[thelist] More Smart Tags

[Martin]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

aardvark wrote on 25/6/01 2:58 pm

>> From: <martin.p.burns at uk.pwcglobal.com>
>> 
>> I'm wondering whether the more effective legal avenue
>> is one of intellectual property - the right to not have your IP
>> changed by a third party without your permission.
>
>what's being changed?  your content?  
As presented to the user, yes.

>your code?  
As presented to the user, yes.

>no, just the 
>presentation... and guess what, all browsers affect the presentation 
>anyway, based on rendering quirks and rules...
But they don't change *intent*.

>> HTML is very clearly covered by IP, and I would strongly expect
>> that the links (or lack thereof) is part of your expression.
>
>where is HTML clearly covered by IP?  

As the expression of intent, just as any other code is. Just because
a) it's visible to users
b) it's a fairly simple language
doesn't change that.

>this isn't part of my point, 
>but i'd like to see some documentation on that since everything i've 
>seen says HTML is too generic to be covered by IP...

Remember that this is not the 'stealing' bit of IP, it's the 'using
my IP in ways which I didn't sanction' bit. The test case is actually
the first re-editing of the Monty Python shows for US TV. Python
sued and won. Hands down.

>and those aren't links, those are highlights inserted by the browser 
>with meta-content... 

I fail to see the difference. They link off elsewhere? They're links.

>> Therefore, adding links to your web pages without your explicit
>> permission (ie you would need to opt *in* to the concept, and
>> even then would probably have right of veto over links (or at least
>> categories of links) added) could very much be intepreted as a IP
>> dispute.
>
>well, they aren't adding links, they are highlighting words..
Which do what? Redirect the browser when you click on them?
They're links, dammit.

>however, if that META tag were strictly opt-in (instead of opt-out), 
>this would all be moot... so we should be focusing on that, 
>instead...

Agreed!

>> Also, will the underlines be amenable to CSS control? Otherwise
>> it could end up f-ugly. And if a third party wants to make my site
>> f-ugly, that's another IP issue.
>
>i don't give a rat's ass about fugly, but knowing how you can control 
>them via CSS is a very good question... how can you ensure they 
>aren't confused with other parts of your design?  

And don't conflict outrageously with your branding.

Cheers
Martin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Comment: Content after the signature block is *not* signed

iQA/AwUBOzd7o3HoHnCoNczLEQIjGACgvssmE4Dt6jvLWHmAdN5JNf/D/UsAoOZA
V/mqlL4655ROPiGjLVtEsIjD
=1Jp1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


_______________________________________________
email: martin at easyweb.co.uk             PGP ID: 0xA835CCCB
       martin at members.evolt.org      snailmail: 30 Shandon Place
  tel: +44 (0)774 063 9985                      Edinburgh,
  url: http://www.easyweb.co.uk                 Scotland