In message <[log in to unmask]>, Edward Barrow
<[log in to unmask]> writes
Thanks for this Edward, but there are a few points which I'd like to
pick up on.
>
>A prohibition on viewing the source is unrealistic only because it is
>unenforceable; it isn't intrinsically unreasonable. Regular use with a
>browser shouldn't require viewing the source.(except diehard telnet
>users...)
This seems to imply that all browsers work in the same way, and that
they all display material on the screen in the manner originally
intended by the author of the page. This is of course incorrect;
different browsers display HTML tags differently, or not at all, in some
cases. At other times, a tag may cause a browser to crash. If this
happens to me, I want to be able to view the HTML source so that I can
at least work out what a page should look like, just from viewing the
tags. Your pages are straightforward, and I'd be suprised if I had that
problem at your site, but that doesn't invalidate my point.
>Some sites manage to restrict it technically; I haven't found out how -
>if you look at the MSNBC site at http://msnbc.com for example, "view
>source" is greyed out in Netscape.
And very annoying it is as well. However, just because another site does
it, doesn't make it right.
>CLA retains a restriction on copy-cut-and-paste from the HTML; again,
>this may not be readily enforceable but the practice of 'borrowing' code
>from other pages is unquestionably theft.
Disagreement here as well. It depends very much, I suppose, on what you
view HTML code as. In my opinion, its simply a mark-up language which is
used in conjunction with a browser to display your intellectual work on
my screen. You cannot copyright that than you can claim copyright over
the way in which you lay out a flyer, letter or book. Of course, we've
all seen the actions taking place between companies over the 'look and
feel' of a product, but thats a very different situation.
You cannot claim copyright over the use of <H1>....</H1> though of
course you can copyright the text between the tags. They are in the
public domain, though if you know differently, I'd be grateful for a
citation!
Looking at this question the other way around; can you prove that you
didn't 'borrow' your mark-up code from another site? (This is a
rhetorical question; I'm sure you didn't). Since you cannot prove this,
how can you claim copyright over the mark-up language used on your page?
I can easily point to hundreds of other sites which have used exactly
the same mark-up which you did, and which probably also appears on my
web pages. Can you prove that you didn't take mark-up from my page?
(Actually, in this case you probably could, since I expect your pages
pre-date mine, but the question is still valid).
You say "this may not be readily enforceable", and I would say that its
not enforceable at all! It is not easy to inforce a limit on
photocopying from a book, but libraries have found plenty of ways to do
their best in this situation. It is, I would say, impossible for you to
prove your copyright over the mark-up language that you've used, because
that copyright doesn't exist.
Thats my opinion on what you've said; you obviously feel differently
about it, so I'd be grateful if you could clarify the points that I've
made, and show me where I've gone wrong.
> As copies must be
>made in order to view the page, these notices effectively prohibit any
>viewing. IMHO it's better to have a clear copyright statement, with a
>hotlink from every page, than no copyright statement at all or a
>self-defeating one taken verbatim from a book.
I agree with you entirely on this point.
Phil.
--
Electronic Publishing Consultant: CD-ROM, Networking, Internet, WWW.
Author: Information Science, CD-ROM, Networking, Internet.
Trainer: CD-ROM, Internet, Web Page design, Training.
http://www.philb.com/ ***New*** http://www.philb.com/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|