I've been wondering for awhile, given how successful it is at navigating paywalls, if it might actually be run by the newspapers themselves as a way of attracting potential customers. Giving them content to keep them interested while guilting them into paying.
Otherwise—and this is unusual for any legitimate activity—I can find no reference to any legal person anywhere on their site.
It would be unusual for an illegal operation to be
- Agreeing to the laws of a US court
(of course, they could also have just written that for fun)
Registrant Name: PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC
Name Server: NS-497.AWSDNS-62.COM
Name Server: NS-1669.AWSDNS-16.CO.UK
Name Server: NS-861.AWSDNS-43.NET
Name Server: NS-1406.AWSDNS-47.ORG
If media were running this, the whole point is to not have it be publicly known, make people feel guilty for using the service.
If criminals are running this, obviously they don't want to be publicly known.
Adblock Plus should fork its own web browser with built-in Acceptable Ads whitelisting. It'd be more honest than Brave.
- Acceptable Ads is not supposed to allow scummy ads
- Taboola paid to get their ads accepted
- Acceptable Ads is dishonest
If you google a bit, you'll find that the ads that get whitelisted under Acceptable Ads are nothing different from the normal Taboola bullshit. In fact, the whitelist is quite simple: They allow the whole taboola network to operate.
It's also not the type of activity being discussed, which is unauthorized caching: a content provider who uses a CDN is doing so intentionally and while shared local proxies are increasingly uncommon they also respect the Cache-Control headers set by the source — see e.g. https://redbot.org/?uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com — so again there's the distinguishing factor of authorization.
It's actually pretty easy, you can start chrome with --disable-web-security flag 
> I also think you could argue "What if outline loaded articles in an iframe?"
I'm sure this would be legal as it's equivalent to loading the site in a tab. The parent site wouldn't be able to manipulate any of the content/ads/paywalls/functionality, and the content site gets the full hit.
The best solution for copyright/paywall enforcement is to roll your own. If the request doesn't have the required cookie to access the full article, don't respond with the full page. This works very well for dealing with sites such as outline.com .
Sites like outline.com would be really interesting/usefull if they allowed you to upload your login cookies so that they could get paywalled articles and still strip the ads.
The way outline.com works is by loading the article unsuspiciously once from their server, then serving it any number of times from their infrastructure. How would this stop that from happening?
Outline is a browser in a browser.
If it were accessing unauthorised content in a shady way I would say they have a leg to stand on, but serving up content to Google different from what it serves to the user is already borderline illegal for a variety of reasons. (It's a misrepresentation) I don't think anyone is wanting to go down that road.
Remember with the law intent is usually what matters most.
The technical stance that outline is serving up content that the user requests from another site is by design not redistribution.
The funny part is that the argument that allows this is the same stupid argument that permits copyright to exist in a world where everytime you open or read a file you are technically copying it.
This is called spoofing. Google doesn’t like it because it makes for a bad user experience, but it is certainly not illegal (or even borderline).
I think the legal argument you’re trying to make died with the Aereo supreme court decision. The ”outline is a browser in a browser” statement is cute but it doesn’t pass the duck test.
About Aereo, could you elaborate more on that? I never heard of it, checking the Wikipedia article, I cannot find the word browser inside.
I'm seriously interested in that argument because years ago I was considering an idea to do exactly that. I mean look at Rubinius (Ruby in Ruby) or PyPy (Python in Python). Those are actually serious projects that are more than just research - as far as I know some thing can be even done faster that way and gave inspiration for the reference implementation.
Speaking about JS, React is basically re-implementation of the DOM in JS with an XML like language.
Nobody minds if Chrome and Firefox include Translations that transforms websites, that people use screen readers etc. I think there are limits of reason of what a content providers can restrict.
Aereo tried to do the same for TV broadcasting (they were claiming they didn't copy, just digitalize and transmit on behalf of the user), and the courts struck that down.
But per the wording "noarchive - Prevents Google from showing the Cached link for a page" - and it seems likes it is technically just avoiding showing the cached link.
On so many levels.
I think countries added workarounds for computer caching, allowing transient copies. But Google's "cache" or more of a short term archive, I'd guess they called it "cache" to semantically bypass the issue of it being an infringing copy.
If Google don't bother, just assuming they have the rights, then they're infringers. In copyright law the distributor is usually down for the largest punishment, that would be Google.
"I didn't bother to check if it was an infringement for me to distribute the work" doesn't seem like it would negate a claim of tortuous infringement?
I doubt many contracts are written for specific domain names. I expect most contracts allow for a publisher to use it in their publications without specifying exactly whether that publication is a website, magazine, publisher branded app, or an Apple News article.
My main irk with AMP is that it's mostly an all-or-nothing solution. I'd love to publish AMP pages without allowing anyone to republish my content. The way Google implements AMP also seems like a huge antitrust issue given their near-monopoly in search. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the next EU fines will be over AMP.
If wordpress by default said on the footer "content licensed under CC", how would it be my fault if I reuse the content, just because the author didn't bother to change that?
How does that in any way remove the need for a sound legal framework defining the limits of IP rights for this use case? Do you think everything put on the web should be considered public domain?
In my personal opinion -- Emphatic yes. Copyright law is tyrannical and should be abolished.
If you don't want to serve the content then don't serve the content.
Build reasonable web sites and don't use AMP.
I won't even use mobile web without Firefox and Ublock anymore. The difference between that and stock Chrome is ridiculous. Browsing with Chrome results in about 5x the data usage.
It's all fair use.