W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2010

Re: URIs, deep linking, framing, adapting and related concerns

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:53:08 -0500
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: "Martin J." Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <1292615588.2289.36059.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 09:25 -0500, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 5:46 AM, "Martin J. Dürst"
> <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
> > I fully and totally agree with Mark here. While often both a@href and
> > img@src are called links, anchor links and links with transclusion semantics
> > are completely different from what they achieve. IANAL, but including an
> > image, a frame, or whatnot in a Web page without permission is a pretty
> > simple and straightforward copyright violation. If there are no court cases
> > that say so,
> 
> IANAL, but don't the cases I forwarded (mentioned on
> chillingeffects.org) say so? You don't need the "if".

http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative/faq.cgi#QID380 
Unfortunately it isn't clear how up-to-date or accurate that page is.
Notice that further down on the page it says: ". . . we can?t copyright
algorithms, or can openers, or mathematical formulas . . . ."  But as we
all know, and famously starting with the patent on RSA encryption,
algorithms are *routinely* patented these days.  As I understand it, it
is done under the legal guise of the algorithm being "embodied" in a
piece of hardware (such as being burned into ROM), but the effect is the
same.


-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Friday, 17 December 2010 19:53:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:29 GMT