- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 16:25:06 +0100
- To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
- Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
On 9 Mar 2011, at 16:10, ashok malhotra wrote: > > On 3/9/2011 6:34 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote: >> It certainly sounds as if ICE has convinced a judge at arraignment (I'm assuming that there was an arraignment) that linking can constitute infringement. > > If I have a large, boldface banner on my website that says "Do Not Link to this Website" then I assume > that it can be argued that linking to the website constitutes infringement as long as I saw the banner > before I linked. Can I argue that my website is my "property" in the legal sense and so I can regulate > its use? I would say no. That would be like coining words and being allowed to disallow people to pronounce them. The real answer is for the site publishing the content to put up access controls and limit who sees their content. But I don't think this was the site publishing the content that got upset, but the owners of the content published (probably) illegally on the remote site that were upset. > > Ashok > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 15:26:40 UTC