21–30 of 191 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I 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…
Of course, that may be considered bad for the internet, because most people, as long as they are not the victim, like to see leaked nudes and download stuff for free, and the internet has grown in no small part because of this.
I think that now that the internet is mature as it is, some limits are necessary to keep things fair and protect people from the mob, and the internet will live on nonetheless.
Like the Norwegian piece the other day about the famous Vietnam war picture that Facebook considered nudity this is yet another signal that local law and culture needs more consideration by the big web publishers.
How 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…
Anyway, how does that "specifically address" GP's question about mutability? That isn't even mentioned in the bolded text.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
IANAL, but my reading of that is if one makes money from one's site (e.g. by having ads) then EU will assume that one knows whether or not linked content is infringing. Because €10/month from adwords is totally enough to hire a lawyer to evaluate every link that users post. Anyway, how does that "specifically address" GP's question about mutability? That isn't even mentioned in the bolded text.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually the amount taken of a work is evaluated for a fair use defense, as is its inclusion in a broader work (article, in this case). Taking a small excerpt of a movie for purposes of parody is different from publishing a photo wholesale.
> amount taken Since a link doesn't take anything from the original work - it only references where the work may be found - then this amount is zero.
I 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…
It may be bad for the internet, but it seems fair and also consistent with earlier EU rules, such as the "right to be forgotten". It places an extra burden on the big, commercial sites to remove links (or stop linking on the first place) to content that is considered illegal in the EU. Of course, that may be considered bad for the internet, because most people, as long as they are not the victim, like to see leaked n…
The problem is, if you have a different internet in the US than you do in Europe, China and Saudi Arabia then it isn't the internet anymore. There is no way to do that and still allow people in Europe to communicate with people in the US -- otherwise they could just forward each other the censored information (and set up automated systems to do the same).
The more you censor the more popular the countermeasures become until either everyone is using them and the censorship is completely ineffective, or we're all living in the sort of communist police state necessary to prevent that.
And there is no point in engaging in censorship that is completely ineffective, so what you're really proposing is the police state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I realize this is the EU, but if this ruling were to happen in the US, sites like cracked.com who link to copyright-encumbered content all the time (mostly Youtube clips of movies and TV shows, often produced by highly litigious houses like Disney/Marvel Studios) and make a ton of money from ads, would quickly be sued out of existence.
Would that be a bad thing though? Those websites are purposefully acting in a way that doesn't respect the copyright of the owner of the content they want to show. That they do this through a third-party host shouldn't be that important.
But hey, this is just the opinion of some random dude on the Internet.