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".

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

David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)

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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:08 UTC