james of jwm-art net
james at jwm-art.net
Wed Nov 19 17:12:55 CET 2008
I'm not going to try blocking dizzler via robots.txt, or even via apache
access directives. On the plus side, dizzler is giving me one more small
(and probably tucked away) point on the web where my stuff (might) get
The only reason I searched for my stuff is because when I see a new site
providing referals to mine, I like to see it.
Also, the only reason my site's URL is displayed (and I'm presuming why
only six of my tracks are presented) is because I've been using
'jwm-art.net' as the artist tag in the ID3 header when I can actually
be bothered to create them (the id3 tag). So that's one way in which to
get dizzler's users to a site I guess.
On 17/11/2008, "Pall Thayer" <pallthay at gmail.com> wrote:
>I would say it's pretty obvious that they know they're walking a tight-
>rope between right and wrong. Otherwise they wouldn't go to such great
>lengths to explain why it's "not" wrong.
>This might not be piracy according to strict legal definitions but
>it's unquestionable immoral to present someone elses work with no real
>reference to the owner of that work. Sure, they publish your server's
>name but they make sure not to provide any means for you to easily go
>Oh. I tried searching for something other than your stuff and they
>don't necessarily display the source URL. These are bad bad people and
>they know it. If someone truly challenges them to a legal battle, I
>don't think they'll survive.
>On Nov 17, 2008, at 12:34 PM, james of jwm-art net wrote:
>> 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.
>> Naturally I wonder how these got there. It turns out dizzler.com is,
>> or less, a search engine. It's position is interesting, on the one
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>NetBehaviour mailing list
>NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
More information about the NetBehaviour