Slashdot Mirror


Web Copyright Crackdown On the Way

Hugh Pickens writes "Journalist Alan D. Mutter reports on his blog 'Reflections of a Newsosaur' that a coalition of traditional and digital publishers is launching the first-ever concerted crackdown on copyright pirates on the Web. Initially targeting violators who use large numbers of intact articles, the first offending sites to be targeted will be those using 80% or more of copyrighted stories more than 10 times per month. In the first stage of a multi-step process, online publishers identified by Silicon Valley startup Attributor will be sent a letter informing them of the violations and urging them to enter into license agreements with the publishers whose content appears on their sites. In the second stage Attributor will ask hosting services to take down pirate sites. 'We are not going after past damages' from sites running unauthorized content says Jim Pitkow, the chief executive of Attributor. The emphasis, Pitkow says is 'to engage with publishers to bring them into compliance' by getting them to agree to pay license fees to copyright holders in the future. Offshore sites will not be immune from the crackdown: almost all of them depend on banner ads served by US-based services, and the DMCA requires the ad service to act against any violator. Attributor says it can interdict the revenue lifeline at any offending site in the world." One possible weakness in Attributor's business plan, unless they intend to violate the robots.txt convention: they find violators by crawling the Web.

6 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Robots.txt by yincrash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously. Following robots.txt is not law, only convention. I'm sure it doesn't take much to convince themselves to ignore it. Money, "doing the right thing", etc. If you view the copyright infringers as pirates, then why should Attributor follow their wishes?

  2. Re:Robots.txt by notgm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is there some written law that holds people to following robots.txt? if not, how is it even possible to call it a weakness?

  3. Re:i'm a little clueless here by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This one.

    On the other hand, that's an utterly asinine comment to have made (the one you quote, not yours). Of course they'll ignore it, why on Earth wouldn't they? It is in no way binding, and robots are free to ignore it, just as site owners are free to block connections from specific incoming IP addresses, the owners of those IPs are free to switch to new ones, and so on, ad infinitum.

  4. Lessoned learned from RIAA by KnownIssues · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds like they've learned their lesson from the RIAA. I'm not saying I agree with them and think they are right to do this. But, if you're going to try to enforce your interpretation of the law, this is at least a sane philosophy of doing so. Not going after damages is a smart move.

  5. Please do so by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And in the process take down all those inane blogs whose sole purpose is to scrape and repost articles so they get an advertising hit.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Please do so by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And in the process find all the commercial sites using my copyrighted Flickr photos for their own purposes without my permission or payment. I'm tired of sending invoices and dealing with companies who tell you that your photo wasn't worth the $300 you charge and instead send you $50 thinking that it will clear up the matter.

      I love the hypocrisy of all of this. They are just as much at fault as any of those aggregation blogs. They just have more money to be a pain in the ass.