xdxd.vs.xdxd at gmail.com
Mon Nov 17 13:11:50 CET 2008
james of jwm-art net ha scritto:
> Is anybody familar with dizzler.com? I've noticed it mentioned in my
> website's logs several times and thought I'd find out what it's about.
> Firstly a google search 'site:http://dizzler.com jwm' returns nothing,
> but on visiting the site, dizzler's inbuilt search returns six of my
> audio tracks.
it's fantastic that they won't let you harvest things from their
service, yet they live on harvesting stuff from the net.
I wonder if they oblige to "robots.txt" and stuff like that
even if the USA are their primary market, i was thinking about how the
thing works globally.
for example in Italy the laws on which dizzler's system is based are
totally different, and they state practically the opposite assumptions
on which their system is based.
yet again companies like google are constantly doing things that are
completely out of scope from these laws, and no-one sues them over here.
but the use of courts here in italy is so cumbersome, bureaucratic that
we're more used to private confrontation or debate. so much that "court"
is always the last possibility.
i often see websites that confront this issue (different laws in
different countries) by placing IP-based barriers, not letting IPs hat
are thought to be in a specific country access the service.
overall, it looks like a commercial service that uses the ideas coming
from opensource and knowledge sharing just to define its position and to
try and have the least possible amount of troubles with people and with
the law. yet their position doesn't look too "defendable", if anyone
cared to go in the details.
> Naturally I wonder how these got there. It turns out dizzler.com is, more
> or less, a search engine. It's position is interesting, on the one hand
> it mentions (briefly) it's software is copyright and patent protected,
> but on the other (their philosophy):
> * We believe that Intellectual property law should not serve as a
> brake on technological innovation.
> * We believe that no one should arbitrarily limit or restrict the
> access to content in the public domain.
> * We believe that Dizzler is expanding the way people use the
> information on the public Internet.
> * We believe copyright holders must face the new realities of the
> digital age by adopting a looser interpretation of how their content is
> used, "sampled” or licensed. Dizzler is ready to work with them in
> negotiating this new world.
> Also interesting is the fact 'dizzler' cannot tell if material it finds
> is copyrighted or not, and they can present it until given a takedown
> notice, plus there is the 'framing' clause which allows them to
> present something provided it's not 'copied' to their server.
> I'm not sure how grateful I am that my material appears there. I've not
> had time to wait for the flash widgets to download (via dialup) and to
> see what happens, but:
> "This encryption prevents Dizzler users from accessing the actual paths
> to content in order to thwart inappropriate downloading, copying or
> sharing of files."
> or in reality prevent users from actually visiting the real website
> providing the content.
> Just wondered what other's might think to this? Kind of exploitative I
> think... ?
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
More information about the NetBehaviour