- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 14:52:28 -0400
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- CC: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On 8/6/2012 12:28 PM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > On 2012-08 -03, at 15:42, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > >> Relevant to your linking and publishing discussion, the 7th Circuit says >> embedding infringing video is not copyright infringement. Actually, I may have misunderstood this, but from what Martin Duerst wrote, my impression is that the ruling was a bit more limited. Specifically, in a situation where a site (called it A) embeds content from a site (B) which itself embeds copyrighted content (C), (A) is deemed not to have infringed but the ruling says nothing about (B). As I understand it, in this particular case MyVidster is Site A, something like Dailymotion is a typical B, and the owner of content C might be a movie studio. Myvidster was ruled not to have infringed, but nothing was said about infringement by Dailymotion. That said, the ruling does talk about how MyVidster's HTML carries only the identification of the content from B (e.g. Dailymotion), and not the actual movie, strongly suggesting (to me anyway) that B might be also considered non infringing, and for the same reason. Do I have that right? Noah
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 18:52:55 UTC