European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement • Hacker News Board

Re: European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement

#91

Post by pbhjpbhj » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 6:52 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #29

Maarten88 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. 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 --…

>sort of communist police state //

What's communist about this?

Re: European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement

#92

Post by Dylan16807 » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 6:54 PM UTC

tormeh wrote: post #90

Dylan16807 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a hypothetical abuse of the law. This actually happens. Sites are shut down for linking to things. Sites are considered 'commercially' violating copyright because they have a banner ad that gives then a thousandth of a penny. Look at the current incarnation of the pirate bay. It doesn't even link to infringing content. It just gives you the ID code of a file that helps you find infringing files. There's no…

> Look at the current incarnation of the pirate bay. It doesn't even link to infringing content. It just gives you the ID code of a file that helps you find infringing files. There's no tracker, there aren't even .torrent files. Now look at how many places it's banned. Was this really the best example you could come up with? Because that's clearly the law working as intended.

Even if that's the intent, it's pretty hard to reconcile how copyright law acts nothing like anything else. If I make a website that describes the effects of various designer drugs in glowing terms, and the closest I get to helping you buy some is telling you the chemical ID, I'm very easily on the legal side of things.

Re: European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement

#93

Post by ekiru » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 6:55 PM UTC

TheRealPomax wrote: post #46

jbuzbee wrote: post #38

Techdirt has a good writeup on the new ruling. One of the good points made on Techdirt, is regarding search engines which are obviously for-profit. How in the world would Google keep from linking to material which is violating someone's copyright? https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160908/11305735465/terri...

simple: google has no idea what it indexes. Please read the full ruling, which explains this only applies to those who willingly and intentionally link to content they _know_ is illegal, _and_ do so for monetary gain. Which is perfectly reasonable. The article posted to HN is pretty much fear-mongering for te purpose of getting some clicks.

It is not true that the ruling says that "this only applies to those who willingly and intentionally link to content they _know_ is illegal, _and_ do so for monetary gain." The ruling explicitly states that the first condition is sufficient to constitute a 'communication to the public' and that, when determining whether posting a link to such content constitutes a 'communication to the public', we must assume that the second condition implies the first condition. This last bit is in the ruling itself. In its consideration of the questions referred, the court qualifies a similar statement with "in so far as that rebuttable presumption is not rebutted", which may at least help those who can disprove that presumption.

Two relevant portions of the court's judgment (my emphasis added to the latter):

> In contrast, where it is established that such a person knew or ought to have known that the hyperlink he posted provides access to a work illegally placed on the internet, for example owing to the fact that he was notified thereof by the copyright holders, it is necessary to consider that the provision of that link constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29.

> or whether, on the contrary, those links are provided for such a purpose, _a situation in which that knowledge must be presumed_.

Re: European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement

#94

Post by pbhjpbhj » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 6:56 PM UTC

Symbiote wrote: post #76

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is not to argue over whose censorship laws to apply, the answer is to not have government censorship.

Copyright is one form of government censorship.

Copyright is supposed to be a temporary monopoly granted by the demos, the reason for which is to enrich the space of published artistic works.

It's so sad to see it perceived as an imposition by authorities. Not wrong, just sad.

Re: European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement

#95

Post by csomar » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 6:58 PM UTC

kstrauser wrote: post #77

soufron wrote: post #71

That's not what the decision said. At all. The decision said that a link to illegal content can be illegal in itself when 1. it's done for monetary purposes, and 2. when the person creating the link was aware of the illegal nature of the content being linked. But who would have doubted about that? Did you really think you could create links to illegal content for money and get away with it? On the other side, it clar…

> Did you really think you could create links to illegal content for money and get away with it? Yes, and that's a horrible ruling. Almost everything can be construed as "for money". Are you a newspaper with paid subscribers? Everything you link is "for money". Do you have a Google ad on your hobby blog? Technically, you're getting paid for it. Someone will make the argument that you're driving traffic to your ad-spo…

Google has an army of lawyers on the other hand.

Re: European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement

#96

Post by smallnamespace » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 7:02 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #92

tormeh wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look at the current incarnation of the pirate bay. It doesn't even link to infringing content. It just gives you the ID code of a file that helps you find infringing files. There's no tracker, there aren't even .torrent files. Now look at how many places it's banned. Was this really the best example you could come up with? Because that's clearly the law working as intended.

Even if that's the intent, it's pretty hard to reconcile how copyright law acts nothing like anything else. If I make a website that describes the effects of various designer drugs in glowing terms, and the closest I get to helping you buy some is telling you the chemical ID, I'm very easily on the legal side of things.

> closest I get to helping you buy some is telling you the chemical ID

How are those things in any way comparable? Knowing the chemical formula of a drug doesn't get you any closer to possessing it, but knowing the ID of a torrent lets you immediately download it.

At the end of the day, would you want law to be based on technical trivia, which can rapidly change, or do you want it be based on the intent of the persons involved?

Re: European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement

#97

Post by pbhjpbhj » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 7:07 PM UTC

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #47

Maarten88 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. Why did you insert the word "big" in front of "commercial sites"? There is no such qualification in the court's ruling. Every small blogger who makes a little money through ads now has an obligation to check whether or not the owner of every single linked page o…

>Every small blogger who makes a little money through ads //

FWIW you don't usually, in copyright, have to make money for a site to be considered commercial. Depriving another entity of the ability to fully profit can be enough, or even advertising something you're not directly profiting from.

Re: European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement

#98

Post by pbhjpbhj » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 7:13 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #57

logicallee wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the link had consisted of a prominent section "How to find it" consisting of the words (I'm making this up) "Search Google for leaked playboy pictures from 2011 , and click on the first link, which should be a site named after a fish." Now it is a passing reference to how to find it -- but your criteria that 1) they made money from it, and 2) they could know and should know that this content is illegal. Well,…

I don't think reproduction is a good line at all; HN could still be guilty if someone posted an unlicensed copyrighted work (say, a news article). Intention and knowledge is the best dividing line, in my opinion, and courts certainly take it into account. HN blindly reproduces what people post, whereas the link in question was posted by the site editors themselves - that's a clear distinction, and in fact many lawsui…

When they said copying was what should be seen as the line I assumed that was within the framework of current Western laws, so things like intent (mens rea) are a given.

Re: European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement

#99

Post by downandout » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 7:14 PM UTC

kuschku wrote: post #67

downandout wrote: post #59

So then Facebook can be sued if someone posts a link to my copyrighted content? I hope none of my "friends" post a link to the picture I just took and don't want on Facebook then. I wouldn't want to have to sue them. This ruling will take about 20 seconds before it is abused for profit.

> This ruling will take about 20 seconds before it is abused for profit. You’ll get laughed out of every court. Remember, the EU does not operate under common law, but civil law, so the value of a precedence case is already limited. In such a case, more specific interpretation is definitely necessary.

You’ll get laughed out of every court.

Apparently not, if other courts agree with this one.

Re: European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement

#100

Post by Natsu » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 7:15 PM UTC

ekiru wrote: post #86

soufron wrote: post #71

That's not what the decision said. At all. The decision said that a link to illegal content can be illegal in itself when 1. it's done for monetary purposes, and 2. when the person creating the link was aware of the illegal nature of the content being linked. But who would have doubted about that? Did you really think you could create links to illegal content for money and get away with it? On the other side, it clar…

What the decision said is much closer to "or" than "and". Such linking is, as your quote says, not infringement if it is done without pursuit of financial gain and is done by someone who does not or cannot reasonably know the illegality of the linked material. In other words, they decided that linking to illegally published material is copyright infringement if it was done for commercial purposes or by someone who kn…

> The court also concluded that, if the linking was done for commercial purposes, it must be presumed that the person publishing the links knew that the linked material was illegally published.

So... no more search engines, then?