[thelist] Re: [site rippers? - conclusion]

[Ed Shuck]

i can only provide my opinion, which is:

think what is right.  do you own it?  if not then do not use it without
the owner permission.  if it is a question, then choose carefully,
expediency is not always wise.

peace

On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, nate wrote:

> well, it's not downloading anything that's not publically available with a
> browser; it just saves the step of downloading it piece by piece.
> 
> as far as reusing in portfolios and stuff, all my personal contracts have a
> clause that allows good-faith and non-commercial use for this type of thing.
> (plus, usually a portfolio is a thumbnail, or otherwise incomplete look at
> the site.) unless you're selling their product, or broadcasting their custom
> engines or codes, i definitly wouldn't say it's /massive/, if it's improper
> at all...
> 
> as far as i know, the web is public domain. if their site is on the www,
> it's fair game. what's the difference in downloading it, or linking to it?
> when you dl it, you're downloading their copyright/footer too, so...?
> 
> as for other uses of spiders and rippers: it's nice to see how a client, or
> a potential client fits into their landscape. most of the rippers give you a
> url list of all the links on the site. with this, you can tell -- at a
> glance -- who their affiliates are, who their partners are, who else is in
> the space, who's serving their ads. all good, responsible research and biz
> dev info.
> 
> do i have this all wrong?
> 
> best,
> nate
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org
> [mailto:thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org]On Behalf Of McCreath_David
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 5:23 PM
> To: 'thelist at lists.evolt.org'
> Subject: RE: [thelist] Re: [site rippers? - conclusion]
> 
> 
> >From: matt newell
> >
> >one major reason is for archival purposes.
> [...]
> >another major reason (in my case right now):
> >we've ended a relationship with a current client, handed off the proper
> >items and generally washed our hands of them.
> 
> Erm... Matt, isn't this a massive copyright violation? Does your contract
> with these clients allow you to load and run their entire site locally?
> Especially now that the contract has ended? As for former employers, I would
> think that you'd also want to check your contract for intellectual property
> clauses.
> 
> >the portion of the site we developed was only a small piece of
> >the whole puzzle -- we wanted to show the whole puzzle, but didn't
> >have access to their servers to dl a whole copy easily.
> 
> Do you have permission to copy the code that other contractors wrote?
> 
> >not having access to another companies servers /is/ common, as
> 
> So they can protect their intellectual property, right?
> 
> >the other major reason i can think of would be general offline
> >browsing .. online books/long reports/presentations/etc. make
> >for a nice read in the park when you dont have a net connection
> >to view them on demand.
> 
> That is much more defensible and I think in the spirit of the ripper's
> intended use.
> 
> I don't have any legal background or anything, I'm just checking.
> 
> David
> 
> ---------------------------------------
> For unsubscribe and other options, including
> the Tip Harvester and archive of TheList go to:
> http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt !
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------
> For unsubscribe and other options, including
> the Tip Harvester and archive of TheList go to:
> http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt ! 
>