Re: [dvd-discuss] An interesting case from 9th Circuit Appealscourt

["Arnold G. Reinhold" <reinhold(at)world.std.com>]

The case itself is at 
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C38AD9E9A70DB15188256B 
5700813AD7/$file/0055521.pdf?openelement

I don't see anything in the case that threatens ordinary linking such 
as in your message.  The quote in the slashdot article about the "end 
of linking" was, I think, referring to inline linking, where you 
place an image in your web page using a link to the original site 
where the image is stored, rather than copying that image onto your 
server. The court invoked the right of display to get around the fact 
that the defendant didn't copy anything. But it would be quite a leap 
to suggest that publishing a link is equivalent to displaying a work.

Arnold Reinhold


At 11:42 PM -0600 2/7/02, Stephen L Johnson wrote:
>I just found a like to this store on Slash Dot (www.slashdot.org).  Here is
>the link to the story on law.com (which might be not be permissible in the
>future):
> 
>http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=la 
>w/View&c
>=Article&cid=ZZZF07DWDXC&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0&s=News&ExpIgnore=t 
>rue&showsu
>mmary=0
>
>The gist of the decision is that creating thumbnails of images is fair use.
>But displaying the full image is a violation of copyright. The case stems from
>an Internet image search engine which displayed thumbnails and inline linking
>to the full size images.
>
>The case seems tangential to the 2600 case.  But it's interesting.  According
>to the article, it looks like it lays the foundation that link and framing
>can't be done with permission.
>
>It is a refreshing decision to me. At least one court "get's it". Not every
>new digital technology is a tool for "Piracy!!!" aka copyright violation.
>
>Stephen L Johnson <sjohnson@monsters.org>