| >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. |