In 1999, a similar lawsuit was brought up against 2600 Magazine over the issue of linking to source code that could have the potential to violate copyright:
The older you get, the more you realize just how true this is.
For instance broadband penetration in Belgium is about where it was in 2003. There are lots of internet cafes.
Edit: This is incorrect. European broadband is fine.
Note the word 'advised'. This is a legal opinion from an important individual who looks at the case and tells the court what he thinks. But (i) the court can ignore it or look at the case themselves and make their own opinion; and (ii) any ruling they do make does not bind any EU government to implement it (though it should strongly decisions in EU countries). It's like asking your mechanic friend what he thinks of the car you've got lined up to buy.
As the CJEU press release states:
> NOTE: The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General to propose to the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible. The Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case. Judgment will be given at a later date.
That's based on this study:
> People are silhouetted as they pose with laptops in front of a screen projected with binary code and a Central Inteligence Agency (CIA) emblem, in this picture illustration taken in Zenica October 29, 2014.
I didn't notice before, but now you mention it, it _is_ really strange that none of them are pointing or fake-laughing at the screen.
Steve Jobs. http://i.imgur.com/cMjKysz.jpg
France was also planning to ban "hyperlinking without permission":
I think doing either of these things is silly - why even run a public web site if you're going to do this? But it's their site, and their right to make bad decisions with it.
If a site owner chooses not to do this, it's safe to assume they intended to allow deep links, since links are a fundamental, well-known feature of the medium they chose to use.
> The case arose in the Netherlands where the GeenStijl website had provided a link to an Australian site showing pictures of a Dutch celebrity taken by Playboy magazine. The Australian site did not have Playboy's consent to do so.
Or it could mean that the site owner doesn't have the technical expertise to block deep links in the manner you describe. I agree that it's silly to block deep linking but there are people that want to do so and a lot of those people don't know how (other than not publishing those links).
If the behavior that somebody finds to be unwanted is trivial to protect yourself from, then only in very special circumstances it should possible to legally ban it. The easier the defense is, the higher the bar for getting a ban through. (Besides the usual need to prove harm.)
Because the law should only get involved when you need a strong third party to get involved for protection, preserving order and to arbitrate.
If you're putting content on a publicly facing server with web routes open to all (i.e. walking nude in public), you shouldn't be surprised when people look.
Source? I would think most people run stock browsers that don't manipulate referrer headers.
That's not how the law works, though; you don't have to make it impossible for someone to infringe on your intellectual property for it to have protection.
That's not to argue that there is any IP law protection here regardless.
Look into his relationship with lobbies and consumer rights' organisations some time. Also, his speech about the Taliban-like evils of net neutrality (yes, really).
EDIT: And if you understand German, there's even a great remix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkORC6FcSH4
A link to a website which publishes photos without authorisation of the author does not in itself constitute a copyright infringement
1) Linking to photos that you don't have authorisation to use on your website isn't copyright infringement.
2) Linking to a website that doesn't seek authorisation to use photos on their website.
To me it reads like the latter, in which case how is one meant to know if a website has sought and gotten authorisation for each photo they use?
If the court rules that yes, the Dutch site also infringes copyright, it basically breaks how the internet works. You are liable for copyright infringement on any content linked to from your site. Imagine a forum, for instance..
First case seems to be fine as well. Unless of course you're hosting the images yourself, then you need to get permission.
As an example, I would think a link that allowed someone to get around the requirements to login to view something (maybe username/password as query parameters or something?) would be considered illegal.
Now, if a user on a private page, marked something as public, but did not publish the link, then it would be legal as you could argue that its freely available.*
* Not a lawyer, so just my own understanding.
so GreenStijl can't just host the pages anonymously on mega.com and link to them.. in that case they would deemed to be part of their website.
However in this case I believe it centered on snippets of the news content itself, not only a link.
This is El Pais singing praises: http://elpais.com/elpais/2012/05/01/inenglish/1335894807_391...
Techdirt is second-hand reporting, but fair: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120104/04252517273/spani...
If you can read Spanish, google "Sinde-Wert jueces". This one is good: http://www.eldiario.es/zonacritica/ComisionSinde-jueces_6_16... (its author is David Bravo, a copyright lawyer who's recently been elected to Spanish Parliament, and one of the most vocal personalities on copyright in Spain).
The advocate general added that this also depended on whether the link was indispensable in making the photos available, a matter which he referred back to the local Dutch court.
If widely available search engines indexed magnet links then I think TPB would be legal under this opinion.
Obviously Google are too rich for the argument to work against them, but say a popular blogger finds a website with little traffic and some great content and links to it; they then would seemingly become responsible for the original site's infringement?
One can see why the media lobby would want to leave in the option to declare TPB illegal but it seems an unworkable reservation if we're to hold to the rule of law. Kinda like (stealing someone else's analogy up-thread) if you charge someone with public indecency for pointing out there was a person being indecent - inappropriate nudity, say - if not many people had noticed the indecency prior to the declaration. Seems pretty mad to me.
What is "very few" in your opinion? There are dozens, even hundreds of torrent sites out there. They often also meta-index data from each other, serving as a sort of ad hoc replication.
For freedom loving countries at least.
Unless absolutely necessary, I now give just a couple of clues and let people find the page for themselves in google if they want. Stupid measures for stupid times...
Just my opinion.
What's the legality of hotlinking? = embedding an image in your page by using an URL directly to an image that is hosted & controlled by someone else.
Hotlinking could be involved in criminal or civil actions, e.g. used to perpetrate fraud or used maliciously (intended to use up host's resources or even DDOS).
You could try to argue that the user requires a license to combine the 2 in ways not considered by you however this has several problems.
- Its laughably unenforceable
- In the us it would probably be fair use
- It would make literally the entire internet illegal
- It would make adblocking on your end illegal
- It would make you a world wide source of negativity and scorn.
Basically there is a technical solution to most hotlinking issues and every imaginable legal solution would be a cure worse than the disease.
If I write a news article, and I hotlink in an illustration with no credit or comment, that still seems problematic.
This excerpt is particularly relevant:
Perfect 10 argues that Google displays a copy of the full-
size images by framing the full-size images, which gives the
impression that Google is showing the image within a single
Google webpage. While in-line linking and framing may
cause some computer users to believe they are viewing a sin-
gle Google webpage, the Copyright Act, unlike the Trade-
mark Act, does not protect a copyright holder against acts that
cause consumer confusion.