This one time, at band camp, Simon wrote:
A little more discussion from others would be
appreciated. We can have a
two-way debate, but I suggest reference to copyright law is made before
ayone does anything.
The problem is that copyright law is far from clear in this regard.
By way of example, back in the early days of frames (evil evil evil), a
company framed CNN's news site and put their own banner ads around it.
CNN initially sued the company doing this. Eventually they dropped
their case because they found a reliable technical means of avoiding
There really haven't been many cases exploring this area, particularly
the use of inline images. Since HTTP was designed explicitely to enable
this, I err on the side of open access. There are relatively easy
technical means to stop your data being publicly accessible, if that is
the work holder's desire.
Using inline images without permission in my mind is
intellectual property as well as bandwidth; both have value.
Here we go again...
If you have a can of Coke and I take it, you no longer have a can of
Coke. That is theft.
If I use my Coke-copying machine to copy your can of Coke, we both end
up with a can of Coke. This is not theft, but is probably some kind of
obscure infringement of Coca-Cola's rights.
There is a difference.
As for "intellectual property", well, it isn't. There is no such thing.
Legally there are a number of different and distinct classes of law:
copyright, patents, trademarks.
Rev Simon Rumble <simon(a)rumble.net>
"University politics are vicious precisely because the
stakes are so small."
- Henry Kissinger