Judge Says No Deep Linking To Videos
from the that's-a-problem dept
Deep linking is apparently an issue that just won't die. You would think, by now, people would realize that if you put something on the web, people can link to it. If you don't want them to link to it, then don't put it online, or put in place one of the incredibly easy technical methods to redirect traffic that comes into the content you want to hide. It's really not that difficult -- but too many people still haven't figured it out, and unfortunately some of them are judges. In the latest case, a federal judge in Texas has said that it's illegal to deep link to a video on another site if that site objects. The fact that linking is the core of the internet and the other site can easily put in place technical measures to stop it apparently isn't particularly important. Admittedly, part of the problem may be that the guy who did the linking also chose to defend himself rather than hire a lawyer, and apparently part of his legal strategy was to accuse the company suing him of "acting like Genghis Khan." You'd have to hope that a lawyer would be able to better defend the case and explain to the judge why this ruling doesn't make much sense -- but in the meantime, beware of linking directly to videos on other sites.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Fine Then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. Get judge to make wacky law
2. "obect" to users deep linking youtube videos and sue users for all the bandwidth that was used from your deep link
3. Profit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can't give someone your wallet, tell them they can do whatever they want with the money inside, and then sue them for losses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
by Paul on Dec 22nd, 2006 @ 12:53am
Ah the answer to google's billion dollar question, how to make money off of youtube?
1. Get judge to make wacky law
2. "obect" to users deep linking youtube videos and sue users for all the bandwidth that was used from your deep link
3. Profit!
END QUOTE
The problem here is this comment listed as #1 is the main reason we have some of the problems with the legal system today.
For one, most people who read Pauls comment he has labeled #1 do not even realize how wrong this comment is.
Second, the sad truth is that most Judges do believe in Pauls comment #1.
Last time I looked the three branches of the US Government have distinct jobs.
Judges DO NOT make law, the Congress makes law!!
OMG! Imagine that.
Please read your Constitution of the US and understand it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So if a law is passed that says it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk and judge "interprets" that to mean that we all have to start driving on the left-hand side of the road, then so be it. At least until a higher ranking judge overturns it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Please state the very first case that this happened with and the reasons given as to why this could be done at the time.
If you can answer this question, other than the recycling of things that you have been brainwashed with, I will be impressed.
Then explain how this is constitutional in the first place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Please state the very first case that this happened with and the reasons given as to why this could be done at the time.
If you can answer this question, other than the recycling of things that you have been brainwashed with, I will be impressed.
Then explain how this is constitutional in the first place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But... huh?
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But... huh?
So, how does one explain the mountain of terrible, uninformed decisions by judges? I find it hard to believe that there are no educated judges. Somewhere there must surely be a few that are qualified to preside over technology affairs, that perhaps even own a computer or have family that work in IT - hell, maybe there's even a judge or two out there running Linux!
I'm not going to answer my own question, because it's tiresome and we all know the answer - it's just a question of how bad and when we are all prepared to change it, but I'm sure that age and technical ignorance are neither synonymous nor the root of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bloody DMCA again
Judge: Ok
Public: Can't he just lock his door?
Judge: I said Good DAY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bloody DMCA again
Public: He didn't just leave his door open, he gave us directions on how to get there!
Website: But now they're inviting their friends, and I don't like that.
Judge: Ok, I'll make them stop.
Public: Can't he just lock his door?
Other Public: Or at least close it. And remove the "Welcome" mat.
Judge: I said Good DAY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bloody DMCA again
Now, if you leave the door open you prolly won't complain about people entering if they don't do damage. You will if you close the door and they break in.
This time I don't think the judge should be blamed as much as the site... Isn't it harder to sue everyone who links directly to videos instead of just putting some workaround to avoid it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hire a Lawyer for $500 per Hour over a Link????
'less we forget, that is JUST ONE JUDGE'S RULING!
Ask 100 judges accross the nation how they would have ruled given the same facts and there will surely be many diverse opionions.
Even, the state appellite and court of appeals often do not agree unanimously, and decisions are often split, and differ depending on which state the action is started.
But, of course if one does NOT want a video to be linked to, a Webmaster can easily get around this by adding a cut and paste non-hyperlinked url....
www.techdirt.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Website: Wah my front door is open! Judge make them stop coming in here!!
Judge: Ok
Public: Can't he just lock his door?
Judge: I said Good DAY!"
ROFLMAO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dont be hatin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a site says that you can't do something with content it owns, then that should be respected. Face it -- when you link to a bandwidth-intensive resource like a video, you are making the host expend money for no benefit, yet you get benefit for no expense. That's not fair. Nor is it sensible to permit from a business perspective (and, notice to all the kiddies out there, if it weren't for _businesses_, who are trying to make money, the Internet wouldn't be accessible today by anyone outside a research university).
This is very much like plugging your space heater into your neighbor's electrical outlet without asking them and even after they've said you may not do that. Is that right? Is that the type of me-first-to-hell-with-the-rest society we want?
If a site wants to let people link to stuff, it certainly should be able to. But it should _NOT_ be OK to take someone else's bandwidth and content if they don't want us to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Craig
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: Craig
Yes, I do know about the supposed work-arounds. All those do is force me, the site owner, to expend more effort and resources to further protect something that is already rightfully mine. That is, they are just another lock on the door.
The problem with that approach is that technological restrictions are rarely good solutions to bad social behavior. That's why DRM doesn't work. That's why few will ever willingly buy a car that doesn't let them speed. Etc., etc.
If people respected others' property and expenses, including the cost associated with hosting and serving a 30MB video file, then we wouldn't need to get the courts/police involved at all. Yes, that would be ideal, but it's certainly not realistic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE: Craig
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Age discrimi-nation??
Ask yourself this: Out of an 18 year old and a 86 year old, which do you think can make a better judgement about the internet? Someone who, no doubt, can't remember a time when there wasn't a world wide web, or someone who is wondering what happens when the internet tubes get clogged and if he needs some type of internet flood insurance?
We are being lead by men and woman who are one or two generations ahead of us-- people who are disconnected from the current times and views of society.
I'm not saying that all old people are senile or slow-- or that their input to the legal and political world isn't useful and valid-- but I don't need a judge who needs his secretary to show him how to check his email making decisions on things he doesn't understand, like IP address and deep linking.
and, as low as it is, I need to point out that before you knock someone's grammar, you should check your own spelling. :-P
Merry Christmas, folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Age discrimi-nation??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not like he was linking to their site, which would be the friendly thing to do (so they could make their money off their sponsors and such). He really was just jacking their content (according to the article) for his own site. You clicked on the links, and your media player opened up with the copyrighted material in it, coming from their server out of their pocket. Lame.
So, regardless of what technical steps the copyright owners could or would take to stop it, I still think the defendant is a bit of a pud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Age Discrimination
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
httpd.ini and .htaccess
With Windows you can use ISAPI_Rewrite, this is what I use on my servers. It is a commercial program and costs a little money but the syntax is very similar to mod_rewrite and it's worth it IMHO.
Eric
http://www.mapvisitors.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Gives? is very wrong!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe I *am* confused!
Do you suggest, then, that we give a judge a little pre-trial quiz to check if he is up to snuff on the subject? If he isn't does he get a chance to study and try again? Perhaps extra credit if he knows the answer to the bonus question? Who will decide if a judge knows enough? Me? You? Another judge? Bill Gates?
The laws don't change, more or less, but how they are interperated does change-- how does your grandfather feel about pre-marital sex? How does a 25 year old feel about it? Not the same, I imagine.
Sure, I do like the merit based concept, really. It just seems a lot harder to implement and control than a banket age limit, is all.
And if this 'merit based' concept you cling to is so great-- why are there drinking limits and driving limits on age? Why not implement this concept there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe I *am* confused!
As to your other point. In this country all attorneys have an undergrad degree. Many are computer enthusiast. It is not difficult to find one who is qaulified in a particular area. Some attorneys even practice in the technology area and have this as a specialty. Court administrators have the power to appoint these attorneys as special judges to hear a case on a as needed basis. Beyond that, there are allways expert testimony that a judge can request be presented at trial to bring him or her up to speed. Yes, I did say her. You would allow a woman to be a judge wouldn't you? Or would PMS preclude them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The wrong idea.
I am merely offering an option, though, I'd like to know where you get your data about the degrees of attorneys, or where they are located throughout the country. I only ask because it seems made up. I would *highly* doubt that most judges sitting at the moment even had the choice of computer science as a degree, let alone chose it. Then again, I have no data that says it isn't true, and you seem to have data that says it is.
On asking for an expert-- the judge has to ask for it, and, judging by some of the decisions I've heard about, they are not assking for it. No expert is going to say the internet is like a series of tubes... maybe I would to explain it to a 7 year old, but I am not an expert, and a judge is not a 7 year old.
I tried my best not to use a gender specific pronoun, if I did, forgive me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is the responsibility of the host to manage their own resources and bandwidth, period. If you put media up on a public server, connected to the Internet, and don't manage the access and usage, you can't blame other people for your problem. The guy linking may be a mooching douchebag, but the people hosting the media are a bunch of idiots for trying to solve their problem with a lawsuit instead of using easily available technology to fix their site.
This is a problem for a smart webmaster to solve, not a lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I dream of an Internet genie
If this were a case of someone accidentally publishing proprietary intellectual property or trade secrets to a public website, then the court injunction would be too little too late. The cat is already out of the bag, and your competitors already know your secrets. Realistically it's up to you (the CIO) to protect your assets, not the court system to try to put the genie back in the bottle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correct Anaylisis by Mr. No Such and Brian A.
As for my friend Infamous Joe, I am trying to caution you against setting bars to employment based on age. That, as we say in the legal / poli sci profession is a "slippery slope". Once one limits employment by age, race and gender are not far down the line. I did not think you were judging bases on sex joe, I thought if I brought it into the argument you might make the connection yourself. Sadly, I was disappointed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: #17
Think about it, I host a site, I put a bunch of videos on that site. I make sure all my videos have a www.rstr5105.com watermark. You deep link to one of my videos, I get a free advert.
Now, I don't support a free-to-deep-link-to-anything method, because say I have a .pdf floating around my site, this .pdf is the reference manual to some antiquated piece of machinery which I sell to put the bacon on the table. That's when deep linking becomes bad. (Granted I don't support selling information, I believe information should be free, but, it's just an example)
Deeplink=free advert=more hits=more money from those advertising on your site=good for business.
In my book the "Potential Gain" far outweighs the "Risks" and "damages" of deep linking. Simple Risk vs. Reward economics.
That's my two cents.
$nick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The confusion arguement.
It seems to me, that while this is an extremely rousing discussion about the legitimacy of any particular judges ruling based on age, technological proclivity, and personal bias, it seems like it's a little off point now.
While in some regard I agree with Joe that we need a method to allow for intelligent and informed decision making in the court room, I also agree with David that disregarding the ability of any given judge based purely on age (and based on the last post possibly sex) isn't exactly the solution either.
I believe we need something akin to specialization in the judiciary process. (And it's entirely possible it's already out there or in the offing and I'm just unaware of it. This isn't *my* area of expertise...) Right now you have multiple specializations in the types of cases a particular judge will sit on. Supreme court justice, civil court judge, traffic court judge, etc. right? Why then would it not be possible to create a body of justices that is solely concerned with technology? They would have to pass a certain amount of testing to ensure that they're well versed on the current technologies, and have to re-certify on a semi-annual basis. (Something akin to how Master Mechanics, System Administrators, and Armed Forces personnel do now...)
And of course it's entirely possible that this proposed solution will only create more problems, or is somehow inherently flawed. But I believe that we would be better served attempting to find a reasonable solution to this complex issue before it changes from a precedent to a standard.
On the topic of deep linking:
Based on the information presented, the Defendant appears to be a moron and the company suing him could probably use the services of a savvy web team to replace what they’ve got right now.
The Defendant should have hired a lawyer to represent him. “… A man that represents himself has a fool for a client…” Yes, I can understand the righteous indignation this person probably felt after being served with a lawsuit from “the man”, and possibly the inability to raise the funds to hire a proper defense attorney. However, there are multiple options that were available to him. (I.E. The EFF, ACLU, etc.) Instead of doing his own homework, he allowed himself to become a precedent in yet another misguided technology trial.
The prosecuting company is either litigious by nature, or just needs to hire a better web team.
While searching for more information on law regarding deep linking, I found the following from the Legal500.com website:
I know that deep linking and intellectual property have been topics of controversy for some time, but it is interesting to me how Hong Kong was already publishing articles regarding these topics in 2001.
My opinion is that both the person that defended himself in court, and the company that’s got the inept IT department should both be laughed at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The confusion arguement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A rose by any other name....
Here's a good example. Social Engineer.... For years these people were just called "Con Men". But nooooo.... We've got to give them a fancy intelligent sounding name. Talk about giving someone more credit than they deserve....
Um... yeah, next thing you know, my trashman will want to be called a Sanitation Engineer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]