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: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 17:14:52 -0400
Message-ID: <501C3F4C.2040103@w3.org>
To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
CC: www-tag@w3.org
On 08/03/2012 12:14 PM, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
> Wow, thanks! Unfortunately, the link [1] provided for the actual court
> ruling doesn't resolve just now, 

A better link is
<http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=11-3190_002.pdf>

The case is Flava Works, Inc v. Marques Rondale

The full decision is a readable 20 pages, showing a better technical
understanding than many courts. Posner makes analogies between embedding
a foreign site's video and giving the address of a bookstore (from which
someone might steal a book; not an infringement of copyright) or a
theater (in which the play is performed; the directory isn't doing the
public performance).

--Wendy

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
> finding.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Noah
> 
> 
> 
> [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
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office)
http://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)
Received on Friday, 3 August 2012 21:15:04 UTC

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