Dutch Court Rules Hyperlinks Can Constitute Infringement 203
Ubi_NL writes "In yesterday's ruling of Playboy (via publisher Sanoma) vs Dutch blog Geenstijl, the court ruled that hyperlinking to copyrighted material was itself infringement of copyright. The court ordered the blog to remove all links to the infringing links (court ruling in Dutch). How this ruling fits into the supreme court ruling that hyperlinks cannot by themselves infringe copyright is still to be discussed, possibly in an appeal."
The specific ruling: (Score:5, Informative)
The court considered if the publishing of the hyperlinks by GeenStijl.nl constituted a publication (Dutch: ‘openbaarmaking’) as defined in article 12 of the Dutch Copyright Act. In principle, placing a hyperlink on a website is not a publication, unless three criteria are met: there must be an intervention, a new audience and profit.
- Intervention: The leaked pictures of Britt Dekker were stored on FileFactory.com, a cloud service to store files and share them with others. However, these files can’t be found through search engines, only users with the exact URL have access to the files. The URL to the file with the leaked pictures was publicly unknown, until GeenStijl.nl made it available to its large audience by publishing an article about it, the court says. Therefore, the actions of GeenStijl.nl are an intervention, according to the court. Without this intervention, the public wouldn’t have had access to the pictures before their official publication in Playboy.
- New audience: According to the court, there wasn’t an audience for the pictures before GeenStijl.nl published its article.
- Profit: By publishing the URL to the pictures, GeenStijl.nl had the unmistakable intention to attract more visitors, the court states. With success: in 2011, the article about Dekker was the best viewed topic on GeenStijl.nl, according to the statistics.
Taking the three criteria and the circumstances of this specific case into account, the court concludes that GeenStijl.nl has infringed on Sanomas copyrights by publishing the URL to the leaked nude pictures of Britt Dekker.
Security by obcurity? (Score:3, Interesting)
So Dutch courts protect Security by Obscurity?
No surprises here. Judges have as much of a clue of those things as the sec department in my company. Oh, wait...
Re:Security by obcurity? (Score:5, Insightful)
This not a simple case of security through obscurity, though. If it were, then all physical cylinder locks or password security could also be considered "security through obscurity". After all, the security only lies in not publishing the exact configuration of bumps on the key required to open the lock, or the characters making up the password.
The point in this case is that the public had no means of guessing or finding the URL other than trying every possible combination. GeenStijl provided the public with the right combination (the key or password if you will) and this is where their publication further infringes on the copyright.
Re:Security by obcurity? (Score:5, Insightful)
I see this from a different point of view. There are two distinct things I'd consider here, the link itself (separate from the content it takes you to), and the act of directing you to content owned by someone else.
Most of us have had exposure to people trying to get links taken down. What has to be considered here is what they're trying to claim for protection. The actual provider of the content is not the link. It's what's at the other end of the link, which in these cases is the person claiming to be wronged. I don't see them having any right to claim infringement of content because they alone are the ones providing it. I don't see any difference between this and say for example, my posting a note on a telephone pole saying "go to SuperScreen Theatre and watch Xmen 7". I'm not infringing on their ownership of anything xmen, I'm merely informing people that you're offering it. There's no fundamental difference in what I have done if XMen 7 is a regular paid show or a free-of-charge sneak preview that SuperScreen actually only informed a small group of people about. The difference there being one showing was public or charge normal, and the other was a "free if you know about it" kind of thing. But there was no difference in my posting of the notice. The only change was on the provider's end, and why should that change the legality of what *I* did?
So at least how I'm seeing it, the providing of the link itself should be legal, and that's what most people here will also be assuming.
But then we have to address the url itself. If it contains a secret parameter such as a unique ID, login, etc, is it legal to give that way? And I mean in any form, not just an easily clickable hyperlink. You can't call it a trade secret because you're sending it out to at least a subset of the public. It's a fact so you can't copyright it. An unauthorized person using it could be charged with unauthorized access (using credentials that were "stolen") but the person providing the link isn't the user so that doesn't apply to them. (and then you get into the IMHO completely BS concept of "contributing to infringement" etc) I don't see any angle to view this as illegal.
I think this is just some frustration on the part of the providers. They had a system in place that was assisting with their revenue, was convenient for them and their customers, and was mostly under their control. A bit like mailing out coupons to some of your good customers. But then they decided to change how their offer was being sent out, say for example by emailing their customers links to the coupon to download and print out. But now someone has posted the url to that coupon so it'd available to a lot of others. So others are going there and downloading and printing the coupon too, which is not what the provider intended or wants to have happen. So they're looking for a way to call what the poster is doing is "illegal" - not because it IS illegal, but merely because they want it stopped. The provider has no real ground to stand on, other than "I don't like it, I didn't intend for that to happen." They made a change to make things more convenient for themselves and their customers, and in doing so they gave up a bit of control over who they were giving things away to. They switched from using a secured private distribution method to using an insecure public distribution method. They continue to claim "privacy" but they themselves made it public. It's no different than my opening the curtains at my house and then getting upset when people look in my window. What I want doesn't have any bearing on what you see, I'm the one that made it available and it's my fault that you were able to see it. I have no right to demand you look the other way.
Re: (Score:2)
That's incorrect actually. I read the verdict (I speak Dutch), and what happened is that the photos leaked and were uploaded by some unknown person to FileFactory.com and later to other filesharing sites. GeenStijl.nl posted an article saying "hey, Britt Dekker's nude photos are leaked, you can see them OVER THERE".
I don't know how GeenStijl.nl came to know
Re:Security by obcurity? (Score:4, Interesting)
The link is NOT the infringement. The infringement lies in the description explaining what the link is. The person who put that description there aided and abetted the infringement, which was committed by the person that uploaded it to the file sharing site. The site host is not guilty unless perhaps of incitement by actively encouraging this kind of posting (if they did so).
The LINK ITSELF is not an infringement. If you carry a stolen phone in a brown paper bag, then the brown paper bag (and its supplier) are not guilty. If you do not know the contents are stolen, and have no reason to suspect it might be then you are innocent. The person that told you the brown paper bag contained a bar of chocolate for his sick mother is very guilty indeed. However, if you advertise "I deliver stolen mobile phones in brown paper bags"! expect a guilty verdict.
Re: (Score:2)
This not a simple case of security through obscurity, though. If it were, then all physical cylinder locks or password security could also be considered "security through obscurity".
All physical locks ARE examples of security through obscurity. You can recreate the key be examining the lock. You can't do that with public key cryptography. That's the big difference that the "security through obscurity" meme is supposed to highlight.
The point in this case is that the public had no means of guessing or find
Re: (Score:2)
GeenStijl made a discovery which they communicated to the public. Free speech. This ruling is barbaric.
No, what is barbaric is a childishly simplistic black and white view of the world with absolute freedom of speech on one side, and evil communism/fascism on the other. It's not as simple as that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the person who first published the link...was Britt Dekker, the model for the pictures, who published the links on Twitter, so it was only available to her over 100k followers.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can explain the logical difference between why it is legal to give one of these URLs out, and not the other because one is "lock"ed and the other is not, I'd love to hear it: //{hard to guess string with colon in it}@host //host/{hard to guess string that may have colon in it}
http:
and
http:
That's how it works (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Security by obcurity? (Score:5, Interesting)
Copyright law protects Security By Obscurity. So the judge was correct in this case.
In order in infringe on copyright law, you'll have to make a copied work public. So, as long as you don't publish a copied work (i.e. keeping it obscure), it's not an infringement. This, for instance, allows you to make a private copy of a copyrighted work without infringing on copyright law.
In this case, a private copy was made. Nobody knew where to find the copy, except for the person who placed the copy online. So, while the copy was on the internet, it wasn't public. Geenstijl made the copy public by making the URL known to the general public. Therefore Geenstijl infringed on dutch copyright law.
Re: (Score:2)
No, someone placed the copy online and then gave the URL to someone else - that would constitute infringement by your own definition. That the someone else made the URL available to the public woul
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The specific ruling: (Score:5, Informative)
They're appealing: Dutch link [geenstijl.nl]
Re:The specific ruling: (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong. As some other posters have already shown [slashdot.org], google happily indexes and searches FileFactory.
Re:The specific ruling: (Score:5, Insightful)
But always, or only after an other site made a link to it? The point is not whether it shows up in google now, but whether it would have shown up if no site linked it in the first place. And even if it can be found via google, if it has some generic name not saying what's in it, it's still unlikely anyone would find it.
The judge is saying that by hyperlinking it, geenstijl made it findable for everybody. And if that is the case, he might have a point. If them linking actually made it accessible for everybody (why before that it wouldn't have been possible to find those files, or extremely unlikely), then they did more than just linking... Of course you can still argue they didn't upload it, which is also true. But i can understand the decision somewhat (doesn't mean i agree with it). This is different from just linking to a youtube video you could have just as easily found using the search function of youtube.
Not sure which side i'd choose, but it's not so black & white as many here claim it to be.
Re:The specific ruling: (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong. As some other posters have already shown, google happily indexes and searches FileFactory.
No it doesn't. FF blocks indexing. See http://www.filefactory.com/robots.txt [filefactory.com]
Google indexes links to FF it finds on other sites. You can't just get a file listing of uploads to FF from FF (well, maybe with a court order).
Re: (Score:2)
That's nuts? What's to stop me from asking a friend to link to them, making them appear on google, and then linking to them?
Re: (Score:2)
The 'intervention' criterium I can get along with - it means you're going out of your way to do something that can be interpreted as facilitating illegal activity. The other two criteria, however, I think are bogus: 'new audience' - this is about news, new audience is what it is supposed to do, and 'profit' is senseless as an argument. Typical Dutch aversion to capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
The three-pronged test in Dutch law produces clearly wrong results because it looks at an ill-chosen or incomplete list of characteristics of the actions that it is intended to categorize. The crafters of the test probably had in mind certain implicit criteria (such as the actual distribution of content or actually making it available) that would first have to hold before the three-pronged test would be applied to determine whether such an action constituted "publication" in a legal sense. Yet the court is
Dutch servers becomes the untouchable? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not very clear on the jurisdiction of the Dutch court - but if hyperlinking equals infringement ruling only applies on sites which are hosted on Dutch servers, this will effectively make Dutch servers sort of the "untouchable"
Why would anyone want to host their sites on a Dutch server where court ruling such as puts on insane and unnecessarily limit?
Re: (Score:2)
Step 1: Post something cool on the internet
Step 2: Wait for people to link to it
Step 3: Change the page to something copywritten
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
Which means if you have ads on your site (or some other member to generate revenue) and you link to anything you do not directly control (most links) then you are risking infrnging. After all whomever does control the content you linked to can block it from showing up in google (after you've linked it) and change the content from something not infringing anyone copyright to something that does.
Of course courts are supposed to see through such cases.
What's up Netherlands? (Score:4, Insightful)
First all your websites have to put an annoying message at the top saying they are using cookies (duh, who doesn't).
Now this.
Re:What's up Netherlands? (Score:5, Informative)
the cookie deal is european wide legislation. each nation is free to implement it with their own law provided it at least satisfies the requirements in the european law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I know we're talking about Dutch privacy law in particular here, but that idea is so pernicious, and the mafiAA loves the lie so much, that it should never go unchallenged. So the following is in NO WAY an attack singling out you or your post.
The idea is BULLSHIT. Granted, it does use weasel-wording ("tied to" and "in most cases"), and It may (or may not) be legally recognized and upholdable bullshit, but bullshit is bullshit. The MO
Re: (Score:2)
AC has an interesting and useful post. I just wish to state that I in no way object to any part of the privacy law.
My issue is with the CONCEPT that an IP identifies an individual, and my concern is with any jurisdiction in the world applying this mistaken idea the other way round, to persecute individuals.
sgg63562hwyv6572vu (Score:2, Informative)
"However, these files can’t be found through search engines, only users with the exact URL have access to the files"
trolololo:
https://www.google.nl/search?q=site%3Afilefactory.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=site:filefactory.com+filetype:zip&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=QUX&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&filter=0&fp=1&biw=1440&bih=770&cad=b&sei=Gd9RUKvyD-mc0QWBmoCQDA&bav=on.2,or.r_g
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The point is that a query like "britt dekker nude pictures" would not (at that time) return the links that they published.
When it would be legal to post links like that, everyone could get around copyright issues by putting their material at some filesharing host and linking it on the main site.
The judge considered that to be unacceptable.
Next mission (Score:2)
Have Google check and filter _everything_ because of this ruling.
Maldenesque (Score:2)
Is she the illegitimate love child of Karl Malden? That's the most distracting schnozz I've seen on a woman in a while.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sick of tired of people mocking others for their physical appearance!
Besides, she's clearly the love child of Owen Wilson.
Well it could be I suppose (Score:2)
Solution (Score:2)
A solution easily presents itself: just link to a google search.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So it's a pro-Google judgment?
Don't link to crap before the Google crawler visited.
Re: (Score:2)
So robots.txt is supposed to apply to humans now? I guess that just means that nobody can visit a web site with a robots.txt file blocking their access.
Is making a bookmark infringement? What if I print the URL on paper? Is it just making the link clickable? What if I change that link to plain text and tell people to copy and paste it into their address bar?
I think Google should just block all Dutch IP's effective immediately. See what a web without linking is really like. When the court ruling is rev
That's really insane! (Score:4, Insightful)
Hyperlinks [wikipedia.org] are just references [wikipedia.org]. Just like we have done so far in speeches, in books and articles.
References don't contain the referenced information, they just direct the reader/listener to another "information container".
Back to the web technology, a reference to a file is not the file itself (like the information author+title+publisher is not the book).
A reference to a "pirated" file (whatever the content is) is still a reference, not the "pirated" file.
You could say the reference helped the pirated file to be spread on the net. Yes, indeed it did.
But still that's not infringement. They should ash to remove the reference and that'd be all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is obvious and even the Dutch supreme court recognised this.
The point in this case is that the hyperlink is not to a public site, but to a semi-private site that you can only find with the hyperlink (GeenStijl, who will appeal this ruling [geenstijl.nl], point out that google does index filefactory [google.nl]).
This is certainly no general ruling that hyperlinks to infringing content are illegal or constitute infringement in general. The question is whether the hyperlink can be seen as an act of publishing, e.g. opening up to th
Re: (Score:2)
Oh for gosh sake. It's not a "semi-private" site, whatever that means. The links in question are to publicly readable files sitting on a publicly accessible server - with URLs that inherently exist but which were not publicly discoverable until the links in question were made. Period, end of story. The front page of File Factory states in huge lettering "The easiest way to upload and share your files in the cloud". It's PUBLIC. For an uploaded file to be publicly discoverable and reachable, all that has to
Re: (Score:2)
The point in this case is that the hyperlink is not to a public site, but to a semi-private site that you can only find with the hyperlink
That's like saying that because a little hole-in-the-wall greasy spoon has the best gyros in town, and word has not spread far, it is really a private club. If the court thinks that a publicly accessible website is somehow "semiprivate", they are idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
This makes me curious whether URLs that are non-hyperlinked (i.e., "pre"/plaintext/whatever) would fall outside of this ruling. After all, they're not actually hyperlinks :)
Re: (Score:2)
>They should as[k] to remove the reference and that'd be all.
You were doing so well until you experienced a brain malfunction and went off the rails while typing the last line. That undermined everything you had said before.
Ah, the Dutch... (Score:3, Funny)
And farting in bed can constitute an oven.
Apparently... (Score:2)
Apparently, common sense isn't a requirement for a judge in the Netherlands. Here's what should have happened:
Judge: Your client made these files accessible on the world-wide web?
Lawyer: Yes your honor.
Judge: Without any sort of access control, like a login procedure or some such?
Lawyer: Yes your honor.
Judge: And now they're complaining that someone linked to them?
Lawyer: Yes your honor.
Judge: Please inform your client that he is an idiot. Case dismissed. *Bang*!
Re: (Score:2)
Extremely interesting case (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is an extremely interesting case. My first reaction was a typical knee-jerk don't touch my free hyperlinking speech! However, this goes further than that.
What has happened here, is that a URL was used that was effectively just as secure as one secured by a username/password. Only difference is that the username/password (or in this case another secret key, which is a mere technicality) were in the URL itself. The reasoning of the judge was that by publishing this secret, Geenstijl has effectively published the material that was protected by the secret. I think that's not that odd a decision. However, it is a very dangerous one.
What this boils down to, is whether the location of credentials should matter. One thing we all agree on, is that username and password passed in HTTP headers should be considered confidential. Using or publishing them without permission is most certainly illegal in most countries. Should a secret key or credentials that are part of or can technically be made part of a URL be treated in the same way? I think they should in obvious cases; for example using or publishing an url like http://slashdot.org/login?user=zmooc&pass=yo [slashdot.org] without my permission would probably be illegal. How obviously secret does an URL have to be for publishing it to be illegal? And who is to decide on that?
That's what this case is about or at least should be about.
Re: (Score:2)
Except, Google found it -- it was indexed by Google.
If Google can find it so can others.
Re:Extremely interesting case (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Stumbling upon such a url would be highly unlikely. About just as unlikely as guessing your /. username and password right in one go, which would be illegal.
Looking a node higher in a structure that is known to be hierarchical obviously is not "stumbling upon", nor is looking a node lower in a structure that appears numerically linear (like your zip file naming scheme). It is about just as logical as knowing there's an eight floor in a building once you've established you're on the ninth floor. Its existenc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would publishing a link to another site be illegal? If someone knew your username and password providing a direct login-link would probably violate slashdot's ToS but I can't follow the step to such a link being illegal.
What the judge did was equating publishing a link to a previously unknown copyrighted work with publishing the copyrighted work itself. It would be the same as making it illegal to tell people they can find ABC on the pirate bay if no one knew so before.
It was clear from the ruling and t
Re: (Score:2)
Using credentials without permission is illegal. If you knew my username and password or any other secret key that is used to protect a resource, using them would be considered illegal intrusion unless you had my explicit permission. Also, sharing them would be facilitating illegal intrustion. Such information being stored in or combined into a URL does not change the matter.
However, if you couldn't know you were using such credentials, it becomes another matter. And that is what this court case is about or
Re: (Score:2)
Using credentials without permission is illegal.
. Under what law?
Re: (Score:2)
That would depend on what jurisdiction you are under.
In NY you have: Article 156 of the penal code [state.ny.us].
156.05:
and 156.00.8:
Re: (Score:2)
In pretty much every jurisdiction that has updated their laws since the internet was invented.
Accessing a computer without authorization is illegal (pretty much everywhere). Knowing HOW to access the computer does not grant authorization for access. Don't confuse the ability to do something with permission to do it. Otherwise, simply posessing the key to a house would imply permission to enter the house.
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't see how that can be right. The address of your publication is not the publication, as can be seen by the fact that the address changed, but the content did not. The fact that you consider the address a secret is immaterial from a publishing standpoint, which is what copyright is supposed to be about.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of username and password . Usernames and passwords passed in plain-text are de minimis security. At best, at least under United States law (I'm not sure how Dutch law treats IP) the information may be classified as a trade secret. But copyright infringement has not occurred because direct copyright infringement requires actual copying.
This would be a perfect example of security by obscurity. A poster argues above that the same argument can apply to the configuration
Re: (Score:2)
I am inclined to agree with you. However, the situation has become somewhat complex; while HTTP does offer a great way to protect specific resources, it is not used in practice. I can't think of any modern website that uses it; practically everybody uses form-based authentication. Therefore, it has become somewhat muddy where the line is and when it is crossed.
So this means that when I encounter a HTTP Auth protected resource, the situation is entirely clear. However, when I encounter a non HTTP Auth protec
URL or hyperlink? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A very good question indeed. And what if the link was to an unindexed page linking to an unindexed page linking to an unindexed page linking to the "bad" item itself? Exactly who would be the naughty party in that case? The chronologically first in the chain? The chronologically last, who completes the chain? The guy putting up the "bad" item in the first place? All of them together? None of them?
What if party A lists the first 5 characters of the link and then links to party B, who lists the next 5 charact
So I can't create an index of books and movies? (Score:2)
If I were to create an index of books and movies and told people where they can BUY them, am I guilty of infringing on copyrights?
Clearly, no. We call this "advertising" and it's big business.
"Contributing to the deliquency of..." is not the same as being a delinquent minor is it? We have similar laws which fill similar needs. Why don't they just push for a law which describes what is actually happening rather than harm the law twisting it out of proportion and purpose?
I think it is beyond reason to argu
how does that work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pedestrian: Yeah I saw a guy holding a suitcase of watches just five minutes ago.
COP: Can you point in his direction?
(Pedestrian points)
COP: You are under arrest for copyright infringement!
Judge: GUILTY!
amoeba1911 (Score:2)
You are under arrest for providing with this example, under the doctrine of promoting and assisting crime. /FBI
Re: (Score:2)
The COP can't arest you for copyright infringement.
Only the copyright holder can make a case.
After all it is a civil case and not a felony.
And in other news... (Score:2)
Directionrights = Copyrights (Score:2)
Credibility of Dutch Courts: LOW (Score:2)
Had this decision been made in 1994 I would have understood that they discuss it, at all.
Seeing this Slashdot headline in 2012 makes me more embarrased than showing off my jewelry in a public bath.
This makes me wonder how ageing those judges were.
Sorry, the credibility of Dutch Courts in this particular case is rated: LOW
That Slope Is Slippery (Score:2)
IP (Score:2)
How deeply does this recurse? (Score:2)
If a site with links to violating material is in violation, then links to that site are in violation. The ruling is absurd on its face because if you follow it you could get "death by Bacon" on the Internet. OK, I really didn't have much to say here. I was just looking for an excuse to write "death by Bacon".
Oh, and everyone is a terrorist pirate. Please report to the nearest public school football stadium for um... west nile vaccine. Yeah... that's it. Vaccine...
The day after this ruling... (Score:2)
...Dutch web surfers found all hyperlinks removed and that the world wide web was flat text. Pity them.
Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately it doesn't seem that new, there's also the judge Chris Hensen who happened to be running a commercial anti-piracy together with the council for the plaintif while deciding that links to TPB should be blocked.
Frankly I suspect it's rare with members of the various parts of the judicial system in the field of IP who do not have significant financial interest in enforcing IP. Whether it's revolving door interest or more blatant abuses the field of government granted monopolies has always been lucrative for those on the inside, which probably makes the field very attractive for those with slightly lower ideals than what could be expected in a judiciary.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think your wild, conspiratorial accusations are completely out of line.
Slashdot and its biases theories aside, there are a lot of grown ups out in the world who have looked at IP law in general and, while perhaps accepting that there are occasional absurdities and oddities around the edges that do need to be worked out, have concluded that it is fundamentally good. They (we) have looked for this from multiple angles, including econonomic theory, economic REALITY (we now have excellent examples of rates
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey, well as long as you have looked at it from multiple angles and reached a conclusion you must be correct. In fact, I'll bet your facts, logic, and statistical models are unimpeachable. Referring to IPR instead of copyright, trademark, and patent protection was the coupe-de-grace...
Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air (Score:4, Interesting)
there are a lot of grown ups out in the world who have looked at IP law in general and, while perhaps accepting that there are occasional absurdities and oddities around the edges that do need to be worked out, have concluded that it is fundamentally good.
Isn't that the very problem the parent was describing? The judiciary should not be concluding that particular laws are fundamentally good, but applying them indifferently.
If nothing else, more law guarantees more work, so an impartial judiciary would not even celebrate the existence of some body of law.
Re: (Score:2)
I think your wild, conspiratorial accusations are completely out of line.
The problem is: we don't know. The legal world of IP (judges, lawyers, academia) is pretty small and specialized. The same judges handle the majority of cases, lawyers are also professors. All of them appear on commercial seminars. You can't speak of "wild, conspiratorial accusations" if key players don't try to avoid the suggestion of conflicts of interest.
All we have are the interpretations of law, treaties and precedents. General line: behavior on internet is being molded into the existing IP framework.
Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air (Score:5, Insightful)
Your naivete is endearing, or at least it would be if there wasn't so much needless BS for people to suffer.
You may disagree - but yes, the system is inherently corrupt, designed to have everyone clawing their way over each other to the top of the heap. Nothing 'conspiratorial', just normal, everyday nature at work. All other systems work precisely the same way. It is universal. It is also a scientifically proven fact that authority WILL be abused. Please, don't try to tell us it is not being so abused in this case, like so many others. That would be absurd. Your society feels that this level of abuse is acceptable. But that doesn't make it any less abusive. If this were 1820, would you be arguing for the property rights of the slave owner? Would you not condemn people if you witness them abusing an animal?
This little 'IP' business must be turned away completely. You seem to believe it's helpful to society, but it's only because it's convenient for you to believe propaganda at this point, for whatever reason.
You teach 'ethics' through guidance and example, not by dictate and prohibition. And you can foment nothing but disrespect when you don't apply the rules evenly, just like a coat of paint.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, lawyers & judges would *never* have a vested interested in MORE laws to provide work for themselves. /*cough* bullshit
Sadly Shakespeare's wisdom "The first thing we need to do is kill all the lawyers." won't solve the problem of greed.
Imaginary Property is neither real, nor property. Stop pretending it is, because I have a patent on two *numbers* to sell you ...
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeNumber.html [wolfram.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There was a time when a number of grown ups out in the world looked at chattel slavery and concluded that it was fundamentally good.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck you and your condescending attitude. Free speech is more important than copyright. Period.
Free speech is the freedom to say what you want without government censorship, not the freedom to copy other people's works and not pay for them. They are two different things.
You may well believe that it is perfectly legitimate to copy anything you are able to, but that is nothing to do with free speech.
It's a bit like how copyright infringement!=theft, as people love to point out here.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not even talking about copying others works here. We're talking about providing a how-to. That is clearly free speech which is being suppressed by the Dutch government.
Re: (Score:2)
If you knew anything about economics at all, you'd support the free market by advocating that copyright be abolished
How can it be a fucking market, free or otherwise, when you don't intend to pay anything?
The people producing music, writing or whatever release their works, and you copy them. There's nothing to do with economics going on, there's no trading, no swapping of goods for money or goods for other goods.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just happening in courts. Janelly Fourtou, an MEP pushing hard for toughened IP laws, also happened to be the wife of the guy heading up Vivendi Universal - a company that stood to benefit from such changes. Even if there was no intended self-interest, anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with propriety would surely avoid championing IP when she herself has such an obvious self-interest. It's not difficult to come away feeling that her husband switching to a career in sausage making would c
Re: (Score:2)
"... losing her interest in IP in favour of a sudden and strong interest in laws that favour sausage makers." ... losing her interest in IP in favour of a sudden and strong interest in laws that flavour sausage makers.
FTFY
Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't agree more. These links could sit out there for 50 years, and if no one knew about them or no one used them, not a single case of infringement would happen. Simply pointing to 'stolen goods' (I use that term with tongue in cheek) doesn't make the finger pointer guilty of infringement.
It's kind of ridiculous as to the power the media companies are employing in the courts and in the political system.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't seem to understand how IPR works. As it works in most countries, "infringment" is a judgement call based on intent, amount, use, and so forth. For example, I can link to CNN.com from my homepage. No problem there. However, let's say CNN one day accidentally uses a picture that they dont have the rights to there. Am *I* guilty? no judge in the world would say yes. On the other hand, let's say I make a direct link on my homepage to "get your free copy of (latest hot movie here)" which direct
Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air (Score:5, Insightful)
If we follow your process through to the logical conclusion, then it would imply that the person linking to the content intended to download every linked object, which is patently ridiculous. The person creating the links doesn't necessarily intend to do anything with the links other than to profit from site visits via ads or whatnot.
Note that in both of your examples, you are the one linking to and accessing the IP in question.
This is a dangerous judgement, make no mistake. It opens up any search engine which frankly is an algorithm and not self aware. These just scrape sites and produce the links. There is no 'intent' there.
Re: (Score:2)
"as damn well he should be able to."
from your comments I'm guessing you make your money through IP in some way but not at the coal face actually creating stuff, rather off to the side leeching money away as some sort of manager, lawyer or similar.
Copyright, trademark and patent law aren't all one homogenous mass, they've very seperate covering very seperate things and what can be good in one industry can be toxic in another: like patents applied to software.
IP law isn't whatever you want it to be or whateve
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. For the life of me, I can't understand what twisted logic and absence of technical knowledge is required to come up with many of the internet-related ruling these past few years. I keep hearing them, and think, "Surely you jest!" But no, they're actually being serious.
Constantly explaining the facts of life to people who really do live in bubbles is slowly eroding my own sense of sanity. "Do our thinking for us, but let us have veto control over it in case what you're saying displeases us" -> Gah
Re: (Score:2)
The law is an ass, and I'm looking at you, those who make and enforce laws and judge cases. I am not holding members of the public who sit on juries blameless when they immorally convict someone for breaking an evil and immoral law.
Re: (Score:3)
No it isn't. Wikipedia was known by the general public before you linked them from your comment. Furthermore, the content on wikipedia isn't infringing.
I've got copies of music available on my private server at home. That server can be reached from the internet. If you'd somehow found out the url of the copied songs, then you'd be publishing (i.e. making them known to the general public) them, which would be infringing. And my personal copies are legal since I'm allowed to make a private copy of music I own
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not though. Wilfully linking to material that infringes copyright can, in certain circumstances, also be considered copyright infringement. Linking to CC or GPL content is legal because they give explicit permission to be shared.