Re: "Right to Link" In the News

19.09.2013, 18:42, "David Booth" <david@dbooth.org>:
> On 09/19/2013 06:49 AM, Konstantinov Sergey wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>
>> šPublishing hyperlink to a work definitely makes it available in a
>> šsense of WCT as it provides "a way that members of the public may
>> šaccess these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by
>> šthem". In that sense linking is NOT the same as referring: when
>> šyou're referring a work, you state its name and catalogue number;
>> šwhen you link it, you state WHERE to found it.
>
> That doesn't follow at all. šStating where to find something is just an
> alternate means of identifying that thing. šIt does *not* automatically
> provide access.
>
> If I tell you that my will is in safety deposit box #1047 in the vault
> of Bank of America, Harvard Square, Cambridge, MA USA, you may know
> exactly what document I mean and where it is but you certainly do *not*
> have access to it.
>
> A URL literally identifies the *name* of a server and the *name* of a
> document relative to that server. šIt has nothing to do with granting
> access rights. šIf access is not authorized, a "401 Unauthorized" HTTP
> code should be returned.
>
> David Booth

In first, I haven't said that link *always* violates copyright. Links *may* violate copyright.
In second, service isn't a bank and there is no law to force services to authorize every user on every page. I can make a copy of a film for personal use and place it to my home server, and I would not violate any copyright law. I can even send a link to my friend, and that's still not a violation.
In third, I don't think that forcing services to authorize every user accessing every piece of content is somehow better then controlling every link in the Internet.

-- 
Konstantinov Sergey
Yandex Maps API Development Team Lead
http://api.yandex.com/maps/

Received on Thursday, 19 September 2013 15:11:45 UTC