Fw: Copyright Infringement and Frames [OFF, possibly]

Subject: Fw: Copyright Infringement and Frames [OFF, possibly]
From: Tim Altom <taltom -at- IQUEST -dot- NET>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 14:15:44 -0400

I don't mind this much, especially when I prominently post our company name
on each page. It gives me a much wider circulation, even if the linking
company's intent is to hijack my content. That's cool...they wouldn't hijack
it if it wasn't damn fine material. I don't mind surfers thinking that I'm
the real deal and hence worth hijacking. Nobody hijacks trucks filled with
cheap knockoffs. Besides, the law is vague, the Web is vast and still mildly
chaotic, and experienced Netizens know the true story behind most of these
tactics. If I put a website up, I expect it to be mistreated once in awhile,
the way a billboard can be defaced. I'm playing the odds and it's not worth
my time or money to fight about this.

Of more concern would be stealing my trademarks. Copyright remains mine and
nobody can truly steal it if I can prove I'm the original owner. But a
trademark can be lost if it becomes too generic. I'd be a lot more assertive
protecting trademarks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sokohl, Joe <Joe -dot- Sokohl -at- USMAIL -dot- MPCT -dot- COM>
Date: Thursday, April 09, 1998 12:42 PM
Subject: Copyright Infringement and Frames [OFF, possibly]

>Recently I found my Web site hijacked by a group called the Mining
>Company. Within this group's Website is a page devoted to technical
>writing. Cool idea, eh? Maybe, except they have links that are embedded
>within their frameset. That is, when you click a link to an external
>page, the external page loads subordinate to the frameset.
>I'd written Gary Conroy, the head of the technical writing guide and
>asked him simply to add "TARGET='_TOP'" to the HREF tag jumping to my
>page. Instead, he responded that "a corporate/editorial decision has
>made" to hijack other people's pages. Indeed, he admitted that "...the
>aim is to give the newbie the impression that the whole Internet is
>encompassed, in some way, by the Mining Company." Somewhat arrogant on
>their (not Gary's) part, eh?
>Does this bother anyone else? I'm reminded of the recent lawsuit that
>several major news organizations filed against a firm called TotalNews
>(http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11272,00.html). TotalNews had a
>Website whose frame structure implied that it was the owner/author of
>pages actually copyrighted and hosted by the Washington Post, Time,
>Reuters, and others.
>I don't mind other people linking to my site--but I do object to my
>intellectual property being coopted like this. It's as if I created a
>documentation site and placed an in-frame reference to Adobe's
>docuemntation, making it look like it were my company's doc. It's akin
>to replacing the Word user manual's cover with a proprietary cover....
>joe -dot- sokohl -at- mpct -dot- solutions
>Personal Home Page: http://homepage.interaccess.com/~jsokohl/
>PS: This e-mail reflects my thoughts & opinions only, not mpct

Previous by Author: Our Website
Next by Author: Fw: my resume
Previous by Thread: Re: Copyright Infringement and Frames [OFF, possibly]
Next by Thread: Re: Copyright Infringement and Frames [OFF, possibly]

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads