W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2010

Quick review of context of Thinh's visit

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 20:24:46 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTinQOB29kzW0jXa_2RaFszfEhKEzE0iNeWsTgF0h@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org
(bcc: Thinh who probably doesn't want his email address logged.)

Sorry, this is very sketchy... I'll try to do more prep tomorrow morning.

Our ISSUE-25 "What to say in defense of principle that deep linking is
not an illegal act?" http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/25
was closed in Feb 2003 with the publication of a TAG "finding" or
technical position statement,
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/deeplinking.html .

There were two recent email threads reviving the discussion of 'deep linking':
1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Oct/0031.html from
Rotan Hanrahan, and following.
  "A statement from the TAG reinforcing the open nature of URLs may help"
    1. "facilitating plagiarism" e.g. embedded images used in phishing scams
    2. content transforming proxies and implied terms of access
    3. how to respond to out-of-context URLs for ephemeral resources
Rotan's questions are technical in nature, not really legal.  They were
never answered.  The thread wandered away from the original post.

2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Apr/0007.html from
Henry Thompson, and following.
  More general discussion of so-called "deep linking" issue, including
whether terms
  of use statements have any force, and whether image linking might
  be some kind of copyright infringement.

When the TAG discussed this (when?) there was interest in bringing
Thinh in for a consult, both for information and for strategy advice.

Related: http://www.linksandlaw.com/

Please bring questions so that we make good use of this opportunity.

Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 01:25:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:36 UTC