Well? Could it, or is the SDMB considered a no trespass zone because it is a privately owned message board?
I point you to the bottom of every page where the copyright disclaimer is located. Google archives USENET, to which nobody holds a copyright. I suppose Google could archive SDMB, but they wouldn’t be able to make it available to anyone without the express written consent of Chicago Reader, Inc.
But isn’t there a ton of copyrighted stuff available on the web? Not wanting to be overly dense, but just what a copyright on something publically accessible on the web mean anyway? Doesn’t the BBS seach engine “Boardreader” already scroll up all our copyrighted stuff for access without the SDMB permission?
If something is simply providing a search link to the SDMB (like Google) how is it violating copyright?
I don’t think it’s off limits. Look as this.
Seems OK to me, and I think the SDMB has explictly allowed it by Boardreader.
In case that cache link doesn’t work, I typed in “astro SDMB” on Boardreader, and ended up with a list like this:
If you click the thread title there, it brings you to the thread here. If you click the “Cached” at the bottom, it brings up its own “snapshot” of the page, much like google.
Heh, I just enetered the same into Google, and got this.
Since this is a question about this message board, I’ll move this thread to ATMB.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
Technically, every page that google archives is illegal since they did not get prior consent from the admin.
In practise, since they allow anybody who does not want to be archived to “opt out”, they have never been in legal trouble. If the SMDB found that google had been archiving them and then asked them to stop, Google would stop and there would be no grounds for a legal case.
bib, this thread is only tangentally related to any message board. It’s a copyright issue, and therefore belongs in GQ for a factual discussion of copyright law as it applies to the Internet and content there published.
(Jr. Mod second-guessing a Mod? When will it END?)
If Google was able to provide an effective search for the SDMB, I’d support it, if only because it would unload the SDMB server.
At certain times of the day, it seems like a pile of people log on, do searches, and the server can’t handle the load. Meanwhile, posts disappear or get double posted.
As long as the Chicago Reader doesn’t mind caches of SDMB pages in BoardReader and Google, et alia, then it is a good thing. As Desmostylus just said – it saves the hamsters.
The search engine sites aren’t claiming the caches as their own work. I don’t see a serious copyright breach, here.
How do you suppose a search engine obtains and maintains its databases? If google and the rest of them were allowed access to the SDMB then you’d find one search robot or other in here constantly doing a search and retrieve of every single thread it could get it’s hands on. I think that would cause a bit of a performance hit.
Futile Gesture, they do this right now, anyway. In terms of Google, a cache page is created in their database. Searching for keywords amongst caches is less consuming of the SDMB’s server, surely, than thousands of active users using the search function here.
As for BoardReader, they would appear to use a similar system.
The question in the OP is: is it legal to have caches of SDMB pages outside the home server? Unless the Reader sees a problem, it looks like it is.
Not true. Whenever a person produces any creative work and makes it available to others, that person automatically holds a copyright to it, regardless of whether they include a copyright notice. This would include USENET. It may be the case, however, that USENET copyrights are not enforced.
I have found SDMB pages in Google search lists on occassion. They just don’t seem to spider the SDMB very often at all.