W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2012

Re: FW: Embedding copyright-infringing video is not a crime, court rules - CNET Mobile

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 12:14:02 -0400
Message-ID: <501BF8CA.8040804@arcanedomain.com>
To: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
CC: www-tag@w3.org
Wow, thanks! Unfortunately, the link [1] provided for the actual court 
ruling doesn't resolve just now, but accepting as correct the quote in the 
CNET article that the court has ruled:

  "MyVidster 'doesn't touch the data stream' and therefore doesn't host the 
infringing video, but links to versions hosted elsewhere on the Web.",

it seems to me that the court has done a pretty good job of noticing the 
sorts of technical distinctions that the TAG is hoping to clarify in its 

FWIW, a quick look at myvidster.com suggests that what they are doing is:

* Indexing videos from other sites.

* When you select one, they give you a single Myvidster page for the video 
that roughly resembles a Youtube page.

* The video is embedded, I.e. you can play the video in place on the 
myvidster page, but the video is indeed sourced directly from another site 
like dailymotion.

So, in my personal opinion, terms like embedding are being used by the 
court in pretty much the same sense that we use the same terms in the W3C 
community. Just one data point, but an interesting one.


[1] http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/KC1FFHD5.pdf

On 8/3/2012 10:42 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> Relevant to your linking and publishing discussion, the 7th Circuit says
> embedding infringing video is not copyright infringement.
> http://m.cnet.com/news/embedding-copyright-infringing-video-is-not-a-crime-court-rules/57485976
> --Wendy
> --
> Wendy Seltzer, wseltzer@w3.org -- +1.617.863.0613
Received on Friday, 3 August 2012 16:13:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:46 UTC