W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > February 2009

Re: [CTG]: Novarra going for mobile sites too

From: Tom Hume <tom.hume@futureplatforms.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:08:33 +0000
Message-Id: <1C2A58EB-ABFE-4CF9-A135-2A1641E63D0E@futureplatforms.com>
To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>


Suggest you get your choir of lawyers together with Rigo for a chat ;)

I've been working in software for 14 years but still like to get legal  
matters relating to software contracts settled by a qualified lawyer  
(with domain expertise of course - as Rigo has).

In any case, I'm not going to waste time arguing the point with you -  
just wanted to correct the false assertion that you'd made this point  
before and no-one had objected.

Bye bye,

On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:55, Luca Passani wrote:

> Tom Hume wrote:
>> Luca
>> The point has been raised many times and challenged by parties more  
>> qualified to give a legal opinion than yourself: Rigo Wenning,  
>> Legal Counsel of the W3C asserted that the existence of, and  
>> respect for, no-transform allows content providers to express their  
>> wish to avoid transformation. Content owners have rights: they can  
>> be protected.
> I am sorry, but I disagree with a few things here. Rigo's opinion is  
> certainly qualified, but I think that it is far from being the last  
> word on the subject. Two points in particular:
> > existence of [..] no-transform allows content providers to express  
> their
> > wish to avoid transformation.
> so, if I place a T&C page on my site that clearly says that it's all  
> my copyright and nobody has the right to create derivative work  
> without consent, all of that is void whenever "no-transform" is not  
> being used? I think I can refer to a choir of qualified lawyers who  
> will chant "I don't think so".
> > Content owners have rights: they can be protected
> even assuming that "programmatic" defense of the content is  
> possible, I argue that "no-transcode" is not a good enough way.
> In the discussion, the comparison has been made with robots.txt.  
> Robots.txt has an advantage over "no-trasform": you create it once  
> and  it applies to the whole site.
> No-transform on the other hand needs to be applied at each and every  
> resource you serve through your web server. But there is more, my  
> request to evaluate the possibility that a single no-transform per  
> page should apply to all of the resources contained in the page has  
> been explicitly discarded by the group.
> So, I think "no-transform" is too taxing for content provider to  
> adopt to protect their content, and I argue that, having been a  
> practitioner in the mobile business for years, I am more qualified  
> than Rigo in this very technical matter.
>> I believe that last time I pointed this out, you asserted that your  
>> own opinion of the legalities should take priority, saying "in that  
>> particular case, I believe I am more qualified than Rigo. A lawyer  
>> can say that there must be a way for websites to tell transcoders  
>> not to transcode them, but he cannot be more qualified than me in  
>> saying what those ways should be"[1]
> exactly, and I stand my case. I think that Rigo is not technical  
> enough to provide a qualified opinion about whether "no-transcode"  
> is a good enough way to protect content (again, assuming that  
> content needs to be protected more than copyright notices already do).
> Luca
>> Tom
>> [1] See http://wapreview.com/blog/?p=1837
>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 13:39, Luca Passani wrote:
>>> Content owners have rights too and must be respected. This point I  
>>> raised several times and nobody ever challenged it (they just  
>>> ignored it and kept arguing about users)

Future Platforms
e: Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com
t: +44 (0) 1273 819038
m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
work: www.futureplatforms.com
play: tomhume.org
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 18:12:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:59 UTC