Also on AOL
- Autos
- Technology
- Lifestyle
- Gaming
- Finance
- Entertainment on AOL
- Lifestyle on AOL
- Sports on AOL
- Travel on AOL
- More on AOL
Featured Galleries
Joystiq
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-23-2008 @ 2:19PM
Hugh "Nomad" Hancock said...
I agree, the comments system kinda blows. Either implement threaded discussions or don't!
@PeeWee: So, does that mean that Blizzard could also sue Opera for making money off writing a browser than can be used to view the Armory? If not, please explain the distinction.
Terms of Use on a website range from "not very plausible" to "total rubbish". Just because they wrote it doesn't mean it's legal. See also the legal kerfuffle a few years ago as various people tried to ban deep-linking into sites, and discovered they couldn't.
@Brandon: Yes, it is different. In your suggested case, the reseller is directly reselling materials copyrighted by the New York Times. To the best of my understanding, the Armory Browser doesn't include any copyrighted content outside their own in the distribution.
The actual case is closer to Google displaying portions of the Blizzard site text in search results. Do you think Google should be legally liable for that?