kamennedev at gmail.com
Wed Nov 19 16:25:31 CET 2008
Isn't this very similar to what "mp3 search" (wink, wink) engines
like screemr, elbo.ws, and hypem do? I believe most of them allow you
to play multimedia content without actually accessing the site where
it's hosted. (And, of course, download them; I hear hypem are about
to launch a Premium Service, where you actually get to watch video
streams of the artists' children starving, in real time! ;-)
The reason dizzler might be so self-conscious about might be because
of the recent scuffle between news companies and Google News, who
were doing something equivalent with their articles.
I think this is a complex issue, and I'm finding it hard to pass a
judgment on it. It also seems fairly typical of the whole "semantic
web" hysteria. I mean, my own blog is "syndicated" via inline RSS
aggregators to my pages in at least two social networks. Now, I don't
think I can legally stop anyone from doing the same on their own
site. After all, I am consciously and intentionally offering an RSS
It's making me think of radio broadcasting. I mean, you might have
legal and moral grounds to say "Please, don't tape this". But it
would be ridiculous to ask people not to listen to your broadcast on
S*ny radios, for example, or not to do it on mono receivers.
It all has to do with publishing as in "making public".
On 19/11/2008, at 17:12, james of jwm-art net wrote:
> I'm not going to try blocking dizzler via robots.txt, or even via
> access directives. On the plus side, dizzler is giving me one more
> (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
> providing referals to mine, I like to see it.
> Also, the only reason my site's URL is displayed (and I'm presuming
> 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
>> rope between right and wrong. Otherwise they wouldn't go to such
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>>> Firstly a google search 'site:http://dizzler.com jwm' returns
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
More information about the NetBehaviour