If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Court says that hyperlinks to copyrighted material are a copyright infringement   (futureofcopyright.com) divider line 67
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

7470 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Sep 2012 at 11:20 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-14 08:41:58 AM  
Well, Fark.
 
2012-09-14 09:03:35 AM  
columns.dg.nl

I can see why her pictures were so appealing.
 
2012-09-14 09:22:56 AM  
I can see their point.

Instead of loading the copyrighted material to their own server, the violating party loaded it to File Factory and linked to it there, then kept loading it to other locker sites after File Factory responded to a take-down order, forcing the copyright owner to keep tracking the content down and writing take-down claims. Let's face it, the violating party was responsible both for loading the pictures to the internet and for linking to them, so it was essentially just the same as hosting them.
 
2012-09-14 09:25:53 AM  
My dissent:

lh4.ggpht.com

Hotlinked copyright symbol. Take that, you farks!
 
2012-09-14 11:22:12 AM  
The Dutch?
Yeah, right.
 
2012-09-14 11:24:17 AM  
What do you expect from a bunch of dike lovers?
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-09-14 11:25:59 AM  
Good farkin luck trying to enforce that.

/stupid law is stupid
 
2012-09-14 11:27:01 AM  
Now how am I supposed to masturbate? Jeesumcrow.
 
2012-09-14 11:27:25 AM  
In other news, my window is my living room.
 
2012-09-14 11:27:44 AM  
Is this news?
 
2012-09-14 11:28:13 AM  
For all the issues we have with the Internet in the U.S., europe really seems to be having a more difficult time getting their arms around all of the problems the new information age poses.
 
2012-09-14 11:28:40 AM  
I rudder be on this side of the pond.
 
2012-09-14 11:29:11 AM  
President Fark (aka Drew), you are linking to copyrighted material and that's illegal
SHUT. EVERYTHING. DOWN.
 
2012-09-14 11:29:28 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: Now how am I supposed to masturbate? Jeesumcrow.


Porn producers are loving the changing copyright laws.

Go porn!
 
2012-09-14 11:29:30 AM  
"It's a pioneering decision..."

"C'Mon, boys, it's just a volcano! Do you want to live forever? We're pioneers!"
 
2012-09-14 11:30:52 AM  

tomasso: I can see their point.

Instead of loading the copyrighted material to their own server, the violating party loaded it to File Factory and linked to it there, then kept loading it to other locker sites after File Factory responded to a take-down order, forcing the copyright owner to keep tracking the content down and writing take-down claims. Let's face it, the violating party was responsible both for loading the pictures to the internet and for linking to them, so it was essentially just the same as hosting them.


I think the proper way to look at it is that what should be illegal is uploading the stolen content to the hosting services in the first place. The actual hyperlinking shouldn't be what is illegal; uploading it to the cloud service should be. The fact that the hyperlinks were not guessable should not change this fact, BUT it could provide evidence that they were the ones who committed the illegal act of uploading the content to the public servers. Since they knew the "unguessable" URL, and all that. But the actual linking should not be illegal, and courts that look at it that way are wrong in their understanding of the Internet.

Not an expert on Dutch law, but that's my take on how the law should work on this sort of thing.
 
2012-09-14 11:35:02 AM  

miss diminutive: My dissent:

[lh4.ggpht.com image 280x280]

Hotlinked copyright symbol. Take that, you farks!


That image isn't original enough to qualify for copyright protection, but nice try.
 
2012-09-14 11:36:21 AM  
I would click the link to the story, but I'm afraid that I would be infringing on the copyright, or something.
 
2012-09-14 11:36:37 AM  
What about links to torrents of copyrighted material? How many steps removed do we have to be?
 
2012-09-14 11:39:40 AM  
Those Dutch bastards! 

i47.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-14 11:40:21 AM  

notmtwain: [columns.dg.nl image 600x600]

I can see why her pictures were so appealing.


She has a face?
 
2012-09-14 11:40:41 AM  
Court says that hyperlinks to copyrighted material are a copyright infringement decides to break the internet by knowing nothing about how the internet functions.
 
2012-09-14 11:41:15 AM  
"openbaarmaking'? For real? Is Dutch just some sort of silly language some guy from Cleveland made up? I swear I speak not a lick of Dutch, but I can read and comprehend nearly anything written in it. Wut met der singen en dansin undallderest?!
 
2012-09-14 11:47:51 AM  

Endive Wombat: Court says that hyperlinks to copyrighted material are a copyright infringement decides to break the internet by knowing nothing about how the internet functions.


I wondered where all the old farts that still have their secretary check their email went...apparently they become judges in Holland.
 
2012-09-14 11:49:21 AM  
Oh, oh, the Target web site is copyrighted, I better remove my ad links!
 
2012-09-14 11:53:09 AM  
Was nice knowing you.
 
2012-09-14 11:55:44 AM  
Um: "publishing hyperlinks to copyrighted content is, under certain circumstances, a copyright infringement"

The particular case involves pictures, dumbmitter. Pictures that belonged to somebody. It doesn't involve every link to everything, ever, though I expect most responses will react as if it does, because people are stupid.
 
2012-09-14 11:56:29 AM  
www.orrvfd.com
 
2012-09-14 12:07:04 PM  
The Dutch court must have dug very hard to find their moral rudder in making this decision.
 
2012-09-14 12:08:00 PM  
This is why we enforce conspiracy laws. This is clearly a conspiracy to violate copyright. Don't make stupid, unenforceable laws. Just fair cop them on conspiracy. Let judge/jury decide if it gets that far. Cripple a couple of these FARKers, and pretty soon this crap will stop.

It is a little like Napster. Sure, you thought it was totally fine to send copies of your stuff to people.
 
2012-09-14 12:08:23 PM  
What a rub.
 
2012-09-14 12:09:20 PM  

Mnemia: The actual hyperlinking shouldn't be what is illegal; uploading it to the cloud service should be.


I don't think I agree with you. Let's assume that your hard drive possesses copyrighted images or software which you have obtained legally. (Everyone's does.) There's nothing illegal about that, but it would be illegal to give out an FTP address which other people could use to download them illegally. Similarly, let's assume you back up those legally obtained images on your personal; account at a locker site. Still legal, I think, as long as you are the only one with access to them. But once you provide someone else with access to them, you've crossed the line. I'm pretty sure that it's the link and not the loading which makes it a copyright violation.

I would think, however, that you would have to commit BOTH acts to be responsible. If Egotastic, for example, posts copyrighted images without permission and your blog links to their article, I think you're safe. There's no way for you to know whether they own the copyright and/or have permission to use the pictures.

The Dutch Courts used somewhat different criteria in issuing their decision, but I find their points reasonable.
 
2012-09-14 12:10:07 PM  
a href="blowme.html"
 
2012-09-14 12:11:46 PM  
Seems to me the solution would be to make a bit.ly link to a text file hosted on filefront which contains a link to a white imageshack image that, in its jpeg comment field, contains the URL of a geocities page which only has pictures of funny cats but in the underlying html has a link to a flash game hosted in South Africa, which, once beaten, displays the IP address of a virtual machine run on a 386 Unix box in rural Kentucky which hosts a multi-part .rar file containing said images.

By the time a prosecutor explains all of that to a judge, he'll either throw the case out or make the entire internet illegal. I think that's a chance I'm willing to take.
 
2012-09-14 12:14:38 PM  
Didn't a newspaper recently (within the last year or so) successfully sue Google for copyright infringement because Google News linked to one of their articles? So Google removed links to said newspaper's articles from the search results and they then cried foul because their web traffic fell off a cliff...
 
2012-09-14 12:15:08 PM  

numbone: [www.orrvfd.com image 425x283]


You are ordered to cease and desist! I have copyright to that block of black!
 
2012-09-14 12:17:05 PM  
 
2012-09-14 12:23:27 PM  

tomasso: Mnemia: The actual hyperlinking shouldn't be what is illegal; uploading it to the cloud service should be.

I don't think I agree with you. Let's assume that your hard drive possesses copyrighted images or software which you have obtained legally. (Everyone's does.) There's nothing illegal about that, but it would be illegal to give out an FTP address which other people could use to download them illegally. Similarly, let's assume you back up those legally obtained images on your personal; account at a locker site. Still legal, I think, as long as you are the only one with access to them. But once you provide someone else with access to them, you've crossed the line. I'm pretty sure that it's the link and not the loading which makes it a copyright violation.

I would think, however, that you would have to commit BOTH acts to be responsible. If Egotastic, for example, posts copyrighted images without permission and your blog links to their article, I think you're safe. There's no way for you to know whether they own the copyright and/or have permission to use the pictures.

The Dutch Courts used somewhat different criteria in issuing their decision, but I find their points reasonable.


But it ISN'T the hyperlink (FTP, HTTP, or otherwise) that gives access to the content. It's the act of uploading it to a server that is set up and enabled to serve the content out that enables that. You wouldn't necessarily need a hyperlink at all: you could just use an IP address for a computer with no DNS entry if you wanted to be extra sneaky. A hyperlink is just like a shareable bookmark. It's not sharing anything at all to create a hyperlink, and a hyperlink isn't even necessarily connected to any sort of content.

Maybe this sounds like splitting hairs, but I think it's an important distinction. The WWW is built on the foundation that hyperlinks can be shared freely, so limiting the right to share hyperlinks is the absolutely wrong way to go about addressing the problem, legally (it's also totally futile, from a pragmatic perspective). The hyperlink does not do anything to enable access to the content, technically. What does that is the act of setting up a server that links that hyperlink to the content. THAT is what should be illegal for illegal or stolen content.
 
2012-09-14 12:27:23 PM  
Also, another reason that it's a horrible idea to try to go after the act of sharing hyperlinks to illegal content is that the content linked to by a hyperlink can CHANGE, and the person who published the hyperlink doesn't have any control over that unless they also control the server. You could upload a lolcat macro to Photobucket, and share the link on Fark. That link would stay on Fark. Should you then become liable for the hyperlink if someone hacked your photobucket account and replaced the image with child pron? Of course not, but that's what this kind of legal reasoning presumes.
 
2012-09-14 12:28:49 PM  

Cthulhu11: Those Dutch bastards! 

[i47.photobucket.com image 682x510]


Belgians are bastards. All they eat is waffles

Everyone just hates the Dutch with their education system, reliable transportation system, universal healthcare marijuana, wooden shoes, windmills, stupid teeth and dutch ovens.
 
2012-09-14 12:41:23 PM  
I think the issue could be better categorized as "Knowingly linking to material that is in violation of copyright." In this same way a site linking to a place you can 'download the latest version of photoshop' would also be in violation.
 
2012-09-14 12:46:50 PM  
But to be clear, the court goes out of its way to point out that the links that the company was publishing were NOT publicly available. It was very clear that the company was the one putting up these files on various hosting sites and then publishing the links, not just linking to something they found.
 
2012-09-14 12:46:53 PM  

Mnemia: THAT is what should be illegal for illegal or stolen content.


Ah, but there's the problem. The word "illegal."

If you have not stolen the content yourself, copyrighted content is not illegal when you upload it to a file locker. It only becomes illegal when you share it. Assume you are a member of Playboy.com, and download a ton of stuff. I don't think there's anything wrong with uploading that content to FileFactory to be your back-up in case of a hard drive failure. It's not illegal content at that point. But as soon as you give other people access to it, via e-mail, hyperlink, FTP address, whatever, then your action becomes illegal, right? The link itself causes the crime.

"The WWW is built on the foundation that hyperlinks can be shared freely."

I don't think that is an absolute, nor should it be. In essence, there is (as far as I can see) no difference between linking to content on your own server and linking to the same content which you have personally uploaded to FileFactory. I don't think any court anywhere would rule that you can use File Factory as a get-out-of-jail-free card to avoid your legal responsibility for sharing somebody else's intellectual property. In such a condition, File Factory is simply an extension of your own server.
 
2012-09-14 12:47:18 PM  

Fecacacophany: "openbaarmaking'? For real? Is Dutch just some sort of silly language some guy from Cleveland made up? I swear I speak not a lick of Dutch, but I can read and comprehend nearly anything written in it. Wut met der singen en dansin undallderest?!


Like that? Then you'll love Frisia.
 
2012-09-14 01:03:29 PM  
Just goes to show that once an image, any image hits the net and goes viral there is no getting rid of it.

as for the court finding, i suppose in certain situation it could be infringement.
 
2012-09-14 01:04:56 PM  

tomasso: Mnemia: THAT is what should be illegal for illegal or stolen content.

Ah, but there's the problem. The word "illegal."

If you have not stolen the content yourself, copyrighted content is not illegal when you upload it to a file locker. It only becomes illegal when you share it. Assume you are a member of Playboy.com, and download a ton of stuff. I don't think there's anything wrong with uploading that content to FileFactory to be your back-up in case of a hard drive failure. It's not illegal content at that point. But as soon as you give other people access to it, via e-mail, hyperlink, FTP address, whatever, then your action becomes illegal, right? The link itself causes the crime.

"The WWW is built on the foundation that hyperlinks can be shared freely."

I don't think that is an absolute, nor should it be. In essence, there is (as far as I can see) no difference between linking to content on your own server and linking to the same content which you have personally uploaded to FileFactory. I don't think any court anywhere would rule that you can use File Factory as a get-out-of-jail-free card to avoid your legal responsibility for sharing somebody else's intellectual property. In such a condition, File Factory is simply an extension of your own server.


I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying fully. The hyperlink is NOT what provides public access to the files on FileFactory or whatever. What provides public access to the files is the access control SETTINGS on the file locker account. I'm not suggesting that file lockers should be illegal, or that they should be a get-out-of-jail-free card if you use one to distribute content you don't own illegally. What I'm saying is that the illegal act should be setting up your file locked account to share content you don't own, not distributing a hyperlink after you did that.

The court here wrongly blurred the line between hyperlinks and access control, and they are NOT the same thing. Hyperlinks do not inherently provide access to anything, nor are they at all permanently tied to a specific piece of content that gets served out...the server's access control settings do that. That's all I'm saying.
 
2012-09-14 01:05:29 PM  
That's an interesting concept... I suppose everybody who clicked the link here is going to be sued by the Publisher's Clearing House or something...

every one of your posts is copyrighted, this hyperlink now carries 45 charges of copyright infringement in Holland.
 
2012-09-14 01:06:04 PM  
46...

Not to mention the original Dutch news story on the web...
 
2012-09-14 01:07:01 PM  
And it may sound like I'm making silly hair-splitting distinctions, but I really am not. The idea that hyperlink = access is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Internet, and of who controls what data.
 
2012-09-14 01:08:35 PM  
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report