- From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 07:53:46 -0800
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- CC: TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
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<ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> It seems to me this approach is fundamentally different, from a Web >>>> Architecture _and_ a copyright perspective, from what >>>> e.g. cyclingfans.com [5] does, which is aggregate information about >>>> live streaming coverage of cycle races, using distant-references. In >>>> particular, any attempt to describe the channelsurfing.net 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