WTF, i just want a website ripper (1 Viewer)

[ogmzergrush]

And to clarify, the law here varies depending on what sort of media you're "backing up".

The backup of pure software is legal, if no prohibitive measures enforced by the copyright holder need to be circumvented. but the backing up of other copyright material which could be contained is not legal. For example, backing up a game is not legal, backing up a movie or an audio cd is not legal, and backing up software packages which include other material (I wonder how fussy they are about this, icons and the like?) is not.

Of course the law here is terribly worded and needs a lot of updating, but for now I think it's dicey ground at very best.

Just one such gem!

The provisions do not allow copies to be made from an infringing copy of a computer program, or if the owner of copyright in the program has blocked the making of copies of the program (for example, by the use of 'locks' or other technological devices built into the program). Also, the provisions do not apply if the licence governing the use of the original has expired or been terminated.

and then

The back-up copy may be made whether or not the copyright owner makes an express direction to the contrary at or before the time of purchase, for example on the package.

So it's legal even if they tell you that you can't, but it becomes illegal as soon as you circumvent something they've enforced to ensure that you can't... gg all round I say.

 

[phizz]

You know, this is in contrast to what I've learnt via various University-level studies, so I'd be very interested to see some form of support for this claim. I'm aware that that's the law in the US and various other countries, but I was of the understanding that this mattered little in Australia, as we tend to adhere to Australian law here. Similarly, an EULA does not, at least as far as I understood it, override Australian law.

Things could have changed these days, but at one stage any legal owner of software could make 1 backup copy of their media with consent from the copyright owner. However what is stated in any software's license is the will of its copyright owner, therefore if it states in the license that one copy can be produced from the original from it's owner, then no laws have been broken.

An example of why license's can deviate from default copyright law: because not every software is production controlled. Open Source, GPL, Freeware, and public domain allow software under their terms to be reproduced, changed and copied as much as the owner wants provided its within the defined grounds of the license!

 

[ogmzergrush]

Things could have changed these days, but at one stage any legal owner of software could make 1 backup copy of their media with consent from the copyright owner. However what is stated in any software's license is the will of its copyright owner, therefore if it states in the license that one copy can be produced from the original from it's owner, then no laws have been broken.

I think it's actually pending review, or was a few months ago, though I didn't hear anything about that. I'd really like some updating because at the moment I find a lot of it is ridiculous at very best.

An example of why license's can deviate from default copyright law: because not every software is production controlled. Open Source, GPL, Freeware, and public domain allow software under their terms to be reproduced, changed and copied as much as the owner wants provided its with the defined grounds of the license!

I take your point, but that's a fairly different form of license, I assumed we weren't talking about OSS/freeware/GPL, etc. Do people really even back up freely available stuff?

 

[fullmetaljacket]

Well I'd rather back it up then spend 8 hours downloading it again...damn dialup!

 

[Skittled]

First off, Blackbunny, in my experience the best way to get a website ripper is to make your own. In my experience the ones that exist are really quite crap, simply.

Onto the copyright infringement debate: Only scanned the above posts -- Are we still talking about infringing copyright of website owners or has it moved onto software producers? (Judging by the EULA stuff)

Assuming this thread has stayed on websites... I don't see that downloading and saving an entire website is any different to viewing it, or, say printing it, or worse yet -- having IE/other web browser save a copy of it in your cache, which can potentially may never be deleted...

I'm no lawyer, but thinking about the processes involved, I don't know that downloading a website, and then saving it unmodified to some medium would be a copyright infringement, given that these things are designed to be seen for free by everyone. Use of the saved content could easily be, I'd guess, but simply saving a website to a medium, and leaving it unmodified and intact is classed as copyright infringement, it shows just how out of touch the law is with the internet.

Oh, and what would be the implications of companies who made software allowing for the saving of websites, given that their (99%) sole purpose would be copyright infringement?

 

[phizz]

Then again, if any of us have ever used the record button on our VCR or tape player, or whatever without consent....we have essentially breeched a copyright law....


I don't know about you guys, but Im going for a clean slate....Im going to turn myself in for recording Wheel of fortune....


funny...I always thought John Burgess was going to get me in gaol
:S

 

[MedNez]

I don't see that downloading and saving an entire website is any different to viewing it, or, say printing it, or worse yet -- having IE/other web browser save a copy of it in your cache, which can potentially may never be deleted...

Because viewing doesn't mean you intend to store it, and therefore it's assumed cache is cache and not being used by you ever again.

Saving means you're knowingly infringing copyright. Lots of websites have copyrighted images. You're allowed to view them online, but if you intentionly save them, maybe print them out for your wall, then you've infringed. Hence why you need to ask permission.

 

[anti]

The difference between storing it in your cache and saving it is that one is deemed transient and the other not (caches expire after a set period of time, theoretically).

Strange but that's jargon for ya :\

 

[fullmetaljacket]

cached is still saved to the computer...I wonder if it was cached and then you made a complete system backup if it would be against copywrite...I guess it would be.

 

[Skittled]

So how does quoting people fit into copyright law? Lets say you cited me off my webpage, reproducing it on BOS...? Technically, a break, or is there some level of scaling to say "this much isn't a breach" (I know there's something about 10% in books, but if you've only got a short thing then 10% might be a word or two, potentially)

...How about if you did a quote of something else I said on BOS?

 

[MedNez]

Let's ignore that fact that if you sued someone for misquoting a post on an internet forum, you'd never find a lawyer to do it (let alone a court that would take it!)

Quoting is really dependant on what you say. For example if you go read SMH and want to report news here, it is only on the condition that sufficient acknowledgment is made: Copyright Act 1968, s 42.

If you said "Haha you suck" , then I don't think that's able to be classed as Intellectual Property. Quoting a post, as I mentioned, is a negligible coprighted work _unless_ you posted an entire literary work. In which case if you did that to get someone in trouble, you'd get done for entrapment

 

[Skittled]

Understand the latter part of your post, but curious about the former:

Quoting is really dependant on what you say. For example if you go read SMH and want to report news here, it is only on the condition that sufficient acknowledgment is made:

Cool. So, could you view a webpage as "newsworthy" ('news' isn't defined, it seems), and save it to your hard drive, thus reproducing it, but as long as you have cited the author/owner, you're okay? I know that IE once upon a time added the URL of the page to the saved HTML files it outputted... So if the origin source is acknowledged (whether it's sufficeintly done so, though, becuase it's in the html source file and invisible to the user unless they go through steps to view it), that's acceptable?

And then to drag it back to the webpage ripper idea, as long as you acknowledged the source of the images, and/or any other content you get, it's not a breach?

My apologies if this is frustrating -- not actively trying to, even if it seems like it!

 

[Götterfunken]

Understand the latter part of your post, but curious about the former:

Cool. So, could you view a webpage as "newsworthy" ('news' isn't defined, it seems), and save it to your hard drive, thus reproducing it, but as long as you have cited the author/owner, you're okay? I know that IE once upon a time added the URL of the page to the saved HTML files it outputted... So if the origin source is acknowledged (whether it's sufficeintly done so, though, becuase it's in the html source file and invisible to the user unless they go through steps to view it), that's acceptable?

And then to drag it back to the webpage ripper idea, as long as you acknowledged the source of the images, and/or any other content you get, it's not a breach?

My apologies if this is frustrating -- not actively trying to, even if it seems like it!

Your girlfriend does law, mednez doesn't. Your honour, I rest my case.

 

[ReaveR]

I can assure you, that IF it was illegal, there wouldn't be shareware programs that enable ppl to do it. Case closed.

How many of them are actually developed in Australia?

 

[ogmzergrush]

I can assure you, that IF it was illegal, there wouldn't be shareware programs that enable ppl to do it. Case closed.

Just like how there are shareware rippers for audio cds, despite the fact that they aren't legal in Australia? Foreign law is a poor reference for determining what is and isn't legal in Australia.

 

[MedNez]

Your girlfriend does law, mednez doesn't. Your honour, I rest my case.

You have to be law student to be able to interpret law ? If you do not want to actively contribute to the discussion, and would rather spend your time degrading other users, then you should look to post elsewhere.

So, could you view a webpage as "newsworthy" ('news' isn't defined, it seems), and save it to your hard drive, thus reproducing it, but as long as you have cited the author/owner, you're okay?

I would presume that to be much the same as cutting out a newspaper clipping and penciling in the Newpaper and Date across the top when English teachers photocopy for you, for example. You're using the material, but are acknowledging where it came from and not claiming it as your own. I'd be interested to know the laws on newspapers, now you mention that actually, because they're so widespread, although no one would 'steal' the ideas, it would be hard to police plagiarism and similar infringements.

to drag it back to the webpage ripper idea, as long as you acknowledged the source of the images, and/or any other content you get, it's not a breach?

That's where I think it becomes more defined, I would class a website as a an entire literary piece through a creative process ('Intellectual Property'), so to reproduce it in full would the same as copying an entire book, not photocopying a page for a reference and giving credit where credit is due.

If you only saved one or two images, credited them (and asked for permission to make sure you were in the right), then I don't see a problem. But yeah, copying an entire site would be (presumably but not 100% sure to be) in the wrong.

My apologies if this is frustrating -- not actively trying to, even if it seems like it!

Haha, no worries. It's a learning experience for everyone! I enjoy learning more and discussing and debating IT news, laws, et cetera, hence why I mod this forum!

\edit\

On a related note, does anyone know if reproduction laws for books and literary pieces are all limited to 10% ? Or is this just a guideline that many educational textbooks (for example) have taken up in their agreements when you purchase them, independant of copyright law?

 

[blackbunny]

No. It infringes the copyright of the website owner. Those programs are illegal. Ripping a CD is also illegal in Australia, sorry :\

as far as im concerned i never wanted to copy or asked to copy a website illegally. some websites allow you to copy ALL of them.

 

[AsyLum]

Like i stated, you have asked explicitly for a website ripper.

Ripping websites is considered to be a breach of intellectual property (AFAIK) due to their nature of being produced by the author for viewing, not copying.

Refer to my previous post and the posts regarding the terminology.

If you would like to provide a link to the webpage, and explain the various actions you wish to undertake with it, perhaps we can provide you with a clearer answer.

 

[ogmzergrush]

A lot of websites which are intended for users to save for offline viewing provide a handy little archive containing everything included on the site for convenient downloading. If you're certain that the author wants people to save the site for offline viewing, perhaps you could email them and ask them if they could make such an archive available.

 

[phizz]

I have a quick theory to the discussion about downloading webpages:

It seems that in actual fact that downloading entire web content can be demonstrated as legal relating to any search engine....All search engines firstly use a spider to find all open/public webpages and completely downloads all content.

I don't think there is a direct statement in copyright law that exempts search engines, and therefore how can a court regard offline browsing of web content considerably different to any search engines on the web???

I beleave alot of people are becoming confused between the definitions of copying, and reproduction. Copying is an act where all content of a produced medium are kept utterly intact, and with no addtional content or manipulation.....This also includes the author's name, date, and appropriate reference fields.

Reproduction on the other hand refers to the above senario, but HAS been manipulated in some way...IE: Re-produced, and is only legal if you have the appropriate consent of the author or abides to the license agreement.

Now, although thats what a good definition for copying and reproduction should be. No pollutition has seemed to grasp the concepts of the two and have allowed fairly fuzzy definitions for copyright laws (my freedom of speech given, please don't sue me for slander)...

So whatever is eventually agreed here as legal...If its illegal to 'copy' web pages (using my deffinition) then we should make some money by dobbing in all Australian search engines.......else......we'll you can all see which side I'm takeing here.