Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 07/13/09 10:12, Warp wrote:
> >    In Finland in particular, it has been *officially* and *explicitly* stated
> > that deep-linking is legal and prohibiting it has no legal basis. Yet there
> > are tons of Finnish company websites out there with the prohibition in their
> > license agreement.

>         What about where I link to an image, and make it appear as if it is on 
> my site?

  Are you claiming authorship or ownership of the image? That's a different
law.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> This happened with patents on loading coils and fiber optics, both of which 
> waited 20 years to get incorporated into the phone systems, for example.

  Good thing it was 20 years, then, and not eg. 50, or else we wouldn't
have cellphones today. ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 07/14/09 00:12, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> cede ownership to the owners of the newsgroup?
>
> Oh, and newsgroups don't have owners. :-)

	These ones do, don't they?

-- 
For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small.

Post a reply to this message

On 07/14/09 07:17, Warp wrote:
>>          What about where I link to an image, and make it appear as if it is on
>> my site?
>
>    Are you claiming authorship or ownership of the image? That's a different
> law.

	Some may see it as my claiming ownership. To any viewer who does not 
examine the source, it will be part of my web site.

-- 
For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 07/14/09 00:12, Darren New wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>> cede ownership to the owners of the newsgroup?
>>
>> Oh, and newsgroups don't have owners. :-)
> 
>     These ones do, don't they?

I suppose in some sense, yes. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 07/14/09 07:17, Warp wrote:
>>>          What about where I link to an image, and make it appear as 
>>> if it is on
>>> my site?
>>
>>    Are you claiming authorship or ownership of the image? That's a 
>> different
>> law.
> 
>     Some may see it as my claiming ownership. To any viewer who does not 
> examine the source, it will be part of my web site.

In the USA, you can get into copyright violation for that. You've 
essentially copied the image on the hosting site and put it on yours.

It's weird, because copyright isn't about technology, but about the behavior 
of people.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> This happened with patents on loading coils and fiber optics, both of which 
>> waited 20 years to get incorporated into the phone systems, for example.
> 
>   Good thing it was 20 years, then, and not eg. 50, or else we wouldn't
> have cellphones today. ;)

Exactly!

Actually, cell phones have been around for something like 50 years, and 
mobile phones for close to 100.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 07/14/09 11:29, Darren New wrote:
> In the USA, you can get into copyright violation for that. You've
> essentially copied the image on the hosting site and put it on yours.

	You mean I've "effectively" done it, or to be even more precise, I've 
"appeared" to do it.

	Because technically, I haven't. It's on his site, and not on my server. 
And I'm exploiting his bandwidth, but that's a different issue. It's 
similar to me making a frame on my site, and having a different site 
appear in it (which lots of well known web sites do all the time - they 
probably have some disclaimer, though).

-- 
For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 07/14/09 11:29, Darren New wrote:
>> In the USA, you can get into copyright violation for that. You've
>> essentially copied the image on the hosting site and put it on yours.
> 
>     You mean I've "effectively" done it, or to be even more precise, 
> I've "appeared" to do it.
> 
>     Because technically, I haven't.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Copyright isn't about "technically". It's 
about people.  The judge looks at web site A, with a copyrighted image on 
it, and web site B, with the same image on it, and says "You copied the 
image."  You might be able to argue about it, but that's how the law appears 
to be working here.

You took the image, you put it on your site. That the bits are streaming 
from someone else's machine doesn't mean much, in US copyright law at least.

Just like when I put a file up on my server to be shared with the world, I'm 
not violating copyright. You're violating copyright by downloading it. (I'm 
guilty of contributing to your infringement, but not infringing myself.)

That's why I say copyright law has to change in the face of digital 
automated reproduction.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> In any event, work-for-hire agreements would be replaced by agreements 
>> under which the payee got the first option for licensing.
> 
> Yet someone complained about patents, and that's 100% exactly how 
> patents work, so I'm not sure what the benefit would be.

Under the current rules, the IP belongs to the employer for the life of 
the IP.  Following the US Constitution would make this arrangement 
unenforceable, because the law could recognize only the creator's 
ownership, and nobody else's.

Granted, the employer could require lifetime licensing as a condition of 
employment, but at least if the employer goes bankrupt, the creator 
would retain the right to his work, instead of the IP going to some 
third party.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message