Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement

searchengineland.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 191 posts

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

#181

Post by pbhjpbhj »

kelnage wrote: post #85
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, Google does not know what is illegal and what is legal, so they can't be sued over this particular ruling.// Only because "Google" chooses not to. Execs in control of what Google links to know that it links to illegal/tortuous/immoral content -- leaked nude images, say -- they make money from advertising alongside those links and by inclusion of such links so they can provide a 'comprehensive' search. Google…

I think you've misunderstood - Google, I am sure, is aware that it probably links to illegal content. But it has no way of knowing what is illegal or not - so it would not meet those conditions. It's a completely different situation to the case in question.

You don't think Google execs know for sure that Google links to copyright infringements. There's zero chance of that IMO. Criminal law only requires "beyond reasonably doubt", civil law (torts liked copyright infringement) only needs a "balance of probabilities".

Those people have the same way of knowing what's unlawful or illegal or tortuous as the rest of us; actually they're more likely to be able determine it IMO.

Google link to iTunes, iTunes provides a means (CD ripping, yes, for real) to circumvent UK copyright law ... go on tell me Google's lawyers don't know this essential basic of UK copyright nor that you can find iTunes (designed for copyright infringement!) on Google.co.uk.

It's not like any of this is being done to serve the public interest, it's solely focused on narrow commercial interests.

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

#182

Post by pdkl95 »

icebraining wrote: post #28
pdkl95 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The law itself doesn't use the word "take" anyway, so your objection is irrelevant.

I never said the law used the word "take". So what. I was obviously referring to the fact that no copy is being made, and thus copyright doesn't apply and "fair use" is irrelevant. A link isn't anything like using a small portion of a work for e.g. review and critique.

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

#183

Post by Natanael_L »

posterboy wrote: post #176
Natanael_L wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it already is accessible to that public, a mere pointer shouldn't be illegal.

It could be counted as advertising illegal activities, which is often illegal, too.

Byebye phonebook

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

#184

Post by cloudjacker »

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…

How do you prove #2?

When I go to Best Buy I just assume they have licenses to all the movies they are selling.

For copyright infringement, distinct from theft,it has never been the burden of the consumer to know who has a license to distribute.

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

#185

Post by AnthonyMouse »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #91
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> What's communist about this?

Soviet Russia, East Germany, China. Now name a libertarian police state.

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

#186

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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 one form of government censorship.

But copyright is a social contract. It needs people to believe in it far more than it needs people to be forced to follow it at gunpoint.

Aggressive copyright enforcement is counterproductive because it trades a small increase in the cost of defecting for a large increase in public disrespect for the social contract which is what causes people to be willing to defect.

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

#187

Post by kstrauser »

soufron wrote: post #173
kstrauser wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

1. not everything is done for money, I see no ads on this website for example 2. If your question is to know wether a journalist would be concerned by the decision, it's easy to see he would not. 3. If the linker is linking to illegal content knowingly, and because he hopes a gain from it, I don't see how he would not be guilty. In your example, you would be guilty as hell. 4. Google don't know what is legal and what…

> 1. not everything is done for money, I see no ads on this website for example

A VC-sponsored tech chat website has monetary value.

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

#188

Post by fauigerzigerk »

Maarten88 wrote: post #159
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> now has an obligation to check whether or not the owner of every single linked page owns the copyrights That isn't what the ruling says: you can still assume content is legal. Only when you know (or "should have known") it isn't do you need to unlink it. In this case, geenstijl.nl (which is a professionally-run news site that likes to troll and stir up anything to get traffic) repeatedly linked to leaked playboy pi…

>That isn't what the ruling says: you can still assume content is legal. Only when you know (or "should have known") it isn't do you need to unlink it.

That is simply incorrect. Here's what the ruling says:

When hyperlinks are posted for profit, it may be expected that the person who posted such a link should carry out the checks necessary to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published.

"Carry out the checks necessary" means that you cannot simply "assume content is legal".

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

#189

Post by GunboatDiplomat »

kuschku wrote: post #177
GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather the laws of a country which enshrines freedom of speech to a greater degree than any other be the set of rules governing the internet than the laws of a place where you can be fined for jokingly giving a Nazi salute.

Yet I’m able to make a Nazi salut online, but not show my breasts? Your "freedom of speech" is still only allowing what your culture wants. The internet is something where all cultures collide, so giving any one culture control is just stupid.

Clearly, US law allows bare breasts as speech.

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

#190

Post by GunboatDiplomat »

Maarten88 wrote: post #162
GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather the laws of a country which enshrines freedom of speech to a greater degree than any other be the set of rules governing the internet than the laws of a place where you can be fined for jokingly giving a Nazi salute.

Yeah, publications like Gawker media (which had much more style than geenstijl.nl) can vouch for US freedom of speech...

Gawker disobeyed court orders and obtained illegal goods. No one could survive that.
Post reply on HN