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

[Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor(at)yahoo.com>]

I really thought the image embedding decision was a complete disaster. It is
not a question of fair use at all. It is a question of explicit permission.

Look, people created the HTML specification with full knowledge that offsite
image embedding was possible. The concept of the HTTP is an information space
where you put information that you want to make available for use by anyone.
That's what web servers are designed to do. 

If you don't like the rules and want people to have a more constrained access
to your material, then you can and must programmaticaly define the constraints,
either by not using an httpd or having it use code to enforce your desired
rules. If an HTTP request comes in and the web server is configured not to
check the refering page, that damn it that is permission to embed that image
for any use at all.

HTTP GET = "Can I have view your image in a browser without restriction?"
Sending the file without asking more questions = "yes, here you go."

For Kelly to turn around and say that they want the benefits of the widespread
adoption of the HTTP/HTML/browser environment, but that they want to change the
rules so that people can't use the full range of capabilities it provides on
stuff they put on it is a sickening precedent.

Worse is that fact that these very standards carefully considered the default
behavior and provide mechanisms to override it to achieve exactly what Kelly
wants to achieve using referer pages and/or robots.txt .

Suppose that I wanted to create a network environment where it was the case
that all participants gave permission to use files they put inside the
environment. This decision essentially says that if I fully document its
behavior and forge an internation standard based on that, then that STILL isn't enough.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com