On one hand, one can say that without social sharing mechanisms, (iframes in this case) the discovery of many other sites would have been impended. On the other hand, if you are as big as washington post, you’d have more to protect. But if I’m a budding blogger hungry from exposure, I’d say please come and frame me.

Also, for people who want to share about other sites, it is a pain to link to another site and lose exposure of their own in the process.

For the overall good of the web, I’d say that iframe should be good as a social sharing tool. Albeit I also think that there should be some good practice guidelines. Perhaps showing ads on the referring iframe should not be encouraged. But if its for maintaining the original presence, it should be good. Do it like Google or themeforest.net where an option to close the iframe is provided. I believe this is fair. On many occasions, I do close the iframe because the content was good for more discovery.

If content is good, the rest are lesser issues really. This is the web! Let it be.

The derivative work argument comparison with YouTube doesn't work as YouTube provides the embed code thus giving tacit permission create derivative works with that code. I don't think such permission exists with just a Web page, even if it is just an HTML hack. Furthermore, some lawyers have argued, with varying degrees of success, that the derivative works argument could be used to go after people who embed YouTube clips they know to be infringing. The clause is rather broad in that regard.

Once again, not meant to support or condemn, just discussing.