Linking To Unauthorized Content Is Copyright Infringement In The UK?
from the don't-link-to-this-site dept
A website based in the UK that linked to unauthorized versions of films and TV shows has been apparently shut down and the site's creator has been arrested for "facilitation of copyright infringement." This must be something similar to "inducing infringement" which is against the law in the US (as per the Supreme Court -- not any written law as of yet). However, it does seem a little silly to go after this guy. As long as he wasn't hosting any of the content and merely linking to it, it's hard to see why he should be charged with anything. The people who are breaking the law are those who are actually uploading the content -- yet in this day and age where so many people seem to think that it's the easiest person or company to find that should be targeted, it's no surprise that it's being shut down, even as the actual infringing content is still just as available as it was before.
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
UK TV networks invest huge amounts of cash to get these shows, yet a massive chunk of their potential audience got impatient and has already watched it. I’ve no doubt that people would pay good money to download these shows with reasonable quality over Amazon, yet that is (ironically) only available in the US.
Again a massive potential market goes un-tapped because we’re still waiting for business to catch up with innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In most cases, though, the target audience for these bought-in shows are anybody who is stupid enough to actually buy something based on in-show commercials and not tech-savvy enough to skip those commercials. Thus, the mostly tech-savvy downloaders who do all their comparison shopping online shouldn't really be losing them any revenue. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An idiot's way out
There is a website.
Website's only purpose of existance is to deliver (obviously illegal) coprighted content.
Method doesn't matter.
I am not a big fan of copyright-police-organizations, but hiding behind lame legal-loophole excuses doesn't help either side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An idiot's way out, wrong.
It only points the way, that is a difference.
As an example, when does the "facilitation by linking" end?
Should TechDirt also be held accountable?
After all they did help facilitate my ability to know of illegal content online. They did make knowledge available that I did not know before, knowledge that now lets me violate copyright. When does it end?
The answer is it ends when it stops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An idiot's way out
Could have fooled me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An idiot's way out
Would your opinions change if the website had the title:
"Tv-links.co.uk. Helping the law find illegal content on YouTube"
Then they would be marketed as heroes of the industry, helping to sniff out those shows posted illegally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An idiot's way out
Instead of arguing 2$ court-room logic, try thinking.
What is the real purpose of the site?
Stop thinking like wannabe lawyers and start thinking like people ffs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An idiot's way out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heroes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The internet may well loose any meaning
Say that you think that what you've seen and linked is non-infringing. How can you be sure that tomorrow, in the same location, there will not be infringing content ?
The only way out would be a link-less web.
Should we accept this to help an ailing industry to survive ? Or rather they should innovate ?
Matteo, an Business Administration student from Bocconi University in Milan, has done some number-collecting from balance sheets of Viacom, Warner, News Corp, Disney and Universal, EMI, Sony BMG, Warner Music.
They are surely approximate and wrong (for example, they don't take properly into account short-term currency variations, inflation, etc.) but nevertheless they make mee feel that when I'll be ailing, I hope to be in as a shape as they are...
(graphs here for video http://tinyurl.com/26jt4l and here for music http://tinyurl.com/yrlw8o)
p.s. tv-links pointed to a large amount of perfectly legal content (i.e., for the vast majority of content in italian, the national broadcaster site was linked)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where does it end?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They Sure Do Hate Promotion
Tv-Links was a great site to find out about TV shows/movies/anime. And then go buy the DVD set what was interesting. But since those TV shows can't stand having someone else promote their goods, I will just go spend my disposable income elsewhere. It will be increasingly difficult for me to sample TV shows to figure out what to buy.
And it is a serious bummer, because my DVD collection of TV shows (legitimately purchased) was getting pretty large. Of course, I suspect that the studios want it this way. Pay first and find out after they have my money whether or not the show was worthwhile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Madness
They link to everything.
I can honestly say that every time i have pirated anything, Google has been the start point.
Oh yeah, and good riddance to TV-Links, half of the stuff on that site was dead links. There are plenty more sites that do the exact same thing, and i am assuming their traffic will have increased substantially.
FACT and the UK government have done nothing to stop piracy, not one pirate work was hosted on that site.
I saw a link to their legal page on slashdot and it looked as if they had a lawyer write it , it went along the lines of: We dont host this material, we assume that all material posted to 3rd party sites has been cleared for use on those sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Madness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
> content and merely linking to it, it's hard
> to see why he should be charged with anything.
More to the point, it's this bizarre notion that since it's done on the internet, there should be a whole different standard applied. If someone wrote a newspaper article about a bookstore that was providing bootleg copies of the latest "Harry Potter", no one would think of holding the reporter liable for "inducing infringement" for telling people the name/location of the store. But for some reason telling people the location of infringing works on the internet is punishable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More on this in the Guardian
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/10/20/tv_links_shut_down_for_linking_.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about child pornography?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about child pornography?
No.
...the person who hosted it?
Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about child pornography?
Criminal offense vs civil offense.
As a side note:
Will libraries be prosecuted for a sign pointing to the photocopiers on-site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about child pornography?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh wait...they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misleading statement
"This must be something similar to "inducing infringement" which is against the law in the US (as per the Supreme Court -- not any written law as of yet)."
Regarding the above "...not any written law as of yet."
Rather a narrow and self serving description of the law if you exclude taking into account what the Supremes say. You are happy to quote the Supremes extensively if it is their description that infringement-is-not-theft. You were all about the Supremes Sony Betamax protection of anything as long is it had any low percentage of non-infringing usage.
One reading of MGM Grokster is that it adjusted the Sony Betamax standard to bring it forward to the current climate a bit.
So, let's be consistent here about whether the Supremes matter in regards to setting standards that count in the legal arena.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misleading statement
Mike consistently acknowledges SCOTUS authority. Where's the inconsistency?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Down With Google
I guess Google's in violation now as they linked to a site that provides copyrighted material illegally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
puh-thetic, why dont you just say what you mean: "think like me you idiots". You gave what you thought was a pithy synopsis and the "right" answer, and when people disagree for perfectly reasonable reasons (many listed above), you say they arent thinking like people?!?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harumph
That's the strangest description of freedom of speech I've ever heard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh I see. It's not their actions that you believe constituted a crime, but what they were supposedly thinking. Otherwise known as "thought crime."
It may not be their sole purpose, but if one looks at the searches conducted it becomes apparent that it is a large part of their purpose. They could accept reports of domains supposedly hosting any infringing content and filter those sites reported from all search results but they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's invalid to claim that intent should not be considered when deciding whether or not to condemn someone for their actions. If you're a complete stranger walking past me, and I stretch in my seat and accidentally trip you, it's unlikely I would be held accountable for potentiailly harming you. If it is well known that I find you to be a condescending and rude individual, and the exact same scenario plays out, I'm extremely likely to be condemned for potentially harming you.
The law is intended to judge people based on what they allowed their emotions guide them toward, so you can't claim that intent is irrelevant. Don't misunderstand me, however, as I am not claiming that anyone should be punished solely based on their intent - intent without action is not, and should not, be punishable. Whatever goes on in one's head is their own business, and only when they begin to put things into motion based on their thoughts should their actions -and- intent be judged.
- It may not be their sole purpose, but if one looks at the searches conducted it becomes apparent that it is a large part of their purpose.
Not quite. The searches conducted on such services indicate the purpose for which people use the service, not the purpose of the service itself. It is similar to the point Mike has made numerous times: just because drug dealers use telephones to set up drug deals doesn't mean the telephone company provides a criminal service. On the other hand, if the phone company offered a service touted as, "THE service for all your illegal narcotic drug dealings," and it was (by some ridiculous feat) designed such that it facilitated nothing but illegal drug deals, then yes, the company should be held liable for it's actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This company wasn't claiming to be for illegal activities. You are apparently unfamiliar with the case at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]