Latest on UK WWW links copyright infringement case
Sun, 24 Nov 1996 09:52:28 +0800
> No I'm saying that if they want to add a link to it then they should ask me.
What utter bollocks. This would not apply to any other medium,
and it certainly shouldn't apply to the Internet.
'Check out the movie "The Last Emporor".'
'Check out the movie "The Last Emporor". The relevant
bit is between the 35th and 45th minutes of the tape.
'In the Australian today, on page ten, there is an
article on Modems, which is very good'
'On page 55 of the January "Australian Personal Computer",
there is an article entitled "Telstra in the Media"'
'In the Penguin editiion of "Wuthering Heights", in pages
34 to 40, there is a very disturbing conflict scene'
All of these things are "references", in the same way as a URL.
In no way has the owner's copyright been infringed simply because
I have made a reference to their work.
Your comments about having advertisements on your index.html are
a furphy. Again, if I direct someone to a particular part of a
movie, book, periodical or TV show, this will by pass the
advertising, but does not breach the owner's copyright. In point
of fact, they are then more likely to view the advertisement
as a result of the reference.
The same applies to the 'net. If I copy your work unfairly, then
you have every right to be upset. However, if I simply say "There's
a great piece over -there-" then no, you have no legal right to
The only place I can think of where this would be a problem is
where someone has taken efforts to bypass your ownership. For instance,
by linking -into- your pages (deliberately to bypass passwords),
or where they claim to own the material themselves.
I would say that the latter case is no different to any
other form of literature. The former should be, but if its
not found to be naughty, then a real authentication method
(such as htaccesses) will avoid it in any case.