WTF, i just want a website ripper (1 Viewer)

[ogmzergrush]

I have a quick theory to the discussion about downloading webpages:

It seems that in actual fact that downloading entire web content can be demonstrated as legal relating to any search engine....All search engines firstly use a spider to find all open/public webpages and completely downloads all content.

I don't think there is a direct statement in copyright law that exempts search engines, and therefore how can a court regard offline browsing of web content considerably different to any search engines on the web???

I beleave alot of people are becoming confused between the definitions of copying, and reproduction. Copying is an act where all content of a produced medium are kept utterly intact, and with no addtional content or manipulation.....This also includes the author's name, date, and appropriate reference fields.

Reproduction on the other hand refers to the above senario, but HAS been manipulated in some way...IE: Re-produced, and is only legal if you have the appropriate consent of the author or abides to the license agreement.

Now, although thats what a good definition for copying and reproduction should be. No pollutition has seemed to grasp the concepts of the two and have allowed fairly fuzzy definitions for copyright laws (my freedom of speech given, please don't sue me for slander)...

So whatever is eventually agreed here as legal...If its illegal to 'copy' web pages (using my deffinition) then we should make some money by dobbing in all Australian search engines.......else......we'll you can all see which side I'm takeing here.

By quick theory you meant there wasn't a lot of thought put into it right? The most obvious response is probably that one should consider the difference between a search engine (Which you can block using the robots.txt), which retrieves segments of your page in order to direct visitors to your site, and saving a copy of the page for personal purposes, meaning that your site does not need to be visited again to access your content.

Edit: Also, I'm not sure if your distinction between Copying and Reproduction is valid. Linking it back to other copyright law seeing as it's all defined by the same convoluted mess, perhaps it's ok to make exact copies of audio cds, as long as I still acknowledge the original artist, record company, etc?

And again, of course the legality of saving the website does depend on the site itself, its content and the proposed purpose for saving it. For example, if you're saving a website which you've paid to access for n visits, saving the media for offline viewing whenever you want is almost certainly illegal. On the other hand, if you're visiting a tutorial website which encourages people to save the site for future reference and to send it to your friends, then it's fairly safe to say that it won't be illegal.

 

[phizz]

By quick theory you meant there wasn't a lot of thought put into it right? The most obvious response is probably that one should consider the difference between a search engine (Which you can block using the robots.txt), which retrieves segments of your page in order to direct visitors to your site, and saving a copy of the page for personal purposes, meaning that your site does not need to be visited again to access your content.

If you look closely at most search engines, they will usually offer a cached version of most web sites (for example: google offers this feature)...If you think about it, what difference is there between someone downloading a web page for offline viewing, to a search engine allowing their cached (fully downloaded copys of web pages) to be viewed at any time offline?

Also, I'm not sure if your distinction between Copying and Reproduction is valid. Linking it back to other copyright law seeing as it's all defined by the same convoluted mess, perhaps it's ok to make exact copies of audio cds, as long as I still acknowledge the original artist, record company, etc?

My bad, I should have given more thought to my direct definitions for copying and reproduction, but I should have stated: only for publically free content (such as most web pages), and shareware media. Audio CDs that have a defined license agreement for the purchaser to abide by depend on the agreement (which usually indicate "Do not make illegal copys"). However all medium without a license is automatically copyrighted to the author by Australian law, but hey if I create something that I released publically and someone were to copy my work but presented all references acurately, would I or anyone in the same postion get upset? I doubt it.

And again, of course the legality of saving the website does depend on the site itself, its content and the proposed purpose for saving it. For example, if you're saving a website which you've paid to access for n visits, saving the media for offline viewing whenever you want is almost certainly illegal. On the other hand, if you're visiting a tutorial website which encourages people to save the site for future reference and to send it to your friends, then it's fairly safe to say that it won't be illegal.

Again, refer to my theory on search engines...they allow offline viewing of alot of webpages for nth amount of visits...I simply cannot see how doing pratically the same thing personally any different to what search engines are doing......Comparison between the two of downloading and viewing offline web pages: Search engine: uses spider to find all publically viewable web pages > passes address to praser > praser downloads entire webpage (including images, flash media, etc...) to publically viewable offline cache and appends character data to database.....Person: uses mouse to click links to find web pages > system automatically caches realtime data from webpages > person clicks 'save page' which then saves the temporary cached page for offline viewing.....

Difference between the two: ones automatic, the other is manual....but both save web pages for offline viewing.

 

[ogmzergrush]

If you look closely at most search engines, they will usually offer a cached version of most web sites (for example: google offers this feature)...If you think about it, what difference is there between someone downloading a web page for offline viewing, to a search engine allowing their cached (fully downloaded copys of web pages) to be viewed at any time offline?

If you do some research, you may notice that the questionable legality of search engine caching is underscored by things like the various claims against google for encouraging and facilitating the breach of copyright, particularly in relation to paid content sites. As for free content, your point may well be valid, but given that there's not going to be an ultimate "Yes that's legal", or "No, that's illegal" answer that fits every situation the distinction becomes largely academic. If the mods here have deemed that the answer to a question can reasonably be perceived as facilitating or encouraging illegal activities, then they have the right to restrict conversation on here accordingly.

My bad, I should have given more thought to my direct definitions for copying and reproduction, but I should have stated: only for publically free content (such as most web pages), and shareware media. Audio CDs that have a defined license agreement for the purchaser to abide by depend on the agreement (which usually indicate "Do not make illegal copys"). However all medium without a license is automatically copyrighted to the author by Australian law, but hey if I create something that I released publically and someone were to copy my work but presented all references acurately, would I or anyone in the same postion get upset? I doubt it.

Perhaps you wouldn't. Take the example of an artist who maintains a portfolio of their work online. As you've said, their work is automatically copyrighted. Is it conceivable that they may object to their work being spread all over the internet, even with references in tact, due to the fact that they'd much prefer people to visit their official site and take in the work as they originally presented it, in a setting and context designed by them?

Again, refer to my theory on search engines...they allow offline viewing of alot of webpages for nth amount of visits...I simply cannot see how doing pratically the same thing personally any different to what search engines are doing......Comparison between the two of downloading and viewing offline web pages: Search engine: uses spider to find all publically viewable web pages > passes address to praser > praser downloads entire webpage (including images, flash media, etc...) to publically viewable offline cache and appends character data to database.....Person: uses mouse to click links to find web pages > system automatically caches realtime data from webpages > person clicks 'save page' which then saves the temporary cached page for offline viewing.....

Difference between the two: ones automatic, the other is manual....but both save web pages for offline viewing.

Again, see the questionable legality of caching.

 

[MedNez]

only for publically free content (such as most web pages)

That's too much of a generalisation. "Public free content" is content in the public domain, free from copyright restrictions in all countries (most public domain is classed as international). Websites are not free content. They are intellectual property. Anything that arises from a creative process is classed as IP, and falls under the protection of copyright.

 

[phizz]

That's too much of a generalisation. "Public free content" is content in the public domain, free from copyright restrictions in all countries (most public domain is classed as international). Websites are not free content. They are intellectual property. Anything that arises from a creative process is classed as IP, and falls under the protection of copyright.

By publically free content, I did mean all content uder the public domain and intellectual property, provided it can be obtained freely and publically...However, under Australian law intellectual property is protected by copyright (as you said), but I intended it as an example of the content that search engines copy in the same way as any home user would through the method of offline cacheing. I do know that copying intellectual property is illegal in Australia without proper consent from the copyright owner, but I am confused why search engines are exempt from these laws when they do infact copy intellectual property without consent from the copyright owner?

 

[AsyLum]

Viewing/Caching for offline use WITHOUT being reproduced in anyway other than educational purposes(and even then i am unsure as to their validity) serves as most part to be a viable concept. ie, Browsers.

Ripping/Copying/Code-stealing is the motion of not only viewing BUT replicating in some form. This is where the discussions seem to fall flat.

The concept of copying is 'reproduction' not viewing. There is a distinct difference in act and motive.

There is a distinct difference here.

 

[AsyLum]

By publically free content, I did mean all content uder the public domain and intellectual property, provided it can be obtained freely and publically...However, under Australian law intellectual property is protected by copyright (as you said), but I intended it as an example of the content that search engines copy in the same way as any home user would through the method of offline cacheing. I do know that copying intellectual property is illegal in Australia without proper consent from the copyright owner, but I am confused why search engines are exempt from these laws when they do infact copy intellectual property without consent from the copyright owner?

Google is not an Australian company. As far as i know, they are the only ones who cache things.

 

[ogmzergrush]

And moreover, I've already pointed out that google's caching is of questionable legality, a fact which you'll discover yourself if you do your research.

 

[AsyLum]

http://information.anu.edu.au/copyright/use/guides/web.pdf

COPYRIGHT AND THE WEB
Printing, downloading, copying and communicating material from the web
Material available on the internet may be covered by copyright – just because it is there, does not mean it is free to use. You may infringe a person's copyright by:
• printing material from a website without the owner's permission;
• saving the material from a website to a disk or hard drive; or
• e-mailing the material from a website to another person.
If you want to print, download, copy or communicate material that is available on the web you should first check to see whether there is a copyright statement on the website. This statement will tell you how the creator will allow their work to be used.
Alternatively, you could try to contact the website owner or webmaster for the site – there is usually an e-mail address at the bottom of a website that will give you a starting point in this regard.
If there is no statement about copyright on the website you should not assume that you can copy or communicate the material. The fact that the copyright owner has not expressly prohibited copying or communicating does not imply that the copyright owner has given a licence to copy or communicate. However, there may be cases where you may be able to imply, from the fact that the copyright owner has made material available on the website, that the copyright owner permits you to print and/or download the material. You should not assume that you can distribute copies of the material to other people or use it for commercial purposes.
Downloading, printing, copying and communicating material from the web may also be covered under the University's licence with CAL that enables copying under Part VB of the Copyright Act. Any copying or communication done in reliance on this licence must be within the limits prescribed by the Copyright Act.
Fair dealing provisions apply to copyright material on the web. If you are using the material on the internet for the purposes of study, criticism or review, reporting news or giving legal advice, you may be able to print and/or download and/or communicate reasonable portions of material from the web without obtaining the permission from the copyright owner.
If you need help to determine whether or not to print, download, copy or communicate material from the web, please contact your local Copyright Contact Officer or the Copyright Officer.

The interesting thing to note here, is that under Australian law, copyright is automatic on any intellectual property.

Additionally, I think this explains the position of website owners quite well:

Copyright

All copyright in this web site is and will continue to be vested in WEBSTART.

All intellectual property rights (including copyright and marks) in the material published on this web site are and continue to remain vested in WEBSTART and may not be used other than as specified in these terms and conditions.

Users are authorised to download and/or copy material published on the site solely for their own personal use. This authorisation is conditional upon the inclusion of all copyright, trade mark warnings, proprietary and/or other notices that appear herein appearing on all copies made of such material.

Users are not authorised to make any alterations, additions, or changes to any of the material on the site, nor may they distribute, market, sell, republish or misappropriate any part of it. Any misuse of the material on this site may result in legal action being brought by WEBSTART and/or any other third party.

http://www.webstartdesign.com.au/default.asp?page=legal.htm

 

[ogmzergrush]

The bit that really grabs my attention is

Material available on the internet may be covered by copyright – just because it is there, does not mean it is free to use. You may infringe a person's copyright by:
• saving the material from a website to a disk or hard drive; or

Maybe phizz's theory would be better off directed to anu.

 

[AsyLum]

Can I copy material off the Internet
without seeking permission?
No. If you copy material off the Internet
without permission you may be infringing
the rights of a copyright owner. It is a
common misconception that once material
is posted to the Internet it can be freely
copied: this is not the case.
With the rapid expansion of Internet
technology, legislators recently moved to
formalise copyright protection for material
found on the Internet. In 2001, the
Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act
2000 came into effect. This amendment
gives the copyright owners of material on
the Internet certain exclusive rights. These
include:
• the right to reproduce the material eg:
print the material or save it onto a disk;
and
• the right to communicate the material to
the public eg: post the material on a
website.
This means that you may be infringing the
rights of a copyright owner if you:
• print material from a website;
• cut and paste material from another site
onto your website;
• save material from a website on your
hard drive or on a disk; or
• make Internet material available to
other users via email or an Intranet
system.

If you'd like to take the matter up or read up on it for those who still want to argue against it:
http://www.copyright.com.au/info sheets/CR20_copyright and the internet.pdf

 

[phizz]

...In 2001, the
Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act
2000 came into effect. This amendment
gives the copyright owners of material on
the Internet certain exclusive rights. These
include:
• the right to reproduce the material eg:
print the material or save it onto a disk;
and
• the right to communicate the material to
the public eg: post the material on a
website.
This means that you may be infringing the
rights of a copyright owner if you:
• print material from a website;
• cut and paste material from another site
onto your website;
• save material from a website on your
hard drive or on a disk; or
• make Internet material available to
other users via email or an Intranet
system.

So anotherwords...all search engines are breaking the law?? Because they save material from a website onto their hard drives. Why are they exempt from this? And if this is the case, there should be no reason why I shouldn't sue ansearch or webwombbat??

 

[ogmzergrush]

So anotherwords...all search engines are breaking the law?? Because they save material from a website onto their hard drives.

I'm not exactly sure how many times you'd like to be told.

Click here.

Read. Yes, google's caching is questionable, and many people do consider it a breach of copyright. Others don't care. Combine this differing in opinion with the fact that we're talking about laws from all over the world and perhaps you will understand why it is such a complex issue and why there is no blanket legality or illegality to the situation.

Do this while keeping it in mind that search engines access parts of a website in order to direct visitors. This is a cache, and is not deemed a "permanent" copy, unlike saving a site to your computer.

Also be mindful of the fact that if someone does feel that their rights are being breached, they can opt-out of this access by search engines.

I'm not really sure what your point is here, are you trying to discredit copyright law as we know it? Sit and think for a minute, what's the difference between what a search engine does and what an individual does (In terms of motivation, I'm aware that the technical procedure is slightly similar). If you really don't get it, email the friendly folks over at copyright.com.au and tell them that you think search engines are illegal.

 

[phizz]

Ok ogm, I now understand your view where the motive for saving web pages determines the what is legal and not. This article gives a good example: http://yelnick.typepad.com/technik/2005/07/chilling_resona.html

For all that have shown an intrest to my theory, thankyou for clarifying what is true and not.

However, I am finding difficulty in finding an article about Google ever being sued for breach of copyright due to their cacheing system...Theres alot of complaints from people about the moral to google's cacheing system, and the Author association sueing Google for their library project. But nothing directly associated with cacheing web pages, nor why it hasn't been removed for years and still avalible?

 

[ogmzergrush]

I've tried to be patient but you really don't seem to be taking any of the distinctions drawn on board. Namely, the distinction between SAVING and CACHING. If we do not differentiate, then all browsing is illegal. Obviously, that's fucking ridiculous, so we can conclude that saving is in some cases questionable, and that caching, given that it's a fundamental part of *accessing* anything is not. Like I said before, it's right there in front of you, if you still want to argue about it I'm not the person for it. Email: info@copyright.com.au .

 

[AsyLum]

Ok ogm, I now understand your view where the motive for saving web pages determines the what is legal and not. This article gives a good example: http://yelnick.typepad.com/technik/2005/07/chilling_resona.html

For all that have shown an intrest to my theory, thankyou for clarifying what is true and not.

However, I am finding difficulty in finding an article about Google ever being sued for breach of copyright due to their cacheing system...Theres alot of complaints from people about the moral to google's cacheing system, and the Author association sueing Google for their library project. But nothing directly associated with cacheing web pages, nor why it hasn't been removed for years and still avalible?

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=g...ient=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Are you thick or just ignorant?

a) Learn how to spell.
b) Your points have already been accounted for, discussed, and summaringly responded to. If you still fail to understand, I suggest you stop here as you obviously don't seem capable enough to comprehend such concepts.
c) Have a nice day.

 

[blackbunny]

Like i stated, you have asked explicitly for a website ripper.

Ripping websites is considered to be a breach of intellectual property (AFAIK) due to their nature of being produced by the author for viewing, not copying.

Refer to my previous post and the posts regarding the terminology.

If you would like to provide a link to the webpage, and explain the various actions you wish to undertake with it, perhaps we can provide you with a clearer answer.

last time i checked ripping music is allowed if the aurthor allows you. AURTHOR ALLOWS ME TO RIP HIS WEBSITE!!

 

[MedNez]

last time i checked ripping music is allowed if the aurthor allows you.

No. That's just the thing. It's not legal in Australia. Irregardless of things might have been in the past, these are how they are now. Please email info@copyright.com.au for a copy of these regulations.

 

[AsyLum]

last time i checked ripping music is allowed if the aurthor allows you. AURTHOR ALLOWS ME TO RIP HIS WEBSITE!!

Post the URL, post the permission notice or else STFU and go away?

 

[ogmzergrush]

So according to you, I cant even rip a cd that I made.

There's really no need to be a pedantic fuck, I'm sure you understand what he's saying.