European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement
searchengineland.com
European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement
1–10 of 191 posts
Re: European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement
#2How can this work? A link is just a reference to a mutable destination and there's no way to guarantee that what's pointed at stays legal after the link was put up. It can change at any time and turn into something illegal, even though the original content was not.
I do get the intent here, but it absolutely misses the point.
Edit: The ruling acknowledges the target is mutable, but it also says that the poster of a link on a page that's for-profit must check the target content. However, I cannot find anything how one should prove it was legal at time of linking. The only sensible thing I can find is that once notified a link has to be taken down. Did I miss something?
Re: European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement
#3How can this work? A link is just a reference to a mutable destination and there's no way to guarantee that what's pointed at stays legal after the link was put up. It can change at any time and turn into something illegal, even though the original content was not. I do get the intent here, but it absolutely misses the point. Edit: The ruling acknowledges the target is mutable, but it also says that the poster of a l…
In absolute terms your argument is valid but I doubt they will use it against a situation where a single link got hijacked. Its more to have the legal framework to go after sites who systematically (and intentionally) link to pirated content.
Re: European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement
#4How can this work? A link is just a reference to a mutable destination and there's no way to guarantee that what's pointed at stays legal after the link was put up. It can change at any time and turn into something illegal, even though the original content was not. I do get the intent here, but it absolutely misses the point. Edit: The ruling acknowledges the target is mutable, but it also says that the poster of a l…
In absolute terms your argument is valid but I doubt they will use it against a situation where a single link got hijacked. Its more to have the legal framework to go after sites who systematically (and intentionally) link to pirated content.
>but I doubt they will use it against a situation
Until that one case where they do, and you're on the other end of it. Hoping for a sympathetic reading of the law is not recommended.
Re: European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement
#5I agree, this is bad for the internet. However, some context is missing:
The case was in the Netherlands, regarding the website GeenStijl linking to leaked playboy pictures.
The court said that 1) GeenStijl made money from it 2) they should and could have know, and most probably knew, that this content was illegal (because they posted it as 'leaked nudes!!').
The combination of these (earning money from content that is known to be illegal) was what made the decision.
The court also said that these are requirements in the future.
So, if I link to a page on a forum of my blog that becomes illegal alter, neither of the requirements are fulfilled. No problem. Also, Google does not know what is illegal and what is legal, so they can't be sued over this particular ruling.
That is how I have understood it
Re: European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement
#6How can this work? A link is just a reference to a mutable destination and there's no way to guarantee that what's pointed at stays legal after the link was put up. It can change at any time and turn into something illegal, even though the original content was not. I do get the intent here, but it absolutely misses the point. Edit: The ruling acknowledges the target is mutable, but it also says that the poster of a l…
Have you read the decision[0] though? It specifically addresses this.
> it is to be determined whether those links are provided without the pursuit of financial gain by a person who did not know or could not reasonably have known the illegal nature of the publication of those works on that other website or whether, on the contrary, those links are provided for such a purpose, a situation in which that knowledge must be presumed.
[0]http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...
Re: European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement
#7I agree, this is bad for the internet. However, some context is missing: The case was in the Netherlands, regarding the website GeenStijl linking to leaked playboy pictures. The court said that 1) GeenStijl made money from it 2) they should and could have know, and most probably knew, that this content was illegal (because they posted it as 'leaked nudes!!'). The combination of these (earning money from content that…
I hope that's the case, and I didn't read the legal text, but how would you protect yourself against that? Would we have to keep tamper-proof screenshots (or archive.is-like snapshots) for each external link posted?
Re: European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
In absolute terms your argument is valid but I doubt they will use it against a situation where a single link got hijacked. Its more to have the legal framework to go after sites who systematically (and intentionally) link to pirated content.
> but I doubt they will use it against a situation Until that one case where they do, and you're on the other end of it. Hoping for a sympathetic reading of the law is not recommended.
The law says it’s only copyright infringement if you know the link contained infringing content, and if you make money with it that’s counted as "you know".
That’s all it says – this website is again blowing everything out of proportion.
Re: European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement
#9I agree, this is bad for the internet. However, some context is missing: The case was in the Netherlands, regarding the website GeenStijl linking to leaked playboy pictures. The court said that 1) GeenStijl made money from it 2) they should and could have know, and most probably knew, that this content was illegal (because they posted it as 'leaked nudes!!'). The combination of these (earning money from content that…
I hope that's the case, and I didn't read the legal text, but how would you protect yourself against that? Would we have to keep tamper-proof screenshots (or archive.is-like snapshots) for each external link posted?
Read the legal text please – the article that was submitted is basically full of lies.
Re: European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement
#10How can this work? A link is just a reference to a mutable destination and there's no way to guarantee that what's pointed at stays legal after the link was put up. It can change at any time and turn into something illegal, even though the original content was not. I do get the intent here, but it absolutely misses the point. Edit: The ruling acknowledges the target is mutable, but it also says that the poster of a l…
Have you read the decision[0] though? It specifically addresses this. > it is to be determined whether those links are provided without the pursuit of financial gain by a person who did not know or could not reasonably have known the illegal nature of the publication of those works on that other website or whether, on the contrary, those links are provided for such a purpose, a situation in which that knowledge must…
[deleted]