NONE: ONLINE-ADS>> AOL and Copyright Infringement
ONLINE-ADS>> AOL and Copyright Infringement
BULMASH.COM Sales (sales_at_bulmash.com)
Mon, 1 Dec 1997 23:44:31 -0800
I recall a discussion a while back on this list about inaccuracy in
counting impressions due to AOL caching, and it was recently brought up
again on the ZDnet push channel ("Whole Web Catalog" section) in an
article on why web ads are unreliable. It made me wonder about
something.
AOL not only supposedly caches the ad, it caches the page. If so, this
not only brings up the question of ad delivery accuracy, it also brings
up the question of whether or not it constitutes unauthorized
duplication.
Technically, my content is placed on the web to be downloaded from my
server and displayed on the user's machine. In fact, I don't want it
downloaded from anywhere else, because my circulation stats are used
for more than ad sales. IF AOL is caching my pages and the request
never hits my server, then they are redistributing my copyrighted
material without permission and causing me damage in underreported
stats which I use for other purposes (such as PR for marketing my
material offline).
We were dealing with copyright issues of ISP's throwing their ads on
your pages, but what about AOL? What if their caching does cause your
stats to be underreported? What if they're showing ads (or start
showing ads - I have no idea what they do as I don't use them) in a
frame or window while their users are browsing the web. I have not
granted them license to associate their advertisers with my
copyrighted content or to act as a redistribution agent. They are
supposed to be a pipeline through which their users can access my
content on my server.
Given, I understand the additional strain it would put on the web and
some of the most popular sites if AOL (with 10 million subscribers)
didn't cache. But that's beside the point. The point is that no one
but the end user should be able to cache any content and then only for
personal use, otherwise it seems to me to technically be a violation
of the content providers copyright.
Maybe I don't have all the tech straight and am thus talking out of my
posterior, but it seems like a potential copyright boondoggle.
Thoughts?
-Greg Bulmash
The WASHED-UPdate
http://www.bulmash.com
_____________________________________________
| Thousands of Fans Can't Be Wrong |
| -------------------------------- |
| The WASHED-UPdate(tm) Archives |
| The BULMASH.COM Humor Column |
| Unweaving The Web |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsor:
When it comes to ad performance, not all search engines are equal.
Infoseek gives you solid reporting and highly targeted placement.
(And we return calls, too.) http://info.infoseek.com/doc/sponsors.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request_at_o-a.com
