Re: TN problem partially solved?

On 5/22/97, Gabriel Wachob <gwachob[_at_]aimnet.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 May 1997, David Post <postd[_at_]erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > What we probably have, in effect, is that the NYT has 'withdrawn' TN's
> > 'implied license' to frame their site -- but it has done so not by putting
> > an 'express withdrawal' in text form on their page (ineffective and
> > inefficient) but by doing so using a more powerful available language for
> > embedding their communication with other sites (i.e., Java). [Actually, I
> > don't think this is Java-based; I think there's an HTTP header that
> > disables framing, but I could be very wrong]. Makes a lot of sense --
>

[snip]
>
> What I'm wondering is, David, are you suggesting that the extenet of the
> implied license conforms to the extent to which a page can be displayed
> without specifically defeating any attempt to circumvent such attempts to
> control the way the page is displayed (yes, that is circular)? In other
> words, what if Totalnews finds a way to defeat NYT's self-help measure (it
> won't, but lets say they could). Are you saying that because the NYT has
> made a specific attempt to control the use of its content using technology
> any use of the content which requires defeating that technological
> limitation is now copyright infringement? I kind of like this, because it
> requires some acitivity on a potential infringer beyond just linking, and
> because it sort of provides notice to any would-be infringers.

  Sort of. I'm not sure if this isn't more usefully viewed through the lens of contract. NYT puts its information out on the Web; TN displays it via frames. NYT adds a 'control' element of some kind -- saying, in effect, you can access this information, but only on the condition that you don't use framing. That's the offer; if TN now figures out some way to defeat this control, they're breaching the contract with NYT.

David Post
<postd[_at_]erols.com> Received on Thu May 29 1997 - 15:01:36 GMT