zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. 411111+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-07-08 10:48:44
Your phrasing makes it sound like that's a negative.

I'm honestly surprised they're required to abstain from doing so at the author's request.

You can only read the context of the match after finding the search result after all, not the whole book.

It's an example of significant overreach of intellectual property from how I see it. The robot.txt rational doesn't apply there either, as their scanning does not impact anyone's resources. And it's been published, which makes it public by definition.

replies(1): >>oneeye+c8
2. oneeye+c8[view] [source] 2023-07-08 12:24:28
>>411111+(OP)
Oh, I agree with you. I think the whole idea of legislating against machines accessing public content is a very slippery slope.
[go to top]