RE: Potential wild-card issue outside W3C: legality of deep linki ng

The terms matter.  Reference is too overloaded. 
The use of ambiguous terms is to be avoided.
 
Hypertext links are in a hypertext system and are 
never citations.  They are controls.  Ignoring 
this for the sake of URI definitions creates 
and compounds confusion just as conflating 
locators with links does.   Whoever taught you 
that a citation is a hypertext link confused 
the issues of linking and resolving.  Some 
parts of the web are a bit of a mess because 
of this.  See namespaces.

Functionality is at issue in the terms.  I agree 
that education as to functionality is a win-win 
but you have to determine if the architecture 
document is the place to do that.  It seems to 
me that is the job of a position paper offered 
as a service which cites the architecture document 
et al as the authoritative source for interpreting 
the intent or rationale for the design.

The technology can be used 
correctly and still violate local laws.  Pornography 
restrictions are an example.   A law that states 
that upon notification by the owner of the property 
that linking to it is not permitted, therefore 
remove the link is a reasonable law even if a 
restriction of the use of the technology within 
the community governed.  First use is as you say, 
not reasonable and that should be pointed out.
Deep linking is not an architectural principle.

The Danish court as I understand it is not governing 
the web architecture.   It is governing its application 
within its jurisdiction.   It is possible for it 
to govern the use of and distribution of properties 
based on the web architecture and to restrict their 
use.  The lesser evil here is to, as said above, 
pass a law that governs the behavior of the entities 
creating the link and I agree, it should be the least 
restrictive code, and that they are erring by requiring 
first requesting permission.  If failing to do that, they 
then restrict the distribution, they are still within
their rights even if not something you or I would 
find morally acceptable.

The law as written may be flawed in its use of 
terms, but if you and I can reasonably disagree 
over citation and hypertext link, can we reasonably 
expect a body such as the danish court to have more 
competence?  So education is a realistic goal. 
I contend the architecture document is not the 
appropriate document for that.    It appears to be 
a narrow issue in a global system document where that document 
is intended to clarify technical features, not 
argue legal issues that are local in scope.

Lessig stated that many are dissatisfied with 
retorts the web cannot be governed and that they
understand that governing architectural features 
indeeds governs the web.   My analogy to seat belts 
is that it is perfectly reasonable to pass laws to 
require manufacturers to provide seat belts 
(govern the architecture by a feature) and to 
prescribe their use (govern the behavior of the 
user).  

I think it risky to use the architecture document 
to imply that the technical architecture scopes 
the law.   The response is predictable.  Caveat 
vendor.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Reagle [mailto:reagle@w3.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 1:06 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); tbray@textuality.com
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Subject: Re: Potential wild-card issue outside W3C: legality of deep
linki ng


On Thursday 29 August 2002 01:19 pm, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> No they aren't.   A citation is not a hypertext link.

But some hypertext links are citations. <smile/> Besides, arguing about what 
is or is not a citation is not the point as I never used that term, I said 
it is a "reference."

> A hypertext link is a control with a dereference
> semantic.

And the policy to determine what is returned after dereferencing is a 
service decision based on such things as the referrer log, authentication, 
and such. The mechanism itself is not the problem, as some erringly think. 
Encouraging the public, or legal community, to understand that is a win-win 
for everyone.

>   It is possible for a local venue to
> outlaw linking without permission based on the
> nature of the control even though the enforcement
> of that is expensive.  That is what Lessig points
> out with regards to legislation or control
> through the architecture.  It is the same kind
> of law that puts seatbelts and airbags in cars.

IMHO, the most efficient, legally grounded, and technically neutral approach 
is to focus on fraudulent or abusive interaction with the mechanisms and 
their effects. I don't follow your argument at all. I'm not sure which 
Lessig argument you are trying to use and I don't see the relevance of this 
to any theories (public welfare, personal liberty, and strong/weak 
paternalism) typically associated with seatbelts and airbags.

> The W3C should restrict its official statements
> to the functionality of the architecture, not
> the legality of using it in any local venue.

I don't understand what you mean by a local venue. If the presumption is 
that permission must be sought before the mechanism of linking can be used, 
that has a massive and global implication. Instead, local policies should 
be specified locally (in the web service) and the law should address 
specific abuses.

> It is not an architectural issue.  You are
> overstepping your mandate and your authority
> if such statements extend beyond the use of
> W3C property rights, in effect, its website.

The Web architecture concerns more than just the W3C web site. Regardless, 
symmetry also permits one to argue that the Dutch court has overstepped its 
authority and should not be trying to control web architecture <smile/>.

Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 14:32:19 UTC