On Thu, 15 May 1997, George Galt <ggalt[_at_]us.net> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> The size of the window in which I view a web page is completely out of
> the control of the web page publisher. If I happen to have a screen
> that has 1600x1600 resolution and I view a web page in a full-screen
> window, I will see a different layout than if I view the page in a tiled
> or cascaded window, or on a monitor with a lower resolution. Similarly,
> a framed web site is seen in an effectively smaller window, just as if I
> had a lower resolution monitor or viewed the web page in a
> non-full-screen window. Therefore, attempting to say that the CNN web
> page has a particular layout that is altered by framing (and only
> framing) is not accurate.
You equate resizing the browser window with framing. The two are completely different in this context. I don't see why an implied license to resize your browser window while viewing a particular web site has anything to do with an implied license to frame the content with *someone else's* content. Everyone who puts content on the web *neccesarily* has to accept the fact that their content will be bordered by the Netscape, Microsoft, or whateever else browser is out there (and thus the implied license must at least include the right to display in a Netscape/MSIE/other browser window). It is not neccesary and accepted that when you put up content on the web, it will be framed by other web publishers's content, however (and the totalnews list of news orgs and other information I consider content).
> As to Terry's argument about the scope of the implied license, it would
> appear as though the license may already extend to viewing the content
> of a web page within a frame. When a web page is viewed within a
> browser, the browser places a frame (or window) around the content.
> Clearly the browser frame is unobjectionable to web publishers.
> However, it is functionally no different than the TotalNews frame.
It is functionally different. 1) The URL of the framed content is not shown in the Location box (though that is a technology issue which could easily change), 2) the user does not normally associate the browser with the content being viewed by the browser - with TN-like framing, there is that danger (though I doubt it exists here), 3) the browser "framing" is purely functional and with the exceptin of the Netscape N in the upper right hand corner and the name of the window (depending on your OS), Netscape isn't creating the impression that it is in anyway involved with the content.
> Indeed, were TotalNews to create a web browser that simply updated a
> small advertising space in the browser frame and a special bookmark file
> whenever someone logged onto the TotalNews site, would its use raise the
> same copyright objections?
Don't know, but thats simply not the factual situation here. A browser is very different than framing.
> If it does, why haven't the same web sites
> objected to the encroachment of button bars, tool bars and other
> browser-based items on the size of the viewing window or other changes
> to the Netscape and Microsoft browsers that affect the viewing of web
> pages? This is not to say that what TotalNews has done is right or
> wrong, only that answering the copyright questions may not be easy.
Agreed about the (c) questions not being easy, but I'm still failing to see how any copying is done here... There may be a colorable TM issue, but I simply don't see how TN is copying *anything*.
-Gabe
Gabriel Wachob http://www.aimnet.com/~gwachob Law Student http://server.berkeley.edu/BTLJSoftware Engineer
gwachob[_at_]aimnet.com 3L & Editor, BTLJ - Boalt Hall School of Law Received on Fri May 16 1997 - 21:34:21 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:25 GMT