[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
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] An interesting case from 9th Circuit Appeals co urt
- From: "Harold Eaton" <haceaton(at)hotmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 17:17:49 -0500
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Richard Hartman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > 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?)
Well, that's like not owning any real property and being upset
if people walk by where you lie in the park - shouldn't those
"disturbing the peace" laws protect you when sleeping during
> >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
> > permission.
> > 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?
This is a very apt analogy! That's precisely what you do
if you don't want someone xeroxing your book. What you DON'T
do is sue the person who says "There is a public library
on 3rd street - it has the book you want indexed as Q103.456V,
you can check it out and take it to the Kinko's on Elm St;
they have xerox machines there." Stopping someone from giving
out that kind of information is a very slippery slope and is
exactly the sort of think Kaplan did when he enjoined linking.
The effort involved in accomplishing something is irrelevant;
if you're giving out free sodas in the park, don't complain
when someone tells a stranger "hey their handing out free
sodas in the park over there". Don't hand out the damn sodas
to non-paying customers if you expect them to pay!
Tom's example of how to not serve images that are not
refered from your site is a simple yet effective one,
and you can do better (more secure) if you want.
The court case is very much like running a public restaurant,
having a newspaper write a nice review that says what a
wonderful fish tank you have there, then suing the paper
when lots of people come in to look at your fish tank but
don't stay for dinner. If that becomes a problem, don't
sue the paper! Charge a cover to get in the door, or
require a food order before being allowed past the partition
hiding the fish tank.
>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!
Sure, except copyright law is insane in this matter - there
is no requirement of notice, registration, etc. etc. to
determine whether content is even copyrighted or not. At
least with tresspass, you have to post notices telling folks
the property is private and not to tresspass. Imagine that
restaurant owner charging all those non-customers checking
out the fish with tresspass. Now imagine a court agreeing
that they'd tresspassed and assessing fines!! That's what
we've got in this case.
It is a sad, sad, ruling equivalent in my estimation to the
enjoining of hyperlinks by 2600;
At best the individual browsers who clicked on the refering
hyperlinks have tresspassed; it's just easier to sue the
newspaper than all those pesky fish enthusiasts.
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com