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?
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...
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...
Originally posted by loam
Perhaps you should re-read the topic. This is altogether different.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
It's exceptionally similar,
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
and the interpretations still look amazingly sensationalized.
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."
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The rulings will undoubtedly be refined,
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.
Originally posted by loam
Hardly. The act of "file-sharing" and simple "hypertext linking" are two VERY different exercises...
On what basis do you level this criticism?
But perhaps you should read the actual case:
Cooper v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 187 (18 December 2006)
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
"Cooper's assumption that Google's activities in Australia do not result in infringements ... is untested."
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The action does not limit linking to free content.
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.
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.
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...
Originally posted by loam
Like I said, not a good trend.