Somehow I don't think one part of the Warner empire is going to have a problem with another part on a copyright issue. Do you?
Would you like me to give examples from out side of the time warner corporations that DMOZ copies? Title in DMOZ: Google---------->Title in the web site: Google Title in DMOZ: Google News---------->Title in the web site: Google News
To be accurate, you said we copy titles and descriptions. A title is what it is and the description is written by editors, not copied. When is the last time you received a submission that could be listed without a rewrite? Same with the sites we go out and find, we don't copy the meta description because it wouldn't be guideline compliant. We describe the site in our own words, according to DMOZ guidelines. As an editor, you should know that. Saying otherwise can only make me question your intellectual honesty.
1. DMOZ uses site titles for its titles and I thought orlady said earlier that no copyright was claimed over a site's title by virtue of it being used as part of a listing. There is no problem in copyright law, AFAIK, in a copyrighted work referring to other copyrighted works by name. 2. What on earth are you trying to achieve in this thread? You're going round and round in circles and getting nowhere. And you can't get anywhere until a case tests AOL claims to copyright.
You forget to mention that in the title of the web site it was CNN.com - Europe and DMOZ title was CNN - Europe, so the editor made it original by deleting ".com". I think the best kind of reply to this type of post is What ever.
Then what is that DMOZ tries to claim copyright on? Category names copied from USENET and are too general to be copyrighted, Titles that are copied from other people web sites or descriptions that might or might not be original and DMOZ have no legal proof that any right is assigned to DMOZ by original author? May be minstrel is right and DMOZ is only claiming copyright on word DMOZ.org and color Green. I am not going around and around, that's some other people's specialty here. I tried to show that DMOZ claim of copyright is invalid according to current copyright laws in USA and I think I have succeeded by judging the number of editors who only keep posting, let's not discuss it.
Definitely true, instead you seem to be meandering around. It would have been more accurate if you had posted "according to my personal interpretation of current copyright laws...", don't you think so?
Well there's your problem then. AOL haven't brought a case and you aren't a judge. So nothing you can possibly say shows the claim to be invalid. Any more than the existence of the claim makes it valid. . Maybe they have more sense than to waste their bandwidth arguing a pointless debate.
Obviously any posting or interpretation of a law is according to posters interpretation of the situation or the laws. On the other hand, I at least have an interpretation and opinion based on the current laws, unlike some others who draw totally blank when they try to come up with counter arguments and only keep posting, let's not discuss it.
That's silly. First, we are discussing principles here. Second, I don't need a court decision to tell me that stealing someone's car is a crime and that taking a free pamphlet out of the drug store is not a crime. Or that weriting a book called "The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People" would be a copyright violation but publishing a book called "Hints for Success" would not. Judging from the number of times editors have posted in these two threads, I'd say that hypothesis can pretty much be discarded.
Things that should not be discussed according to brizzie since there is no definitive answer : 1) is there a God? Nobody seen the God and there is no likelihood of anybody will see the God, so no proof, let's not discuss it. 2) Are there any black holes or alternative universe? Have you been there? Is it possible in our life time to travel in space and actually see a black hole? NO, then let's not discuss it. 3) Theory of relativity and speed of light? Has anybody gone as fast as light to make sure that is not possible to go faster? No, in our life time will not be possible either then let's not discuss it. I mean seriously, what is the point of discussing theology, physics or law, except wasting bandwidth. The same bandwidth that can be used to claim an imaginary copyright for DMOZ which is much more valuable cause.
My point is that in this case: 1. There is an AOL position which is a claim to copyright. 2. You disagree that the claim is valid. What's to discuss? So little that the exact same points are just repeating over and over. There is a lot of material in that one... did you have any particular God in mind? Scientists and sci-fi fans could probably keep that one going for a while... Were you thinking of a way to speed up site reviews?
I was hoping that supporters of DMOZ claim will have something or even anything that can possibly, remotely sound logical to say in defense of their claim but it seem this thread has shown that they totally draw blanks and the best they can come up with is: let's not discuss it.
Let's do a search on Amazon http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=amazon On the 3rd place in DMOZ we have the following: Title: Amazon Wins Court Ruling in Patent Case Description: Signaling that many common features on Web sites can be patented, a federal judge has ordered Barnesandnoble.com to stop using a "one click ordering" system that Amazon.com patented. Now let's click on the link which goes to New york Times: Title: Amazon Wins Court Ruling in Patent Case First paragraph in that page: Signaling that many common features on Web sites can be patented, a federal judge has ordered Barnesandnoble.com to stop using a "one click ordering" system that Amazon.com patented. I am just amazed by what geniuses come up with all this original material. Eureka, DMOZ has copyright claim on The New York Times. Anything more you like to say, Annie?
Looks like an example of a non-guideline-compliant description to me gworld. And since it is the opening sentence of the article I think you would be pretty safe in assuming AOL would not claim copyright over that particular description.
How about over this one: http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=google on the 8th place: Title: Google Yanks Anti-Church Sites Description: The Church of Scientology has managed to remove references to anti-Scientology sites from Google, by citing the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act. click on the link to visit Lycos (wired News) Title: Google Yanks Anti-Church Sites First paragraph of the page: The Church of Scientology has managed to remove references to anti-Scientology sites from Google, by citing the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It seems DMOZ has copyright infringement claims against many web sites including CNN, The New York Time and Wired.com Are you seriously telling me that AOL is going to sue anyone for copyright infringement over half ass copied descriptions by unknown sources while their description is infringing on other web sites content?
The poor, poor dead horse,,, It sure gets beat a lot in here. Anyone consider calling the Humane Society?
I think I said - And since it is the opening sentence of the article I think you would be pretty safe in assuming AOL would not claim copyright over that particular description. Which I think makes it clear that in my personal opinion a description that is a straight take from the site (apart from being non-compliant) is not AOL/DMOZ copyright. That doesn't have any impact on the millions of descriptions that are original work by editors, nor on whether or not the structure itself can be copyrighted (the answer to which no-one really knows as yet). But the oddest things can be copyrighted (or at least sued over and settled) - for example a TV show format; not the script, just the format consisting of the various elements that go into it.