W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Arrested - re: TAG ISSUE-25 deep linking

From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 06:56:44 -0800
Message-ID: <4D7A382C.2040605@oracle.com>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
+1 Such a document would be very valuable and we would learn a lot in writing it.
All the best, Ashok

On 3/11/2011 6:52 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Henry S. Thompson<ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>  wrote:
>> It seems to me this approach is fundamentally different, from a Web
>> Architecture _and_ a copyright perspective, from what
>> e.g. cyclingfans.com [5] does, which is aggregate information about
>> live streaming coverage of cycle races, using distant-references.  In
>> particular, any attempt to describe the channelsurfing.net case as
>> "just another deep-linking case" is at best a gross
>> over-simplification.
> Agreed.
> Maybe what we need is a document that describes, in neutral technical
> terms, how and why copying takes place on the Web, and what entities
> are technically (not necessarily legally) responsible for it taking
> place in various situations. Perhaps the transclusion/distant
> distinction reflects a difference in who is responsible for an act of
> copying.
> Such an analysis falls squarely in the TAG realm, and does not get
> involved in legal questions or advice. It just explains how things
> work (retrieval, caching, downloads, linking, transclusion, frames,
> scripts, robots, etc.) from the perspective of bits moving around.
> One thing such a document could explain is the information flow around
> embedded video, and why its various pieces happen.
> I bet we would learn something by attempting to assign responsibility
> (or causality) for each kind of copying event.
> The copying question is only one aspect of the overall
> linking-restriction topic, since not all attempts to restrict linking
> have to do with copying. (I would link to an example but its terms of
> use prohibit me.) But one thing at a time.
> Jonathan
Received on Friday, 11 March 2011 14:58:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:09 UTC