- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 19:12:49 +0100
- To: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Related: http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120618/16110519373/chilling-effects-innovation-caused-bad-copyright-law.shtml Jeni On 20 Jun 2012, at 01:51, Jonathan A Rees wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 7:53 PM, ashok malhotra > <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote: >> Surely we can say >> "If you link to or include illegal or seditious material you could be >> prosecuted" >> >> I think you need to say something like this to set up for further discussion >> of >> copying such material by proxies and manipulation of such material, etc. >> which >> the document spends quite a lot of time on. >> >> Another "finding" that I see from this discussion is that we need machine >> readable >> policies spelling out what proxies and archives, etc, can do with website >> material. > > Whether we need such protocols will be a matter of debate in every > case, and we can't come down on any side or even say anything very > general. > > We might say that if the legal default rule (in any jurisdiction) is > to prohibit some action, then it is useful (technically and socially > enabling) to have a documented protocol for communicating legal > exceptions (licenses, etc.). CC REL is an example of such a protocol; > DRM bypasses for public domain or licensed material would be another > (I don't know whether these exist). Whether any such protocol becomes > legally recognized is a complicated process about which we probably > don't have anything to say. > > Jonathan > >> All the best, Ashok >> >> >> On 6/19/2012 4:03 PM, Jeni Tennison wrote: >>> >>> Ashok, >>> >>> On 19 Jun 2012, at 20:48, ashok malhotra wrote: >>>> >>>> I read the publishing and Linking draft again and I'm wondering if we can >>>> make statements like: >>>> >>>> - If you include copyrighted material you violate copyright. If you link >>>> to it >>>> you may not violate copyright >>>> >>>> - If you include of link to illegal material you can the prosecuted for >>>> "aiding >>>> and abetting" >>>> >>>> - If you include or link to seditious material you can be prosecuted by >>>> the >>>> prevailing government >>>> >>>> - If you have a copyright to printed material that carries over to its >>>> electronic form >>> >>> I'd be worried that those are debatable assertions about legal truth which >>> are beyond what we know or could advise people on. >>> >>>> Also, Best practice 1 says "Legislation that forbade transformations on >>>> unlawful material would similarly limit the services that service providers >>>> could provide." I don't know what that means >>> >>> Say you have a law that says that you can't manipulate pornographic images >>> involving children. 'Manipulate' here might mean converting from one image >>> format to another, or cropping, or adjusting colour balance and so on. The >>> law might be attempting to enable prosecution of people who handle the >>> unlawful images as well as those who took them. >>> >>> Now say that you have a service on the web that provides a facility for >>> doing things like image format conversion, or cropping of images so that >>> they can be used as avatars, or provides online image manipulation of other >>> kinds. In an environment where manipulating unlawful images in this way was >>> forbidden, such a service would have to check all the images that were put >>> through the service to ensure that they weren't unlawful; it would be >>> impossible to run such a service. >>> >>> The point is that when you have automated processing of something, it's >>> hard for services to comply with restrictions on what can be processed, >>> because computers can't tell what's lawful and what's unlawful. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Jeni >> >> > > -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 18:13:09 UTC