Nonsense. People can write standards all they want and they affect you not at all unless you choose to deploy software that implements them and interacts with other people, who justifiably expect the standard to supply the factual meaning to your actions.
Also, this is not merely my world view -- all I am advocating is that the UCC's "usage of trade" conventions apply to internet standards such as the HTTP standard. In particular, a party's understanding of the usage of trade is NOT required. See UCC §1-205. In particular, §1-205(4) places an affirmative burden on the party wishing to not be bound by the usage of trade to negotiate explicit terms to that affect.
> One can argue that there is an implied license to view a web page [...]
That is not what I am arguing. Have I not been clear? I am arguing that an explicit licence agreement exists whose terms must be interpreted in light of the usage of trade defined by the HTTP standards. Evidence of the explicit agreement is provided by capturing the HTTP transaction log.
(and thus
> make a local copy) if that web page is available to the general public,
> because that is what one is SUPPOSED to do with web pages. But going
> further to imply that one can use ANY image in that web page for building
> one's own web page (and thus creating a derivative work), just because one
> can link to that image, is not acceptable in my view. [...]
If Tim Berners-Lee's view is not that important, then please don't take offense when I apply the same logic to conclude that your view is also not that important. What matters is the law and the facts.
The relevent law which governs formation of copyright licences is the UCC. The UCC tells judges to interpret the factual agreement of a contract using the guidance from "written trade code or similar writing". This applies even to who object to the written trade code as well as to those who don't understand it.
> Just because the
> server CAN be set up to block such use does not require that it be done so
> to protect statutory legal rights. The Internet specification CANNOT be
> used to supersede statutory rights. Period.
The statutory Title 17 right is to "authorize" certain activites such as copying. The UCC defines when such authorization occurs. The UCC **REQUIRES** purported agreements to be interpreted consistently with "written trade code", UCC §1-205(2) and §1-205(4).
> It is NOT proper to find an explicit agreement in automated software
> responses. Software cannot be used to override the Copyright statute.
You will not find caselaw to support the first statement. Your second statement seems to misuderstand the Copyright statute altogether. Again, coypright gives the owner the right to authorize things. Contract law decides when such authorization has been given. There is no conflict in finding that software was used to automate one party's negotiations. The Hotmail case found an enforcable contract, though Hotmail's side of the negotiation was completely automated by software.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:49 GMT