> Either way, when you’re reading a linked page, you may still
> be “at” awesomestuff.com, as clicking the back button on
> your browser can instantly confirm. Effectively,
> awesomestuff.com has stolen content from newyorker.com, just
> as the compiler of “Most Thoughtful Essays” stole content
> from me.
"At" is the wrong word. The browser is requesting content. If it's requesting content from awesomestuff.com that only newyorker.com has permission to copy, that's a copyright problem.
This is a very odd metaphor for a journalist to mistake. It's as if any reference they make in a piece is violating the copyright of the referenced item. Is reference that difficult of a concept to grasp?
You know, we put so much damned effort into getting the 'net to have documents that could trivially link to other documents and be available to everyone, it seems unsurprising that it is difficult to retrofit it with copyright protection measures.
In this example the browser is requesting NewYorker content from newyorker.com, which serves it. It is not requesting that content from awesomestuff.com. Awesomestuff.com does NOT serve newyorker content, only an address to it.
So who's doing the copying here? It is the person who is using their browser to copy content from newyorker.com to their PC so it can be displayed there.
"At" is the wrong word. The browser is requesting content. If it's requesting content from awesomestuff.com that only newyorker.com has permission to copy, that's a copyright problem.
This is a very odd metaphor for a journalist to mistake. It's as if any reference they make in a piece is violating the copyright of the referenced item. Is reference that difficult of a concept to grasp?