It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is It Now Illegal To Link To Other Websites?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   



Is It Now Illegal To Link To Other Websites?

A landmark legal ruling in Sydney goes further than ever before in setting the trap door for the destruction of the Internet as we know it and the end of alternative news websites and blogs by creating the precedent that simply linking to other websites is breach of copyright and piracy.

Following our report last month that an RIAA legal argument would, if the case was eventually won, criminalize simply making files available on the Internet, many readers scoffed at the serious implications of the case. Such a precedent would change the entire face of the Internet because "making files available" is so loosely defined it could criminalize simply placing links on ones website or blog to other websites.

...

A landmark ruling was upheld against Stephen Cooper, who ran a website which acted as search engine for locating and downloading MP3's not from his own website but from other MP3 download websites. Cooper was charged with piracy and his ISP is also being targeted for not shutting down his website quickly enough.

...

And for those who dismiss the precedent as only applying to those who link to copyrighted MP3 files, consider this - Cooper was only doing the same thing as Google in providing a means of finding files on other website. The MIPI is also preparing to take action against Google in "other jurisdictions," meaning it is building a case to sue Google for linking to all manner of different files from its search engine hub.

More...


Not a good trend...




posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Already discussed here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The story is sensationalism at its worst.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
The link you provide is concerning RIAA and file-sharing.

This thread concerns the court ruling in Australia and simple links.

How did you arrive at "The story is sensationalism at its worst."


See for example:




Experts say Australian copyright ruling has international implications

An Australian court victory for the record industry over a music piracy Web site created legal uncertainty for international search engines such as Google, an Internet users' group said Thursday.

The full-bench of the Federal Court, the second highest court in Australia, on Monday upheld a lower court ruling that Stephen Cooper, the operator of mp3s4free.net, as well as the Internet service provider that hosted the Web site, Comcen, were guilty under Australian law of authorizing copyright infringement because they provided a search engine through which a user could illegally download MP3 files.

Comcen did not appeal the lower court decision.

Cooper's Web site had not hosted copyright protected music, but the three appeal court judges agreed that by providing links to such music, it effectively authorized the infringement.

More...



Perhaps you should re-read the topic. This is altogether different.


[edit on 21-12-2006 by loam]



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
well, that just about kills the thought that Austrailia was a free nation....but then it is under the 'coalition of the chilling' USA/UK/Aus/NZ..

Now if hyperlinking is going to be illegal, then the net is going to die - just look at thousands of ATS pages here alone linking to copy righted articles we desire to show others...


Uh Oh..... our free speech is dying here folks, no sensationalism about it.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Perhaps you should re-read the topic. This is altogether different.

It's exceptionally similar, and the interpretations still look amazingly sensationalized.

The rulings will undoubtedly be refined, but it's clear they're dealing with hyperlinks to copyrighted material not intended for free online distribution such as movies and songs, and not freely available web pages.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
It's exceptionally similar,


Hardly. The act of "file-sharing" and simple "hypertext linking" are two VERY different exercises...


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
and the interpretations still look amazingly sensationalized.


On what basis do you level this criticism??

Forgive me if I don't happen to agree with your legal analysis. A simple search reveals plenty of legal analysis that takes this ruling very seriously... But perhaps you should read the actual case:

Cooper v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 187 (18 December 2006)

Moreover, how would you interpret this statement:




But Judge Catherine Branson replied in her findings that "Cooper's assumption that Google's activities in Australia do not result in infringements ... is untested."



I think that is an ominous view.


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The rulings will undoubtedly be refined,


Indeed. But not necessarily in the direction you assume.


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
but it's clear they're dealing with hyperlinks to copyrighted material not intended for free online distribution such as movies and songs, and not freely available web pages.


And precisely what percentage of the Internet is NOT copyrighted?

Your dismissiveness of this topic is surprising. I see nothing 'sensationalized' about it. The trend is disturbing to say the least.

Perhaps you are still confusing the two threads.


[edit on 21-12-2006 by loam]



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Hardly. The act of "file-sharing" and simple "hypertext linking" are two VERY different exercises...

Not really... if you provide a link to an illegal file, you're still providing a way to share access to it.




On what basis do you level this criticism?

It's not directed at you, but at the articles. Well... your thread title is a touch misleading.




But perhaps you should read the actual case:
Cooper v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 187 (18 December 2006)

Sure... it begins with this:

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – copyright – copyright infringements – sound recordings downloaded from files at remote websites accessed via links on an appellant’s website – nature of conduct constituting authorization – whether necessary to have power to prevent – need for nexus between conduct and Australia – Held: an appellant operator and an appellant host of website authorized infringements – an appellant director of host also liable – an appellant employee of host merely an employee and not liable


Throughout the ruling, there seems to be specific mention that differentiates linking to web pages, and linking to copyrighted material.



"Cooper's assumption that Google's activities in Australia do not result in infringements ... is untested."

This likely applies to Google's image and video search which has been a problem for copyright holders.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
Now if hyperlinking is going to be illegal, then the net is going to die - just look at thousands of ATS pages here alone linking to copy righted articles we desire to show others...


This and related rulings are not concerned with links to entire pages of content on freely accessible websites. The issue is direct links to content that would otherwise be obtained through a purchase... such as music, videos, rights-mangaged photography, etc.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
SO,

I can appreciate that the case is a long read, but your statements are in my view very inaccurate.


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by loam
Hardly. The act of "file-sharing" and simple "hypertext linking" are two VERY different exercises...

Not really... if you provide a link to an illegal file, you're still providing a way to share access to it.



There is no such thing as an "illegal file". What is illegal is the infringement upon someone's copyright protection.


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Sure... it begins with this:

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – copyright – copyright infringements – sound recordings downloaded from files at remote websites accessed via links on an appellant’s website – nature of conduct constituting authorization – whether necessary to have power to prevent – need for nexus between conduct and Australia – Held: an appellant operator and an appellant host of website authorized infringements – an appellant director of host also liable – an appellant employee of host merely an employee and not liable


Throughout the ruling, there seems to be specific mention that differentiates linking to web pages, and linking to copyrighted material.


These terms are a recitation of the factual context, NOT the legal analysis. There is nothing in the opinion that affirmatively distinguishes sound recordings from other copyrighted material. Rather, the opposite is true, it is specifically treated in the same manner by the court as ALL copyrighted material defined under Australian law.

Indeed, the specific holding of the case states:




I conclude that, within the meaning of the paragraph, a person’s power to prevent the doing of an act comprised in a copyright includes the person’s power not to facilitate the doing of that act by, for example, making available to the public a technical capacity calculated to lead to the doing of that act.



There is no attempt to narrow the holding to only sound recordings...

But even more disturbing is that the case goes against the ISP, E-Talk Communications Pty Limited (‘E-Talk’) and Com-Cen Pty Limited (‘Com-Cen’).

Do you doubt the chilling implications to all ISPs in Australia?

In this case, they were held liable merely because they could have "prevented the doing of the acts concerned because, together with Com-Cen (of which Mr Bal was also the controlling mind), it had the power to withdraw the hosting of Mr Cooper’s website."

If you don't think this opens a can of worms in Australia, you're fooling yourself.


And finally,


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
This and related rulings are not concerned with links to entire pages of content on freely accessible websites. The issue is direct links to content that would otherwise be obtained through a purchase... such as music, videos, rights-mangaged photography, etc.


Where did you come up with the distinction of "freely accessible" in this case? I find no such words.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Yes, some of the wording is overly protective of potential copyright holders and inappropriately broad when it comes to understanding the realities of the Internet.

But it's very clear that this is not intended to prevent "linking to other web pages" and is instead intended to prevent linking to "files protected by copyright". The action is against an MP3 link-farm. The action repeatedly indicates music and video files. The action does not limit linking to free content.

While this legal development in Australia certainly is an excessive response to what should have been a minor issue, it does not effect "linking to other websites" in the least.

If you don't see it... then we're going to have to agree to disagree.
But as someone operated a website with lots of outbound links, I'm not concerned.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Yes, some of the wording is overly protective of potential copyright holders and inappropriately broad when it comes to understanding the realities of the Internet.


I agree.


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
But it's very clear that this is not intended to prevent "linking to other web pages" and is instead intended to prevent linking to "files protected by copyright". The action is against an MP3 link-farm. The action repeatedly indicates music and video files.


Again, the holding is with regard to ALL copywrited material.

I began this thread with a simple question and a simple statement. "Intention", as you use it, has little utility in the way legal precedent functions.

You certainly know that.


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The action does not limit linking to free content.


Nor did I say that it did. But again, what percentage of the Internet would you guess is NOT protected by copyright?


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
While this legal development in Australia certainly is an excessive response to what should have been a minor issue, it does not effect "linking to other websites" in the least.


Generally, no. But in Australia, the earth just moved. Believe otherwise, if you want.


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
If you don't see it... then we're going to have to agree to disagree.
But as someone operated a website with lots of outbound links, I'm not concerned.




Well, I hardly suggested you needed to run for the hills...


I simply made the point that this is "not a good trend".

I also do not think this rulling is as trivial as you suggest.


[edit on 21-12-2006 by loam]



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
There was a case like this a few years ago in the states regarding the Nation Public Radio website. The ruling in the states was in favor of hyperlinking. I do not recall many of the details, but any that are interested in it know how to search for it.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I stumbled through the readings, and it LOOKS like what Cooper provided were links to pirate sites. The music companies seem to be going after the pirates and anyone promoting the pirates.

The actions are only taken IF there's a complaint. In other words, if I write a novel and my friend hosts it on her site and you put a link to it, there's no problem. I intended for folks to get it.

BUT... if RodgerDodger gets a snapshot of my art that's hanging in someone's house and sets it up on a "free art" site, I do have the right to go after him AND to notify everyone linking to him that he's swiped my piece.

Although this action is being done through the courts, I know of artists (painters, sculptors, etc) and writers who went after people using their material (in some cases, the art was taken and then put on a paid-pornography site (and the artists were just livid!)) Most folks will say "oops. Sorry. I'll take it down" and there's no problem. A few say "But I'm doing them a favor. Go away!" and a few others will say "make me."

What usually happens is that artists will send a complaint to the webhost and get the site shut down. In cases where the person is very obnoxious bout it, they may sue.

I suspect this guy was obnoxious about the whole thing. If he'd taken the links down when the record companies and artists asked, there'd be no suit.



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Here's a similar view from this side of the globe:




Judge: Can't link to Webcast if copyright owner objects

A federal judge in Texas has ruled that it is unlawful to provide a hyperlink to a Webcast if the copyright owner objects to it.

U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay in the northern district of Texas granted a preliminary injunction against Robert Davis, who operated Supercrosslive.com and had been providing direct links to the live audiocasts of motorcycle racing events.

Lindsay ruled last week that "the link Davis provides on his Web site is not a 'fair use' of copyright material" and ordered him to cease linking directly to streaming audio files.

More...



Like I said, not a good trend.



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Like I said, not a good trend.


We don't allow direct linking to the images our members upload.

But you left out some important details about this particular case... the party linking to the webcasts were linking directly to the stream and not the site owner's page with embedded advertising.

Hosting streaming media requires bandwidth and costs money. The site owner expects that he's going to derive some revenue from his media files because he displays them in a page with ads. I'm sure he'd not object to the linking party sending users to the pages with ads... and it's very rude not to.


Logic, common sense, and prodessional courtesy should dictate that you link to someone's content in context (page with their ads).



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join