<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
> <channel><title>gHacks Technology News &#124; Latest Tech News, Software And Tutorials &#187; copyright infringement</title> <atom:link href="http://www.ghacks.net/tag/copyright-infringement/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.ghacks.net</link> <description>A technology news blog covering software, mobile phones, gadgets, security, the Internet and other relevant areas.</description> <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:52:46 +0000</lastBuildDate> <language>en</language> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <atom:link rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com"/><atom:link rel="hub" href="http://superfeedr.com/hubbub"/> <item><title>Unique Content Verifier Un.Co.Ver</title><link>http://www.ghacks.net/2011/02/04/unique-content-verifier-un-co-ver/</link> <comments>http://www.ghacks.net/2011/02/04/unique-content-verifier-un-co-ver/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:28:52 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Martin Brinkmann</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Linux]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Mac]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Software]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Windows]]></category> <category><![CDATA[content theft]]></category> <category><![CDATA[copyright infringement]]></category> <category><![CDATA[linux software]]></category> <category><![CDATA[mac software]]></category> <category><![CDATA[uncover]]></category> <category><![CDATA[unique content verifier]]></category> <category><![CDATA[windows software]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ghacks.net/?p=39572</guid> <description><![CDATA[One of the biggest problems for webmasters on today&#8217;s Internet is scraped content. What does it mean exactly? It basically means that other webmasters are copying contents from a website, usually without authorization to do so. That&#8217;s content theft and copyright infringement. The technology in this area has advanced a lot in the past years. [...]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the biggest problems for webmasters on today&#8217;s Internet is scraped content. What does it mean exactly? It basically means that other webmasters are copying contents from a website, usually without authorization to do so. That&#8217;s content theft and copyright infringement.<br
/> The technology in this area has advanced a lot in the past years. Today it is possible to setup a domain, auto blog and advertisement in less than ten minutes. The contents are automatically scraped from RSS feeds and are then running on auto pilot.</p><p>These websites sometimes rank before the original website, one of the biggest problems on Google which they are currently trying to resolve.</p><p>How can webmasters find sites that scrape their contents? They can use a search engine like Bing or Google, enter a unique phrase from one of their articles as the search term to find all other websites that match the phrase.</p><p>The Unique Content Verifier Un.Co.Ver offers another option. The free Java based software is available for Windows, Linux and Macintosh computers. It can search the web, a specific domain or websites for plagiarized text.</p><p>The application displays the three search options in tabs at the top. Check text is the simplest form. A phrase or paragraph needs to be entered into the form at the top before the check now button is activated. This searches the Internet for matches. It is not clear how and where the search is performed.</p><p>All matching domains are shown in a listing. Information include the url, amount of copied words, the percentage and the plagiarized text. A click on an item in the table displays the plagiarized text in full below.</p><p><a
href="http://www.ghacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/unique-content-verifier.jpg"><img
src="http://www.ghacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/unique-content-verifier-477x550.jpg" alt="unique content verifier" title="unique content verifier" width="477" height="550" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-39573" /></a></p><p>Check Domain replaces the phrase form with a url. Un.Co.Ver scans the url for content and tries to find websites that copied those contents. A filter is available to limit the search to specific content. The rest of the process stays the same.</p><p>Check websites is a more advanced version of check domain. It can be used to find copied contents for multiple pages of a website. The Unique Content Verified crawls one or multiple websites which are then used as the source for the plagiarism check.</p><p>It is theoretically possible to check all pages of a website at once. This may take a very long time depending on the amount of pages on that website.</p><p>Unique Content Verifier is an easy to use program, especially the option to verify multiple pages is handy and not possible with a manual search on Google or Bing. The program usually does not find as many scraper sites as a manual search on a search engine would.</p><p>Uncover is available for download at the project website over at Textbroker.</p><p>Update: The Unique Content Verifier is no longer available at the Textbroker website.</p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.ghacks.net/2011/02/04/unique-content-verifier-un-co-ver/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>5</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>ISPs don&#8217;t have to give up names in civil cases</title><link>http://www.ghacks.net/2008/01/30/isps-dont-have-to-give-up-names-in-civil-cases/</link> <comments>http://www.ghacks.net/2008/01/30/isps-dont-have-to-give-up-names-in-civil-cases/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:25:53 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Martin Brinkmann</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[P2p]]></category> <category><![CDATA[copyright infringement]]></category> <category><![CDATA[court-ruling]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ghacks.net/2008/01/30/isps-dont-have-to-give-up-names-in-civil-cases/</guid> <description><![CDATA[The news that European Internet Service Providers did not have to give up names of customers to members of the Music Industry and other organizations in civil cases hit the Internet by storm. Everyone seemed to think that this was a major victory for consumer rights. It probably is in some countries but let me explain how this is easily circumvented, at least in Germany.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The news that European Internet Service Providers did not have to give up names of customers to members of the Music Industry and other organizations in civil cases <a
href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/08/01/29/2025257/EU-Court-Says-File-Sharers-Dont-Have-To-Be-Named">hit</a> the Internet by storm. Everyone seemed to think that this was a major victory for consumer rights. It probably is in some countries but let me explain how this is easily circumvented, at least in Germany.</p><p>German Internet Service Providers did not give out their customer names in civil cases even before the ruling of the EU court. Copyright infringement is however a criminal offense in Germany which means that the companies file a criminal lawsuit, the State is investigation, getting information about the IP in question and the companies simply take a look into the documents to find out the real name and contact information about that person.</p><p>After they get the name they file a civil case and the criminal lawsuit is normally closed because of minor offenses. With the name however they can &#8211; and do &#8211; sue the user whose IP they detected.</p><p><span
id="more-3038"></span>Is copyright infringement a civil or criminal offense in your country ?</p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.ghacks.net/2008/01/30/isps-dont-have-to-give-up-names-in-civil-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Viacom sends takedown notice to author of video clip</title><link>http://www.ghacks.net/2007/08/31/viacom-sends-takedown-notice-to-author-of-video-clip/</link> <comments>http://www.ghacks.net/2007/08/31/viacom-sends-takedown-notice-to-author-of-video-clip/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 06:14:48 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Martin Brinkmann</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[The Web]]></category> <category><![CDATA[copyright infringement]]></category> <category><![CDATA[takedown notice]]></category> <category><![CDATA[viacom]]></category> <category><![CDATA[youtube]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ghacks.net/2007/08/31/viacom-sends-takedown-notice-to-author-of-video-clip/</guid> <description><![CDATA[The following story is to good to just pass a long. Imagine you create a video and upload it to Youtube. You do get some exposure and someday you realize that a tv show, in this case Web Junk 2.0 on VH1, played your video on their show without asking for your permission in first place. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The following story is to good to just pass a long. Imagine you create a video and upload it to Youtube. You do get some exposure and someday you realize that a tv show, in this case Web Junk 2.0 on VH1, played your video on their show without asking for your permission in first place.</p><p>You then decide to get a copy of that part of the show and publish it on Youtube again to be able to comment on it on your own blog. Guess what happens next ? Right, you get a takedown notice by the guys who took your video in first place without authorization.</p><p>Common sense tells me that this is wrong. I&#8217;m not a lawyer though and it might be a perfectly clear case but it sounds wrong. You do  give Youtube the (non-exclusive) right to redistribute the videos without asking for your permission and it could be possible that Youtube has a deal with Viacom in place that allows them to pick videos for their show.</p><p><span
id="more-1938"></span>It could be. It still sounds wrong though. Below is the original clip, the other video was taken down unfortunately.</p><p><object
width="425" height="350"><param
name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nLi5B0Iefsk"></param><param
name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed
src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nLi5B0Iefsk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object></p><p><strong>Read More:</strong></p><p><a
href="http://theknightshift.blogspot.com/2007/08/viacom-hits-me-with-copyright.html">The Knight Shift</a></p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.ghacks.net/2007/08/31/viacom-sends-takedown-notice-to-author-of-video-clip/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>1</slash:comments> </item> </channel> </rss>
