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: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 14:35:39 -0700
Message-ID: <501D95AB.3060405@oracle.com>
To: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
CC: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, www-tag@w3.org
The P&L document distinguishes between linking (using <a> or <link>)  and Including (using img, frames etc.)
My reading was that linking as defined above, which only gives an address was ok but including was not.
Is this correct?

Perhaps the word "embedding" is causing the confusion.  This is why we need the P&L :-)
All the best, Ashok

On 8/4/2012 8:26 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> Noah Mendelsohn<nrm@arcanedomain.com>  wrote:
>> 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?
> Yes, Judge Posner says that even "embedding" is only providing an address, and so is not performing or copying content.
> This decision does not distinguish between linking and embedding.
> --Wendy
>> Noah
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2012 21:34:23 UTC

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