- From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 16:40:41 -0700
- 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