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: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 11:02:15 -0400
Message-ID: <501D3977.5030600@arcanedomain.com>
To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
CC: www-tag@w3.org

On 8/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ashok Malhotra wrote:
> 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.
> **

Ashok:

Maybe I'm off base here, but I >think< you've lost some of the subtlety in 
Judge Posner's ruling. If I've read it right, what he's saying is:

Even in the case in question, which is seen by the user as >embedding<, 
under the covers all the HTML or JavaScript source has is the address of 
the content to be embedded. So, he rules, even in the embedding case there 
is no infringement by the party creating the embedding.

Your paraphrase seems to imply "linking = OK, embedding = not OK").  I read 
it as "embedding OK as long as the party creating the embedding is using 
only addresses, under the covers, and is not copying the content in 
question themselves".

Do I have that right, Wendy? Thank you.

Noah
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2012 15:02:38 UTC

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