[Alupis]

We may be arguing apples and oranges here.

The OP did not subvert anyone's revenue model.

Simply aggregating data is not violating any copyright laws nor protections. If so... most news sites would be in serious trouble. The OP was simply aggregating data into an easily accessible format for students.

The original creator retains copyright, but they can't prevent someone from linking to nor providing access to publicly accessibly information. If they truly want nobody to have access in this manor, they would have to block public access or restrict it in some form.

To use your book example. If the copyright holder of a new book posted the text in full on their website with no restrictions or payment necessary, and I reposted that text, provided attribution and a method to access the original content, then I would not be in violation of any law.

[hueving]

>The OP did not subvert anyone's revenue model.

Irrelevant. Saying "you weren't making money off of it so I decided to copy it and do so", isn't a valid argument.

>Simply aggregating data is not violating any copyright laws nor protections.

Yes it is. No high-traffic news site does this. Maybe you are confusing this with news sites that pay for the AP feed and the right to do so?

>To use your book example. If the copyright holder of a new book posted the text in full on their website with no restrictions or payment necessary, and I reposted that text, provided attribution and a method to access the original content, then I would not be in violation of any law.

Nope, you are still violating the copyright unless they explicitly give permission to repost it. You are conflating someone deciding to charge for something and someone keeping the right to prevent redistribution. They are very different things.

A copyright is automatic in the US. You have to explicitly license content with something like the creative commons license before people can safely copy things and repost them.

[pistle]

We may be arguing facts and opinions.

It has nothing to due with revenue. Note my non-commercial language above.

If you write something and present it anywhere that copyright is implied or described, you, as the content creator, maintain control of your work. If someone scrapes it and re-presents it, even with proper attribution and you have not provided an explicit license, you can still require the third party to remove, revoke, forfeit, and/or destroy the copy of your content.

Posting their book, in full, online would not relinquish the author's copyright. They have to pretty explicitly grant license for other uses. See Creative Commons licenses. Those are pretty loose and they only require attribution.

And what's with all this method of access stuff now? I thought it was JUST proper attribution. Now you need to provide a method of access too? You're making this worse.