- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:58:10 -0400
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
I do remember that you had explained this last year, but what I missed is that the case described at [1] in my e-mail is indeed the same one about which you had given the clarification. Thank you for the reminder. As you say, this becomes an especially good reminder of the need for the TAG to help the community clarify their terminology. Noah On 7/12/2012 10:34 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > Noah Mendelsohn writes: > >> The note at [1] discusses a case in which, purportedly, >> an individual who resides in the UK is facing possible extradition to >> the US for posting links on a Web site, which itself is not US-based >> and is not primarily intended for US users, to material that the US >> considers to be copyrighted. > > Quote from [1]: > > "He is facing extradition to the USA and up to ten years in prison, > for creating a website - TVShack.net---which linked (similarly to a > search-engine) to places to watch TV and movies online." > > As I explained in some detail last year [2] when this first hit the > news, this is a classic example where terminology is misleading, and > we definitely have a job to do. The person in question did not, in > the sense of "<a href='...'>", 'link' to places to watch TV. He > 'embedded' TV, in the sense of <img src='...'/>. To be precise, on > the page cited in [2], if you View Source, you will see a (heavily > obfuscated) use of <embed> targeted at a flash player. . . > > ht > > [1] http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/odwyer/?akid=1423.669729.VS6yPa&rd=1&t=2 > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Jun/0112.html >
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2012 14:59:02 UTC