W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Publishing and Linking - Some thoughts for Thursday

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 19:12:49 +0100
Message-Id: <D98A315A-407A-4E07-976E-98504E141B6A@jenitennison.com>
To: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>



On 20 Jun 2012, at 01:51, Jonathan A Rees wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 7:53 PM, ashok malhotra
> <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote:
>> Surely we can say
>> "If you link to or include illegal or seditious material you could be
>> prosecuted"
>> I think you need to say something like this to set up for further discussion
>> of
>> copying such material by proxies and manipulation of such material, etc.
>> which
>> the document spends quite a lot of time on.
>> Another "finding" that I see from this discussion is that we need machine
>> readable
>> policies spelling out what proxies and archives, etc, can do with website
>> material.
> Whether we need such protocols will be a matter of debate in every
> case, and we can't come down on any side or even say anything very
> general.
> We might say that if the legal default rule (in any jurisdiction) is
> to prohibit some action, then it is useful (technically and socially
> enabling) to have a documented protocol for communicating legal
> exceptions (licenses, etc.). CC REL is an example of such a protocol;
> DRM bypasses for public domain or licensed material would be another
> (I don't know whether these exist). Whether any such protocol becomes
> legally recognized is a complicated process about which we probably
> don't have anything to say.
> Jonathan
>> All the best, Ashok
>> On 6/19/2012 4:03 PM, Jeni Tennison wrote:
>>> Ashok,
>>> On 19 Jun 2012, at 20:48, ashok malhotra wrote:
>>>> I read the publishing and Linking draft again and I'm wondering if we can
>>>> make statements like:
>>>> - If you include copyrighted material you violate copyright.  If you link
>>>> to it
>>>> you may not violate copyright
>>>> - If you include of link to illegal material you can the prosecuted for
>>>> "aiding
>>>> and abetting"
>>>> - If you include or link to seditious material you can be prosecuted by
>>>> the
>>>> prevailing government
>>>> - If you have a copyright to printed material that carries over to its
>>>> electronic form
>>> I'd be worried that those are debatable assertions about legal truth which
>>> are beyond what we know or could advise people on.
>>>> Also, Best practice 1 says "Legislation that forbade transformations on
>>>> unlawful material would similarly limit the services that service providers
>>>> could provide."  I don't know what that means
>>> Say you have a law that says that you can't manipulate pornographic images
>>> involving children. 'Manipulate' here might mean converting from one image
>>> format to another, or cropping, or adjusting colour balance and so on. The
>>> law might be attempting to enable prosecution of people who handle the
>>> unlawful images as well as those who took them.
>>> Now say that you have a service on the web that provides a facility for
>>> doing things like image format conversion, or cropping of images so that
>>> they can be used as avatars, or provides online image manipulation of other
>>> kinds. In an environment where manipulating unlawful images in this way was
>>> forbidden, such a service would have to check all the images that were put
>>> through the service to ensure that they weren't unlawful; it would be
>>> impossible to run such a service.
>>> The point is that when you have automated processing of something, it's
>>> hard for services to comply with restrictions on what can be processed,
>>> because computers can't tell what's lawful and what's unlawful.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jeni

Jeni Tennison
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 18:13:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:45 UTC