| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Jasper Janssen writes:
> > > > That's the same logic as "Anything in a store is for sale, that's what a
> > > > store is FOR."
>
> Anything in a store _is_ for sale. Anything that isn't for sale isn't
> _in_ the store, it's _a part of_ the store.
>
> That's the only way for the analogy of the web to a store even to
> remotely work.
>
> > Nope, it's not. It's a very close analogy to what Jasper posted:
> > "Yes, it is. Anything on an unsecured webserver is being published."
> > Which you refute much more logically below.
>
> No he doesn't. He agrees with me in every regard.
No, you're defining webserver differently. I'm not going to bother quibbling
semantics with you.
> > As a real-life example, there is a directory on
> > <http:www.shades-of-night.com> that gets pictures and documents posted to it
> > to make them available to friends of ours who can't (for whatever reason)
> > receive them via e-mail. Are they "published"? No.
>
> Yes. It's available via the webserver, in what is commonly known in
> technical terms as "the public area".
No. "in a place public can get to" != publically available != published. The
three of them often co-incide, but do not necessarily do so.
> Ask a judge.
Sorry, I don't have one handy.
> > As another example, what if I receive an e-mail from company X, because I'm a
> > loyal customer. It gives me a code that I can enter on their website that
> > takes me to a "special offers" area where I can get a deal on product A. The
> > information on the other side of that code could be linked directly by a URL,
> > but it certainly isn't meant to be publically available.
>
> If it can, it's a very poorly designed website. I think you'll find it
> can't in most cases. And, quite frankly, posting the link to such
> would not constitute a breach of copyright. Reproducing the code,
> OTOH, would.
Ah! I see the problem here - you're arguing legalities. I don't care two
hoots for the legalities of the issue, I'm talking common courtesy.
People keep citing Matthew's example of front window/back window. I would be
inclined to say that it's more like peering over the fence. I can do it,
nothing to prevent me, but that doesn't necessarily make it polite.
> > Certainly it is the originators right to determine "intent to publish", not
> > Joe Public.
>
> Oh. So if I print a few hundred folders, crop-dust them over the inner
> city, then say that everyone who's read it, or shown it to friends, or
> given it away has violated my copyright because I didn't intend to
> publish it, I have a leg to stand on?
You're being ridiculous - the analogy fails on several levels. For one thing,
the actions you describe are intent to publish.
> > I could give other examples as well, and I'm not even remotely an expert.
>
> Probably equally easily disproved.
Joe Web Designer snaps and decides he hates his boss. He removes the firewall
protection, and posts a URL to the accounts receivable information.
Joe Hacker decides to have a little fun, and hacks around on foo.com until he
finds a hole through the firewall, or a password that gets him through the
incryption. He pulls the information through, and turns foo.com into a splash
page with next years product line.
Joe Web Designer mistypes a line in a script, and loads all the employee's
payroll information to the wrong server, and now it's on the www page.
But it doesn't really matter. You're talking legalities - Yes, I agree, if
it's on the public side of a firewall, it's "legally" public. But like I said
above, I don't care about the legalities of it, I'm talking about politeness.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
