Subject: Copyright implications of framing, deep linking and inlining
I'm sorry that I missed last years discussion. Was the question of why anyone would contact a lawyer about a problem that can be solved with a couple of lines of javascript raised?
Anyone who can cut and past text can handle the task of placing the script for ensuring that one's content is not framed.
Ditto setting a cookie on the home page that is checked by deeper pages and forces a re-direct to the home page if not set.
...and if you are truly worried about people with pre-v2 browsers seeing one's content in unintended ways, then use cgi scripts to produce the pages on the fly...
Why get a lawyer when one needs a coder?
From: "Tim Jackson"
John Berryhill wrote in message ...
[snip]
>Anyone who can cut and past text can handle the task of placing the script
[snip]
I've seen quite a few versions of such script that cause error messages for
a proportion of visitors, even when they arrive without another site's
frames. I've yet to discover the perfect answer from a coding point of view
(just as reaching for a lawyer is not a perfect answer either!).
If you have a script which always works without errors, I'd be interested in
seeing it (though it would be rather off-topic for this newsgroup).
Tim Jackson
Tim@winterbourne.freeserve.co.uk
(to reply direct, remove "ANTISPAM" from the return email address)
Subject: Re: copyright implications of framing, deep linking and inlining
This point is a good one, but I think there's at least a few reasons why
these topics and others like them merit discussion:
1) As mentioned by other readers of this thread that are more knowledgeable
than I, and elaborated upon in one of my footnotes, no technological
countermeasure will ever accomplish a site owner's goals 100% without some
drawback.
2) Site owners shouldn't _have_ to rely on coding to protect certain rights
if IP law should guarantee them. Sure, thwarting a framer may take only a
few lines of HTML now, but what about in 2 months or 2 years when the next
big web technology comes along that makes possible another use of the site
that the owner objects to? Nor should the site owner be forced to suffer
the impact that countermeasures would have on legitmate users' navigation of
the site.
3) I largely come out in favor of the linking technologies I identify; in
other words, I argue that they do not infringe copyright protection and/or
will usually constitute fair use. Discussing the reasons why this is so and
generating a consensus thereupon will alleviate the resort to threats and
litigation, and will encourage use and development of similar technologies.
4) The bases for a lot of my arguments boil down to very simple propostions
that I think should be firmly engrained in our jurisprudence, e.g. that a
hyperlink doesn't "copy" anything and never violates copyright. Without
basic assumptions like these, the Web-related law and litgation will never
mature to keep pace with technological advancement.
Respectfully, Brian
Subject: Re: copyright implications of framing, deep linking and inlining
"Brian Wassom"
>2) Site owners shouldn't _have_ to rely on coding to protect certain rights
This is all very true, but on the other hand, just because the law
supposedly protects someone does not mean that one shouldn't take
reasonable precautions to protect oneself. The law protects me from
burglars, but I probably still want to lock my doors. If a burglar
gets past the locked door, he's still criminally liable and can't
escape that liability by arguing that I could've used a better lock.
But that doesn't stop people from continually updating their locks.
Subject: Re: copyright implications of framing, deep linking and inlining
IMHO, this analogy is less than apt. I completely concede that site owners
should take reasonable steps to protect their IP, and should not bury their
heads in the sand expecting "the law" to prevent any unpleasantness. But
unlike home invasion, which is blatantly illegal, where the lines of
legality and illegality are or should be drawn in the online copyright arena
are far from clear. Site owners are forced to resort to technological
countermeasures now largely because they can't be sure that what they're
trying to prevent is illegal, or that the legal system can provide any
remedy. Additionally, in terms of you example, home owners would no doubt
resort to far more drastic countermeasures than door locks if they were
unsure that burglary was illegal or if the police would do anything to
prevent it. The current online copyright situation is much more akin to
that of medieval landowners (and modern, gated communities) who were forced
to rely on hired soldiers for security because there was no effective,
centralized government to protect them. This, along with the other 3 points
in my prior post, form the crux of my Note's argument.
Regards, Brian
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:48:56
From: "John Berryhill"
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
Newsgroups: misc.int-property
Newsgroups: misc.int-property
Subject: Re: copyright implications of framing, deep linking and inlining
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:11:53 -0000
>for ensuring that one's content is not framed.
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 19:54
From: "Brian Wassom"
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland OH (USA)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 01:30 GMT
From: bstock@attymail.com (Bob Stock)
>if IP law should guarantee them. Sure, thwarting a framer may take only a
>few lines of HTML now, but what about in 2 months or 2 years when the next
>big web technology comes along that makes possible another use of the site
>that the owner objects to? Nor should the site owner be forced to suffer
>the impact that countermeasures would have on legitmate users' navigation of
>the site.
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 20:45
From: "Brian Wassom"
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland OH (USA)