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  
•       •       •

7469 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 01:13:07 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?!


'openbaarmaking' sounds like it deserves the Hero, Awesome and Cool tags all at once. Make me one too, while you're at it!
 
2012-09-14 01:20:06 PM  
No, again I disagree, and I think you;re grasping at straws.

Your access settings are completely irrelevant UNTIL you link to the content. Content on File Factory with a "no share" setting and the same content with an "anybody share" setting are precisely identical and equally legal, if there are no hyperlinks (or other forms of access) to the content.

In that process of loading-setting-linking, it is in fact the actual hyperlink which creates the illegality.

I understand that the entire internet may be based on a denial of that, but that isn't a basis for law.
 
2012-09-14 01:22:43 PM  
Meh.  I think some people are going a bit "slippery slope" here.  I read the judgement as hyperlinking as part of the process of a crime (which involved other things like actually putting the content up on a public site) can be illegal.
 
Its like if someone was convicted of burglarizing a house... and everyone started screaming "now opening doors is illegal!"
 
2012-09-14 01:46:23 PM  
I described a movie scene to a friend yesterday. Should I be worried?

/IRL hyperlinks FTW
 
2012-09-14 01:53:36 PM  
farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2012-09-14 02:16:07 PM  

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.


Yes, greentilj.nl got the link to the pictures somehow, then published that link with the specific intent to draw traffic (the profit portion) to their website. then when the copyright holder asked filefactory to remove the pictures (which they did), greenstilj.nl posted another link to different file/image hosting site. Then when that site removed the pics in questions, greenstilj.nl again posted a link to a different site hosting the pictures.

This seem like a pretty standard definition of commercial copyright infringement, and I agree, in part, with the Dutch court on this case. As much as it may seem like just posting a hyperlink it was not in that greenstilj.nl seemed to be facilitating the moves of the content for the specific purpose of distributing the content.

Now, at its heart posting the link itself is still not copyright infringement, and what got greenstilj.nl in trouble was the fact that the links kept reappearing. A poor analogy would be showing a movie in one location, advertising that fact somewhere, then when told to stop, moving the location, advertising that fact and so on.

Other than this specific case, just posting a hyperlink to some content somewhere is still not copyright infringement.
 
2012-09-14 02:25:30 PM  

downstairs: Meh.  I think some people are going a bit "slippery slope" here.  I read the judgement as hyperlinking as part of the process of a crime (which involved other things like actually putting the content up on a public site) can be illegal.
 
Its like if someone was convicted of burglarizing a house... and everyone started screaming "now opening doors is illegal!"


Yeah, uploading and linking to it, and making money off of it were the real problems. And as TheGreenMonkey points out, even that just makes it the stupid petty sort of crime that they just terminate your account for and go away, it was repeatedly doing it everywhere they could that brought it to the point of a lawsuit. There's no way they'd sue over a single instance of infringement, it just costs too much.

FutureOfCopyright.com are the idiots that came up with the headline, rather than "Hyperlinks will be considered a factor in copyright infringement."
 
2012-09-14 02:28:34 PM  
Just like listing my address in the phonebook is tantamount to tresspassing.
 
2012-09-14 02:40:47 PM  

downstairs: Its like if someone was convicted of burglarizing a house... and everyone started screaming "now opening doors is illegal!"


More like giving out keys to the house of a person who did not authorise anyone to give other people access.

Fecacacophany: Wut met der singen en dansin undallderest?!


The correct spelling would be "Wat met het zingen en dansen en al de rest."

I don't speak Spanish, but with all the French, Dutch, German and English I know I could figure out 80% of what some billboard/menu/metro time table/random piece of text said.
 
2012-09-14 03:20:25 PM  
So by the same 'logic', telling someone where to find a book is copyright infringement.
 
2012-09-14 03:35:27 PM  

tomasso: No, again I disagree, and I think you;re grasping at straws.

Your access settings are completely irrelevant UNTIL you link to the content. Content on File Factory with a "no share" setting and the same content with an "anybody share" setting are precisely identical and equally legal, if there are no hyperlinks (or other forms of access) to the content.

In that process of loading-setting-linking, it is in fact the actual hyperlink which creates the illegality.

I understand that the entire internet may be based on a denial of that, but that isn't a basis for law.


But the hyperlink itself isn't illegal, or shouldn't be. What's illegal is making access to the materials available to people for copyright infringement. You don't need a hyperlink to do that, nor does publishing a hyperlink do that by itself. Criminalizing hyperlinks is criminalizing speech, rather than criminalizing the actual behavior of maintaining an archive of pirated materials. That's why I don't consider this a trivial issue, even if it does seem to be like semantics to you.

To be clear, I think that the guys in question here did quite a number of things that should be, and are, illegal. I'm ONLY taking issue with the idea that a hyperlink itself can be illegal. This is a common misunderstanding that many people have. A hyperlink is not an access mechanism for data....a web server is an access mechanism for data. They are not one and the same.

I DO think that repeatedly publishing updated hyperlinks could and should be used by the law as evidence of intent to infringe on copyright. And maybe that's all this case is saying. But it's not the hyperlinks themselves that should be illegal...it's publishing the copyrighted data. I think this case would be MUCH harder to make if the person publishing the hyperlinks was a third party.
 
2012-09-14 03:36:01 PM  
Link everything through Google searches.

Problem solved.
 
2012-09-14 03:49:51 PM  
Is this all that much different from the 2600 DeCSS case?

Link

CNET: July 3, 2002 3:20 PM PDT

Hacker publication 2600 magazine won't appeal a ruling prohibiting it from linking to code that can crack copy protections on DVDs, bringing a closely watched digital copyright fight with Hollywood to an end Wednesday.

The case, one of the first major tests of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), handed copyright holders a significant victory last year when a federal appeals court upheld a decision to ban the links.

The major movies studios sued 2600 in 1999 as part of a broad legal effort to stop the distribution of code that can be used to playback DVDs on computers, known as DeCSS. Developed by open-source programmers, DeCSS quickly spread online and eventually morphed into gestures of protest against Hollywood's legal attacks to restrain it, appearing in poems, songs, T-shirts and ties.

In suing 2600, the studios charged that posting and linking to DeCSS violated provisions of the DMCA, including its ban on "trafficking" in tools that can circumvent copy-protection technology. Defendants argued that hyperlinks are a key element of the Web and that the links to DeCSS from the 2600 site should qualify for free-speech protections under the First Amendment.
 
2012-09-14 06:08:53 PM  
If there are 2 things I can't stand its people who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch,
 
2012-09-14 07:10:30 PM  
A hyperlink is an address. Nothing more. Knowing where you can go in town to get some drugs or whores shouldn't be illegal, only the act of actually soliciting and pricing the go ods should be illegal.
 
2012-09-14 08:10:51 PM  
Dewey Decimal wanted for questioning?
 
2012-09-15 01:34:17 AM  
It seems like there was a law that was going to get past just like this, but then everyone got REALLY pissed off....
 
Displayed 17 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 »






Report