TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Hyperlinking Is Not Copyright Infringement, Scholars Say

A panel of prominent scholars and academics have added their voices to an important case that was referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The paper published by the European Copyright Society aims to answer the question of whether publishing a hyperlink to content amounts to a communication to the public and therefore a breach of the creator’s copyright under European law.

copyright-brandedOne of the roles of the Court of Justice is to interpret EU law to ensure that it’s applied in the same manner across all EU member countries. The Court can also be called upon by national courts to interpret finer points of EU law.

A case referred to the CJEU by Sweden’s Court of Appeal is definitely one to watch, as the outcome has the potential to affect the very structure of the Internet.

The case involves a Swedish journalist called Svensson who wrote an article which was subsequently published by a Swedish newspaper both in print and on the newspaper’s website. Svensson’s dispute is with Retriever Sverige AB, a subscription service that supplies links to articles that can be found online.

Svensson said that by providing links to his article, Retriever was communicating his work or making it available to the public without permission and for this he should be compensated.

Retriever refused to pay Svensson any money. Merely linking to a copyright work and displaying the resulting content within a frame did not constitute infringement, the company argued.

The referral to the CJEU is aimed at clarifying the scope of “communication to the public” as detailed in the InfoSoc Directive. The key question is as follows:

“If anyone other than the holder of copyright in a certain work supplies a clickable link to the work on his website, does that constitute communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society?”

According to an opinion from the European Copyright Society, the answer to that question should be ‘No’.

ECS, which was founded in January 2012 with the aim of creating an independent platform for “critical and independent scholarly thinking on European Copyright Law”, says it wants to offer its assessment due to the importance of the case on the future of the Internet.

“As Tim-Berners Lee, who is regularly accredited as being an inventor of the World Wide Web, has explained, a standard hyperlink is nothing more than a reference or footnote, and that the ability to refer to a document is a fundamental right of free speech,” ECS writes.

The opinion of the ECS, which is the work of 17 law professors and intellectual experts, says that hyperlinking should not be regarded as communicating a work to the public as outlined in the Directive.

“Hyperlinks are not communications because establishing a hyperlink does not amount to ‘transmission’ of a work, and such transmission is a pre-requisite for ‘communication’,” they explain.

“Even if transmission is not necessary for there to be a ‘communication’, the rights of the copyright owner apply only to communication to the public ‘of the work’, and whatever a hyperlink provides, it is not ‘of a work’,” they add.

While ECS are clear on their stance they also note that individuals and companies aren’t necessarily free to link to any online content they like with impunity.

In certain situations linking can still lead to other kinds of liability including that connected to the deliberate facilitation of access to copyright infringing material, unfair competition, moral rights and circumvention of technological measures.

Nevertheless, the importance of the case is evident. The web is built on links and the wrong decision in this case has the potential to turn it into a legal minefield for anyone daring enough to reference someone else’s content.

“In this case, the Court needs equally to consider the effect of its ruling. If hyperlinking is regarded as communication to the public, all hyperlinks would need to be expressly licensed. In our view, that proposition is absurd,” ECS concludes.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Scary_Devil_Monastery

    Well, that’s another nail in the coffin for the legal basis of “copyright”.

    Because there is no discernible difference between a magnet link, a torrent hash, or a URL in any of the terms the society took up.

    If the ECJ chooses to go for that interpretation, every copyright enforcement scheme ever envisioned just took two solid shots beneath the waterline.

    • Ivi

      Not necessary. They stated in the article, that
      “circumvention of technological measures.” = proxy is bad
      “deliberate facilitation of access to copyright infringing material” = direct linking to a file is bad. So torrent website, if linking directly to file is basically also bad. However linking to a website/page that has this “bad” content is ok, based on the article. By torrents it is a bit problematic, as the link (magnet etc.. )may be not be useable, which torrent-website owner doesn’t know. Hard to say by torrents…

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        Uh…

        The Pirate Bay – and most other torrent sites – contain only magnets of hash files, which is like using a hyperlink which references a hyperlink which in turn may be used to identify a set data of copyrighted material.

        According to the argumentation above, hash files – torrent – will be completely legal. Magnets only referring to torrents certainly will. Because no torrent site contains any links at all even as closely related to target as a hyperlink.

        That being the case, since TPB is still a legal site, how can a proxy which refers you to a legal site be illegal?

        That’s in essence what the ECS just presented as a conclusion.

        However, if merely using the hyperlink causes a download to start, the provider of the download is at fault. The provider of the link is not.

  • Anonymous

    Time for the music and movie industries to bring out their big guns and change public opinion and ultimately laws with bribes and corruption.

  • dlovin123

    A hyperlink is the same as me telling my friend “hey, go to the library and checkout this book.”

    Logic people!

    • PelouzeTF

      or me telling someone “go rob this persons house, they’re on holiday” ;)

      • Guest321

        Except that a hyperlink cannot possibly be used to rob anything of anyone.

        • PelouzeTF

          lol, how little you know.

        • Guest

          Alright, asshole, I’m calling out your bullshit.

          You have no idea what you’re talking about and can’t explain how hyperlinking to copyright material robs anybody of anything to save your life.

          You simply wrote your comment to sound all rah-rah pro copyright without stopping to ask yourself, does this even make sense?

          And that’s why it doesn’t.

          Try again.

        • PelouzeTF

          I can’t help it that you can’t fathom a simple analogy.

          Id wager that you also believe that cable jacking and electrical utility jacking doesn’t deprive anyone of anything either. So it stands to reason that you won’t understand why hyperlinking can be used that way too.

        • Guest321

          Electricity can be stolen because its not available in infinite quantity. But how can digital information which can be infinitely duplicated be stolen? Its like saying I stole your air. Try again Pelouzey.

        • Gigamesh

          Lets pretend that makes sense. Why did you ignore the cable jacking?

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Because a hyperlink is – at best – comparable to a library card poiting to a “Dummies guide of engineering” and not to a neighbors wall socket?

          Thus cable jacking is as bad a comparison as claiming that a driver’s road atlas enables carjacking.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “I can’t help it that you can’t fathom a simple analogy.”

          You mean an analogy with the following sort of logic? “Because of apples, garden gnomes are suffering concusion, thus we have to hang landowners?”

          In order to fathom your statement, much like the one I just presented as example, you need a certain type of mind currently not on medication.

          “Id wager that you also believe that cable jacking and electrical utility jacking doesn’t deprive anyone…”

          Except that a hyperlink would be the library reference to a book called something like “Electric engineering for dummies”.

          Once again please let us know how your logic works. Because from what I see both your original statement and this one was utter nonsense without any comparison to what happens when a hyperlink is employed.

        • Red Mann

          This moran is a freckin lawyer. A “Legal Leech”.
          Find their kind, and destroy!

        • http://twitter.com/jungletek jungletek

          A lost sale isn’t the same thing as theft. Being a smug cunt doesn’t make you any less wrong.

        • PelouzeTF

          Actually that’s not true. Lets take one example.

          A pirate sells a counterfeit copy of the latest Adobe photo-shop for less than Adobe would sell it for.

          Money is exchanged that goes straight to the pirate.

          Adobe gets nothing and loses a sale. Even though it pays business overheads, researched and (somewhat lol) perfected the program.

          The taxes that that the purchaser and Adobe would have paid are lost to the economy.

          The pirate doesn’t pay their taxes on the sale either.

          Now you can argue that “the person wouldn’t have paid full price anyway” so the sale isn’t lost. But you do not know that and nor do I. They clearly wanted/needed it enough to buy a counterfeit copy.

          Xiang Li is potentially about to face a 500k fine and 20 years in prison when sentenced in May this year……for the theft of software, so Homeland Security and the courts fully disagree with you too.

          You might think I’m a smug cunt, but ill take smug cunt over “simple twat” (that’s would be you by the way ;) any day of the week.

        • kawaiifiend

          You are right PelouzeTF, but just because you TELL someone to rob a house because the owners are on holiday doest mean that the person will/should. But there is still that choice there to do it, and last time I checked, none of us lived in any communist countries, so the decisions we make are still our own responsibility. If I linked you to some weird and crazy porn, you probably (depends what you are into I guess :P) wouldn’t watch it. But If I linked you to a copy of your favourite book, for free you would more than likely jump at the chance. Do you get what I am saying?

        • PelouzeTF

          Yes, I understand that it doesn’t mean every person will take advantage of a link, but it’s clear that many people will. In terms of certain media types, probably more people would be swayed by the link than the idea of buying the item.

          I’m really sorry to disappoint but I wouldn’t jump at the chance to download the book for free. I don’t even download the TV shows that I eventually get via cable but show 6 months earlier in their country of origin.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          And once again – your example makes no sense. Claiming that hyperlinks are copyright infringement or lead to it is like saying a road atlas leads to carjacking.

          Your “example” is nothing but a straw man.

        • kawaiifiend

          I think it is safe to assume you are in America, where cable tv costs next to nothing. Here in Australia, cable tv is only for the well off, and the shows on free to air are always repetitive. The cost of buying a series of tv shows on blu ray or dvd also cost upwards of $70 for the newer shows.
          Dont get me wrong, I honestly respect that you are willing to pay for something instead of pirate it, but many of us dont have that option. Okay sure we could just go without. But pirating movies, tv shows, books and more makes poor – middle income life a bit more bearable

        • PelouzeTF

          Cable isn’t that cheap for me – $200 a month is my current cable bill excluding internet.

          Series DVD’s are very similar in price to yours. I might buy one here and there but with series I usually wait for them to come on one of the services I have a subscriptions to (comcast, netflix, amazon).

          It might take a while for them to arrive but I have never seen any need to download for free. Even if I know It may never arrive on one of those services, It’s rarely not available at some point in time from an authorized outlet for a price that I’m happy with.

          Ultimately, I don’t think that rights-holders are looking to demonize the average downloader of their products. The larger issue is not the downloader I feel but with the companies/individuals that feel it’s their right to do what they want with media merely because its intangible. Especially but not restricted to those that do it on a for profit basis.

          And being that I’ve made a living from media for over a decade, its not hard to see what companies and technological shifts caused that to happen.

          Anyway, I appreciate your honesty on why you download, I’m sure its a pretty standard reason.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Ultimately, I don’t think that rights-holders are looking to demonize the average downloader of their products.”

          Ultimately what the rights-holders “are looking to” is irrelevant since what they do is busily working hard to abolish civil rights and human rights for everyone because people are making copies of media.

          In short, we do not care what motives the redneck has for telling the old woman to get her black ass to the back of the bus. We don’t particularly care that the redneck in question has had a shitty week either.

          All we really care about at this point is that people who run consistent campaigns to abolish or circumvent civil rights must be brought down.

          That the *IAA’s are the ostensible assholes performing all of the dirty work does not absolve any other rightsholder who feels it is defensible what they do “in his name”.

        • PelouzeTF

          “Ultimately what the rights-holders “are looking to” is irrelevant since what they do is busily working hard to abolish civil rights and human rights for everyone because people are making copies of media.”

          Which civil and/or human right are you referring to ? Because Internet access is not a right (civil or human ) worldwide apart from a handful of countries IIRC and obviously (dependant on the country) even those rights somewhat differ. Isn’t it somewhat difficult for rights-holders to abolish something which for almost every person on the planet doesn’t exist in the first place ?

        • jc

          I believe he was referring to property rights.

          You, like a number of copyright supporters, seem to be under the impression that files do not actually exist, that a file is just a placeholder for access to a piece of information. But a file is an object, just like a chair, for example. It’s not made out of matter, but it is made of physical material, such as an electric charge in the memory of a computer. The material that makes up a file on my computer is my property. The civil rights being taken away are the rights to use my property, to form my property into any shape I choose, and to share my property as I wish. It is the equivalent of telling a carpenter that he may not build a chair out of his own property that looks like a chair belonging to someone else, or share that chair with whoever he wants to.

        • PelouzeTF

          “I believe he was referring to property rights.”

          I doubt it.

          Simply because……Property rights do not actually fall under Civil or Human rights which are the rights he referred to when he said “rights-holders are busily working hard to abolish civil rights and human rights for everyone because people are making copies of media.”

          So unless he incorrectly thought that Property rights fell under Civil or Human rights I very much doubt he meant that. And i’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant what he said in his original post….which was incorrect in any event.

          “You, like a number of copyright supporters, seem to be under the impression that files do not actually exist, that a file is just a placeholder for access to a piece of information.”

          Actually I am in the camp where I believe they certainly do exist.

          I still haven’t seen a general agreement on TorrentFreak regarding IP in any event. It appears you can’t agree and like most forums most posters prefer to use their own idea on a subject as fact….maybe its just more convenient that way.

          One minute someone is posting “you cant copyright 0′s and 1′s, fuck you i’ll do what I like with my media” then another person is saying “Its my property because I bought it. just because it’s 0′s and 1′s doesn’t mean I don’t own my property.

          It can’t be both ways no matter how people interpret it on TF

          And in either eventuality, IP and copyrights are already recognized as intangible property, so debate on the subject is obviously irrelevant.

          “But a file is an object, just like a chair, for example. It’s not made out of matter, but it is made of physical material, such as an electric charge in the memory of a computer.”

          Yes, I agree.

          “The material that makes up a file on my computer is my property.”

          Incorrect, it is your property apart from the exclusive rights of the right-holder over it (if you’re referring to copy-written media which I assume you are). Those rights over the media aren’t being abolished because unless you have been granted certain rights by the rights-holder (to duplicate, redistribute etc etc) the rights you’re referring to never existed when you purchased the media in the first place and haven’t done so for decades (in many case a lot longer depending on what country the IP originated).

          “The civil rights being taken away are the rights to use my property.”

          Depending on the property, you never had them. So they aren’t being abolished since regarding IP, they have never existed during your lifetime.

          You can’t lose a right that you never had.

        • jc

          I don’t even know why I feel the need to answer this, you’re clearly just trying to get attention. The right to property does indeed fall under Human rights, and I’m surprised you would suggest otherwise.

          And I think you misunderstood me, where you said “Incorrect, it is your property apart from the exclusive rights of the right-holder over it”. When you purchase and download a file, you are actually constructing a new file from your own materials using the data provided. The file does not actually move off of the server and onto your computer. Rights-holders claiming rights over the file on your computer are claiming rights over your property, and are thus taking rights away from you.

          Do you not understand? Do I need to spell it out more clearly?

          You cannot own a specific pattern such that if I organise my property into that pattern you gain ANY rights over it.

        • PelouzeTF

          You are copying the exact transmitted data (that already has copy-rights attached). Your copied file doesn’t miraculously make additional new coding to the original file or rearrange your final copies code. And your computer adding for example meta-data isn’t going to convince the a courts that its different either.

          If you were even vaguely correct….you bizarre rational would be used in courts all over the world in cases of copyright infringement but so far I’ve never seen a successful use of the “I’m not guilty, because my computer 1′s and 0′s are new 1′s and 0′s” defence ……LOL.

          And you can attempt to repeat the same garbage as many times as you see fit of course.

        • FearMe

          Enough of this! Let just kill all these corporate asshole copyright and patent extremists and be done with this craps once and for all. We have to deal with the bankers too next you know.

        • icec0ld

          Are you a moron?

          You can’t steal on the internet any more than you can steal a book by simply reading it. Infomation is taken and reworded, interpreted or examined but unless you take the whole book (the entire internet) you are not stealing anything because you are depriving no one of anything,

          Learn the real definition of stealing. Not Hollywoods retarded one.

        • Guest

          “lol, how little you know.”

          Cite one example of a hyperlink used to rob someone.

        • PelouzeTF

          “Cite one example of a hyperlink used to rob someone.”

          Hmmm, I wonder, where could a hyperlink be used to rob someone, let me think………….ok, the basics, credit card phishing links.

          Do you not think before you type a challenge ?

        • Guest

          When the courts equate, by the books, copyright infringement with robbery, you might have a case.

          You’re much better off fighting bobmail for some Robert King-flavoured jizz. Looks like the only skill set you have. I guess Anon and Nej are choking away on your industry phallus under the special desk again, eh? They’ve been awful quiet.

        • PelouzeTF

          My original comment referred to the ease that a hyperlink can be used in a different manner than the OP above me and that his description was inaccurate. It doesn’t actually matter that the word robbed was used because the context of the posts was regarding the transfer and directing of information via a link and not the outcome.

          His example works if its a link to an amazon page of the book for example but is not true if its a link to a fully useable copy. You’re hardly “checking out” a copy if you have the whole thing.

          Naturally a link can be used in all types of ways to facilitate at a minimum contributory copyright infringement, some of which your butt buddies at tbf know too well ;)….but of course there are others

          Tell me, what was the last piece of media (be it music, software, movie) that you would have purchased had you not been able to find it available for free online (and assuming you actually have a job with which to earn the money to pay for it) but you decided not to purchase because you found it for free online via a hyperlink ?

        • Guest

          Let’s see. 3DS games don’t have functioning ROMs so those can’t be it. I suppose if you really wanted, I could have purchased a copy of “Weird Al” Yankovic’s older albums.

          Oh, wait a minute. I can’t. It’s not sold where I am. I asked a friend who went to America to help me purchase some legitimate copies, and when she went to music stores to ask for them, she was laughed at.

          What the hell is tbf? Your place of residence and work?

        • Guest

          Why didn’t you buy them off his site?

        • Guest

          Not a fan of online retail, personally. And now that I’m looking at his site, most of the money will probably go to Sony.

          Doesn’t make the problem any less silly. To be laughed at for the request of legitimate merchandise shows what a travesty the obtainment of physical media has become, despite all the brouhaha by the RIAA over being unable to sell CDs.

        • PelouzeTF

          Ok so obsolete 3ds games and Weird al Yankovic albums are the only media items you would have bought.

          And how much do you download on the average month ?

          Tbf, what do you mean ?

        • Guest

          Obsolete 3DS games, eh? “Fire Emblem: Awakening”, which just came out in stores a couple weeks; that too obsolete for you, cumslut? And, “would’ve bought”? So you’ve already decided that I wouldn’t actually buy anything, really? Wow, it’s thanks to idiots like you that we get to have “you are a pirate” taxes all over the world.

          http://torrentfreak.com/hyperlinking-is-not-copyright-infringement-scholars-say-130218/#comment-803882128

          “some of which your butt buddies at tbf know too well”

          Your own words, bucko. It’s sorta cute how you the only way you can make a coherent point is by lying your way through everything. And incredibly telling.

        • PelouzeTF

          Obsolete 3DS games, eh? “Fire Emblem: Awakening”, which just came out in stores a couple weeks; that too obsolete for you, cumslut?

          No not too obsolete. I actually read 3ds and thought you were initially referring to an older nintendo system. Obviously not really the point either way, because as you know (and said) you can’t download ROMs. So a little irrelevant really.

          And, “would’ve bought”? So you’ve already decided that I wouldn’t actually buy anything, really?

          No, I hadn’t decided that at all. Saying “would’ve bought” is not the same as “wouldn’t buy anything at all”, now is it.

          Wow, it’s thanks to idiots like you that we get to have “you are a pirate” taxes all over the world.

          LOL – such horse shit. Seriously, what other random rubbish are you going to pull out of your ass.

          http://torrentfreak.com/hyperl

          “some of which your butt buddies at tbf know too well”

          Your own words, bucko. It’s sorta cute how you the only way you can make a coherent point is by lying your way through everything. And incredibly telling.

          Mistyping an acronym isn’t lying. You can replace TBF with what should have been TPB – the change of acronym won’t change the context of the post obviously.

          So back to the original point, the last piece of media that you downloaded for free, that you would have bought legitimately if you could find it (barring purchasing it online of course where even though it’s available your conveniently not a fan of online retail LOL) would have been weird Al albums.

          And my next question which you didn’t seem to answer was.

          How much media do you download for free in the average month ? And I guess we should focus on “copy-written media to get accurate figures.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Naturally a link can be used in all types of ways to facilitate at a minimum contributory copyright infringement…”

          In the same way a library index card can tell you where to find a certain book, you mean?

          A straw man wrapped in a wordwall, saying absolutely…nothing. Unless we count the two irrelevant straw men and the whopping lie you wrapped in it.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Hmmm, I wonder, where could a hyperlink be used to rob someone, let me think………….ok, the basics, credit card phishing links.”

          Fail. That’s like saying going out of a door causes you to get robbed.

          Because, my little ignorant troll, that is NOT the fault of a hyperlink but of a malicious malware script. In short, it’s an intrusion attempt.

          “Do you not think before you type a challenge ?”

          Apparently he does. You, however, as usual, do not.

        • Andrew Lee

          Was it malicious?

          OF COURSE IT WAS! That evil hacking son of a bitch… Wait a tick, my bad and sorry for trying to Hollywood “deceive” everyone.

        • watfordjc

          Please explain the process. Click link -> get threatened you’ll be physically injured -> type in credit card details?

        • PelouzeTF

          “get threatened of physically injured” ?

          You’ll have to expand on your thought process a bit.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          PelouzeTF, have you gone the way of bobmail, spouting mystical-sounding gibberish without backing it up?

          Let me know when I can post a link to a place and magically see it robbed. Possibly by the same dark fairies you adherents of the first church of copyright apparently believe powers the internet?

        • Dawwg

          “Except that a hyperlink cannot possibly be used to rob anything of anyone.”

          LOL, never heard of SQL Injection I guess ? The most common way to pwn a website ;) Allows you to rob/modify any data on it …

        • Anon234

          “LOL, never heard of SQL Injection I guess ? The most common way to pwn a website ;) Allows you to rob/modify any data on it …”

          That’s a malicious or intentional way of doing harm. That’s another story than just regular plain normal hyperlinks.

          A link is no more than a retail store selling hammers (in this example). You go into the store (clicking the link), browsing what they have. And if you like what you see you buy a hammer.

          If it was a malicious link that same store would wait for you to come into the store, beat the shit out of you with said hammer and rob you. In that case, it’s a felony no matter how you slice it and the law would be after you.

      • dlovin123

        A hyperlink is just a reference… exactly the same as your quote you just made.

        In order for your statement to become a crime, you would have to accompany that person to the house, break the locks, kill the alarm, shoot the dog, load everything up all without bringing suspicion to you from the neighbors.

        Library books are free to use btw.

        • PelouzeTF

          Sorry but that’s horribly incorrect.

          Accomplices and accessories in crime can and do often face exactly the same penalties as the principal person committing the crime.

          In fact a criminal principal can escape sentence whilst the accessory (not as directly involved) receives a sentence.

          For example, an armed bank robber could avoid a custodial sentence whilst the getaway driver and lookout receive custodial terms for armed robbery.

        • xpmule

          Sorry but your wrong and you know it your just making excuses for ulterior motives obviously. who is your pay master puppet ?

          now do a little copyright troll dance for me lol
          your here for my amusement..
          by the way next time add some dragons to your story to spice it up a little son.

        • Guest321

          Yeah unfortunately in the case of hyperlinks, if the original content changes, the hyperlink can suddenly change from being legal to illegal. An accessory to a crime is always “knowingly” involved in the crime by choice, same cannot be said for those posting hyperlinks. An image link I post on this site today can suddenly start redirecting to CP two months later and there is nothing I can do about it.

          Again, pointing someone to a house and saying, “you can rob this house”, doesn’t make me an accessory to the crime of robbing. I played no part in the robbing and no justice system can hold me accountable on that.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Accomplices and accessories in crime can and do often face exactly the same penalties as the principal person committing the crime.”

          Which has nothing to do with the fact that providing a location reference doesn’t mean you should be held accountable for crimes committed there.

          There are places in any city well known to harbor drug sales and prostitution. And you will notice no journalist has ever been censured for mentioning where these are.

          According to your argument, he should be. Once again, PelouzeTF, you are channeling bobmail. Because what you are saying makes absolutely no sense.

        • 2013isBack

          STFU Pelouze you copyright maximalist cocksucker. I can’t find the good bits of the discussion let alone my own question I posted a week ago. Fuck off back the asshole of hollywood you spawned out of. Not censoring your shit just simply giving you free advise at how to not to be an asshole. Spamming your oppinion = asshole = you.
          Oh and one thing, Faggot. Change your god damn nick you prick. At least I wouldn’t have to pretend that some other asshole just abused your account to post the same shit for the millionth time.

        • PelouzeTF

          Hello sociopath :)

        • Just watching

          Library books are free to use btw.

          For now… If the copyright cartel has their way, all libraries will be shut down for their pirating ways.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Funny you should mention that. Care to read some history on what the publishing business had to say about the public library?

          Something along the lines of “No one will ever buy books again. It’ll be the death of the publishing industry and literacy”.

          Yes, it was that bad. Kind of reminds you of some other people, now doesn’t it?

        • Just watching

          ROFL… I’m with ya! My buddy Ben Franklin (the guy instrumental in starting public libraries) started the fight against publisher’s outcries back then. The fight continues to this day…

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jeffersson had a few things in common.

          They were both heavily against the notion of intellectual property, having encountered the effects firsthand.

          They were both by all account multitalented geniuses and entrepreneurs.

          They helped found a nation.

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole
      • Wormlore

        We can discuss it when it relates to link to unauthorized content. This case is about a freely (both as free speech and free beer) available article. So yes, it’s like “checkout this book at the local library.”

        Only when you link to files that are illegally distributed can your comparison remotely make sense. (Very remotely.)

        In general, the “footnote” comparison is the one that makes much more sense.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Only when you link to files that are illegally distributed can your comparison remotely make sense. (Very remotely.)”

          Not even then. As some have pointed out, once you posted the link, the site owner can toss upp a CP image or a detailed instruction on how to make meth and according to PelouzeTF, you are now complicit.

          His example, in short, does not make sense, and the only way he can make it appear to do so is by trying to lie through his teeth when making comparisons which have no relevance.

      • Wallace

        Right … the difference between checking out a library book and robbing someone’s house is “the motives of the person.”

        The difference between borrowing and stealing has nothing to do with the library offering the book for lend and the homeowner locking the door. /sarcasm

        Nice to see the idiot train still stops at TF.

        • PelouzeTF

          Yeah, you didn’t get the analogy at all did you.

          We are talking about the responsibility behind the direction of information. Not what the directed information might advise another party to do.

          Please keep up, you look like a slow witted buffoon.

        • xpmule

          I’d like to direct someones finger on a trigger on a certain bufoon ;)

          nice try Troll’ing it up here with your verbal diarrhea.
          your getting people to bite so i think you think your winning now..

          lol your not.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “We are talking about the responsibility behind the direction of information. Not what the directed information might advise another party to do.”

          Right. So you post a link, the page to which the link directs then changes, but according to you, the link poster is still complicit in what the 3rd party did to their website?

          Good analogy. you want a one-handed applause for that?

          “Please keep up, you look like a slow witted buffoon.”

          Oh, the irony. You ARE channeling bobmail, aren’t you, PelouzeTF?

        • Guest

          My guess? They decided to take turns on who sits on the seat of the special desk, and who kneels down. Looks like it’s bobmail’s turn to sit in the chair, because lately he’s been such a compliant little cocksucker.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          I’m guessing even “bobmail” found his old nick a bit too worn and has now donned a new one.

          I think I recognize his particular brand of willful on-demand stupidity in our recent addition “nonamthanks” – along with bobmail’s inability to use common logic and his cocksure way of speaking out on subjects he knows less about than my cat does of SQL syntax.

          I guess it finally dawned on bobmail that his comments lacked a certain credibility. And so he switched. again.

        • Wallace

          “The responsibility behind the direction of information” whatever that means, has nothing to do to with the difference between borrowing and robbery.

          Try going somewhere. Then we’ll see who can keep up.

      • Chameleon

        Actually, if you want to use a more accurate analogy, “go take digital copies (photos) of stuff in this persons house, they’re on holiday.” A digital copy is not theft.

        • PelouzeTF

          It’s not about what the end person does who receives the information (in this case via hyperlink) does with it, or about perceived loss.

          Its about the direction one party can give to another with no responsibility. So it doesn’t actually matter whether a person refers to this in either RL or digital worlds.

        • xpmule

          what like google ?

          and yet they are still up and running and rather popular and i think they make a few bucks too.

          your logic is broken.
          you fail.
          try again ?

          please do it’s amusing lol

        • PelouzeTF

          Yeah like Google, pretty much still one of the biggest pirates online today.

          One of the reasons you can’t understand logic is because you clearly don’t know dik about how sites (like Google in your example) operate.

        • jc

          @PelouzeTF:disqus

          A hyperlink is like a phone number to a particular webpage. If it’s copyright infringement to post a hyperlink to a publicly available webpage, then it’s invasion of private property to post the phone number to a publicly available service.

        • xpmule

          oh yeah ?
          i had sites i started indexed on google a decade ago lol
          i have started web sites from scratch setup hosting services and handed them over to corp clients going back a decade and as a favor i got them indexed on page 1 on google. so i am more than familiar with the ol University project known as google and how it works with its indexing spiders.
          Your reply makes no sense now run along before i embarrass you further kid..

        • PelouzeTF

          What the hell does any of that irrelevance have to do with Googles ability to profit from copyright infringement.

          Anyone who reads your post wont need an IQ much above 80 to see that you’re clueless. And a less than impressive resume of web sites work wont increase your credibility on the subject.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Its about the direction one party can give to another with no responsibility. So it doesn’t actually matter whether a person refers to this in either RL or digital worlds.”

          A journalist makes a column about crack being sold at certain locations.

          Police arrest journalist because crack was sold at certain locations mentioned.

          Makes perfect sense. In Pelouze’s little world. Wherever that is.

        • PelouzeTF

          You seem to take any point, find the furthest most unrelated comparison (journalist column vs 3rd party) and then say “if a 3rd party wouldn’t be able to do this, then if a journalist does it Pelouze wants them to be arrested”.

          Which is such a poor example and not even remotely relevant.

          Before typing such a tripe post, take the time instead to educate yourself on Journalistic standards and the laws protecting journalists, then you wouldn’t appear so stupid.

          Pelouzes little world ????? LOL – yours SDM appears to be microscopic.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Which is such a poor example and not even remotely relevant.”

          Except that the example is pretty good as regards hyperlinks.

          Because what you are saying is that the one posting the link needs to carry the penalty.

          Actually, I’ll even go one further. You aren’t asking for the arrest of the journalist, you are in essence asking for the publisher of the atlas which brought him to the location where drugs were sold to be arrested.

          In the tacit assumption that the publisher of the Atlas knowingly pointed the way to a drug deal by writing out an adress.

          “Pelouzes little world ????? LOL – yours SDM appears to be microscopic.”

          Unlike you, however, I’m neither myopic nor do i fail to look up from the microscope to see how what I’ve seen affects the real world. To use your comparison.

          What amuses me the most is how you can make ass-backwards claims on what a “link” does when you know nothing about what it is, then singularly fail to draw any logic conclusion of what you just said.

          What you are proving – demonstrably – is that most of you adherents of the first church of copyright are highly trained to ignore both causal reality and logic.

          Honestly, Pelouze, you are channeling bobmail again. When will you realize that you can’t win any argument by lying when the topic you argue about happens to be very well known by many of the audience?

      • xpmule

        you fail Pelouzer !
        the internet is full of directions and links to ANYTHING..
        you want analogies ?
        how about google search wikipedia on how a nuclear bomb is made ?
        you logic is diseased and your feeble attempt at reason is laughable..

        consider your ass owned kid

        • PelouzeTF

          Firstly, you need to make an analogy:

          Saying “you want analogies ?
          how about google search wikipedia on how a nuclear bomb is made ?”

          That my dumb friend is not an analogy.

          And its also irrelevant that the information is online. The theory behind making a nuclear weapon is not copyrighted, just like many other examples….guns, cars, landmines. Of course (and simplistically) , items within or the whole item could be patented but thats a different kettle of fish.

          So before you start talking about any degree of logic…….please have some yourself.

      • ndmushroom

        Not quite. If the person “on holiday” has locked his doors, the hyperlink is not accessible by the public. If, on the other hand, the person “on holiday” has left the door wide open with a huge “welcome, make yourselves at home” banner over the door (which would be the equivalent of having an internet (as opposed to an intranet) site, then the fact they’re on holiday bears no significance whatsoever.

      • ReyTFox

        Hypertext was the point of the creation of the world wide web, you twit.

        • PelouzeTF

          Whats that got to do with anything ? I don’t see anyone, anywhere saying that links should be abolished….you twit.

        • ReyTFox

          You were comparing linking to accessory to robbery, shitbag.

        • PelouzeTF

          Because I believe in some cases linking can indeed be used to facilitate loss and in some cases robbery….for ex – credit card phishing links.

      • Not the time

        No its just a stupid movie… Thats been paid for thousands of times by thousands of people. WE already paid millions $$$ for it… We bought it its ours…

        • PelouzeTF

          Yeah, I think some people are going to disagree with you there.

      • artivision

        Regardless what you think, if i tell you that this bank has a lot of money inside and you go and rob the bank, its not my fault just because i give you an information. I didn’t order you to do it, nor help you, it was your choice. Also copy is not robbery, if you copy something, the original isn’t lost. As for money i don’t care. There is not money right (as human right).

        • PelouzeTF

          Clearly you don’t understand “accessory”. People have been imprisoned for being an accessory to crimes even if they didn’t directly commit the offense.

          And copying can deprive a person even though they still have the original. For example your social security number – if I copy that I could cause all manner of mischief at your detriment even though you still have the original.

          So if I inform someone where your social security number is, or your bank password, are you happy that I gave someone that information ? And if they copy said information (even though you still have the original) would you not be disadvantaged if they use that copied information for nefarious purposes ?

  • blaer

    Wonder what the consequences will be for embedded youtube links.

    Here in NL the local riaa (brein) wants bloggers to pay for embedded youtube content.

    • Whatever

      Not only embedding but a website was convicted linking to an “illegal” copy of some “imaginary property” located in another country.

      The Dutch courts already placed the responsibility of content at the ones who make a link several times.

      Logically, giving ANY responsibility to someone placing a link is wrong as a link is unaware of the content it links too. What if the owner of the destination decides to change the content to something actually illegal to posses. You would likely need to DOS the link destination to check if the content hasn’t changed.

      (I doubt that this time the politicians will do something about it with the usual excuse that they are forced to do it by Europe)

    • Zumzum

      That wouldn’t be enforceable unless YouTube blocked Dutch users access to the ‘embed this video’ links found under every video. The fact that YouTube puts them there is express permission to embed the video without asking for permission and without having to agree to any ToS that require royalty payments.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        And that in turn leads to German GEMA-style total youtube blocking of media.

        Honestly, sometimes I almost feel bad about being so hard on the copyright monopolists. They’re already metaphorically standing in a circle, stabbing one another in the back.

        • Typhoid Mary

          That’s funny. One of the best comments yet.

  • Boring Phil

    It’s this sort of dangerous thinking that could allow the internet to be more than just a home shopping channel, if these Euro-crackpot hippies have their way!
    And who ever wants to ‘refer to a document’ anyway? Exactly! these ivory-tower elites with their liberal ‘intellectual’ agenda, that’s who.

    • Liam JH

      /sarcasm

      • johnny

        …….or extreme right wing American.

        Poes law was invented for those guys.

      • Boring Phil

        Sorry. It just slipped out.

        • Liam JH

          If it slips out in public you could be arrested XD

        • Boring Phil

          Hence the Virtual Private Nightwear…;)

  • XTX

    MAfia 0 – 1 Sharers

  • anonymous

    if the lobbyists are not out in force, trying to ensure this IS classed as infringement, i will be absolutely gobsmacked! if the court decides it is, there are going to be countless sites that are then constantly ‘looking over their shoulders’, because the copyright enforcement agencies will be chucking accusations about like confetti, just as they do now, with no evidence at all. completely legal web sites that are doing nothing wrong at all will be removing links unnecessarily, just to try to protect themselves from facing law suits, both from legitimate companies and from trolls. the court needs to think very carefully over this issue. it could be something else that enables the copyright and entertainment industries to destroy the internet unless it does what they want.
    whatever the ruling is, it will be of no use if ALL countries are not forced to honour that decision or keep looking for ways to use it only when it suits.
    it also is going to be too late for some in the UK who have been jailed for running web sites that had no infringing material on them but had links to other sites that allegedly had infringing files.
    mark my words, the UK being stuck so far up the arse of the USA will be doing whatever it can to make sure this is classed as infringing. if it fails, you can bet it will be ignored anyway! if there is something that may give a little to the people rather than business, the Tories are going to stop it!

    • Guest

      Certain organisations and no doubt ones in the US will no doubt be filing papers and lobbying the Court of Jusitce to ensure that the Court will rule to making a link on a website to copyright to be illegal. Even if the Court of Justice rules that hyperlinking is not illegal certain copyright organisations will no doubt will just ignore and carry on regardless suing people because these outfits will not stop until a court case rules against them and they actually loose their case and even then they will still continue.

  • MAFIAA DEAD

    Wait…So the courts have been wrong all this time? O’rly????

  • Anyone

    common sense starts showing up at last

  • Logan 2057

    We had something like this in Canada a year or so ago. Seems a guy who ran a title search company was also running as the head of the Green Party, a political party that’s been coming up slowly. He was involved in a scandal in the party, wherein he got caught using the leadership position to form his own little fiefdom and anyone who disagreed with him was subsequently ostracized.

    He was booted out of the party and the story went online, and a blogger put a link to it on his website, now mind you he did not publish anything only linked to the article.

    But, that was enough for the guy to claim that he was publishing the story and adding his own opinion to it, which the blogger hadn’t.

    He took the blogger to court three times and lost three times, in all three cases he tried to claim that linking is the same as publishing. After three consecutive losses in the B.C. courts, the B.C. Supreme Court and the appeals court he took it to the Supreme Court of Canada, where after much deliberation they found that linking IS NOT THE SAME AS PUBLISHING.

    This is pretty much the same thing only this clown is claiming that linking is copy right infringement, now where and how he comes up with that idea is beyond me. Simply linking to a story is by no means copy right infringement, tho there have been more than a few idiots try to claim that to shut down free speech or silence a detractor.
    I just wish these morons would learn, but to learn something you have to first have a brain, and this type of person obviously doesn’t have one.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      “…only this clown is claiming that linking is copy right infringement, now where and how he comes up with that idea is beyond me.”

      He can be forgiven for assuming it is since the *IAA’s have been pushing the “linking equals copyright infringement” angle very heavily.

      And apparently he’s fallen for it, hook, line and sinker.

      • mwah

        It depends on the exact nature of the material of the links destination.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          No it does not.

          Try this one on for size. You post a link to a site. That site now amends what is on the site.

          You, according to your argumentation, are now held responsible for what is on the site.

          Real world example? Journalists writes about prostitution taking place at a certain street.

          Journalist is arrested for prostitution taking place at a certain street.

          Your argumentation in this thread significantly fails to grasp what actually happens.

    • Guest

      You have a link to this?

  • dondilly

    Though not expressly mentioned, if a hyperlink is not infringement or transmission of date, while what is being considered is links to articles on websites, the decision could also impact on everything from links to infringing content be they direct of hash links (magnet,ed2k) or links to proxies. If a linik can not in itself be infringing it has the potential to give TPB a clean bill of health.

    Certain media outlets arguing that 3rd party sites linking without permission to licensed content is infringement opens a whole can of worms that will either break or cleanse the net.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      “…it has the potential to give TPB a clean bill of health.”

      People, even pirates, keep missing this point: TPB already has a clean bill of health. It’s legal under any and every national law.

      That, in a nutshell, is why organizations such as BPI and BREIN have to apply for an “equitable remedy”. Because there is no law which prohibits, nor could reasonably prohibit TPB from operating.

      In a way that’s trickier to adress since it requires that the court recognizes that a previously granted equitable remedy – such as an injunction – is not defensible.

      Given a few more demonstrations on how proxying will require either massive dissolution of existing law to unheard-of levels (effectively granting a third party the right to determine equitable remedy out of court) or repetitive court appearances (“The court will now hear case #346 for ex parte injunction against ip range 123.456.789.1…”), there is little doubt that sooner rather than later most judges will begin to tire of the incessant whining of the sectarians of the first church of copyright.

      Indeed, in the US they are slightly ahead. Judges are already growing used to viewing a copyright claimant as a troll.

      • Guest

        “People, even pirates, keep missing this point: TPB already has a clean bill of health. it’s legal under any and every national law.” Simply not true. It’s illegal in the UK – that’s why it’s blocked by the major ISPs..

        • uksucks

          It is not illegal in the UK.

          What is happening in the UK is that the BPI are getting sites put on a censor listwith a simple nod and wink in the general direction of one of the corrupt judges.

        • Who

          actually it is illegal in the UK but TPB is no longer residing in that country. you should read this.

          http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/part/I/chapter/II/crossheading/secondary-infringement-of-copyright

          witch is Y TPB was moved and now under the support of PRQ as they have some kind of an exemption from the law.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          TPB was never IN the UK.

          TPB is quite legal in any jurisdiction. The reason that the UK as well as NL can use equitable remedy is because there is no legal leverage to use against TPB.

        • Guest

          It has been ruled illegal in the UK, the equitable remedy was issued after the fact. You can posit your opinion all you want as to your mistaken belief that TPB is “legal” in the UK. The fact remains that there has been a judicial ruling (as a matter of public / judicial record – covered by many legal blogs and international news sources) which you are wilfully choosing to ignore.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Well, bless my soul. It appears you are correct in some parts. Well, we shall simply have to willfully ignore said high court ruling, I suppose.

          Mea Culpa.

        • Guest

          The 6 largest ISP’s in the UK may have been forced to block the TPB website to prevent its subscribers from accessing TPB but there are other ISP’s here in the UK that were not served or have been told by the High Court to block access to TPB and these ISP’s still very much allow continual access to TPB. So to state that TPB has been ruled to be illegal is a misconception considering that there are ISP’s in the UK that still allow access to the site and so far have not been served with a court order to block access. The 6 largest ISP’s could have appealed by taking the decision of the High Court to the European Court but for whatever reason they chose not to do so and to my knowledge the blocking of access to TPB has not been taken to the European Court by anyone in Europe.

          As for the TPB to be an illegal website that is again a misconception considering that only a few ISP’s block access to the site as ordered by the court in that particular country to do so but whilst ISP’s and countries allow continual access to the TPB then the site is not illegal in that respect.

          Until TPB is ruled as being illegal by the European Court and so far TPB has not been brought before the European Court then the site cannot be illegal whilst the site remains accessable by other countries in that respect.

  • 2013DoesntMatter

    So the ECS is on our side or simply makin up stuff yet again?
    See this: kinds of liability including that connected to the deliberate
    facilitation of access to copyright infringing material, unfair
    competition, moral rights and circumvention of technological measures.

    So Kiddypr0n, a big part of torrents, cyber bullying and cracking tutorials are still taboo. (Mind that I agree on the first and third example but torrents posing a threat for copyright cartels and circumvention procedures being censored by some company? Big NONO) They are simply arguing about if they want to change the internet into a corporate controlled mess or not? Why not leave it like it is and do something about those copyright troll crusades. As if we don’t know that US shits on this regulation from the get-go. More power to the people!

  • jimbo

    ‘If hyperlinking is regarded as communication to the public, all
    hyperlinks would need to be expressly licensed.

    and i’ll bet a beer that this is exactly what will happen. the reasons being, there is money to be made and more surveillance options opened up to governments. the why being, any excuse to put something over the people in favour of control.

  • http://twitter.com/MaxWyght Max Wyght

    And since magnet links are glorified hyperlinks, TPB doesn’t do anything illegal.

    SUCK IT!

  • Pingback: » Hyperlinking as Copyright Infringement AnthroTech

  • Ignas

    Apart from obvious fact that hyperlink is just a ‘link’ to something, rather than something, the person who adds a link not always can control the website linked to. That website might change what is shown for that link. This can lead to false accusations.
    Bottom line, hyperlinking cannot be considered copyright infringement.

  • JG

    IMHO, as many others have pointed out, a link should not be considered transmitting, publishing, or etc…. It is merely providing easy access to another place on the internet that the author believes to be of interest or otherwise note worthy. On my personal homepage, for example, I state “I went to State University, where I became a brother of my Fraternity” and have both the Fraternity & school’s name linked to their respective websites. I’d like to imagine that John Q. Public knows I am not claiming any kind of ownership or anything over these sites, but instead that I’m simply providing my site’s viewers with easy access to find out more about my alma mater or my Fraternity….

    I do find it kind of odd that Svensson is opposed to Retriever providing link(s) to his article. Don’t most journalists want their work read by as wide of audience as possible? And if he didn’t want the general public reading his article, shouldn’t he have asked the newspaper he wrote the article for not to publish it on their website? It’s already out there for the whole world to read. How would Retriever publishing a link to it change who could read the article?

  • Pingback: Hyperlinking Is Not Copyright Infringement, Scholars Say | Best Seedbox

  • mwah

    Absurd is the ECS failure to understand that a hyperlink is the equivalent of transmission, due to the hyper-accesibility of the copyrighted material. This is a no-brainer. That good judgement has failed here is no surprise, it’s state of the art. Forming a committee is transparent further indication of the inability and/or unwillingness to reinforce basic legal principles and a lack of any real understanding of what a hyperlink, or the internet, is for that matter.

    • DERP^2

      “hyper-accesibility of the copyrighted material” ???
      What the hell are you talking about? You making this up as you go along? What a STUPID comment! DERP^2!

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        Obviously, “mwah” is a staunch adherent of bobmail’s “First Church of Copyright”. The dogma tends to brainwash the cultists into ignoring reality in favor of what dogma tells them it ought to be like.

        What “mwah” fails to adress is how his example would work in real practice. A journalist writes a column about drug sales going on in a certain locations.
        According to “mwah” the journalist is then arrested because drug sales go on in that location.

        In short what “mwah” is saying is that merely mentioning a phenomenon should net you the legal penalty the actual perpetrator of said phenomenon could incur

    • Ophelia Millais

      By that “logic”, you should never link to anything that is copyrighted, unless the copyright owner has given you explicit permission to link to it.

      You do realize that under the Berne Convention and its implementations, every work of original authorship is copyrighted automatically, right? Pretty much every blog, every twitter feed, every corporate web site, every online newspaper and magazine, every comment, …everything written in the last century or so, if it’s online, is under copyright.

      If every link to such content had to be pre-authorized, the web would be useless.

      Besides, I can’t even be sure that anything online is authorized. So even if there’s an official-looking site that says I’m free to deep-link to its content, how am I supposed to know whether whoever put that up is the actual copyright owner?

    • mwah

      For those who need further explanation, posting a link is the equivalent of the content – because what is the point of posting the link? So people can gaze lovingly at it? The fact that certain individuals can’t and won’t comply, resist the law and it’s principles, is due to them having more anger and less conscience than brains and talent, and they want everything for free while complaining about everyone else being a mooch. hypocrits.

      • mwah=jerk

        “posting a link is the equivalent of the content”
        THIS IS NOT TRUE! What a STUPID STUPID statement!
        Clearly you FAIL at comprehending the Internet.
        Links are links. Content is content.
        Ever hear of Google?
        YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

      • Ardvaark

        The link is not the equivalent of content.

        If it was, science as you know it would stagnate, since you couldn’t, for example, write a scientific paper and then quote or refer to other people’s work as foundation to your own, losing credibility and hence invalidating your own work.

        Linking works the same way or, if you prefer, as a sign with directions. Looking or following that sign, doesn’t equate to seeing the destination itself, or would you be satisfied with staring at the sign pointing to the Eiffel Tower?

        ” The fact that certain individuals can’t and won’t comply, resist the law and it’s principles,”
        The fact that the majority of the people do so is due to the void that copyright is. It violates human nature and hence, people chose to ignore it or keep it to a very minimum.

        “is due to them having more anger and less conscience than brains and talent”
        This is absolutely ridiculous. I’m fairly sure artists “infringe copyright” as well. It’s how art and science works. You look at what exists and build upon that, expanding the boundaries of the known a bit further.

        It’s not lack of talent and certainly not lack of brains to do so. In fact, if one had to reinvent the wheel every time he wanted to improve a car because it was copyrighted, we’d probably still be riding on chariots.

      • Wallace

        “posting a link is the equivalent of the content – because what is the point of posting the link? So people can gaze lovingly at it? The fact that certain individuals can’t and won’t comply, resist the law and it’s principles,”

        Neither law or morality deal with “equivalents.”

        In fact, it is both immoral and against the law for you to force compliance based on something merely being equivalent in your mind.

        Failing to comply with your odd equivalencies does not equal resisting the law or its principles. They are only resisting you, which is legal.

        Someday, the world will give us an anti-piracy troll who also has morals, principles and respect for the law. Not today.

      • ScrewEwe2

        Gaze lovingly at this and quit your complaining.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPZuYwYxnL4

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        Journalist writes a column about drug deals taking place on a street. Journalist is arrested for supplying this information.

        Even better, you post a link, the website to which it refers is amended to display child porn. You are arrested and sentenced.

        Care to try again?

        Since “bobmail” appears gone, why don’t we simply treat “mwah” here as his spiritual successor?

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      You, good sir, are an idiot.

      The person who posts a hyperlink has no control over how the site to which the link refers subsequently changes.

      Meaning if you post a link to a webpage then you, the poster, should be held accountable for whatever the website owner subsequently does.

      Care to try again?

  • Ophelia Millais

    While ECS are clear on their stance they also note that individuals and companies aren’t necessarily free to link to any online content they like with impunity. In certain situations linking can still lead to other kinds of liability including that connected to the deliberate facilitation of access to copyright infringing material [etc.]

    This is rather unfortunate that they don’t have the balls to stand up for all linking as free speech. They are saying that if I am linking to an authorized publication, i.e. the “official” document/video/whatever, then I’m exercising my right to free speech and it doesn’t matter if the copyright owner disapproves. But if I link to an unauthorized publication, they hem and haw, and say that legally, I could be liable. In other words, it’s the copyright owners get to dictate what is and isn’t OK for me to link to.

    I’m sorry, but… if there’s something on YouTube that I want to refer to, I’m going to link to it. I don’t care if whoever put it up was authorized to upload it. I don’t care if the copyright owner would prefer that I send traffic to the official site. I don’t care if the copyright owner would prefer no deep links at all. It’s not my fucking job to care. I understand that courts may have ruled that it often is my legal responsibility; morally and intellectually, it’s not.

  • Foff

    For all you mafiaa dicks out there here is my take. A hyperlink is and should be perfectly legal. Even a link provided by say TPB does not guarantee you will get the content. Many times I tried to get content that was rare and the seeds were just not there so I never got anything useful. So what does that make the link? Aside from that you bastards need to put a link on this bullshit legal theory of assisting piracy. When was the last time an auto manufacturer was held liable for assisting in a crime because a vehicle they used was used in the crime or gun or ammo dealer and/or manufacturer. Come on you mafiaa suck up assholes give some believable logic to justify your ridiculous position.

  • downunder

    SO really the poor sod that was jailed and fined for a links site in UK recently needs to be over turned and guy paid 1 million euros for the damaged to his life

    if the great will of people say a links site is not infingement or conspiracy to commit its needs to be looked into seriously

  • Guest

    They want to kill the internet. Back to TV era when there was no real discussion.

    • joexxx

      The only problem is that internet will kill them long before they kill the internet.

  • WenkDenk

    lol, so go tell the kangaroo courts that lol.

    AnonPlanet.da.bz

  • frozar

    Amazed we are having this argument in 2013. A hyperlink is just telling someone a location of a server and its hosted document.

    • joexxx

      No it doesn’t. A link is just an internet address. A document may or may not be there.

      • frozar

        Internet is a network of servers. A link to a non-existent document is rather pointless. Even then it will give you a 404 page which is still a document.

  • Pingback: Hyperlinking Is Not Copyright Infringement, Scholars Say | The Illuminati

  • Pingback: Linkanje ne krši autorka prava – potvrdili europski akademici | Netokracija

  • Guest321

    Once its out on the internet, you have to accept it as public domain. The internet is not owned by you and me, its not your private playground. All information on the internet will be shared and duplicated by anyone using the Internet and you can’t stop it. It’s just the way the Internet works.

    If anyone wants to keep information private, keep it in your LAN and don’t share with anyone. Once something is sold, the person who bought it becomes the new owner and can share it with whomever he likes. You can’t sell me a car and ask me not to share it. In the same way you can’t sell anyone a movie and ask them not to share it with the world, specially when digital products have no intrinsic value and can be duplicated at no cost.

  • Dave Howe

    I would say (as a better framing of the question) that a hyperlink is the same as a “cite” in scientific literature; by placing a reference to someone else’s work (often the rights to which are held by the bigger journals as part of the cost of their publication) you can justify many assertions that would otherwise need proving anew.
    This practice has carried on for many centuries, and suddenly making it a copyright violation would cause all scientific publication to grind to a sudden halt…..

    • joexxx

      Hmm.. a link is an internet address. Nothing here has any copyrighted info.

  • Scary_Devil_Monastery

    “When an item is published on the internet, anyone posting a link to it should be aware and complicit with any and all copyrights.”

    Impossible. The way the internet works, whatever you feel you want to link to is usually completely beyond your control.

    An example to this: I post a link to a site. After I’ve posted the link, said site publishes a magnet tag for “Bilbo”.

    According to your argument, I should know how that site will appear, not only today, but in the future – and if i can’t, abstain from linking.

    In the real world that would be the equivalent of you being held culpable for giving directions to a place, unless you could say for certain nothing criminal was going on at that place. now or ever.

    There are two choices available. An internet where you accept that anything released will be publicly available. Or no internet.

    And that’s why at the end copyright is incompatible with free speech, as proven by the ECHR.

  • Guest

    LOL @ war on HYPERLINKING !

    U will BREAK the INTERWEBZ

  • Violated0

    The answer to this one is already crystal clear to me when all these same questions were answered during the early days of the Web when linking ran into all kinds of conflict.

    Still to revisit this subject is much welcome when copyright propaganda makes people almost forget that linking is lawful. A link is like “look what I found here” where content control is up to the original author. Only if you make a copy do you have a problem.

    So I am all happy when people can use this case in the future to say “doing this is lawful”

  • joexxx

    What about a link to a link that points to copyright?
    What about a link to a link to a link…
    Soon the entire internet will be illegal because it’s just a bunch of interconnected links.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      That, in essence, is why any law making the provider of a hyperlink culpable for the use to which the site at the end of the link is put, insane.

  • Pingback: Enlaces compartidos

  • Pingback: Cyberculture roundup: Aaron Swartz’s FBI File, CISPA is back: worst Internet law since SOPA, Chinese cyber attacks… « Erkan's Field Diary

  • Pingback: Hyperlinking Is Not Copyright Infringement, Scholars Say … | movie6 Similar Sites

  • Pingback: Hyperlinking Is Not Copyright Infringement, Scholars Say - Soicalpost

  • Pingback: Блог музфана

  • http://twitter.com/stho002 Wikispecies editor

    Hyperlinking and DISPLAYING THE CONTENT is crucial here. Hyperlinking itself is fine if it results in a hit on the original website (it is just the same as saying “hey, check this web page out [point]“). But DISPLAYING THE CONTENT is trickier. Though there should be no problem quoting small passages, as in ordinary quote/cite …

  • http://desertdarlene.blogspot.com Desertdarlene

    Holy crap, I can’t believe people are arguing about this. If I link to your site, it’s no more than me pointing a direction to your site or page. How is that stealing? I make web pages and it’s actually a GOOD thing to have people link to your site and raises your site’s or page’s visibility with search engines. As a site or page owner, you want as many people linking to your site and pages as possible. I love it when people link to my pages. I don’t consider it stealing unless they were actually stealing photos of text off my page.

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

    Twitter and Facebook, not to mention the TorrentFreak inbox, are currently alive with complaints that The...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.