W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2013

Re: "Right to Link" In the News

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 11:29:48 -0400
Message-ID: <523B186C.2050403@oracle.com>
To: Konstantinov Sergey <twirl@yandex-team.ru>
CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, "Appelquist Daniel (UK)" <daniel.appelquist@telefonica.com>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
Please look at http://webdesign.about.com/od/legal/a/aa030507.htm
which was linked from my blog http://malhotrasahib.blogspot.com/2013/07/linking-and-law.html
but for some reason the link does not work.

I believe Jennfer Kyrmin is a lawyer and she carefully lays out what is a link and what is not.
She says "Because the act of linking to a site does not imply ownership or endorsement, there is no reason you would need to ask permission to link to a site that is publically accessible. For example, if you found a site URL through a search engine, then linking to it shouldn't have legal ramifications. There have been one or two cases in the United States that imply that the act of linking without permission is legally actionable, but these have been overturned everytime they come up."
All the best, Ashok
On 9/19/2013 11:11 AM, Konstantinov Sergey wrote:
> 19.09.2013, 18:42, "David Booth" <david@dbooth.org>:
>> On 09/19/2013 06:49 AM, Konstantinov Sergey wrote:
>> [ . . . ]
>>>   Publishing hyperlink to a work definitely makes it available in a
>>>   sense of WCT as it provides "a way that members of the public may
>>>   access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by
>>>   them". In that sense linking is NOT the same as referring: when
>>>   you're referring a work, you state its name and catalogue number;
>>>   when you link it, you state WHERE to found it.
>> That doesn't follow at all.  Stating where to find something is just an
>> alternate means of identifying that thing.  It 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.  It has nothing to do with granting
>> access rights.  If 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.
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2013 15:30:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:59 UTC