From: Frank Stuart <fstuart@vetmed.auburn.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 16:39:21 PDT
To: joseph@genome.wi.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Linking = Showing = Transferring?
Message-ID: <199509142338.SAA10960@snoopy.vetmed.auburn.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


[...]
>Here's my question, and a thought to ponder: If it is/becomes illegal to
>have links on a homepage to pornography because it is ruled as the same as
>having the pornography there; then can you have links to pages with links
>(the same as having it) to pornography? This repeats, so would it be legal
>to links at all?
[...]

And then there's the problem of URLs not being static.  What may be a perfectly
innocuos link one day may turn into something not perceived as harmless the
next.  I seem to recall reading about a French site (Femmes Femmes Femmes)
that offered pictures of nude females.  When the traffic got too much for
them, they jokingly changed the links to point to pictures at the Louvre.
However, it could just as easily happen the other way.

I also heard something about the ACM taking the position that a URL was not
equivalent to the work itself, but I don't have a reference.


Frank Stuart              | (Admiral Grace) Hopper's Law:
fstuart@vetmed.auburn.edu | It's easier to get forgiveness than permission.