W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2012

Re: An example of cross-jurisdictional complexity relating to copyright

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:13:59 +0900
Message-ID: <4FFFF4E7.1070009@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
CC: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
I very much agree with Henry that the distinction between linking in the 
sense of "<a href='...'>" and embedding in the sense of in the sense of 
<img src='...'/> is crucial. And it's definitely something that if 
anyBody, the TAG should be qualified to explain well to the rest of the 
world.

I'm personally rather concerned about the aspect that a citizen would be 
extradited by his own country for stuff that as described was done 
inside that country, but I also haven't fact-checked this, and 
extradition law and such wouldn't be an area of expertise for the TAG 
and the other contributors to this mailing list.


I'm somewhat worried by the fact that the site, in its right column, 
asked me "Are you Noah Mendelsohn?". When I shortened the link to
http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/odwyer/, this was replaced by a 
list of fields to fill in my name.

These days, even with Web sites that, as far as one would judge from 
their general political inclination, should be rather careful about 
privacy, one seems to have to be careful with copying links! (It may be 
interesting to point out that cookies, which have a very bad reputation 
in terms of privacy, might have worked better here :-).

Regards,   Martin.

On 2012/07/12 23:58, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
> I do remember that you had explained this last year, but what I missed
> is that the case described at [1] in my e-mail is indeed the same one
> about which you had given the clarification. Thank you for the reminder.
>
> As you say, this becomes an especially good reminder of the need for the
> TAG to help the community clarify their terminology.
>
> Noah
>
> On 7/12/2012 10:34 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>> Noah Mendelsohn writes:
>>
>>> The note at [1] discusses a case in which, purportedly,
>>> an individual who resides in the UK is facing possible extradition to
>>> the US for posting links on a Web site, which itself is not US-based
>>> and is not primarily intended for US users, to material that the US
>>> considers to be copyrighted.
>>
>> Quote from [1]:
>>
>> "He is facing extradition to the USA and up to ten years in prison,
>> for creating a website - TVShack.net---which linked (similarly to a
>> search-engine) to places to watch TV and movies online."
>>
>> As I explained in some detail last year [2] when this first hit the
>> news, this is a classic example where terminology is misleading, and
>> we definitely have a job to do. The person in question did not, in
>> the sense of "<a href='...'>", 'link' to places to watch TV. He
>> 'embedded' TV, in the sense of <img src='...'/>. To be precise, on
>> the page cited in [2], if you View Source, you will see a (heavily
>> obfuscated) use of <embed> targeted at a flash player. . .
>>
>> ht
>>
>> [1]
>> http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/odwyer/?akid=1423.669729.VS6yPa&rd=1&t=2
>>
>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Jun/0112.html
>>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 13 July 2012 10:14:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 July 2012 10:14:37 GMT