| That all hinges on "html is program" - no sane person would agree with that assumption when such legal text were written - source: HTML. You cannot just extend definitions to other things and call it legal. > limitations Do you want to read and click thru license agreements before entering website? Do you want to have to use Chrome, Opera or Edge for specific website because 'author' forced you so? > As the author doesn't provide those tools, he cannot legally dictate in which ways this is turned into a completed work by the consumer. That is factually incorrect - if we accept 'html is program' then YES 'author' has right to do so. > I believe the case needs to be made that an article of a website is not a completed "work" in the sense of a compiled application This won't work because German law would consider it irrelevant in this legal context
source: the law in question. >Yes agree, but the case must be made legally, not technically. If technical reasoning ends with absurd then it should be legally rejected - reductio ad absurdum. >If the author of that website doesn't want his page to be assembled in certain ways, he is free to provide his own means (app) or restrict access behind a mutual contract. The point - the company wants it to be a webpage (be on internet) and does not want legal implications of it being a webpage but does want legal implications of it being an app. You cannot have a cake and it too. It is document, PERIOD. |