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: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 16:40:41 -0700
Message-ID: <501C6179.3010502@oracle.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org
Thanks, Wendy, that's very helpful.

Although we have decided to stick to just technical exposition in the P&L,
I"m tempted to add a paragraph like the following:
**In some situations and in some jurisdictions legal opinion distinguishes
between linking and embedding.  For example in

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

Judge Posner makes an analogy 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 listing isn't doing the public performance.
**
All the best, Ashok

On 8/3/2012 2:14 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> 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
>
Received on Friday, 3 August 2012 23:39:19 UTC

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