> The ideas expressed in this thread challenge the purpose and convenience
of
> the web. The idea of HTML was to make everything accessible to everyone
> else.
Says who? The idea of HTML was to provide a way to link material on different computers. Nothing more than that. There will still be a LOT of material that is not available to everybody. Besides, the standard has the ability to limit user access, which is clearly NOT in line with your false "vision".
> Hyperlinks from any physical locatoon were to make easy accessing html
> files located at any virtual location by tcp/ip protocol.
>
> Implied Authority and permission to copy a webpage delivered from httpds
> seems fair to imply because the webserver can be configured to gate access
> and refuse requests from unauthorized http clients.
It can be configured so if one has the technical know how. Most people don't even know that this can be done. Hence, this knowledge cannot be imputed to everybody who puts something on the web.
> Implied permissions or phantom permissions do not seem to be warranted
when
> the page which is transferred from a server to a client even if it
contains
> a a copyright claim because anyone at any time can obtain a copy. I
would
> think placing a webpage on an ungated server attached to the internet is
> prima facie a placement of the content and the expression of that page
into
> the public domain.
And, of course, you would be wrong. Making this true would be the same as saying that allowing one's book to be in a library with a photocopier would put the book in the public domain. Just because I create a web page with some of my own artwork on it does NOT imply that others can use that artwork in ways that I don't explicitly allow. The only permission I have given is to view MY WEB PAGE in the manner I DESIGNED IT. I have given you nothing more.
However, limiting server transfers to client requests
> made if and only if the server is configured to gate the client request
> would seem not to be a public domain placement on the same or a different
> server.
True, but the converse is NOT true.
> I can find no implied permissions for the server to deliver ( whether
from
> the public domain or from a gated domain) embedded cookies or other
> non-requested technology or content to a client machine.
The permission is implied if the client machine does not block the cookies.
In fact, if the
> client configures her machine to disallow or block cookies that client is
> expressing a will not to grant server permission to place anything on her
> client machine except the exact file requested with content of the type
> expected. Delivery of any other content, in any form, would seem to be a
> violation of the clients private property rights.
This may be true to some extent. The problem is that the client, when he clicks on a link, may not know what is on the "other end" and thus is granting carte blanche permission for whatever is there. Of course, the client assumes that no damage will result, and thus it can be assumed that the implied permission does NOT permit any destructive action (and that would include any action that reduced utilization of the computer, such as those nasty serial popups).
>
> I think it should be a crime for anyone to configre a server to place a
> cookie or other technology on a client machine unless the operator of the
> client machine (a - e),
> Disclosure process (a, b, c)
> a) specifically requests, the cookie or other technology, and
> b) fully knows about the use, risks, and intent of the technology, and
> c) the manner, location and method by which such cookie or other
technology
> to be placed on such client machine is fully understood by the client
> machine operator, and
> Client Consent
> d) after a, b, and c, the operator expressly agrees to allow such a cookie
or
> other techology to be placed on her machine, and
> Server Placement obligations:
> e) the server machine actually placed the agreed on cookie or other
> technology
> on the client machine in the manner, at the place, and according to the
> method(s) for which the client consent was given the the server.
Funny, you would make it a crime for the server to send unwanted stuff, but it is OK for others to TAKE the stuff from the server. Oh, but I see. This is a "sterling" message, so I shouldn't expect logical consistency here.
-Bodi Received on Thu Jul 24 2003 - 22:30:33 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:49 GMT