RE: [dvd-discuss] An interesting case from 9th Circuit Appeals co urt

["Harold Eaton" <haceaton(at)hotmail.com>]

>Richard Hartman wrote:

>Finally, there is embedding, where your page contains this:
><blockquote>
><h2>Here's Michelle!</h2>
><img
>src="http://www.catslair.com/skating/2001/skateamerica/pics/ladies/12-24_23A
>.jpg">
></blockquote>
>
>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.  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.
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.


harry


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com