![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 April 2024. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Belgian Association of Newspaper Editors v. Google
In September 2006 the Belgian Association of Newspaper Editors sued Google and obtained an injunctive order from the Belgian Court of First Instance that Google must stop deep linking to Belgian newspapers without paying royalties, or else pay a fine of €1 million daily.[9] Many newspaper columns were critical of the Belgian newspapers' position.[10] "
This is not true, 11 years ago I have corrected this already and included the original verdict. Look at it and correct it, Incredible that such false information is still winning from facts. Google was not convicted for hyperlinking, not even close. Read the official verdict. Google was convicted because they published text from the articles and used this in their news portal. That is one of the reasons they changed the news section from portal to pure search engine. All can be read in the original verdict of the court (in French).
I think that the suggested merger is a bad idea because there are other aspects of web technolgy that implicate copyright law. The article would be too big. The one on linking is already long enough.
PraeceptorIP (
talk) 21:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the edits by Stevertigo are well intended but in need of considerable revision. Much in them is helpful, but other parts are counterproductive and in some cases, with due respect, ill-informed. I will try to synthesize the new and old material in edits over the next several days, and would be pleased to discuss the details with Stevertigo or anyone else. Much of the new material is simply unrelated to linking or its copyright law aspects.
PraeceptorIP (
talk) 21:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The section "Overview" is inappropriate in my opinion. The overview of the article should be provided in the lead section, see Wikipedia:Lead section. In addition (to follow up on an email from PraeceptorIP to me), it seems that the three last paragraphs of the section indeed relate to downloading, not linking or framing. Cheers -- Edcolins ( talk) 18:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
This article has recently (2010-06-11) been cited by Stockholms tingsrätt, a Swedish first-instance court:
"Tingsrätten saknar praktisk möjlighet att göra en komparativ studie avseende rättstillämpningen i olika länder i aktuellt hänseende, men konstaterar att de rättsprocesser som initierats på olika håll i världen vanligen verkar ha avsett djuplänkning och s.k. framing (för en allmänt hållen genomgång, se Wikipedia, Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_hyperlinking_and_framing)" Ulner ( talk) 22:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I just came across a couple other cases that might be worth mention
-- Nanite ( talk) 23:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I would request you to kindly remove the videos and photos of this user as it's a topic of her concern. After the app is banned I think the user data regarding the app should also be removed 122.161.91.213 ( talk) 17:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 April 2024. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Belgian Association of Newspaper Editors v. Google
In September 2006 the Belgian Association of Newspaper Editors sued Google and obtained an injunctive order from the Belgian Court of First Instance that Google must stop deep linking to Belgian newspapers without paying royalties, or else pay a fine of €1 million daily.[9] Many newspaper columns were critical of the Belgian newspapers' position.[10] "
This is not true, 11 years ago I have corrected this already and included the original verdict. Look at it and correct it, Incredible that such false information is still winning from facts. Google was not convicted for hyperlinking, not even close. Read the official verdict. Google was convicted because they published text from the articles and used this in their news portal. That is one of the reasons they changed the news section from portal to pure search engine. All can be read in the original verdict of the court (in French).
I think that the suggested merger is a bad idea because there are other aspects of web technolgy that implicate copyright law. The article would be too big. The one on linking is already long enough.
PraeceptorIP (
talk) 21:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the edits by Stevertigo are well intended but in need of considerable revision. Much in them is helpful, but other parts are counterproductive and in some cases, with due respect, ill-informed. I will try to synthesize the new and old material in edits over the next several days, and would be pleased to discuss the details with Stevertigo or anyone else. Much of the new material is simply unrelated to linking or its copyright law aspects.
PraeceptorIP (
talk) 21:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The section "Overview" is inappropriate in my opinion. The overview of the article should be provided in the lead section, see Wikipedia:Lead section. In addition (to follow up on an email from PraeceptorIP to me), it seems that the three last paragraphs of the section indeed relate to downloading, not linking or framing. Cheers -- Edcolins ( talk) 18:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
This article has recently (2010-06-11) been cited by Stockholms tingsrätt, a Swedish first-instance court:
"Tingsrätten saknar praktisk möjlighet att göra en komparativ studie avseende rättstillämpningen i olika länder i aktuellt hänseende, men konstaterar att de rättsprocesser som initierats på olika håll i världen vanligen verkar ha avsett djuplänkning och s.k. framing (för en allmänt hållen genomgång, se Wikipedia, Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_hyperlinking_and_framing)" Ulner ( talk) 22:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I just came across a couple other cases that might be worth mention
-- Nanite ( talk) 23:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I would request you to kindly remove the videos and photos of this user as it's a topic of her concern. After the app is banned I think the user data regarding the app should also be removed 122.161.91.213 ( talk) 17:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)