First of all, lets not conflate a spec with law. The spec doesn't have to follow law. A spec is a guideline, it doesn't have to match law, and it doesn't have to be adhered to either. Secondly, let's actually look at what the court ruled here, on the implied license front: > consent to use the copyrighted work need not be manifested verbally and may be inferred based on silence where the copyright holder knows of the use and encourages it. Notice the "where the copyright holder knows of the use and encourages it." That's not necessarily the case in this discussion. It was the case in that court case. That court case literally doesn't apply here. Especially since Field explicitly added code so that search engines would index *the URL* of the page. This is not the case in this discussion as the absence of robots.txt would *not* be explicitly allowing search engines to index the URL of the page, and each server that doesn't have a robots.txt would not "know of the use and encourage it". Finally, precedents can be challenged by the Supreme Court. For example, the current Supreme Court case of Google v. Oracle dismissed everything the district courts and the Circuits had to say, because the Supreme Court looks at things freshly. Christian Seibold Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ??????? Original Message ??????? On Thursday, November 26th, 2020 at 1:57 AM, Robert "khuxkm" Miles <khuxkm at tilde.team> wrote: > November 26, 2020 2:47 AM, "Krixano" krixano at protonmail.com wrote: > > > He didn't have a case because courts rule on multiple things, not just one thing. > > > > Stop trying to twist information. This is what the court ruled: > > I'm not trying to twist information. I feel like your argument hinges on him having been able to > > also successfully argue the fair use angle. > > > What does this tell us? It tells us that even if he won the implied license, > > > > he would have lost the case anyways because Google had Fair Use. > > So an archive counts as fair use then. A non commercial archive can use Field as precedent: it's > > for archival purposes, the work is available for free online, it may be a complete archive but the > > full work is available for free online, and there's no market for someone's random prose that they > > make available for free. > > Ergo, anyone can make an archive of anything they aren't explicitly told not to via robots.txt (at > > least in the US) and get away with it. > > > Anyways, you're the one who brought up this court case, not me. I don't agree with > > > > the court, and I don't have to agree with the court, and neither does any other > > > > gemini user. Mind you, the spec isn't for legality, it's for gemini users and what > > > > they think. The gemini spec won't affect any legal things at all. > > Okay, but "gemini users and what they think" won't matter. The only place to seek relief is a court > > of law, and the court of law is firmly against you here. > > While I was drafting this you responded to my other email, so I'll merge the two replies here: > > November 26, 2020 2:50 AM, "Krixano" krixano at protonmail.com wrote: > > > I never argued it wasn't a precedent. However, it hasn't gone up to the > > > > supreme court yet, who is the final arbiter for federal concerns. > > Well, if the case never made it to the Supreme Court, then the lower court's ruling stands. Ergo, it's still a precedent and most courts in the US would still follow it. > > Just my two cents, > > Robert "khuxkm" Miles
---
Previous in thread (59 of 70): 🗣️ Sean Conner (sean (a) conman.org)
Next in thread (61 of 70): 🗣️ Robert "khuxkm" Miles (khuxkm (a) tilde.team)