tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post6982959526346168137..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Project Blue Book, John Greenewald and the LatestKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-91894567189368701282015-02-03T11:07:06.842-08:002015-02-03T11:07:06.842-08:00@Sarge
These outfits are in business to make money...@Sarge<br />These outfits are in business to make money, period. <br />.<br />Example: there are at least two websites that provide charitable organizations tax returns (public by law) for free.<br />There are at least two websites that charge for the same thing. They call that a 'business plan'. I call it a 'blood-sucking parasite'. The web is full of it; companies selling public domain material. <br />.<br />I'd almost like to see a return to IP addresses, and the demise of URLS and domain names. It might reduce the clutter.<br />.<br />I gotta go...alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547680170328747214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-20475825848094408442015-02-03T09:09:03.330-08:002015-02-03T09:09:03.330-08:00Ancestry.com has recently started to tighten its p...Ancestry.com has recently started to tighten its public access and has closed many if not all of their once public access services and sites.<br />This may be no more than an attempt to insure that their now paying subscribers have sole access to their material.<br />Giving them credit to start with may have been a mistake since the files were public domain. Sargehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04038947773327250058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-10796128767993696172015-02-02T15:22:49.042-08:002015-02-02T15:22:49.042-08:00@kg
.
Bridgeman v. Corel makes no mention of TOS o...@kg<br />.<br />Bridgeman v. Corel makes no mention of TOS or any stipulations. Bridgeman should have had a TOS set up before allowing distribution. <br />.<br />fold3 is NOT a copyright case. Fighting the TOS is a fools errand. There are already precedents. <br />.<br />John could win the DMCA issue, but not the TOS, unless fold3 decided not to file a TOS suit. That's highly unlikely... <br />...alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547680170328747214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-57768647853765542822015-02-02T09:27:15.370-08:002015-02-02T09:27:15.370-08:00Re Copyright law: Copyfraud.
Re Contract law: Any...Re Copyright law: Copyfraud.<br /><br />Re Contract law: Anybody who has saved the PD files from the temporary internet presentation can post them legally.<br /><br />Re copyright of reproduction: Bridgeman v. Corel. Copyfraud!<br /><br />DMCA takedown is IMHO only for copyright not for contract issues.kghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10175613438967407983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-67623685182217301212015-02-01T14:35:19.528-08:002015-02-01T14:35:19.528-08:00Guys,
As Frank patiently pointed out, this is not...Guys, <br />As Frank patiently pointed out, this is not a copyright case, it's a TOS violation case. Outfits like fold3 use TOS 'agreements' to get around public domain usage rights. <br />.<br />If fold3 filed a copyright infringement case, they would lose, and they are smart enough to know that. They would win a TOS violation case though.<br />.<br />Read their TOS, read a EULA for some software product. They are draconian, they are written by lawyers, and generally unbeatable.<br />.<br />'Fair use' doesn't apply to public domain works. fold3 doesn't 'own' the files, or a copyright on them.<br />.<br />I gotta go...alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547680170328747214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-65182187431801092722015-01-31T18:30:36.386-08:002015-01-31T18:30:36.386-08:00You just can't create a policy out of thin air...You just can't create a policy out of thin air that overwrites well established law. There is recourse to spurious copyright infringement claims but you have to stand and fight.Frank Stalterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11823301792209882497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-91428081595953118752015-01-31T18:26:19.966-08:002015-01-31T18:26:19.966-08:00While I imagine Fold3 would have a difficult time,...While I imagine Fold3 would have a difficult time, I think they could make the case that "those" digitized copies, which I expect are identifiable are their property. While this is unfortunate, I don't blame them. They made the investment, they deserve to reap the benefits. As others have said, either pay them for their work (via their affiliate program) or duplicate their work (digitize the files yourself). The interesting thing about copyright is that it relies on the holders diligent defense. Please don't get me wrong, I am completely opposed to nearly anything an organization ending in "AA" says, but in this case, I see Fold3's point. Before someone mentions "fair use", duplicating the entire collection goes beyond fair use. It appears the TOS would prevent a fair use claim. Disagreeing with some, I don't think he'll win if he goes to court. IANAL, but spent quite a lot of time in the past few years studying intellectual property rights and existent cases. Rather than starting a legal defense fund, I would start a fund to scan the documents.Rusty L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02556831351656530532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-84777732360259170622015-01-31T12:28:38.783-08:002015-01-31T12:28:38.783-08:00@David
"...The only exception I can think to...@David<br /><br />"...The only exception I can think to this is if fold3/ancestry paid for the scanning of the files..." <br />.<br />It wouldn't matter. <br />.<br />The fold3 TOS seems pretty clear though. TOS cases have nothing to do with copyright law per se. fold3 is an aggregator, like thousands of others in the business of monetizing public domain material. Some even charge for material you can get for free elsewhere. What TOS cannot do, is require you to agree to something illegal.<br />.<br />I gotta go...alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547680170328747214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-87229140029506110282015-01-31T11:23:37.198-08:002015-01-31T11:23:37.198-08:00David,
Yes, correct, as he has been doing since h...David,<br /><br />Yes, correct, as he has been doing since he was 15 years old. <br /><br />I might add, (I believe) John removed the content by his own volition, opposed to having his ISP remove it. <br /><br />Technically, he could leave it up; let the ISP remove it, file a counter claim (wherin the ISP has to restore the site) and do legal battle (David and Goliath). <br /><br />Cheers,<br />FrankFrank Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18211373074817092828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-8936826671813535222015-01-31T11:06:52.256-08:002015-01-31T11:06:52.256-08:00Morning Frank,
But Greenewald could do his own di...Morning Frank,<br /><br />But Greenewald could do his own digitation of the files and put them online with no copyright violations, right?David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-46061431157442682352015-01-31T10:52:28.080-08:002015-01-31T10:52:28.080-08:00Mornin' David,
The quickest way to get someth...Mornin' David,<br /><br />The quickest way to get something taken down is by a copyright infringement claim via TDN. <br /><br />From a purely legal standpoint, as mentioned above there is somewhat of a copyright argument by means of compilation; if John countered, a judge would have to make that decision. <br /><br />However, the biggy, is not the copyright issue in my view–its the "TOS agreement." <br /><br />The very program created to do the hack is called FootnoteReaper–A project to scrape content off fold3.<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/nvrjhyx" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/nvrjhyx<br /></a><br />Cheers,<br />FrankFrank Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18211373074817092828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-32971306645656672682015-01-31T10:38:23.848-08:002015-01-31T10:38:23.848-08:00To continue with the legal hair-splitting:
It mig...To continue with the legal hair-splitting:<br /><br />It might also be argued that since Fold3 offered the PBB files for free to the public, there was never an expectation of profit from their endeavor, unlike, say the copying of public phone numbers off a commercial CD, whose obvious goal was profit.<br /><br />Against this Fold3 might argue that the PBB files were like a store's advertised "loss leader" to draw people into the store and hopefully make other purchases. Thus while making no money from the PBB files themselves, they had an expectation of creating profit by selling full memberships to some fraction of those drawn to their website by the free files.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-13969198502609988802015-01-31T10:27:50.170-08:002015-01-31T10:27:50.170-08:00Frank Warren,
So as I now understand it, Greenewa...Frank Warren,<br /><br />So as I now understand it, Greenewald/Black Vault were accused of copyright violation because they data-mined Fold3's already digitized collection of BB files, also in violation of Fold3's license agreement. <br /><br />It would seem Greenewald could still put the BB files online, but only if he did his own scanning and digitizing of the public domain files.<br /><br />It might also be argued that while he may have data-mined the Fold3 collection, he also cleaned it up to make it more readable and reorganized it into distinct case files, thus it was not an exact replica of Fold3 but a derivative version. I think this is now getting into very gray areas of copyright law that only court cases can decide.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-87996192951993692122015-01-31T10:04:23.380-08:002015-01-31T10:04:23.380-08:00Mornin' Frank S.,
The gist re the example or ...Mornin' Frank S.,<br /><br />The gist re the example or precedent with ProCD's (successful) suit is that the telephone listings aren't protected by copyright, yet the court ruled in favor of ProCD because "the license agreement was valid and enforceable as a contract"<br /><br />Like the telephone listings–the Blue Book Files aren't protected by copyright <i>prima facie</i>; however, as mentioned above there is an argument (albeit a weak one in my view) for copyright via "Compilations of data or compilations of preexisting works." <br /><br />The biggest issue is the so-called "click agreement"; in this case with Fold3 it's more profound because one has to <i>register</i> with Fold3 and in doing so, agree to their TOS with the a fore mentioned violations noted therein. <br /><br />Cheers,<br />Frank WFrank Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18211373074817092828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-56482817216953418562015-01-31T09:52:54.737-08:002015-01-31T09:52:54.737-08:00Perhaps petitioning the White House to remove fold...Perhaps petitioning the White House to remove fold3's copyright on Project Blue Book files. I believe you need 100,000 signatures to generate a WH response. I am sure the UFOlogy community is large enough to get this done.bob spearinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06189279855595376474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-66738763725795542602015-01-31T09:52:14.136-08:002015-01-31T09:52:14.136-08:00Perhaps petitioning the White House to remove fold...Perhaps petitioning the White House to remove fold3's copyright on Project Blue Book files. I believe you need 100,000 signatures to generate a WH response. I am sure the UFOlogy community is large enough to get this done.bob spearinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06189279855595376474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-30200777664169232052015-01-31T05:37:17.798-08:002015-01-31T05:37:17.798-08:00"Here's some precedent:
The case that st..."Here's some precedent:<br /><br />The case that started the "contract as copyright" ball rolling is ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1996)."<br /><br />I don't see a precedent here. A guy copied an entire CD and tried to sell it himself. There are plenty of fair use exceptions even when there is a copyright involved . . . .comment and criticism, education and so on. I've already told John he hasn't made a very clear argument about this issue. After reading his article, I had to research myself to understand that Fold3 is the site hosting these files and they are available there for free. Frank Stalterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11823301792209882497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-33913730604447313802015-01-30T23:23:17.061-08:002015-01-30T23:23:17.061-08:00Additionally, there is an argument that could be m...Additionally, there is an argument that could be made for copyright via "Compilations of data or compilations of preexisting works." <br /><br />In Fold3's TOS it states:<br /><br /><i>"Each Website is also protected by copyright as a collective work and/or compilation, pursuant to U.S. copyright laws, international conventions, and other copyright laws."</i><br /><br />and<br /><br /><i>"<b>Bots, crawlers, spiders, data miners, scraping and any other automatic access tool are expressly prohibited.</b> [my emphasis] You agree not to circumvent, disable or otherwise interfere with security related features of the Websites or features that prevent or restrict use or copying of any Content or enforce limitations on use of the Websites or Services or the Content therein."</i><br /><br />Cheers,<br />FrankFrank Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18211373074817092828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-455424770135010012015-01-30T23:13:50.546-08:002015-01-30T23:13:50.546-08:00I figured I would pass this on for the court of pu...I figured I would pass this on for the court of public opinion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.BlackVaulthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13232344416591612894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-35231335702245063722015-01-30T23:11:37.753-08:002015-01-30T23:11:37.753-08:00Here's some precedent:
The case that started ...Here's some precedent:<br /><br /><i>The case that started the "contract as copyright" ball rolling is <b>ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg,</b> 86 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1996). The ProCD case came about when grad student Matthew Zeidenberg bought a business telephone database on CD, called SelectPhone, from ProCD. Zeidenberg posted the directory listings on a web site, for a price that was lower than ProCd’s. Telephone listings are not copyrightable, but the CD included a license ... which Zeidenberg had to click through in order to install the software. The license prohibited copying. ProCD eventually found out, and sued him.<br /><br />Zeidenberg lost. Although the telephone directory listings that Zeidenberg copied were not protected by copyright, the Seventh Circuit court of appeals decided that the license agreement was valid and enforceable as a contract. Zeidenberg accepted the contract, the court said, by clicking through. Bottom line: ProCD achieved copyright protection for unprotectable facts through a standard (as in not negotiated) license.</i><br /><br />Cheers,<br />FrankFrank Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18211373074817092828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-71346875431320721722015-01-30T23:05:40.517-08:002015-01-30T23:05:40.517-08:00Ooops!
The last line should have read:
Given tha...Ooops!<br /><br />The last line should have read:<br /><br />Given that the files were not only data mined from Fold3–the deeds were all documented step-by-step at ATS (self-incrimination) and I'm guessing the attorneys for ancestry.com see that as a gift. <br /><br />Cheers,<br />FrankFrank Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18211373074817092828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-47187324898876263972015-01-30T23:01:05.035-08:002015-01-30T23:01:05.035-08:00Evenin' Men,
Here's a link to some pertin...Evenin' Men,<br /><br />Here's a link to some pertinent info specific to this issue:<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/o2pojyn" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/o2pojyn</a><br /><br />and a snippet:<br /><br /> <i>"it’s the courts that matter ... and they have held that shrinkwrap and clickwrap licenses are <b>valid and enforceable contracts, even if the subject of the license is in the public domain.</b> That’s because, the courts say, the user <b>agreed</b> to the contract terms."</i><br /><br />If the take down notice was solely based on copyright infringement, I believe John can have that reversed via a counter-notice arguing the fact that the Blue Book Files aren't protected by copyright as they're the work of the United States government. However, this would only be a temporary reversal, as the a fore mentioned article illustrates, there is precedent for TOS violations, clickwrap agreements and browsewrap agreements.<br /><br />Given that the files were not only data mined from Fold3–the deeds were all documented step-by-step at ATS. <br /><br />Cheers,<br />FrankFrank Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18211373074817092828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-74679945812536019032015-01-30T19:13:29.071-08:002015-01-30T19:13:29.071-08:00Anything government published (photos, documents, ...Anything government published (photos, documents, etc.) is automatically public domain and cannot be copyrighted, at least as I understand copyright law. The only exception I can think to this is if fold3/ancestry paid for the scanning of the files and Greenewald used their scanned files instead of scanning his own.<br /><br />Fold3 and ancestry.com would almost certainly not prevail in court, and its conceivable Greenewald might even be awarded damages and attorney's fees. This is all if he can get some attorney to take the case pro bono. Big companies like ancestry/fold have deep pockets and can afford to litigate for lengthy periods of time, of course intimidating to the little guy who doesn't have such resources.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-31151988039199491082015-01-30T15:47:17.457-08:002015-01-30T15:47:17.457-08:00@John,
You might try eff.org for possible legal a...@John,<br /><br />You might try eff.org for possible legal assistance, and also Ken White at popehat.com (both pro bono)<br />.<br />IANAL, but copyright doesn't distinguish between different forms of presentation. Website design can be copyrighted, but not the data. DCMA is often used to intimidate, with no legal basis.<br />.<br />If the material is public domain, then they have no case.<br />.<br />...alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547680170328747214noreply@blogger.com