[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] An interesting case from 9th Circuit Appeals co urt
- To: "'dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] An interesting case from 9th Circuit Appeals co urt
- From: Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:02:31 -0800
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harold Eaton [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 11:18 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] An interesting case from 9th
> Circuit Appeals
> co urt
> >Richard Hartman wrote:
> >Finally, there is embedding, where your page contains this:
> ><h2>Here's Michelle!</h2>
> >Now, even though the image is still being fetched from my
> >server it is being presented in _your_ page, with _your_
> >advertising. This is no different IMO than if you had
> >made a copy of that image on to your server and used it
> >in your page. The effect is the same.
> >So, in summary: linking good, embedding bad.
> I disagree that embedding is bad. If you don't want your
> images imbedded, then don't serve them to any page except
> your refering page.
That is not in my power to accomplish. My site is hosted
by a service and I do not have that level of control. (btw:
how would you go about specifying that sort of restriction?)
>While it is true that someone could
> make a browser to get arround that limitation, there would
> be no general way for you to write html to tell that browser
> how to do it, since it will have to specify the refering
> page. The greater danger is that a web cache will have the
> image and serve it regardless of the refering page. You could
> make the argument that the caching server is violating the
> copyright since it is holding and distributing copies without
> Doing it this way is far, far simpler and more cost effective
> for society as a whole. For a search engine operator to request and
> receive permission for every single image on every web server
> it might spider is unimagineably costly and time consuming.
They don't need to. Links for search results are just fine,
and thumbnail (reduced size) copies would be fair use.
> For it to fail on those framed links where the owner doesn't
> want her image embedded is of almost no cost/concern to anyone.
> Thus this strategy goes much farther to promote the progress of
> the arts.
> It is very much like the window/curtain argument made earlier -
> if you don't want people looking through your window, provide
> a barrier.
... and if you don't want people xeroxing the text book,
print it in black on red paper?
The whole point of copyright law is that you don't _need_
barriers. The whole existance of this list is due to the
misguided attempt of some people to _create_ barriers where
none are needed if existing law is enforced properly!
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!