Sean Breheny wrote:

> I think that you are right that most HTML code on the Internet is
> copyrighted.  However, this copyright is intended to prevent re-
> publishing the HTML code, not saving it for your own use.

  Is it even intended, or *realistically* expected to do that?  Are Web
publishers likely to object to the generation of a (de-facto) mirror
site?  Other, that is, than the possibility that such a mirror site will
not represent the latest version?  Most publishers on the Web, because
access is free, would expect the prime function of copyright to be to
ensure that what is purported to be their work is indeed so, and that
others' purported work does not contain theirs without due agreement.
They are not (necessarily) demanding payment, but their good name.

  Certainly, links if not file copies are universally acceptable.  It is
*expected* that browsers (people) are sufficiently competent to "strip
back" link addresses to locate the owner even if "home" vectors are not
contained in every page.

> It probably even would allow you to transfer your saved copy to a
> friend because that action would be the same as that friend just going
> to the URL and getting his own copy.

  Perfectly reasonable, albeit impossible to police anyway.  It
certainly is a funny beastie, this Internet.

  Cheers,
        Paul B.