Can you summarize the following document?
        
  在全球資訊網幕後的超文字傳輸協議(HTTP)技術中,並未對鏈路型別做任何區分,所有連結的功能均為平等,資源可以位於任何伺服器的任何位置。  當訪問一個網站時,瀏覽器首先下載HTML格式的文件內容。下載的HTML文件可能呼叫其他HTML檔案、影象、指令碼及樣式表等檔案。這些檔案可以包含codice_1標籤以在頁面上顯示所提供URL位置的影象。其中的HTML程式碼可能不指定伺服器,從而使網頁瀏覽器使用與父程式碼(codice_2)相同的伺服器。但它也可以指定在某個伺服器上託管的影象的絕對URL,例如(codice_3。  在瀏覽器下載到包含影象的HTML影象後,瀏覽器將聯絡遠端伺服器以請求影象內容。

  在一個網站中可以顯示另一個網站的內容是全球資訊網超文字媒體原始設計中的一部分。常見的用法包括:

  當網站違背使用者期望時,網站之間模糊的邊際會導致其他問題。有些時候,直接連結也可用於惡意目的。

  

  大多數網頁瀏覽器都將直接根據網頁指示來獲取影象。 嵌入式影象可能以此作為一個網路信標來跟蹤使用者或將資訊傳遞給第三方。有許多廣告過濾工具可不同程度地限制此類行為。

  部分伺服器採用HTTP參照位址等技術檢測直接連結,並可根據相同格式返回錯誤、告知、引導或譴責資訊,代替原始的目標影象。大多數伺服器都可配置為避免為第三方直接連結提供託管的媒體內容。  URL重寫(例如Apache HTTP Server的mod_rewrite)經常被用於拒絕或重定向直接連結的影象或媒體內容到其他資源。大多數媒體資源都可通過此種方式重定向,包括視訊檔案、音訊檔案、動畫資源(例如Flash)等。  Other solutions usually combine URL重寫 with some custom complex server side scripting to allow hotlinking for a short time, or in more complex setups to allow the hotlinking but return an alternative image with reduced quality and size and thus reduce the bandwidth load when requested from a remote server. All hotlink prevention measures risk deteriorating the user experience on third party website.

  The most significant legal fact about inline linking, relative to copyright law considerations, is that the inline linker does not place a copy of the image file on its own Internet server. Rather, the inline linker places a pointer on its Internet server that points to the server on which the proprietor of the image has placed the image file. This pointer causes a user's browser to jump to the proprietor's server and fetch the image file to the user's computer. US courts have considered this a decisive fact in copyright analysis. Thus, in "完美十訴亞馬遜案", the 美國聯邦第九巡迴上訴法院 explained why inline linking did not violate US copyright law:Google does not...display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user’s computer screen. Because Google’s computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. In other words, Google does not have any “material objects...in which a work is fixed...and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated” and thus cannot communicate a copy. Instead of communicating a copy of the image, Google provides HTML instructions that direct a user’s browser to a website publisher’s computer that stores the full-size photographic image. Providing these HTML instructions is not equivalent to showing a copy. First, the HTML instructions are lines of text, not a photographic image. Second, HTML instructions do not themselves cause infringing images to appear on the user’s computer screen. The HTML merely gives the address of the image to the user’s browser. The browser then interacts with the computer that stores the infringing image. It is this interaction that causes an infringing image to appear on the user’s computer screen. Google may facilitate the user’s access to infringing images. However, such assistance raised only contributory liability issues and does not constitute direct infringement of the copyright owner’s display rights....While in-line linking and framing may cause some computer users to believe they are viewing a single Google webpage, the Copyright Act...does not protect a copyright holder against [such] acts...
直接連結(英語:Inline linking),也稱熱連結(hotlinking)、leeching、piggy-backing、直接連結(direct linking)、異站影象抓取(offsite image grabs)等,它是指在一個網站的網頁上,未經允許地使用使用連結物件直接呼叫另一個網站上的資源(通常是影象)。在如今的網際網路上,未經授權的直接連結常被簡稱為盜鏈。