It might make sense if it were embedding the content on another 
site, but simply linking should be fine. Linking is what the 
Internet is all about. There was another case a few years ago where 
NPR was trying to prevent people from deep linking to pages on their 
site. They wanted everyone to go through the front door of their 
site, and then find the content. I think they lost that case. I'm 
not sure how this case relates to that one.  

Bill Streeter
LO-FI SAINT LOUIS
www.lofistl.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That ruling makes sense.  They shouldn't be allowed to link to a 
live broadcast that 
> someone else is currently streaming unless that was the goal of 
the person/group 
> streaming it.  That's like hijacking CNN and feeding it live on 
your own television station.  
> You didn't do any of the work or go to any of the expense to make 
that happen, so there's 
> no reason your station should have the same functionality as CNN.
> 
> It's the same discussion that's been going on about aggregators.  
What should they be 
> able to 'rip' from your site and post without context or 
notification of reserved rights?  Why 
> should someone go to your site to watch your live feed of XYZ, 
when they could go to the 
> aggregator's site and see the exact same thing, as well as a bunch 
of other live feeds in 
> the same location?
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Short" <gary@> wrote:
> >
> > I thought this legal ruling might be of interest to you US based 
vloggers.
> > 
> > http://www.garyshort.org/?p=462
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Gary
> > 
> > -- 
> > Blog:    http://www.garyshort.org
> > Email:   gary@
> > Mob:     07906 958 110
> > MSN:     gary@
> > Skype:   gary.short
> >
>


Reply via email to