Comments page
(You may have to reload this page to see new comments
or modifications to the source paragraph. Also note that the source
section may have been edited since some of these comments were
made.)
Original Paragraph:
The issue of when one web page is an unauthorized derivative
work of another is currently being fought out in the context of
"framing"–one web site presenting material from another along with
its own advertising. If my view of online defamation is correct, the outcome of
that litigation may be important to an entirely different set of issues. The
same legal rule–a strong reading of the right to prevent derivative works
online–that would protection a site from other people free riding on its
content would also provide protection to someone who wants to spread lies
online--unanswered.
Source: http://patrifriedman.com/prose-others/fi/commented/Future_Imperfect.html#The_issue_of_when_one_web_page_is_an_unauthorized_
Add a comment
Comments:
[Mon Feb 16 19:56:02 PST 2004-46] Curtis Vinson (NOSPAMiaimeki@yahoo.com.NOSPAM):
"The same legal rule . . .that would _protection_ a site . . ."
Should be "protect."
[Sat Mar 6 00:44:04 PST 2004-65] Leopold (NOSPAMleopold_the_cat@yahoo.com.NOSPAM):
This is another issue that "Trustworthy Computing" addresses. There will be no anonymous email addresses. If you post that a gadget produced by Gadgets Inc. is a piece of junk, Gadgets Inc. will be able to find and sue you.
[Mon Aug 16 20:05:24 PDT 2004-228] Cory:
I think there has already been a court ruling on derivative works that might be relevant. A while back, a company called Game Genie came out with a product that altered the playback of various video games. You would take a cartridge of a game, and it would alter the playback so that, say, your character couldn't die. Nintendo sued, and lost. One of the point of their reasoning was that "The Game Genie does not alter the data that is stored in the game cartridge. Its effects are temporary."
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/cases/Galoob_v_Nintendo.html
I think the same principle would apply here. Furthermore, a browser already has many features of its own (my browser has a button that, when you press it, does a google search on the title of the page, displaying the result in a sub-window on the left of the screen), and I think that your "back-link" idea would be interpreted as simply another feature of the browser.
[Mon Sep 4 19:14:40 PDT 2006-246] Unknown:
While a rule against framing would clearly go against the purpose of copyright law, it is clearly distinguished from browser-side features because the framed page is constructed and presented as such on the server side, outside of user control, for publication.
Add a comment:
We'd love to get your feedback. Name and email address are optional.
Email will be listed with the comment, but munged to foil spammers.
Comments may be deleted by the sysadmin.
Currently, all HTML tags are forbidden for security reasons. This
will be improved later.
Back to original paragraph
View all comments on Future_Imperfect.html for this
day,
week,
month.
Read about the SOCS commenting package