INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN CYBERSPACE

Chat Logs

Tuesday, March 31, 12:28pm -8:56pm

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:00:56 PM gregory_t:Hello, my name is Greg Teran, and I am a teaching fellow for Intellectual Property in Cyberspace. I'll be guiding today's seminar (2PM - 3PM Eastern), but I won't be "teaching" or "lecturing." The flow of the discussion is entirely up to you, with the following caveat: no flaming, spitting, or spamming. Everyone should feel welcome to participate.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:01:24 PM gregory_t:Just so you know, I am an absolute chat novice. If you have technical difficulties, I will do my best to help you resolve them, or refer you to someone who may be of more assistance.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:01:46 PM gregory_t:I will be posting this introductory material from time to time for the benefit of folks who may be joining us late.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:02:06 PM gregory_t:Today, We'll be discussing Module 1: linking, framing, and metatags.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:02:26 PM michelle_s:Please direct any technical difficulties to me, or anything that doesn't directly relate to the discussion at hand

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:02:46 PM gregory_t:Let's start with linking. It is almost axiomatic that the Web would be pretty useless without links between websites. But what about "deep-links" -- links that bypass the main index page of a website and go straight into the desired content of the site. Would the web still work pretty well without deep-linking? Should deep-linking be frowned-upon, or even outlawed, unless the site operator has given consent?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:03:52 PM bob_p:Without deep linking the web is a pretty silly concept.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:04:45 PM barbara_f:Wouldn't it be technically possible to re-direct a *deep-link* back to the home page if

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:05:06 PM barbara_f:the cookie indicated that the user had not come from there?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:05:38 PM michelle_s:Technically, that is possible. But should it be done?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:05:48 PM anne_k:Deep linking is essential for the effectiveness of a large web site. Even the most efficient navigation techniques would make accessing specific content on a large corporate site difficult, as the average visitor rarely stays on one site for more than 5 to 6 "clicks".

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:05:51 PM bob_p:Who allows cookies? Not every one. You could do it with the referer data though.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:06:07 PM ross:I don't know about commercial sites but in education deep links are a good way to bypass distracting information

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:06:09 PM barbara_f:It seems to me that is a decision that the owner of the home page needs to make.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:06:35 PM bob_p:Disabling deep linking would wipe out my entire book mark file.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:06:59 PM judi_w:I agree. If the concern is about advertising revenue, the site operator should be cognizant of the choices available.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:07:12 PM michelle_s:Should the efficiency of Internet usage be drastically altered just to promote advertising revenue?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:07:26 PM gregory_t:Barbara notes that the decision should be up to the owner of the home page. Do you mean the owner of the "referring" page or the page that's being linked to?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:08:05 PM ross:I agree with bob. It sometimes takes a while to find some info and why go through that long process twice a

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:08:09 PM bob_p:You have to learn to advertise on ALL your pages. The adds on deep pages have a more selective audiances and are therefore worth more.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:08:13 PM anne_k:As Barbara_f says, it is a decision the owner of the site which has been linked into has the right to make. Redirecting all referrals back to the home page is possible, but it would be far more effective for the site owner to make sure that the necessary information is embedded on each page which identifies who owns the site.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:08:50 PM barbara_f:The owner of the page referred to - they can force a trip through their home page (though I personally think it would be a disservice to the visitor!)

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:09:25 PM judi_w:I agree. And I think site operators would find their visitor count decreasing if they make it difficult to find information. They'd be forced to look at advertising on every page, if that's the motivation of the page.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:09:57 PM bob_p:So, I bookmard a deep page, and the next time I come back I wind up at the front door. Not very customer friendly. I don't come back.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:10:07 PM barbara_f:I agree with bob_p - a web page should stand on its own merits - adds and all.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:10:13 PM judi_w:Exactly my point.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:10:31 PM anne_k:A much more appropriate approach for a site is to carefully evaluate which internal (deep) pages are generating the most incoming traffic and use this information to their advantage, whether by placing ads on these pages, or adding links from these pages to other parts of the site which they want to highlight.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:11:29 PM judi_w:Of course, none of this really speaks to the law and what should be determined there.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:11:41 PM barbara_f:But since the technology exists, for those who wish to employ it, to re-direct deep links to the home page, I suspect it's legally a dead issue - if you permit deep links, you are implying consent.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:12:07 PM ross:just a tech issue. Is there any way I can save or print this whole discussion afterwards

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:12:14 PM patti_h:Affirmative

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:12:22 PM bob_p:Yep, no real difference between allowing a customer to bookmark and allowing someone else to post a link to it.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:12:54 PM gregory_t:If a technology arose that thwarted a web page owner's ability to prevent deep linking, should that technology be restricted or regulated?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:14:39 PM jayme_f:What about the web owner that consents, does he automatically waive his rights just b/c he has the ability to prevent it?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:14:39 PM barbara_f:From a techniacl standpoint, I don't think this is a very likely scenario.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:15:00 PM gregory_t:I agree, but I'm just inviting you on a what-if drill. //winking

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:15:02 PM michelle_s:Which rights are you talking about, Jayme

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:15:21 PM bob_p:Any such technology would require either illegal access to data stored on the copyright holders computer or the creation and posting of illegal copies of the data. In otherwords, it's all ready illegal.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:16:17 PM jayme_f:The legal rights that were alluded to as being a dead issue b/c technology makes this all possible

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:16:24 PM bob_p:The only way I can violate your control of the data is to take control of the data myself.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:16:39 PM p_l:There should be implied consent to deep links if a page is posted to the Internet. The site owner can use a technical work-around like homepage redirects and a notice to try force otherwise.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:17:07 PM bob_p:What say we talk about the copyright issues of caching servers and their affect on advertising revenue?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:17:57 PM michelle_s:That's part of another module -- a few weeks from now. You can talk about copyright issues involved in linking, though

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:18:30 PM gregory_t:Let's move on to framing. This seems like a bigger problem, since frames can be used by the "referring" page to usurp the advertising revenue of the framed page. But is that what's really happening? Doesn't the "referring" page deserve the ad revenue for having initially attracted the attention of the user?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:18:45 PM bob_p:Ok, it just seemed like you were talking about caching because you were talking about taking control of the data.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:18:49 PM barbara_f:I agree with P_L - It should be implied consent, unless encryption, passwords, or other "reasonable effort" has been made to secure the site.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:19:46 PM ross:Arn't links what the web is all about, restrict thier use and we'll strangle the web

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:20:17 PM bob_p:I think that ad revenue is a red herring whey you talk about framing. The real issue is that your are creating a derivative work.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:20:46 PM michelle_s:How would that be, Bob. Please explain.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:21:23 PM anne_k:The framing issue becomes much more clear when you move outside the commercial site example. When the site inside the frame benefits, the problem of intellectual property violations is more readily "excused" because the framed site benefits from a sales lead.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:21:51 PM bob_p:What the user sees is a work composed of the framer's work and the framee's work. With a normal link you see the original work as it was origianlly ment to be seen.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:22:08 PM ross:Is anyone making any real money from advertising on the web? I know I havn't spent anything yet

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:22:22 PM barbara_f:I am inclined to agree with Gregory, that from a comercial standpoint, the referring page deserves the revenue. And I would expect that advertisers would be following the hot links with their $$$ anyway. But then ther is the issue of potential misrepresentation of authorship, for the material that is displayed in the frame

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:22:48 PM bob_p:Yes, several hundre million last quarter. The rate of growth of web advertising expenditures is amazing.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:24:31 PM p_l:Use of frames would probably be difficult to regulate. Maybe better the owner of the victim pages just puts identifying info on them.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:25:17 PM gregory_t:It seems like we've got two threads here: advertising and derivative works. We might want to stay away from derivative works because it raises some enormously complicated issues (what on the web isn't a derivative work, arguably?) As Bob says, the ad revenue is growing exponentially. Fights over that revenue are going to become more important.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:25:22 PM bob_p: $227 million USD in Q397 looks like over $800 million total in 97.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:25:36 PM ross:Thanks Bob. I guess that sort of money can have a great influence on link regulation

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:25:53 PM barbara_f:Or put pressure on the technology itself to provide a solution - say a display of the linked pages id as a tag appearing with any frame.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:26:29 PM judi_w:I'm sorry I don't understand how that would work.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:27:32 PM gregory_t:Should the "framing" page owner be required to contribute a portion of any ad revenue it generates to the "framee"?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:27:58 PM bob_p:You may soon be able to get free web access in exchange for using a web browser that displays ads in the browser frame and on the full browser area while you wait for pages to down load. then the browser will be framing content.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:28:25 PM gregory_t:Or should we just presume that the "loss" in ad revenue and the "gain" in increased traffic are a wash?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:28:45 PM barbara_f:I think the $$$ involved in advertising will push the first cases into the courtrooms, but I'm not convincedthat we can really seperate the two issues.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:28:55 PM anne_k:Placing identifying information on pages does not fully address the issue. Take for example a complex database application running off web site A. If web site B populates a frame with that on-line database application, they are providing a service under Web site B's banner when they have no right to the content. The development costs of creating the application are intended to be paid by revenue generated by ads on Site A.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:29:00 PM gregory_t:INTRODUCTION: (for the benefit of latecomers). Today's seminar, from 3-4 PM Eastern time, will concern Module 1: linking, framing, and metatags. The flow of the discussion is entirely up to you, with the following caveat: no flaming, spitting, or spamming. Everyone should feel welcome to participate.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:29:13 PM judi_w:The wash idea makes sense to me. I still don't completely understand Ticketmaster's point, since visitors were being encouraged to use their services.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:32:03 PM jayme_f:Does anyone have any specific comments about the law in this area? Copyright issues and so on??

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:32:26 PM jayme_f:What about the registration process for your site? Do frames impinge on that?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:32:56 PM jayme_f:Do you have any property rights to have your site keft alone?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:32:59 PM gregory_t:Even if the "gains" and "losses" are presumed to be a wash, should a "framee" have a right to prevent framing by others ... something akin to the previous suggestion (on linking) that putting a page on the web invites framing but that "reasonable" efforts to prevent framing should be respected?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:33:27 PM ross:I can envisage adds being placed centrallyithialpushed to the side?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:33:29 PM bob_p:Very few people create web sites in the hopes that they will be left alone.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:34:01 PM jayme_f:not "left alone" but free from framers

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:34:49 PM ross:I'll try that gain. I can envisage adds being place centrally on a page to avoid being framed over. Will that meen content will become perithial

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:35:45 PM judi_w:I don't agree that putting a site on invites framing. Visiting, certainly, but not usurping and basically presenting as your own, as framing does.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:36:01 PM barbara_f:I would suspect that cases like the one Anne proposed really fall into two categories - for profit Databases, which could use encryption, and require subscription to protect their assets.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:36:05 PM bob_p:You can't really "frame over" and add. What is going on is that the content that is being framed was designed to be displayed in a frame and it was expected by the designers that their ads would be seen in their frames.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:36:27 PM barbara_f:The othe rcase is information that is posted for public use.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:36:51 PM bob_p:The offensive framers are picking out the cherrys of valuable content and repackaging them.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:38:26 PM barbara_f:Are "cookies" exchanged between the framee and the framor?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:38:35 PM jayme_f:I am not supposed to delve into the legal aspects of this anymore but I would rephrase and ask then "do people have a right to not be re-packaged?"

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:38:38 PM p_l:That so called "framer" can also be framed by another ...

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:39:28 PM gregory_t:Let's move on metatags. In the real world, if I ran a gas station and decided (without consulting Exxon) to erect a billboard that advertised my gasoline as "Exxon" gas, Exxon would come down on me like a ton of bricks. Why should it be different when a website uses a trademarked name without permission in order to attract the attention of users employing search engines?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:40:28 PM michelle_s:Maybe because no one sees the trademarked name (it's buried in source code) so there's no confusion? Should this make any difference?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:40:35 PM bob_p:Metatag spamming is deliberate deception and should be treated as such.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:41:16 PM gregory_t:But you do "see" it, in the sense that the engine "sees" it and the engine is, for all intensive purposes, functioning as your "eyes" when you're searching.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:41:27 PM bob_p:It's like texaco paying to be listed in the phone book under exxon.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:41:51 PM barbara_f:I don't think there is a difference - in theory. In fact, it gets pretty hard to police - if there is only a metatag, that is one thing. But if a site presents a description of itself, in a brief "I am a competitor to Exxon and Texaco" statement, what is to prevent them from supplying the related metstags?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:41:57 PM judi_w:Disagree. Perhaps it's more like Texaco paying to be in the phone book under "gasoline" along with Exxon.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:42:06 PM p_l:Meta tags don't advertise a site as being the same, it's just used for computer catogorizing of content.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:43:29 PM barbara_f:P_I - I agree, but what defines the "minimum content" that must be present before a metstag is legitimate?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:43:52 PM bob_p:Good point Judi_w, I hadn't thought of that.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:44:13 PM anne_k:It should be noted that not all of the major search engines (such as Excite & Webcrawler) recognize metatags. I would not be surprised if metatag support was dropped from some of the others to protect the integrity of their data.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:44:24 PM barbara_f:It seems to me that ansy "enforceable" regulation could quickly be circumvented by a clever operator.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:45:04 PM p_l:The more meta tags are overused, the less meaningful they will become.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:45:48 PM barbara_f:Another option (technology again) would be to allow the user to select (or reject) metatags as part of the search criteria.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:46:34 PM bob_p:If it were just Texaco being listed under gasoline, it would be ok. But, it's everyone and their dog being list under "Princess Di" or "Monika." Or, as happend last night, it's a XXX site list under "Mali"

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:46:36 PM patti_h:More practical, barbara,

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:46:52 PM judi_w:I agree with P_I. If i'm looking for Exxon and Annie's pump and serve pops up, I'm not going to bother going to that site. How many times have you been diverted and stayed with a site there only because of metatags?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:46:53 PM barbara_f:If their use becomes so diluted that they are meaningless, then users will discontinue using them, given the choice.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:47:35 PM jayme_f:Does anyone feel that the use of these tags cause customer confusion to the point that intellectual property rights have been violated? Is this like a phone book as Barbra says or it is more sinister? A phone book is used as a resource to find what your looking for....

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:47:56 PM jayme_f:...not to be led to things that you are not looking for.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:48:06 PM judi_w:But so is your search, isn't it?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:48:20 PM jayme_f:I.e. i am searching for Exxon and i find texaco. i have been intentionally misled.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:48:49 PM jayme_f:I had no interest in finding texaco. But the deceptive tagging led me there

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:48:52 PM p_l:Let the market will direct people to those "phone books' they can trust, and away from those they can't.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:48:55 PM michelle_s:But you don't always open a phone book looking for a specific company . . .

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:49:14 PM barbara_f:Depends if you are searching, hoping to find the nearest gas station, or the nearest Texaco!

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:49:15 PM michelle_s:Sometimes it's okay to just open up and look at Travel Agencies and pick one, right?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:49:19 PM bob_p:Or, I'm searching for gasoline, and I find ONLY Texaco because of their missuse of tags.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:49:31 PM judi_w:Not unless for some reason you think Exxon and Texaco are exactly the same thing. If you're looking for Exxon, why would you be diverted to Texaco. If you're not specifically looking for Exxon,

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:49:40 PM michelle_s:Mightn't it be helpful to also see listings of related sites? (Like the Oppedahl & Larson case?)

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:50:01 PM patti_h:The web forces us to be more discriminating in our searches, I think.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:50:02 PM jayme_f:Thats true, but when you do look for a specific co. you should be able to be free of deceptive links that lead to other sites that you have no interest in. that is why it is and it is not like a phonebook.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:50:19 PM michelle_s:But how deceptive is it, really?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:50:25 PM elizabeth_r:Is there a sponsorship problem here? liike, it might look like all of these companies are supporting the site that pops up all over because of its hidden references.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:50:27 PM anne_k:Search engine services are competitive businesses -- providing accurate & reliable information is why users choose one over another. And they operate based on revenue from advertisements. Who will advertise in a phone book which contatin inaccurate information?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:50:44 PM barbara_f:So add a class of metatag for trademark, and restrict it's use to the trademark holders.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:50:48 PM ross:I go to A in the phone book to look up Annies Gas Station, wht dont want to see is Exxon. I would have gone to E for that

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:51:00 PM michelle_s:The baseline here is the "average user" would this person be confused or deceived?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:51:01 PM jayme_f:It is helpful to see realted sites when you want to see related sites, not when you are being forced to.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:51:13 PM p_l:Barabara good idea.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:51:34 PM barbara_f:Having two classes of tag would allow eithe rthe spacific search for Exxon, or the generic search for gas station.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:51:37 PM elizabeth_r:Would Barbara's idea be enforceable?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:51:52 PM bob_p:Actually, people tend to use the first search engine they ever encountered + Yahoo. People rarely change search engines, even when they can't find what they are looking for.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:52:23 PM gregory_t:Would Barbara's idea prevent me from executing a search for related sites?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:52:41 PM patti_h:Or some of us use multi search engines

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:52:50 PM gregory_t: (Barbara's idea meaning the metatag trademark class)

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:52:50 PM ross:Maybe search engines should make better use of meta-tags, ha ha

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:53:30 PM p_l:How about just putting the trademark database online with links to the listed owners website?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:53:35 PM barbara_f:It should be pretty easy to identify who is using a TM tag - and to determine if they were entitled. But entitlement would have to be identified by the owner of the TM. So Texaco could allow "Joe's corner fillup" (who happened to be a texaco station) to use the tag.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:53:52 PM jayme_f:Why can't this tagging be regualted to a universal standard barring all tags that are superfluous or confusing? Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:54:13 PM gregory_t:p_l has a good idea, although the list of active trademarks (even in the states alone) is pretty huge and ever-changing.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:54:26 PM michelle_s:How would a search engine make this distinction, Jaime?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:54:28 PM bob_p:Barbara, the web is several terabytes of data. Searching it is not "pretty easy."

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:54:35 PM elizabeth_r:who decides what is superfluous? confusing is easier to determine, although not a sure thing.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:55:19 PM barbara_f:Jayme - I think it gets back to "what's confusing" - who defines this? I am looking for a gas station. You are looking for a TEXACO station. whose need for the information is greatest?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:55:23 PM jayme_f:Regs deterimine what can be used to ID a site, creators not engines are bound by the regs, i don't understand the technology that well but could that work?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:55:44 PM bob_p:Passing laws that affect every country in the world takes a while...

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:56:13 PM michelle_s:which is why a change in the technology could ultimately be most effective!

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:56:53 PM patti_h:Agreed Michelle

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:57:11 PM jayme_f:What percenatge (just curious) of the big search engines are international?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:57:29 PM jayme_f:As opposed to owned doemstically

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:57:32 PM gregory_t:I would bet that it's small now but not for long.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:57:39 PM bob_p:All the big search engines are international. The web is international.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:58:07 PM elizabeth_r:What do people think about governing these laws by treaty? feasible?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:58:15 PM bob_p:If you try to regulate them, they will all be offshore by tomorrow at 5.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:58:16 PM jayme_f:You can regulate what the y carry on there engines and, thus, force the site designers to comply.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:58:22 PM ross:Yes Michelle I agree, how many page developers would be aware of any regulations

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:58:33 PM barbara_f:Bob - I disagree - the search might be huge, and require some horsepower. But I do not htink enforcement would be the issue (OK - pretty easy was a little heavy handed!) But the licensing to figure out who was entitled might be a nightmare!

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:58:34 PM michelle_s:precisely my point

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:58:43 PM michelle_s:That was in response to Ross

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:59:00 PM gregory_t:Could we implement Jayme's regulatory idea through a technological solution?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 03:59:13 PM gregory_t:...along the lines Michelle suggests?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:00:14 PM elizabeth_r:I am envisioning a screen, put on all major search engines, that disallows use oof copyright tags without a special coded character.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:00:16 PM bob_p:The search engines are already actively doing everything they can to create acurate indexes. Regulating them won't change their behaviour or web designers behaviour. It will either force them off shore or shut them down.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:00:30 PM elizabeth_r:agreed Bob

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:01:01 PM bob_p:Nations don't mean much on the net.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:01:03 PM barbara_f:Bob - I agree too.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:01:22 PM judi_w:Sorry, off subject, but my hour is up. Can someone tell me how I can copy this? I think someone asked earlier and was told it was possible. Thanks.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:01:29 PM gregory_t:Well, the hour has come to an end, so the seminar is technically "over" but can certainly continue on for as long as people are interested in talking. Thanks to everyone for participating, and feel free to continue the discussion.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:01:34 PM elizabeth_r: . . . or to add to Bob's suggestion, maybe people would only use engines with such a screen, if it were to exist.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:01:46 PM jayme_f:I would like to know how to copy it also

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:02:25 PM barbara_f:I would like to know if it will be archived, like the Privacy session was?

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:02:54 PM elizabeth_r:This is being archived by Online Environs and a transcript will be availble in a matter of days.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:03:05 PM ross:Has any one found it hrrd to follow your own typing as it dissapears out of the box

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:03:55 PM bob_p:Ross, this is a pretty awful chat client.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:04:10 PM jayme_f:see you all next time

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:04:35 PM gregory_t:Goodbye everyone, and thanks again.

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:04:47 PM patti_h:Great look forward to it

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:05:31 PM barbara_f:Thanks everybody! -bye

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:06:21 PM ross:This was my first chat session, thanks heaps everyone

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:08:09 PM greg_l:Michelle, are you the person who assisted with my access problems

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:08:34 PM michelle_s:Yes, that's me

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:08:51 PM greg_l:Once again thanks

Tue Mar 31, 1998 04:09:04 PM michelle_s: No problem. Glad I could help!