coming to his defense. I didn't mention it up till now because there really wasn't any purpose in doing so.

There was nothing personal about my post. As a matter of fact I saved his butt a few times.

I knew he had a sever problem with the way the site was managed and now believe he would be far better off not having to go through the agrivation.

As for him being banned, it is news to me...but I am not shocked by it.

quote:

Originally posted by mainedawg:

quote:

Originally posted by navy8086:
So I guess here's the upshot, my fellow Mil.com posters. None of us OWN this site, nor do we pay for it's use. AS such those that due oewn the site can make ANY rules they want. Therefore as I see it, we have one of 3 choice left to us.

1> STFU and live with the new rules.

2> Move on to another site that NOT so draconian

3> Keep screwing around until one of the Mods if forced to pick us off.

I think that about sums it up.

NO ONE IS TRYING TO PICK PEOPLE OFF. THIS WHAT THE OWNERS OF THE SITE WANT.

MAINEDAWG
MODERATOR

Dawg,
That's the point of my post THE SITE OWNERS want these changes.

Note I used the words "... IS FORCED ... ". I KNOW you Mods DON'T want to do this if you don't have to.
But it is a reality that chronic offenders ARE removed.


But it is a reality that chronic offenders ARE removed.

AND THEY SHOULD BE REMOVED. This is a for profit site. They make no money keeping these boards open. Some will go to the sites listed that pay for a spot here. Most just post and have fun. The few will always hurt the rest of us here. No disagreement here, I don't want anyone spoiling my fun either.

I like it here and will continue to post.

Ditto, I'm not planning on moving on yet.

I was spanked some time ago for my links from the Admin here. I took it like a man and moved on. Same here and you were the one that did the spanking ... I have made a lot of good friends that I will have for the rest of my life. I hope I'm counted among themFor that I am very greatfull to this site.

Some people will need to move on. Some of them should have moved on long ago. THre are some of us that iertia sorta keeps us in place

This message has been edited. Last edited by: navy8086,

Listen this....GOING TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET AND AIN'T NOONE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING. Just my 2 cents..not worth anything, but you will lose members over this.

Someone is going to ask you to prove something, but you can't cus it isn't in mil.com

Actually I like square pegs. One of my favorite television shows of all times was named "Square Pegs" and had a number of folks who reached "star" status careers due to their contributions to that short lived show. Including Sara Jessica Parker, Tracy Nelson, Jami Gertz, and others.

Square Pegs.

quote:

Originally posted by The_Bonesaw:

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:

They did? I suppose that is a good thing since he really had a hard time fitting in....being the square peg that he was...

I am sure he will fair well.

Dave, I know you had your own personal issues with Mach, but he was an asset to this forum. He was a regular contributer and probably the smartest contributer this site ever had. The IQ of these forums dropped by half the moment they banned him. You've been a friend to me, Dave, but Mach has been a far closer one... and I take umbrage at your "square peg" shot.

It was also kind of underhanded the way they banned him without letting anyone else here know about it. No tag, no warning... just quietly left his posts intact and permanently denied him further access.

I guess they didn't want the brouhaha of people like me coming to his defense. I didn't mention it up till now because there really wasn't any purpose in doing so.

Mach got banned? WTF? Why did he get banned? I tell you, this place really is going to the crapper. Oldmole, USMC, and Mach?

quote:

Mach got banned? WTF? Why did he get banned?

As far as I know he posted some stuff that admin thought over the edge, and they decided, based on his history, no more chances.

Admin does not always post a reason, though we try to.

Well, I can promise you this, its not done to be mean, or anything, its just the way the owners want it, for whatever there reasons.

Just like you guys, us Mods have to abide by the rules also, we are told to enforce this set of rules or that set, we have to..

MY PERSONL OPINION on this and only that, will not affect me from doing what I have to do to enforce the rules, but I have linked from outside sources too, and just like everyone else will have to stop..

I hope no one leaves the site cause of it, but if they do they that is there choice. I hope you all stay and we make this work...

quote:

Originally posted by USAF_76_2_80:

He posted some stuff that admin thought over the edge...

(i.e.: "he told it like it is.")

quote:

Originally posted by The_Bonesaw:

quote:

Originally posted by USAF_76_2_80:

He posted some stuff that admin thought over the edge...

(i.e.: "he told it like it is.")

A subjective judgment, same as the reasons for his permanent suspension.

quote:

Originally posted by THANKUVETS:
Well, I can promise you this, its not done to be mean, or anything, its just the way the owners want it, for whatever there reasons.

Just like you guys, us Mods have to abide by the rules also, we are told to enforce this set of rules or that set, we have to..

MY PERSONL OPINION on this and only that, will not affect me from doing what I have to do to enforce the rules, but I have linked from outside sources too, and just like everyone else will have to stop..

I hope no one leaves the site cause of it, but if they do they that is there choice. I hope you all stay and we make this work...

Gotta make sure the avatars and signature pics are cleansed of off-site links also, right ?

It's going to make it easier to make outragous posts and say "prove me wrong." The only adequate response will be "that's just BS."

BTW, Obama thinks the economy is just fine and nothing else needs to be done. His Hollywood fundraisers aren't having any trouble raising money. McCain on the other hand is very concerned on the effects of the economy on ordinary people and those businesses still in America. He is proposing a new agency to look after the interests of main street America.

quote:

Originally posted by MaddogK:

quote:

Originally posted by THANKUVETS:
Well, I can promise you this, its not done to be mean, or anything, its just the way the owners want it, for whatever there reasons.

Just like you guys, us Mods have to abide by the rules also, we are told to enforce this set of rules or that set, we have to..

MY PERSONL OPINION on this and only that, will not affect me from doing what I have to do to enforce the rules, but I have linked from outside sources too, and just like everyone else will have to stop..

I hope no one leaves the site cause of it, but if they do they that is there choice. I hope you all stay and we make this work...

Gotta make sure the avatars and signature pics are cleansed of off-site links also, right ?

If this is about copyrighted material many avatars are obviously infringing on a copyright. Even if they are posted by the user on military.com it is still violating the copyright. Sports logos, comic book characters, even cute flash animations are usually copyrighted. Are all those going to go away as well?

quote:

Originally posted by hooah71:

quote:

Originally posted by The_Bonesaw:

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:

They did? I suppose that is a good thing since he really had a hard time fitting in....being the square peg that he was...

I am sure he will fair well.

Dave, I know you had your own personal issues with Mach, but he was an asset to this forum. He was a regular contributer and probably the smartest contributer this site ever had. The IQ of these forums dropped by half the moment they banned him. You've been a friend to me, Dave, but Mach has been a far closer one... and I take umbrage at your "square peg" shot.

It was also kind of underhanded the way they banned him without letting anyone else here know about it. No tag, no warning... just quietly left his posts intact and permanently denied him further access.

I guess they didn't want the brouhaha of people like me coming to his defense. I didn't mention it up till now because there really wasn't any purpose in doing so.

Mach got banned? WTF? Why did he get banned? I tell you, this place really is going to the crapper. Oldmole, USMC, and Mach?

See you on the far side??

quote:

Originally posted by SLDO:

quote:

Originally posted by hooah71:

quote:

Originally posted by The_Bonesaw:

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:

They did? I suppose that is a good thing since he really had a hard time fitting in....being the square peg that he was...

I am sure he will fair well.

Dave, I know you had your own personal issues with Mach, but he was an asset to this forum. He was a regular contributer and probably the smartest contributer this site ever had. The IQ of these forums dropped by half the moment they banned him. You've been a friend to me, Dave, but Mach has been a far closer one... and I take umbrage at your "square peg" shot.

It was also kind of underhanded the way they banned him without letting anyone else here know about it. No tag, no warning... just quietly left his posts intact and permanently denied him further access.

I guess they didn't want the brouhaha of people like me coming to his defense. I didn't mention it up till now because there really wasn't any purpose in doing so.

Mach got banned? WTF? Why did he get banned? I tell you, this place really is going to the crapper. Oldmole, USMC, and Mach?

See you on the far side??

I guess so....but where is the "far side"?

"The Far Side" is a registered trademark of Gary Larson. Better remove all reference to it.

Mountains out of mole hills - -

quote:

Originally posted by bill_kananen:
"The Far Side" is a registered trademark of Gary Larson. Better remove all reference to it.

This could turn out to be a lot of fun. No links, no cooberation... nothing to stand in the way. Whatever is posted the most becomes the truth.