- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:42:42 -0500
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>, W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > On Mar 11, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Aaron Swartz wrote: >> 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. > > Copyright laws are not so much about the act of moving bits, but > rather the ability to control revenue obtained from the use of > copyrighted expressions. In almost all cases that I have read > (IANALbiswtmtwt), transclusion of unlicensed content for the > sake of profit is illegal. This is helpful, Roy. Could you provide references to some of these cases? Best Jonathan
Received on Friday, 11 March 2011 21:43:15 UTC