Is this post facilitating copyright infringement?

November 21, 2006 1:54 PM

Is this post facilitating copyright infringement?
posted by ZenMasterThis to Etiquette/Policy at 1:54 PM (20 comments total)

The free computer books site likely is, but the online course lectures are all freely availalbe.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:15 PM on November 21, 2006

SSSSHHHHHH, what are you trying to do?
posted by IronLizard at 2:41 PM on November 21, 2006

No, YOUR FACE is.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:52 PM on November 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

Given the number of links available from the first link, I couldn't check each one.

I gave the site a cursory examination (as well as looked at material of personal interest) but couldn't find links to infringing material, so I put it in the post.

I didn't intend to link to copyrighted materials, so if it is a problem, the first link should probably be removed.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:58 PM on November 21, 2006

Well, it links to several complete copies of K&R, among other things. I have mixed feelings about this, given that I own a K&R but find a searchable electronic copy to be useful.
posted by orthogonality at 3:09 PM on November 21, 2006

K&R isn't public domain? Huh. Not entirely sure why I thought it was, though—maybe I'm just transferring mythical happy-go-lucky 60s university/research UNIX nerdity onto the book.
posted by cortex at 3:17 PM on November 21, 2006

I sure as hell hope so!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:28 PM on November 21, 2006

Linking to stuff isn't breaking a copyright. The guys who run that site have to worry about it, not us. In fact, the exposure Metafilter gives stuff like that is likely to help the copyright cops.
posted by crunchland at 3:37 PM on November 21, 2006

Yeah, that's it! I'm helping expose the evildoers! *downloads*

And you might want to check into contributory infringement. It's not quite so clear cut.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:44 PM on November 21, 2006

Good-bye, plausible deniability. We could state that there was no copyrighted material at the time of the FPP, or could have, at least. Thanks, ZMT!
posted by Eideteker at 3:46 PM on November 21, 2006

Well the copy of The C Programing Language they link to is probably infringing copyright since it's the 1988 edition which is still in print by Prentice-Hall. I can't find any evidence to suggest that it is public domain now. Also I suspect that Teach yourself C++ in 21 days is also infringing.

So the answer to you question is almost certainly yes.

I have contacted Bell Labs and they will be sending you an invoice for lost earnings shortly mathowie.
posted by public at 3:53 PM on November 21, 2006

I jest! Please don't ban me!
posted by public at 3:55 PM on November 21, 2006

Can pedants please stop calling out posts like this? Most of us don't give a shit, and if anything, your bloviating actually brings liability to our doorstep. Please stop the copyrightcoppery. Please stop ♬♬
posted by blasdelf at 4:35 PM on November 21, 2006 [2 favorites]

This thread needs to be disincentivised.
posted by blue_beetle at 4:58 PM on November 21, 2006

Wait until someone complains about linking to YouTube videos that use copyrighted music.
posted by smackfu at 9:46 PM on November 21, 2006

Hm... I'm kind of curious about this. If I were a savvy publisher, I would make older versions of technical books available online, because nobody is going to spend money on an out of date tech book, but if they reference something online and find it helpful and well presented, they very well might go to the current version from that author or publisher when it comes time to buy.

Also, I've found most (possibly all) of the information in at least one of those books right on the author's web site, so there is obviously some recognition that people are more likely to go to a name they are familiar with, and how better to initiate user-consumer familiarity than by forging an online "relationship" establishing the author or publisher as an expert who has helped you in the past?

Just blathering (and probably wrong), but smart publishers may be very aware and not at all disturbed.
posted by taz at 10:36 PM on November 21, 2006

taz: According to The Tim, O'Reilly makes money selling online access to obsolete tech documents. It's one of those long tail thingies.
posted by ardgedee at 6:22 AM on November 22, 2006

aha.
posted by taz at 6:27 AM on November 22, 2006

I don't know, but the second link seems especially like SEO spam. I mean, it's just a search result.

I'd delete the thread if I were matt, but I'm not.
posted by delmoi at 11:01 AM on November 22, 2006

I mean I would delete the thread for it's SEOiness, not for the copyright stuff.
posted by delmoi at 11:02 AM on November 22, 2006