Re: XHTML2.0 - transclusion

> IANAL, but when it comes to ordinary hyperlinks, I suspect such as
> policies are unenforceable in terms of intellectual property since:

I suspect that too.  I think it depends on whether the terms of use
are capable of forming a contract (and I don't think they meet the
consideration reqirement).

> Whether inclusion or transclusion is protected by (say) fair use

Note that you are probably talking from a US point of view.  UK
fair dealing is a lot more restrictive than US fair use, and, for
example, considers the implicit copying involved in running a
computer program to be covered by copyright (which might may also
mean that copyright protected operations are incurred in simply
viewing a web site, so a non-contractual licence may be sufficient
to allow restrictions on deep links to be imposed.  IANAL.

> Shouldn't that lobby be much more agitated about:
> 
> <img src="http://www.anothersite.com/example.jpeg">

I think they are, but the horse has bolted, so they are left with
technical means (Referer).  I think the difference, now, is that 
new features are being introduced in a commercial web, whereas img
was introduced in an academic environment.

> 
> > I would actually welcome a change in legislation to explicitly void
> > all deep linking restrictions
> 
> Do you mean "deep linking" as in ordinary hyperlinks or as in src
> inclusions, or both?

Ordinary hyperlinks only.  I think that good design will ensure that
recipients of a deep link will know the original of the material and
how to navigate to the main part of the external site.

Transclusiong makes it too easy to suppress the true origin, even
if the result violates moral rights and copyrights.

Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2007 23:32:08 UTC