4 ms·
> But suppose that a Web site, awesomestuff.com, ran an item that said something like “This piece on copyright is a great read!” with a hyperlink on the word “p
by dghf 12y ago
> But suppose that a Web site, awesomestuff.com, ran an item that said something like “This piece on copyright is a great read!” with a hyperlink on the word “piece” to my article’s page on The New Yorker’s Web site.... Effectively, awesomestuff.com has stolen content from newyorker.com, just as the compiler of “Most Thoughtful Essays” stole content from me.
This has to be the single most wrong-headed thing I've seen written on hyperlinks. To suggest that telling people where they can find an article is morally equivalent to copying that article and distributing the copies ... to paraphrase Charles Babbage, "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a proposition."
- ejk314 12y agoI can understand how he would see 'framing' as copying a website into another page. But he goes on to argue that we accept this form of 'copying' because of the same 'a visual change is experienced as a physical change' mumbo jumbo. No. Clearly, we accept this form of copying because framing the whole page still shows the page's adds and only increases revenue for the 'copied' site. There would obviously be legal ramifications if you embedded the page into your site then removed their adds and replaced them with your own.
- jgeada 12y agoYeah, that paragraph basically blew the entire article for me. The analog version would be stating that including the Dewey Decimal(1) reference for another book in my book/article is the same as violating copyright or stealing. Absurd on all possible interpretations. (1): or any other short description that would allow me to locate the specific book being referenced.