Unique Content

nareau

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2004
Messages
116
OK, I've asked this once before, and alluded to it elsewhere: What is the DMOZ definition of "unique content"? Is it spelled out anywhere in the suggestion guidelines? Are there any guidelines for how much unique content is necessary for a site to be listable?

Nareau
 

idleplay

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
96
...and also, what if Site X submitted itself to dmoz with content from Site Y but Site Y was the original site.... what would happen when Site Y came to submit?
 

hutcheson

Curlie Meta
Joined
Mar 23, 2002
Messages
19,136
The responsibility to protect copyrighted material lies with the copyright owner, and the DMCA spells out how that is to be done. Funny thing, it doesn't mention complaining to the ODP anywhere in the process. When the offending site loses the duplicated content, then it will be time to request that the ODP listing change to reflect the changes at that site.

But, from the SURFER'S point of view, who cares which site is listed?

And in the ODP, there is no other point of view.
 

jgwright

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
256
Hmmm... Note that:

1 They key word is "suggest"; not "submit".
2 There is a system for reporting abuse.
3 Editors constantly maintain their categories and drop and add sites as they see fit.
4 The editors are humans.
5 The guidelines on matters concerning content and mirrors are publicly accessible.
 

idleplay

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
96
Hmmm... The header of the "suggestion" page is "Submit a Site to the Open Directory" The button says "submit" and the page title is also "Submit a Site to the Open Directory" If you'd like, i'll also count how many times the word "submit" is used within the body text? Please don't have that condescending attitude with me, it's annoying.

The abuse system wouldn't work in this case as there is no way of identifying the original content provider.

hutcheson - your comments may give people a few ideas on how to manipulate existing directory results for their own gain...
 

nareau

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2004
Messages
116
I don't mean to be rude, but I think copyright issues are only tangentally related to my original question.

But I don't think hutcheson's right here.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=789

In order to have an allegedly infringing web site removed from a service provider's network, or to have access to an allegedly infringing website disabled, the copyright owner must provide notice to the service provider with the following information:

The name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party [512(c)(3)(A)(i)]

The infringing materials and their Internet location [512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an "information location tool" such as a search engine, the reference or link to the infringing materials [512(d)(3)].

Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works [512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].

A statement by the owner that it has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)].

A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].

Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself, it is required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the material. The safe harbor provisions do not require the service provider to notify the individual responsible for the allegedly infringing material before it has been removed, but they do require notification after the material is removed.
It would appear that linking to material that infringes upon someone's copyright is now illegal.

Nareau
 

arubin

Editall/Catmv
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Messages
5,093
nareau said:
It would appear that linking to material that infringes upon someone's copyright is now illegal.

"17 USC 512(d)" said:
A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider...

It doesn't say, or even imply, that a directory COULD be liable absent other provisions of copyright law.

And DMCA notifications must be made to AOL, rather than to the editors.
 

hutcheson

Curlie Meta
Joined
Mar 23, 2002
Messages
19,136
It should also be pointed out that the ODP is not the service provider, merely the service creator. As such, we won't EVER look at legal materials -- in fact, we won't look at ANYTHING from ANYBODY that even THREATENS to send us legal materials.

AOL is the service provider, and their lawyers are the contact for things like that. When the issue is resolved, then the lawyers will communicate the result to us. (Yes, it happens once every year or two.)
 

nareau

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2004
Messages
116
Keep readin':
`(3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity, except that, for purposes of this paragraph, the information described in subsection (c)(3)(A)(iii) shall be identification of the reference or link, to material or activity claimed to be infringing, that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate that reference or link.

If DMOZ links to material that infringes on a copyright, and the copyright holder notifies them properly, they need to disable access to it.

The important passages are:
A service provider shall not be liable ... if the service provider ... responds expeditiously to ... disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing...

Of course, you're right on the second count--volunteer editors are not the people who should be handling legal notifications of DMCA violations. That should probably get sent to someplace like AOLLegal@aol.com or Legaldpt@aol.com.

Nareau
 

arubin

Editall/Catmv
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Messages
5,093
nareau said:
Keep readin':


If DMOZ links to material that infringes on a copyright, and the copyright holder notifies them properly, they need to disable access to it.

The important passages are:
A service provider shall not be liable ... if the service provider ... responds expeditiously to ... disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing...

It's up to AOL to decide what action to take, but it's not necessarily true that links to infringing material are infringing. They can be in some cases, (the only successful case I know of is one in which the person publishing the links also is alleged to have published the original infringing material), but it's not obvious, even under DMCA.

I noticed the demand letter to Google was sent from California. If Google has a nexus in California, state law allows private demand letters for correction of alleged illegal activity and asking for costs NOT to be considered extortion, even if not filed in good faith. An initiative to override that law is on the November ballot.
 

nareau

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2004
Messages
116
arubin said:
It's up to AOL to decide what action to take, but it's not necessarily true that links to infringing material are infringing. They can be in some cases, (the only successful case I know of is one in which the person publishing the links also is alleged to have published the original infringing material), but it's not obvious, even under DMCA.
Google did cave, at least somewhat. Look at the bottom of that page. I don't think it ever made it to court.

Nareau
 

jgwright

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
256
nareau said:
OK, I've asked this once before, and alluded to it elsewhere: What is the DMOZ definition of "unique content"? Is it spelled out anywhere in the suggestion guidelines? Are there any guidelines for how much unique content is necessary for a site to be listable?
1 AFAIK it doesn't exist. Editors are humans.
2 This and this cover the concepts in a few places.
3 See 1.

Remember editors serve the end user. Always remembering that, the guidelines make themselves.
 

hutcheson

Curlie Meta
Joined
Mar 23, 2002
Messages
19,136
There's a rule of thumb that's 100% accurate, to many decimal places.

If you have to ask what unique content is, you ain't got it and ain't never gonna have it.
 

motsa

Curlie Admin
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
13,294
Unique content is a concept that varies depending on the category so it would be impossible to give you concrete figures for the amount of unique content a site must have in order to be listable.
 

miromulus

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2004
Messages
570
motsa said:
Unique content is a concept that varies depending on the category so it would be impossible to give you concrete figures for the amount of unique content a site must have in order to be listable.


I believe the real issue is not about truly unique content (wich is realy hard to find) but is about interesting content. In the area I work (eCommerce) is extremly hard to have unique content, but the surfer can find some useful informations and, sometimes, some unique products.
 

jgwright

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
256
miromulus said:
I believe the real issue is not about truly unique content (wich is realy hard to find) but is about interesting content. In the area I work (eCommerce) is extremly hard to have unique content, but the surfer can find some useful informations and, sometimes, some unique products.
And unique ways of presenting it I dare say? :)
 
This site has been archived and is no longer accepting new content.
Top