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

Re: [W3C] Draft Mobile Web BPWG / comments

From: casays <casays@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:27:57 -0000
To: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <g7a9jt+33bm@eGroups.com>

>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.

Let us sort this out. First, transcoding is not even a term in the
guidelines. What you are suggesting is that recoding and optimizing
fall under fair-use doctrine, whereas restructuring does not. I
personally could live with that. Note the statement in 4.3.6: 

"In the absence of a Vary or no-transform directive (or a meta
HTTP-Equiv element containing Cache-Control: no-transform) proxies
should apply heuristics to the response to determine whether it is
appropriate to restructure or recode it."

A suitable heuristic therefore seems to be: if presence of a meta-tag
copyright, then no restructuring. A no-transform directive, if proxies
follow the guidelines and the HTTP standard, excludes all three kinds
of transformation. However, there are still cases 2.b and 2.c in my
comments to take into account, which might be affected by recoding.

>So I don't think a copyright statement is equivalent to no-transform
>directive, to begin with. 

They are not equivalent; no-transform is stipulated by a standard and
has a technical scope. A copyright notice has legal implications.

E. Casais
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 19:28:38 UTC

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