No, because you have given them permission. Publishing to the web gives implied permission to your visitors (and your visitors only) to view and/or interact with your content.
This does NOT automatically give permission to those who choose to utilize your content (either from your own server or by taking your content and re-publishing it).
It is similar to taking the content of a magazine article (the entire article), and claiming it is yours. Fair use says that you can reprint the article as long as all copyright is attributed correctly, and it is used non-commercially (i.e. you get no money or other economic good from it). Typically, when discussing the Internet, it is also good practice to hyperlink to the original.
This relates to implied copyright to your material. If your website also include a copyright statement that lays out your permissions and copyright, then your visitors (and those who might choose to use your information) must stay within the permissions you have explicitly stated.
As for B above, you LEAVING a dollar bill on the ground, gives someone permission to take it. It is not a reasonable analogy to this situation.
the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor, or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully), and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used, and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.
This is the exact same definition found at Law.com
Using that definition, when one owns a domain, and owns a website, that is tacit ownership (tacit is defined as: Implied (as by an act or by silence) rather than express (a tacit admission)).
Hyperlinking has been previously defined in this forum, as versus hotlinking.
Copyright theft (or any other kind of intellectual theft) is "stealing something where nothing is lost" - there is actual LOSS. There is income loss, there is loss of reputation, and other losses (and if you don't think that loss of reputation is an actual loss, go talk to a lawyer - they will talk your ear off on how REAL the loss is).
Bandwidth theft is what is called a "tortious act" - Definition of TORT: n. from French for "wrong," a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another. Torts include all negligence cases as well as intentional wrongs which result in harm. Therefore tort law is one of the major areas of law (along with contract, real property and criminal law) and results in more civil litigation than any other category. Some intentional torts may also be crimes, such as assault, battery, wrongful death, fraud, conversion (a euphemism for theft) and trespass on property and form the basis for a lawsuit for damages by the injured party. Defamation, including intentionally telling harmful untruths about another-either by print or broadcast (libel) or orally (slander)-is a tort and used to be a crime as well. DEFINITION OF TORTIOUS ACT: adj. referring to an act which is a tort (civil wrong).
Illegal acts committed against private persons or corporations, sometimes do not fall into the sphere of criminal justice and are therefore required to fall into the sphere of civil justice. Such is the case with bandwidth theft, as well as copyright infringement.
This situation fits within these definitions and situations.
Stealing bandwidth is just like any other form of stealing. It is wrong, and illegal.
LINKING (i.e. hyperlinking) is not, because it sends the visitor to the other site, offering the other site the chance to get a positive out of that visitor - even if only an ego boost.
While I disagree with one of the methods used to deal with this issue (e.g. the redirect to slaughterhouses), I believe he had every right to change his content to show Fuddruckers that they had a felon working for them.
Personally, I would have added to the note that they could expect my lawyer to contact them on Tuesday, when things reopened.
Frankly, the new redirect to Google makes Fuddruckers now look "sympathetic" to the mass media, (as well as the redirects to the slaughterhouses), because it pushes the fear/rage against "hackers."
He had an opportunity not just for simple advertising, but frankly, to sue them for illegal use. Now, he is likely to be treated as a felon himself for "illegally hacking" a business site.
Slashdot Mirror
No, because you have given them permission. Publishing to the web gives implied permission to your visitors (and your visitors only) to view and/or interact with your content. This does NOT automatically give permission to those who choose to utilize your content (either from your own server or by taking your content and re-publishing it). It is similar to taking the content of a magazine article (the entire article), and claiming it is yours. Fair use says that you can reprint the article as long as all copyright is attributed correctly, and it is used non-commercially (i.e. you get no money or other economic good from it). Typically, when discussing the Internet, it is also good practice to hyperlink to the original. This relates to implied copyright to your material. If your website also include a copyright statement that lays out your permissions and copyright, then your visitors (and those who might choose to use your information) must stay within the permissions you have explicitly stated. As for B above, you LEAVING a dollar bill on the ground, gives someone permission to take it. It is not a reasonable analogy to this situation.
- The Legal Definition of Theft - from The Legal Dictionary found at FreeDictionary.com
- Using that definition, when one owns a domain, and owns a website, that is tacit ownership (tacit is defined as: Implied (as by an act or by silence) rather than express (a tacit admission)).
- Hyperlinking has been previously defined in this forum, as versus hotlinking.
- Copyright theft (or any other kind of intellectual theft) is "stealing something where nothing is lost" - there is actual LOSS. There is income loss, there is loss of reputation, and other losses (and if you don't think that loss of reputation is an actual loss, go talk to a lawyer - they will talk your ear off on how REAL the loss is).
- Bandwidth theft is what is called a "tortious act" - Definition of TORT: n. from French for "wrong," a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another. Torts include all negligence cases as well as intentional wrongs which result in harm. Therefore tort law is one of the major areas of law (along with contract, real property and criminal law) and results in more civil litigation than any other category. Some intentional torts may also be crimes, such as assault, battery, wrongful death, fraud, conversion (a euphemism for theft) and trespass on property and form the basis for a lawsuit for damages by the injured party. Defamation, including intentionally telling harmful untruths about another-either by print or broadcast (libel) or orally (slander)-is a tort and used to be a crime as well. DEFINITION OF TORTIOUS ACT: adj. referring to an act which is a tort (civil wrong).
- Illegal acts committed against private persons or corporations, sometimes do not fall into the sphere of criminal justice and are therefore required to fall into the sphere of civil justice. Such is the case with bandwidth theft, as well as copyright infringement.
This situation fits within these definitions and situations.theft n.
the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor, or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully), and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used, and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.This is the exact same definition found at Law.com
Look, you obviously do not have a clue.
Stealing bandwidth is just like any other form of stealing. It is wrong, and illegal.
LINKING (i.e. hyperlinking) is not, because it sends the visitor to the other site, offering the other site the chance to get a positive out of that visitor - even if only an ego boost.
While I disagree with one of the methods used to deal with this issue (e.g. the redirect to slaughterhouses), I believe he had every right to change his content to show Fuddruckers that they had a felon working for them.
Personally, I would have added to the note that they could expect my lawyer to contact them on Tuesday, when things reopened.
Frankly, the new redirect to Google makes Fuddruckers now look "sympathetic" to the mass media, (as well as the redirects to the slaughterhouses), because it pushes the fear/rage against "hackers."
He had an opportunity not just for simple advertising, but frankly, to sue them for illegal use. Now, he is likely to be treated as a felon himself for "illegally hacking" a business site.