Talk:Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 April 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Belgium

"Belgian Association of Newspaper Editors v. Google

In September 2006 the Belgian Association of Newspaper Editors sued Google and obtained an injunctive order from the Belgian Court of First Instance that Google must stop deep linking to Belgian newspapers without paying royalties, or else pay a fine of €1 million daily.[9] Many newspaper columns were critical of the Belgian newspapers' position.[10] "

This is not true, 11 years ago I have corrected this already and included the original verdict. Look at it and correct it, Incredible that such false information is still winning from facts. Google was not convicted for hyperlinking, not even close. Read the official verdict. Google was convicted because they published text from the articles and used this in their news portal. That is one of the reasons they changed the news section from portal to pure search engine. All can be read in the original verdict of the court (in French).

Merger of linking and web tech

I think that the suggested merger is a bad idea because there are other aspects of web technolgy that implicate copyright law. The article would be too big. The one on linking is already long enough.
PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New intro. by Stevertigo

I think the edits by Stevertigo are well intended but in need of considerable revision. Much in them is helpful, but other parts are counterproductive and in some cases, with due respect, ill-informed. I will try to synthesize the new and old material in edits over the next several days, and would be pleased to discuss the details with Stevertigo or anyone else. Much of the new material is simply unrelated to linking or its copyright law aspects.
PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider your edits to be well intended as well, but likewise in need of considerable revision, at least with regard to particular terms used. "Portions of Web sites" is inaccurate and unusable language in every and all contexts, except apparently in the law. I agree that some of the overly general treatment belongs elsewhere, but indeed if there are as many in depth CR/IP and Internet treatments as there appear to be in the related categories, some serious integration and reconceptualiztion is also due. A very large topic box is under way. Regards, -Ste vertigo 21:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new topic box is here... Template:Computing law. Edit away. -Ste vertigo 22:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overview section

The section "Overview" is inappropriate in my opinion. The overview of the article should be provided in the lead section, see Wikipedia:Lead section. In addition (to follow up on an email from PraeceptorIP to me), it seems that the three last paragraphs of the section indeed relate to downloading, not linking or framing. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with the preceding comments. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citedby Swedish court (Stockholms tingsrätt)

This article has recently (2010-06-11) been cited by Stockholms tingsrätt, a Swedish first-instance court:

"Tingsrätten saknar praktisk möjlighet att göra en komparativ studie avseende rättstillämpningen i olika länder i aktuellt hänseende, men konstaterar att de rättsprocesser som initierats på olika håll i världen vanligen verkar ha avsett djuplänkning och s.k. framing (för en allmänt hållen genomgång, se Wikipedia, Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_hyperlinking_and_framing)" Ulner (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even more important then to remind the ECoJ rulings. ;-) Nemo 09:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216074717/http://www.copiepresse.be/copiepresse_google.pdf to http://www.copiepresse.be/copiepresse_google.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal request of user tiktok videos

I would request you to kindly remove the videos and photos of this user as it's a topic of her concern. After the app is banned I think the user data regarding the app should also be removed 122.161.91.213 (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium

Merger of linking and web tech

Overview section

Citedby Swedish court (Stockholms tingsrätt)

External links modified

External links modified

Other noteworthy articles

Removal request of user tiktok videos