gdstorrick wrote:LukeM wrote:Archived information is better than no information at all! Sorry, I know you have every right to do exactly that you want with the site. Just stating my opinion. Thanks for having maintained such a useful site for so long!
As I understand US copyright law, I can lose my copyright if I don't defend it. Once I learned that I there was another unauthorized copy out there, I had no choice but to ask them to take it down - which they did without complaint. I thank them for that . I didn't want to have to do that, but I had no choice. No real loss, though, that version was ancient.
I hope that I'll have time to put the site back up next year, but the amount of work scares me . Just imagine the effort required to take new photos of everything to satisfy the critics.
Thanks for the nice feedback , I appreciate it.
Gary
You're confusing copyright with trademark law. See #5 on Top 10 Copyright Myths. You can't lose it by not defending it. The Web has changed things a bit in terms of "copies" since pretty much anytime you view a page you're making a "copy". This clearly isn't "fair use" but on the same token w/o making a full copy, things wouldn't work. Throw in things like caching proxy servers and things get even less clear. Now something like the Wayback machine and other archival websites probably on some level are violating copyrights, but as long as they "play nice", don't make money and remove content upon request, my best guess is they'll continue to exist.
That said, you're clearly in the right here to ask them to remove and to ask others to not maintain copies. After all that's what copyright is all about, controlling access to stuff you write.