by giving power to Trump. Words fail me.
by giving power to Trump. Words fail me.
You guys are all a bunch of wakos. Seriously.
What could possibly motivate a hospital staff to open themselves up to negligence lawsuits just so that they could
Before you draw conclusions that fit your tinfoil hat world view, please just spend even the tiniest moment trying to reason out why any group of people would behave in a way that defies logic, before concluding that this is what they must have done.
A single person can do batshit crazy stuff, yes. But a group of professionals working in a hospital? Nope. Not going to happen. There may be some bending of rules, some I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you'll-scratch-mine situations, but a group of doctors intentionally trying to injure a child? That doesn't happen. Period.
Wow, you are one precious snowflake!
Guess what man - if that's how you value spending your life, then by all means do it; but why must you call anyone who chooses a different path a "problem"?
Also do you know what profit is? It's the result of doing what other people want you to do. And then you get to spend that profit on getting others to do what you want them to do. Profit is not evil. What it in fact represents is you doing the best you can at pleasing other people, of making their lives better. And then you get to ask the same of other people, and everyone gets what they want and/or need.
And before that, if you wrote a novel, you didn't just print it and sell copies to the public, where anyone could copy it. You printed one copy, put it behind lock and key and only let someone read it when you could be there to be sure they wouldn't take it away or make a copy of it. Right?
Thank you, that is some very good analysis. I tried to read the ruling and it's just so verbose and confusing, I really don't understand what it definitively states, but your comment gives me alot to go on.
I don't think so. Linking is different from embedding. The web part comes from the linking, not the embedding.
> An tag is just a link you have to follow, too. The user agent may or may not do that for you. It is, after all, the agent acting on behalf of the user.
I think that the expected behaviors of different kinds of HTML is well known. If it's not standardized explicitly, it certainly must be standardized in practice by now. When people author web pages, they're usually pretty certain how they're going to end up looking when the browser renders them. So trying to argue "I linked to that copyrighted image right here in my document in a place where the embedded display of that image would make perfect sense, using an HTML tag that typically shows the image embedded, but didn't think that end users would end up seeing a copyrighted image within the flow of my document" would seem to me to be pretty weak.
> Links are not the original work. Period. Facts trump wishes. Deal with it.
I think we just need to expand our definition of what constitutes a document to something more relevant to the age. Web servers explicitly tell web clients what to display and when, with a few minor differences of behavior that are likely not particularly relevant (yes I can run lynx and not see any images, but when I serve a page to millions of people expecting them to see the images, the lynx user isn't really relevant). No, the web server did not serve up every bit of what was displayed to the user. But they did serve up the instructions which they could know ahead of time would result in the display of a copyrighted work to the user. I think it would be reasonable to call that copyright infringement.
If I make a back-up copy of software on my USB drive (not copyright infringement) and then give you the USB stick to use, knowing that you can install the copyrighted software yourself, have I violated copyright? But I didn't give you software! I just gave you some electrons in a particular arrangement that don't do anything unless you use them as the input to several extremely complex mechanism that rearrange those electrons and transmit them elsewhere. Surely I didn't violate copyright! Right?
I think this really comes down to (as I have said in other posts) whether or not we want to acknowledge that a 'document' in the modern sense is different than the simple concept of a printed page that you have to physically give to someone.
The web transmits instructions for creating documents to display to users. HTML is the instructions. Web clients turn those instructions into the documents that we read. I think it's reasonable to say that distributing instructions on how to create a document that violates copyright is in itself a copyright violation.
A physical analogy: I create a machine that can take a bag full of small squares of paper, each with a letter on it, and stitch them together into pages of text. I distribute instances of that machine widely. Now I start distributing bags of letters which themselves nobody will look into to see the squares, but when put in my machine, will produce copies of copyrighted texts.
Am I guilty of copyright? I never distributed a copyrighted document. But I did distribute what are essentially machine instructions which can be combined with a machine in a way that will create a copy of a copyrighted document.
I'm thinking that is a pretty good analogy for web servers and web clients.
Now, what I think I ought to be able to distribute is little bags of paper that turn into ordering instructions for how to buy copyright documents, or which libraries to go to to find the copyrighted documents. I think of that has being analogous to web pages that carry links to copyrighted works, where the links do not instruct the web browser to directly download and display the linked-to document embedded in the page that contains them. Kind of link how search engines give you links to pages, not the text of the linked-to pages.
I wasn't clear, then. I was talking about linking to photos with a link that would embed the photo directly in the displayed page. The search results you describe would not do that, they'd just present a link that you have to follow.
If the search engine presented images directly in the search results page (in anything other than fair-use thumbnail form), then that would be copyright infringement.
I tried reading the ruling, I didn't quite understand whether or not they differentiated between presenting the copyright content to the user directly, or just linking to it, was considered copyright violation. I also read alot of text that seemed to be trying to narrow the scope of the infringement to willingly and knowingly linking to copyright content, but I didn't understand it all that well, and I don't know if a search engine could be said to knowingly link to anything in particular, it's just a machine that spits out data. Whereas a person who could be shown to have made an informed decision about the specific links they are authoring would be a different thing.
I don't see how this burden to search companies is a reason to weaken the rights of copyright holders.
Image thumbnails in search results would probably be covered under fair use no?
Frankly I'm surprised that copyright wasn't already enforced this way. Documents viewed on the world wide web are these ethereal things that are composed on the fly by client browser software as instructed by web server software. If the web server software instructs the client software to present a document which mixes non-copyright-infringing and copyright-infringing content, it seems eminently reasonable to me that this would be copyright infringement.
What if I distributed a bunch of mini printing presses that, when you pressed a button, produced a perfect copy of this year's best selling novel? Sure, I didn't actually distribute the novel, but I enabled a mechanism whereby the user, when using my device as intended, would end up with a copyright infringing document.
I think of the web browser in the same way. The servers tell it what to display. Therefore, if they tell it to display something that violates copyright, then the server has violated copyright.
Here's how I would make the rules if I could:
- Publishing web pages with links to copyrighted content where those links cause the display of the copyrighted content inline in the linking document, would violate copyright
- Publishing web pages with links to copyrighted content where those links do not cause the display of the copyrighted content inline in the linking document, but instead merely lead the user to the content, would not violate copyright
Analog: you can publish instructions on where to go to listen to a copyrighted song. You cannot publish a document which plays the copyrighted song to the user.
Linking to photos is a means for having them embedded in content you are serving. You are basically serving to clients instructions on how to compose a displayable document. By linking directly to copyrighted images you are instructing the user's computer to produce a document which is a mix of your content, and copyrighted content.
Basically this ruling says that instructing client software to present documents which when examined in sum total are copyright infringing, then you have violated copyright, even though you haven't actually distributed the sum total of the copyright violating document yourself.
It seems perfectly rational to me and it simply requires that we acknowledge that HTTP documents which when composed as expressly desired by the document author violate copyright, then the author is guilty of copyright infringement even if they themselves didn't actually serve up the copyright bits. The nature of documents has changed drastically since they were all hard copied on paper, and changing copyright law to acknowledge that seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I didn't read the entire ruling but I assume that the following is not violations of copyright:
Linking to a copyrighted document via a hyperlink
So, all is well if you ask me. So you can't embed copyright images in your web pages anymore. I don't see how that's a bad thing. Make your own images or pay the person who made the one you want.
I don't know. Doesn't sound that bad to me. You make a web page, you link to photos that you either own or know that you have the rights to have presented embedded in your page. You want to show an image or video that someone else owns? You link to the page that they have made that embeds that image/video.
What's so bad about that?
Two percent of zero is almost nothing.