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: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 00:10:56 -0400
Message-ID: <501DF250.1030402@arcanedomain.com>
To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
CC: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org

On 8/4/2012 5:35 PM, Ashok Malhotra wrote:
> 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?

I think it depends what you mean by "is this correct".

* If you mean: is there a distinction that's potentially interesting and 
pertinent to legal questions? Yes, I think so, and I think it's useful for 
the TAG to explain the difference.

* If you mean: did Judge Posner in this particular opinion choose to rely 
on that distinction, my understanding is that no, he did not. Instead, in a 
case that was (IMO) most similar to the img/frame case (actually <embed> in 
the MyVidster page I checked), Judge Posner ruled that there was no 
infringement. Even though the content is rendered in-place in the 
containing page, that is achieved by including only the address (URI) of 
the content into the MyVidster page.

So, let's not assume that just because the <img> case MIGHT be considered 
different by the courts that it necessarily will be. I do think it's useful 
for the TAG to explain the differences (rendering in place vs. navigating 
to another page) and the similarities (<a>, <link>, <img> and <embed> are 
all similar in that they all carry URIs, rather than the actual content in 
the HTML source).

Received on Sunday, 5 August 2012 04:10:21 UTC

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