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

>  - With <embed>, the user's download of the work is caused by the
> *website's* decision to use <embed>, *knowing* that this will cause the
> user's browser to download the work, potentially without the user even
> being aware that the work is not coming from that website.  Thus, the
> website bears responsibility for the copying that has caused the user's
> browser to perform.

This does not seem like a distinction that would hold up to
architectural scrutiny. In Lynx, obviously, the browser does not
request a copy of an embedded video. In some configurations of Gmail
and Google Talk, simply sending a textual link to a YouTube video
causes the user to request a copy. One can imagine Greasemonkey
scripts that convert YouTube links into small embeds. Browsers that do
link prefetching may request the results of things that are merely
linked to. It's impractical for the author of a page (or an email) to
know all possible client configurations.

Does the TAG want to rewrite the Web specs so that certain kind of
tags (e.g. embed and img, but not a) carry the implication "I have
verified that the content published at this URL is not published in
violation of copyright law"? That strikes me as insane; copyright laws
vary significantly from country to country and even if we decide to
limit the World Wide Web to just the US, the leading experts in the
field agree that US law is so ambiguous there is no way to be certain
whether a published work is infringing or not.

Received on Friday, 11 March 2011 17:06:09 UTC