Does anyone actually know who is running outline.com? Are they definitely infringing on copyrights or is that just a popular assumption?
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.
> Does anyone actually know who is running outline.com?
The only hint I can get is their Terms of Service are governed by California law and the courts of Santa Clara County [1]. (It also refeeences “business transfers” in its privacy policy [2], implying it’s a for-profit entity.)
Otherwise—and this is unusual for any legitimate activity—I can find no reference to any legal person anywhere on their site.
What if outline.com simply did a GET request on the source from the browser, stripped out paywalls and ads and served the content from the source server. Is that still copyright infringement?
That's basically what Brave does - web browser with a built-in adblocker. Or, for that matter, Chrome with any adblocking extension. It's not illegal, but it's not exactly popular with webmasters, and they're within their rights to block access to these browsers. In practice it tends to evolve into a cat-and-mouse game where adblockers block the ads, websites try to detect the adblockers and show you a pop-up encouraging you to turn off the adblocker, adblockers try to block the pop-ups, and so on.
Yes, it is. It's a form of republication, and as such, protected under copyright law. The difference between a third-party server side solution and client-side solutions is easy to see: client-side solutions don't redistribute.
If that is copyright infringement then so is Google Chrome.
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.
> serving up content to Google different from what it serves to the user is already borderline illegal for a variety of reasons
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.
gpm|7 years ago
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.
JumpCrisscross|7 years ago
The only hint I can get is their Terms of Service are governed by California law and the courts of Santa Clara County [1]. (It also refeeences “business transfers” in its privacy policy [2], implying it’s a for-profit entity.)
Otherwise—and this is unusual for any legitimate activity—I can find no reference to any legal person anywhere on their site.
[1] https://outline.com/terms.html
[2] https://outline.com/privacy.html
adventured|7 years ago
unknown|7 years ago
[deleted]
marktolson|7 years ago
nostrademons|7 years ago
hahajk|7 years ago
sam0x17|7 years ago
tremon|7 years ago
lugg|7 years ago
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.
paulgb|7 years ago
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.