Re: Arrested - re: TAG ISSUE-25 deep linking

That would be great!  Let me know if I can help.
All the best, Ashok

On 3/11/2011 7:16 AM, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> I'd be happy to take a crack at writing a first draft if that would be useful?
> Jeni
> On 11 Mar 2011, at 14:56, ashok malhotra wrote:
>> +1 Such a document would be very valuable and we would learn a lot in writing it.
>> All the best, Ashok
>> On 3/11/2011 6:52 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Henry S. Thompson<>   wrote:
>>>> It seems to me this approach is fundamentally different, from a Web
>>>> Architecture _and_ a copyright perspective, from what
>>>> e.g. [5] does, which is aggregate information about
>>>> live streaming coverage of cycle races, using distant-references.  In
>>>> particular, any attempt to describe the case as
>>>> "just another deep-linking case" is at best a gross
>>>> over-simplification.
>>> Agreed.
>>> Maybe what we need is a document that describes, in neutral technical
>>> terms, how and why copying takes place on the Web, and what entities
>>> are technically (not necessarily legally) responsible for it taking
>>> place in various situations. Perhaps the transclusion/distant
>>> distinction reflects a difference in who is responsible for an act of
>>> copying.
>>> Such an analysis falls squarely in the TAG realm, and does not get
>>> involved in legal questions or advice. It just explains how things
>>> work (retrieval, caching, downloads, linking, transclusion, frames,
>>> scripts, robots, etc.) from the perspective of bits moving around.
>>> One thing such a document could explain is the information flow around
>>> embedded video, and why its various pieces happen.
>>> I bet we would learn something by attempting to assign responsibility
>>> (or causality) for each kind of copying event.
>>> The copying question is only one aspect of the overall
>>> linking-restriction topic, since not all attempts to restrict linking
>>> have to do with copying. (I would link to an example but its terms of
>>> use prohibit me.) But one thing at a time.
>>> Jonathan

Received on Friday, 11 March 2011 15:56:45 UTC