[erikpukinskis]

Why are you being mean? You suggested that content being hosted on a copyright holder's website was enough protection. They cited an example where it wasn't. It just means the specifics of the case law are relevant here and a blanket pronouncement isn't sufficient.

[aptwebapps]

I'm sorry if I was brusque but it's annoying when people don't look at the whole picture when making an argument but rather focus on a narrow interpretation that allows them to make a point.

Do you not see a difference between published newspaper articles and AT&T's customers' private information, however poorly guarded? Do you think a judge would? Maybe freehunter didn't see the difference either and I'm just a cynic.

[freehunter]

Yeah there is a difference, but there is also a similarity. Google links to news articles with or without permission. They even got sued for doing so. Just because Google is doing it doesn't mean it's legal, and even if Google has permission it doesn't mean everyone else has permission.

As for what a judge would think, the fact that you had to find a way around their content protection gave a clear sign that they were trying to protect their content. The DMCA doesn't really discriminate when it comes to the difficulty of copyright circumvention.

[aptwebapps]

First of all, let me apologize for not being more charitable with my assumptions.

As to the actual point, WSJ has a paywall in place which they deliberately open to let Google through. Not just Google's crawler, but visitors using Google's search page as a referrer.

It's quite different than AT&T being incompetent or negligent with their customers' private info. WSJ is the owner of the content and they are making a strategic decision to allow this behavior.

Again, I wish I hadn't been rude. It would have been nicer to have this exchange without it.