Does DMOZ have any copyright on directory structure or content?

In this case. shouldn't DMOZ modify their copyright text that it only includes the parts that are not copied from other web sites, instead of making it look like that have copyright on everything?

Suggestion for new copyright claim for DMOZ web site:

(C)opyright on all the descriptions that we think it is possible to be original and not plagiarized from other websites.

 

Why don't you write to the AOL legal department and suggest it?

 

The real world (not the DMOZ world) of litigation concerning copyright or trademark infringement

Barbie doll unlikely to grill steak: Canada court
Mon Jun 5, 2006
By Randall Palmer

 

i m here for RDF file can any body give me that

 

Why would you expect to get the RDF file here?

Go to http://rdf.dmoz.org/

 

its mean that we can directly parse dmoz.org

 

It means that you can do whatever you like with DMOZ content with possible exception of DMOZ name, design of the page in combination with their logo and color green, have fun.

 

In the other thread it was mentioned about DMOZ "enemy" list and ODP license and here is a reminder that their claim is total nonsense.

 

In another thread nebuchadrezzar asked me what I meant by saying that DMOZ has no copyright, so I posted a link to this thread but never got a reply.

I bumping this thread to remind everyone that DMOZ claims about copyright are just bunch of BS.

 

According to this thread, if I wrote a book of one-liners, I'd not be able to copyright it in it's entirety due to "short phrases" not falling under that is copyrightable. A bit daff of a notion isn't it? Yeah, yeah, the ODP has violations itself, but that does not take away from the whole, does it? Besides, taking the first line from a longer story, could by rights fall under fair use and not be a violation in and of it self. Right?

I have several books on quotes that all have the copyright notice in them. Those, according to this thread are also not subject to the copyright laws, as it's a book of short phrases. Again, the notion that a directory of mostly unique descriptions and set up, is, by rights, under the laws governing copyrights.

So the title:description of each individual site may not in itself be bound by copyright, the site as a whole can be, and according to the footer in every page is.

I also saw something about the web page color, and that is odd...as that is one aspect of many things that go into the making of a webpage. If the style/setup of a page is not bound to any type of ownership, then anything on the net would be open to being copied, and it goes beyond that of the web, entire infrastructures of things could be taken without rhyme or reason. Again, strangely odd is it not? I mean, custom themes are now a thing of the past, as they are all Pushed back to the public domain as they can not be owned?

yes, some of the things within the ODP and for DMOZ in general do not fall under the laws of Copyright. Though some of them do fall under other laws such as the license agreement for the clones, and Trademark. That does not mean the entire thing can just be copy and pasted without threat of legal action. To say so would simply be silly...

 

Blah, blah, blah which in principal once again says "look at me, look at me". In the mean all these blah, blah has already been addressed in this thread which you can go back and read. If one day you get a chance to actually read the copyright laws and can come up with a logical argument based on those laws, I will be more than happy to answer it.

 

Complete and total bullocks and you know it. Show me how a book of quotes can be copyrighted, or a book of phrases, and I'll show you how the ODP can be copyrighted. Show me how the ODP can not be copyrighted, and I'll show you someone that is not understanding the law. Your logic and your arguments have been flawed from the very first post, and while you have quoted facts, you have misrepresented those facts to support your own opinion. When confronted with additional facts you fell back on faulty descriptions within the directory that fall under fair use guidelines under the very laws you are trying to use to your own ends.

A dictionary is copyrighted. An Encyclopedia is copyrighted. Both of them are pretty much just collections of names and descriptions...tell me again that the ODP can't be copyrighted.

I'll say it again, bullocks... but you'll likely quote me as saying "blah blah blah".

 

I would say base your arguments on the actual text of the law but I hardly doubt if you know where to find it or have the knowledge to read it.
We have all looked at you, you have got the attention that you want. now can you stop this nonsense and let people who actually understand this discuss it?

 

Let me know when they show up...

 

I believe you mean "bollocks", not "bullocks". One is a UK term for either a male body part or a derisive term similar to "BS"; the second, I believe, refers to small bulls, or perhaps castrated bulls.

 

you can't know the copyright status until you've exhausted the court procedures.

remember fred worth and his encyclopedia that was lifted wholesale to create the game trivial pursuit?

and how he fought that infringement to the highest court?

and lost?

http://www.columbo-site.freeuk.com/firstnamecourt.htm

that's the sort of crap shoot copyrighted collections is.

 

Yes, another great tactic of debate, go after the spelling of the user. I certainly lost this round

 

I'm not even IN this debate - this is pretty much between you and gworld. To my mind, it was never an issue - or rather the answer was clear from the outset.

I'm just pointing out an error of vocabulary or word usage.

 

This was interesting. There is another case about the name also. I think it was in end of 1960s or beginning of 1970s that some one got pissed off by his wife admiration for James Bond and wrote a book that killed him off (I think the murderer was his brother), anyway the Ian Fleming publisher sued him for using James Bond as the character in the book and they lost.

But DMOZ case is even more clear than this, since it is to large extend a collection of non-original content by unknown writers which DMOZ has no proof for transfer of rights.

 

I think they do mention about their logo and intellectual property somewhere on the site.