Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jimor]

Ugh, so not cool. http://comics.jodal.no/

There's a feedback box on the site to let this guy know what he's doing is not only illegal, but damaging to the many artists he pretends to support.

[jwhouk]

Clicking on the link, however, gives him traffic to his website.

Maybe find out who his IP host is and report him for illegal activity.

[Tiogyr]

Clicking on the link, however, gives him traffic to his website.

Maybe find out who his IP host is and report him for illegal activity.

It looks like he's set up a script to automatically load and archive whatever he considers to be the "Top webcomics" on the web, since he does give credit underneath each strip entry with the url he originally got them from.

Not technically illegal, since he is giving credit and sources.

There are other similar aggregator sites for different media (though the next nearest site I can think of does the same thing for news stories, plus it is far more professional-looking as far as the interface goes).

[akronnick]

Saying who you stole it from doesn't make it not stealing.

It's still stealing.

There is no fair use justification for what this site is doing. He's simply stealing traffic, and therefore ad revenue from the artists involved.

[IMMANotListening]

I wasn't aware people could do something like that. The whole stealing of that many comics and traffic, I mean, not the scripting.

Considering how much material he's trafficking, shouldn't someone have called him out by now?

[Jimor]

Since you have to click a link to go to each comic on his site anyway, his script could just as easily find the new comics posted and list the links directly to the real comic sites.

[cesariojpn]

I wasn't aware people could do something like that.

Hello, and welcome to the Internet. Here is your complimentary soda and 14 year old......

[Skewbrow]

Stop that man! He is stealing the internet.

I have problems understanding many a legal concept related to internet, but exactly how does this differ from what Google is doing?
Collecting data published by others and using it to generate traffic. Just in smaller scale. If there is an actual copyright violation, then, sure, fry his ass, but if he would do it by providing links (as suggested by Jimor), then I fail to see the difference.

FYI: I keep adblock on for many a site (not QC, as the ads there are not so disturbing, but e.g. anything originating from google.analytics is blocked - at least I like to think it is - as I don't want to partake a massive marketing research project) and prefer to support the sites I enjoy with the donate button.

[pwhodges]

The problem with talking about the law and the Internet is that the Internet does not respect country boundaries. Also that it deals in concepts that the law is only vaguely aware of.  So the law, such as it is, varies between countries, but it is often not clear what country's law should be applicable.  A summary that has notes on a number of major cases in several countries related to deep linking is given on Wikipedia.  There seems to be an element in the current consensus that if you can't stop it, you should find words to justify it.

[idontunderstand]

Unless he's getting money for hosting other people's works (in any way, if more visitors gain him economic advantages in some way) there's no way you can get him using norwegian intellectual property law. Not American either, as far as I know, not sure there though.

It's what lawyers call "a dick move".

[NotAwesomeAnymore]

People who host music and movie downloads might not make money, but they're still pirating. Is this different?

Though it took years of assholery to bring down The Pirate Bay, so I don't know what can come of this...

[stoutfiles]

Stop that man! He is stealing the internet.

I have problems understanding many a legal concept related to internet, but exactly how does this differ from what Google is doing?
Collecting data published by others and using it to generate traffic. Just in smaller scale. If there is an actual copyright violation, then, sure, fry his ass, but if he would do it by providing links (as suggested by Jimor), then I fail to see the difference.

FYI: I keep adblock on for many a site (not QC, as the ads there are not so disturbing, but e.g. anything originating from google.analytics is blocked - at least I like to think it is - as I don't want to partake a massive marketing research project) and prefer to support the sites I enjoy with the donate button.

Google, along with other search engines, can be blocked in a robots.txt file in the root folder of a website.  That isn't a big deal.

I can't be bothered to go to that guys website, but is he hosting the images himself or just embedding them from the QC site?  If it's the latter, Jeph can change his server settings to block all images that are viewed outside the QC website.

[Tiogyr]

Stop that man! He is stealing the internet.

I have problems understanding many a legal concept related to internet, but exactly how does this differ from what Google is doing?
Collecting data published by others and using it to generate traffic. Just in smaller scale. If there is an actual copyright violation, then, sure, fry his ass, but if he would do it by providing links (as suggested by Jimor), then I fail to see the difference.

FYI: I keep adblock on for many a site (not QC, as the ads there are not so disturbing, but e.g. anything originating from google.analytics is blocked - at least I like to think it is - as I don't want to partake a massive marketing research project) and prefer to support the sites I enjoy with the donate button.

Google, along with other search engines, can be blocked in a robots.txt file in the root folder of a website.  That isn't a big deal.

I can't be bothered to go to that guys website, but is he hosting the images himself or just embedding them from the QC site?  If it's the latter, Jeph can change his server settings to block all images that are viewed outside the QC website.

He is hosting them himself, with credits underneath each comic listing the author and a link back to the author's website.

From the About page for the website:

comics is a web comics aggregator. Out of the box it can crawl and archive more than a hundred comics every day. The comics are made available through an easy to use web interface were multiple users can create sets of their favorite comics. Alternatively, comics provides feeds of both single comics and sets of comics.

So it's basically a web browser version of those multiple webcomic viewer apps for the various smartphones out there.

[idontunderstand]

People who host music and movie downloads might not make money, but they're still pirating. Is this different?

Though it took years of assholery to bring down The Pirate Bay, so I don't know what can come of this...

No but they (supposedly) cause economical damage to the people who created the original works. This can probably not be said with Jeph's comic, since it's a free webcomic.

[stoutfiles]

If Jeph cares he can send a DMCA notice to both the site owner and to Google.  This works 99% of the time.

[benji]

I have problems understanding many a legal concept related to internet, but exactly how does this differ from what Google is doing?
Collecting data published by others and using it to generate traffic. Just in smaller scale. If there is an actual copyright violation, then, sure, fry his ass, but if he would do it by providing links (as suggested by Jimor), then I fail to see the difference.

FYI: I keep adblock on for many a site (not QC, as the ads there are not so disturbing, but e.g. anything originating from google.analytics is blocked - at least I like to think it is - as I don't want to partake a massive marketing research project) and prefer to support the sites I enjoy with the donate button.

Google links back to the original website. Thus, ultimately, it is the original website and not Google that gets the hit when you actually read the information.

No but they (supposedly) cause economical damage to the people who created the original works. This can probably not be said with Jeph's comic, since it's a free webcomic.

The economic model that Jeph uses relies on add revenue. Advertisers pay based on the number of hits a website receives. If a website like this one were to take away hits, it would be doing demonstrable harm to Jeph's bottom line.

[idontunderstand]

No but they (supposedly) cause economical damage to the people who created the original works. This can probably not be said with Jeph's comic, since it's a free webcomic.

The economic model that Jeph uses relies on add revenue. Advertisers pay based on the number of hits a website receives. If a website like this one were to take away hits, it would be doing demonstrable harm to Jeph's bottom line.

A possible way but not a clear area.

[Skewbrow]

Just to be clear: my instincts for what's right are on Jeph's side here (if there is any damage).

The article on court rulings (link given in pwhodges' post in this thread) makes for interesting reading. It sounds like this guy is breaking the copyright law given that he keeps copies of the strips on his server. If he only provided the links that would be basically ok, but if the links go 'deep' and by-pass the target sites advertising, then we're in the grey area, and that's what those rulings are about. I couldn't help getting the feeling that basically the courts were saying that search engines give such a cool public service that we really can't ban deep linking, and we wouldn't know how/why anyway, so ...

I am not yet totally comfortable with the business model of advertisers paying per hit. I realize that we're heading in that direction, but I don't like it basically because I don't have any control of it. How it is done? Using cookies? I hate it when just about every site throws cookies. Basically because I don't know. why they need to do that (unless it is for things like storing my login data as is happening for example here)? I like it when sites provide the alternative of "a membership for a modest fee", and as a side benefit the ads are gone. Jeph doesn't have pop-ups, flashing images and such so the advertising on his site is fine with me (or may be the pop-up blocker add-on really is working?)

[Carl-E]

No, Jeph's ads are pretty low-key.  The tracking of hits is usually done on the server side, based on requests from unique IP addresses, so they know if you're a "new" visitor or a repeat for that day's ads.  No cookies necessary. 

Doesn't mean that some sites don't put them there anyway...

[Tanksenior]

People who host music and movie downloads might not make money, but they're still pirating. Is this different?

Though it took years of assholery to bring down The Pirate Bay, so I don't know what can come of this...

What are you talking about? The Pirate Bay isn't down......

[trebach]

Unless he's getting money for hosting other people's works (in any way, if more visitors gain him economic advantages in some way) there's no way you can get him using norwegian intellectual property law. Not American either, as far as I know, not sure there though.

It's what lawyers call "a dick move".

The WHOIS provides another avenue for legal recourse.

% This is the RIPE Database query service.
% The objects are in RPSL format.
%
% The RIPE Database is subject to Terms and Conditions.
% See http://www.ripe.net/db/support/db-terms-conditions.pdf

% Note: this output has been filtered.
%       To receive output for a database update, use the "-B" flag.

% Information related to '178.79.136.0 - 178.79.143.255'

inetnum:         178.79.136.0 - 178.79.143.255
netname:         LINODE-UK
descr:           Linode, LLC
country:         GB
admin-c:         TA2589-RIPE
tech-c:          TA2589-RIPE
tech-c:          LA538-RIPE
remarks:         This block is used for static customer allocations
remarks:         Please send abuse reports to [email protected]
status:          ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by:          Linode-mnt
source:          RIPE # Filtered

person:          Thomas Asaro
address:         329 E. Jimmie Leeds Road, Suite A, Galloway, NJ 08205, USA
phone:           +16095937103
nic-hdl:         TA2589-RIPE
mnt-by:          Linode-mnt
source:          RIPE # Filtered

person:          Linode Abuse Support
address:         329 E. Jimmie Leeds Road, Suite A, Galloway, NJ 08205, USA
phone:           +16095937103
abuse-mailbox:   [email protected]
nic-hdl:         LA538-RIPE
mnt-by:          Linode-mnt
source:          RIPE # Filtered

% Information related to '178.79.128.0/18AS15830'

route:           178.79.128.0/18
descr:           Linode-2
origin:          AS15830
mnt-by:          Linode-mnt
source:          RIPE # Filtered

Linode can be forced to take down the material under a DMCA request.

[idontunderstand]

Hmm no idea what you're talking about to be honest. Explain? DMCA? WHOIS?

[pwhodges]

WHOIS - means of looking up owners of Internet resources (has been part of the structure of the Internet from quite early times).

DMCA - Digital Millennium Copyright Act; a US copyright law particularly concerned with the control of digital access to copyright works.

[Is it cold in here?]

There's a famous reply, which I don't remember well enough to find, from a Swedish outfit to a US company who sent them a DMCA takedown notice. It was well-formed ridicule, containing sentences similar to "Please be advised of a fact that may surprise you, which is that Sweden is not part of the US".

[dragontart]

It could be this one. http://static.thepiratebay.org/dreamworks_response.txt Or others of that kind http://thepiratebay.org/legal .

[Is it cold in here?]

Bingo. Thank you for finding it.

[idontunderstand]

Mm, kinda funny, but it's bollocks that US law could not apply. Intellectual property rights are not limited to national territories.

Thinking of sending a threatening email to that Norwegian bastard though. Opinions?

[pwhodges]

Mm, kinda funny, but it's bollocks that US law could not apply. Intellectual property rights are not limited to national territories.

No, US law does not apply outside the US.  To the extent that there are treaties between nations agreeing to it, there may be harmonisation of laws, and arrangements for deportation where appropriate, but the US does not have jurisdiction over a server in Sweden.

Even basic copyright is not uniform throughout the world - different countries have different terms, for instance (Canada 50 years, USA 70 years, Mexico 100 years). 

I am not aware that the DMCA is taken to apply anywhere outside the USA, though.

[dragontart]

I am not aware that the DMCA is taken to apply anywhere outside the USA, though.

Not by that name, but Germany has very strict laws concerning at least artistic intellectual property which seems to be the same, basically. (This is why youtube is of the opinion that 80% (uneducated guess) of it's "content is not available in [my] country".)

[pwhodges]

Oh, indeed - and the UK has similar laws.  But that's emphatically not the same as claiming that US law applies outside the US!

[wrwight]

I am not aware that the DMCA is taken to apply anywhere outside the USA, though.

Not by that name, but Germany has very strict laws concerning at least artistic intellectual property which seems to be the same, basically. (This is why youtube is of the opinion that 80% (uneducated guess) of it's "content is not available in [my] country".)

Continuing off-topic for a moment:
Isn't that the most annoying thing? I was looking for a song the other day that wasn't released in the US, only in Germany, and I found it on YouTube, only to get the "not available..." message. Until then I had thought it was just kind of strange, but since then I've always wondered what criteria they use for blocking.

[idontunderstand]

Oh, indeed - and the UK has similar laws.  But that's emphatically not the same as claiming that US law applies outside the US!

Indeed. But that's not what I said. The court decides which law to apply, (which will usually be the one of the defendant) which could in that very case well be US law. The crucial question will be the location of the crime, which can be said to be both the USA and Sweden.

EDIT: Uh, granted the court has jurisdiction at all.

[Skewbrow]

Eh? Isn't this server in Norway, not Sweden? Or are you talking about the Pirate Bay case now?

In neither case would a US court have much to say about it (and most likely would not hear the case). If the server were run by a company that also operates in USA, then you might give it a try.

[stoutfiles]

Mm, kinda funny, but it's bollocks that US law could not apply. Intellectual property rights are not limited to national territories.

No, US law does not apply outside the US.  To the extent that there are treaties between nations agreeing to it, there may be harmonisation of laws, and arrangements for deportation where appropriate, but the US does not have jurisdiction over a server in Sweden.

Even basic copyright is not uniform throughout the world - different countries have different terms, for instance (Canada 50 years, USA 70 years, Mexico 100 years). 

I am not aware that the DMCA is taken to apply anywhere outside the USA, though.

The DMCA will remove him from Google search results which is painful.

However, this is all moot.  If Jeph wants to stop this he can either contact the webmaster, the host of the webmaster, or just block the offending Norwegian IP address.  All three will work, especially the third option.  Why doesn't a moderator just contact Jeph about it and see if he even cares?  If so, we can assist any option he wants to choose.

[Skewbrow]

... or he could take it to a Norwegian court that has jurisdiction over the server. Probably not worth his while, if a technical solution like blocking a server (but that may move!) is available.

[pwhodges]

Why doesn't a moderator just contact Jeph about it

Or maybe one has done.

[idontunderstand]

Eh? Isn't this server in Norway, not Sweden? Or are you talking about the Pirate Bay case now?

In neither case would a US court have much to say about it (and most likely would not hear the case). If the server were run by a company that also operates in USA, then you might give it a try.

Yur, meant the PB case. A US court wouldn't apply another nation's law, but that's just cause US judges are stubborn little bitches. There have been numerous European cases where another nation's law was applied, because of some foreign element in the ruling.

[Skewbrow]

Eh? Isn't this server in Norway, not Sweden? Or are you talking about the Pirate Bay case now?

In neither case would a US court have much to say about it (and most likely would not hear the case). If the server were run by a company that also operates in USA, then you might give it a try.

Yur, meant the PB case. A US court wouldn't apply another nation's law, but that's just cause US judges are stubborn little bitches. There have been numerous European cases where another nation's law was applied, because of some foreign element in the ruling.

Really? I have always thought it is enough for a judge to be familiar with the local law. I know that EU strives to harmonise the laws in Europe, and a lot of progress and convergence has taken place - even across the civil law/ common law border that separates the British Isles from the rest of EU. Still, I would not expect any average court to be able to apply the law of another sovereign nation. May be they have tried to do that when ruling, e.g. in an international custody dispute? IDK.

The international court of justice in The Hague is, of course, a notable exception to that, as it seeks to apply international law.

[idontunderstand]

Yes, it has been applied in custody cases, as well as maritime lien cases and other private law cases. I'm sort of realizing I haven't been very clear. The court does not apply the other nations law as a whole, rather certain relevant portions of it, where necessary (American courts usually refuse to do so, though). Not sure about the PB case though. I just find it idiotic to use that as a defence: "Sweden is not a state of the US, therefore swedes can do what the fuck they want against american citizens". Copyright infringements are crimes in Sweden as well as the US. And to in the same mail threaten with a law suit for harassment. So they can't sue you, but you can sue them? Nice.

Of course, if the copyright infringement would not have been a crime in Sweden, nothing would happen. But it is, so what are they on about? Don't get it.

[Skewbrow]

Well the exchanges in that link were surely handpicked by the PB people, so we can't really read too much into that - other than their 'we couldn't care less' -attitude. Also, a Swedish court found the PB dudes guilty. A ruling by the Swedish supreme court on their appeal is due later this year. Meanwhile, in May a Finnish organization responsible for protecting the rights of the artists is seeking a court order commanding all the major internet service providers in Finland to block access to the PB site from their customers. I am not up to date on the status of that case. Surely similar legal actions are being attempted in other countries as well. Those were simply the two first hits I found.

Edit/addendum:

Yes, it has been applied in custody cases, as well as maritime lien cases and other private law cases. I'm sort of realizing I haven't been very clear. The court does not apply the other nations law as a whole, rather certain relevant portions of it, where necessary (American courts usually refuse to do so, though).

I vaguely recall that (presumably with the well-being of the children in mind) there is an international agreement that in an international custody dispute the law of the last country, where the family had lived together would apply. I don't know how many countries have signed that particular treaty. The reluctance of US courts to apply, say, European law may simply have something to do with that civil law/common law differences in practice. One side emphasizes the letter of the law, the other the precedents. A lawyer at our university told me once that the reluctance is mutual. We were told in unmistakable words not to sign a research contract saying that eventual disputes are to be settled in an American or British court for this very reason.

[idontunderstand]

I'm starting to feel we are in the wrong forum! 

The reluctance to apply foreign law I would not say is really mutual, although for example UK courts also are pretty stubborn with that (probably because they stick to their common law system and refuse to recognize anything else!). It's quite common practice in for example Sweden though.

Yeah the PB trial, not really familiar with that one (yet). But let's not get too sidetracked..

pwhodges, let us know what the guy answers! 

[idontunderstand]

Good read: http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/29336/11338009191lucas_en.pdf/lucas_en.pdf

[jwhouk]

Wow... major headache city, and I actually don't mind reading documents like that at times.

[dr. nervioso]

There's something I never understood about international laws. It's one thing to allow this within a nation, but internationally, why are countries able to disregard where the copyrighted object is from? In cases of conflicting international law, I believe that they should either make a compromise or have the law apply too the court of the victim, to ensure the rights promised to them by their country are upheld.

In regards to the site specifically- Stupid internet people be stupid

[idontunderstand]

Wow... major headache city, and I actually don't mind reading documents like that at times.

Basically it just says that things are unclear..  :mrjavascript:void(0);green:

[stoutfiles]

Why doesn't a moderator just contact Jeph about it

Or maybe one has done.

And what did he say?

[pwhodges]

I've had no response, though.

[jwhouk]

Well, the man IS in San Diego right now.