Slashdot Mirror
Newsbooster Creates P2P Newsbrowser
scubacuda writes "Newsbooster, the Danish company that got busted for deep-linking to newspaper stories, has created a new P2P version of its service to get around European law. Newsbooster's "Newsbrowser" software works like Kazaa - users download the software and it networks their computers together, instead of serving up files from a single server."
I suppose what is needed is some sort of cross between
Or maybe just bloody mirror the links...
Cool, but useless.
Wait a minute, they're deep-linking, against European law, in cyberspace, where we can't claim they're under our legislation, since they're not in out country?
;)
Bomb them!
Seriously though:
Could people 'fake' news through this net?
I mean, what format are they using? Someone could (theorically, for now) break the format, and post any news he wants (or rather, links to what he wants) that seem like Newsbooster's content
This whole story is interesting: It seems that any law on Internet content can be solved with a decentralized network.
This could also make internet traffic very interesting - everyone will always be connected to several networks - one for music/video/files, one for news, one for subversive terrorist activity.
Im sorry, did I write that out loud?
<bad UF reference>Then we could run a TCP/IP network on top of that...</bad>
My other
I haven't been able to dig up more on the story. How are the appeals going, for example? I'm not sure it is a good idea to route around the court before you have gone through all possible appeals, especially since they've got TimBL on their side.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
The RIAA is only upset with P2P networking because of the illegal MP3 sharing. Legal-wise, they have the ammunition they need - people use it to do illegal things
If I didn't totally misunderstand the article, deep-linking is not illegal everywhere - just in Denmark where the company resides, and maybe several other countries. Deep-linking from the P2P network has not been pronounced illegal in any court (it is not even under any jurisdiction, except maybe the computer client's country) and in most countries actions are legal until pronounced otherwise (at least in law they are)
It seems at first that deep-linking might cause a Newsbooster's reader to think they wrote the article the link is sending to, thus hurting the credit-per-bandwidth of the real news company's server.
However, if anyone uses the P2P network, he'll be aware of all these issues, and will know the links simply refer to other news companies. Their reputation is not damaged - it would be excatly the same as if he entered on their main page, and clicked an article he liked
No one's work is being ripped off in any way - when you click on a link on newsbooster.com (try it!) you reach a news website - you can't ignore it - you see the headline, a link to the news site's home, etc.
You'd have to be very thick to believe newsbooster.com wrote the article the link refers to. They're providing an index (portal?) of news articles, and nothing seems to suggest otherwise.
You might as well sue TV guides for "deep-linking" into the TV - after all, someone might only open his TV set at 5:00pm, without seeing all the great crap they showed before!
There is no real difference between opening a TV set on a second show in a row of three than opening a web browser into the middle of someone's site, skipping the main page.
I think I've yammered enough.
My other
Simple question - simple answer:
The last I heard, the first time a company sued over "deep-linking", it's claim was simple:
People clicking this link, they said, would think the site's author wrote the content they arrive at, thus destroying our reputation, causing confusion.
People need to go through our main page, they said, for them to fully register the fact that this company wrote this content and should recieve credit for it.
The complete change in style, colors, and the company logo is obviously not enough.
My other
How is this useful for Americans?
You wouldn't be interested, it's called NEWS.
I must've been asleep. Hyperlinks to a publicly accessible file are illegal?
Me: "Hey random friend, you should check out this book at the library. It's not in their index, but it's on the shelf so nobody really knows about it. It's really informative."
Librarian: "No, that book isn't in our index yet. It might be on the shelf for public consumption, but you can't tell people it's there before we do. *calls police*"
"The image is a dream. The beauty is real. Can you see the difference?" -- Richard Bach, Illusions
The problem I have with these anti-deep link policies is that there are multiple ways to prevent a deep link using stupid server tricks.
Why are these people turning to the lawyers to make deep links illegal, why they could just turn to their IT guys to make deep links impossible?