W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-comments@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: [W3C] Draft Mobile Web BPWG / comments

From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:41:01 -0400
Message-ID: <e920a71c0808051141l7b4189d3v7ba2902accf4ca1f@mail.gmail.com>
To: casays <casays@yahoo.com>
Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org

Boy, I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps I shouldn't even try to comment, but:

My understanding is that transcoding falls under fair-use provisions.
It might not if you're doing sneaky stuff like profiting from the
content via ads or something.

So I don't think a copyright statement is equivalent to no-transform
directive, to begin with. But do you have a reference for this? if
there are clear legal implications, these deserve mention.

I have never heard of a company asking us to not transcode on
copyright grounds. I sure have heard of companies being angry that
their (copyrighted) site isn't showing up as a transcoded result.
Based on my anecdotal experience, I disagree with your conclusion
about what a copyright statement signals... and really we have a lot
more experience to draw on in this regard.

I sure don't argue that a transcoder therefore should feel entitled to
transcode anything under fair-use protections. If the author doesn't
want that, the author can be explicit about it with a no-transform
directive. Why not use that to be clear then?

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:33 PM, casays <casays@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On WML:
>>This is a tricky one. We do actually want WML to be transformed to WMLC.
> This means you want to recode from WML to WBMXL, but not to
> restructure -- and indeed, I have seen restructurings of WML
> code by proxies whose outcome was next to unusable.
>>On Copyright:
>>Indeed, when authoring HTML, the author cannot have a precise view of
>>the visual form of their work because intentionally, and by their
>>nature, Web browsers do not set out to provide identical experiences.
> Actually, the variation of representations is fundamentally grounded
> on a specification: HTML 4.0.1 is littered with warnings that it does
> not prescribe an exact representation of specific constructs and that
> client programs may take different decisions as to how to handle HTML
> constructs (including modalities like graphical vs. textual vs. audio
> browsers). That is the standard, and as such developers and content
> providers cannot complain of differences in representation within the
> scope of the standard.
> It is a completely different matter to perform transformations that
> are outside the scope of the standard, and in particular the whole
> gambit of inserting ads, links to extraneous content, logos, and in
> general media that was not present there in the first place, like is
> occurring disturbingly more frequently nowadays.
> Observe that an increasing number of corporate and commercial WWW
> sites include copyright notices, basically stating: "We developed this
> content. It belongs to us. No derivative works allowed." The presence
> of a copyright meta-tag in the original content is indicative of such
> intended restrictions and should therefore be properly taken into account.
> E. Casais
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 18:41:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:01:50 UTC