Can A Link, By Itself, Be Copyright Infringement?
from the someone-please-explain dept
A report in Billboard Magazine mentions that the IFPI and the MPA (the global versions of the RIAA and the MPAA respectively) have successfully been able to get ISPs in Mexico to take down 35 blogs which they say contributed to music and movie piracy. Specifically, they charge that the blogs had thousands of "infringing links." Of course, that leads to a rather obvious question: what the hell is an "infringing link"? Is it a link to infringing content? If so, then Google and pretty much any search engine is equally guilty. Simply linking to something, by itself, is not and should not be considered infringement.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
Filed Under: blogs, copyright infringement, links, mexico
Companies: ifpi, mpa, mpaa, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The frak?
The *AAs are the ones who love the "IP equals Real Property" argument, yet nobody would take seriously an attempt to say, hold a bus company responsible for trespassers because they took a bus to the property they trespassed upon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The frak?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The frak?
(What the hell does that mean, anyway?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The frak?
In the case of the **AAs, it's pretty appropo. I guess we just have to hold out until they run out of money!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From that link? It sounds like nothing of the kind, AC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legality?
There are straw-men arguments that can be made but really look at the real facts. A link is just a pointer to where information of some kind -may- exist.
Does knowing that information may be somewhere violate laws? It shouldn't.
Does telling someone else that information might be at a location you know about violate laws? I don't see how it should.
Does getting information that has been granted a temporary monopoly on duplication by your government from someplace violate laws? It probably does.
A more interesting question: If you download something without knowing what it is, and find out it's something you didn't want, (and delete it) have you violated the law?
Que sensational but somewhat plausible example:
What if that automatically happens when you open an HTML email? Which some foreign group looking to cause disruption sent out through a spam-bot net so that hundreds of thousands of innocent people would 1) see child porn. 2) be logged as having seen said porn before the server was scheduled to be raided.
(The above argument is why I default to plain text email.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Link as a fact
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
W1 links to W2 AND W2 links to C1 => W1 links to C1
We can use this for multiple purposes. For example we can find a series of links from *AA websites to infringing content and demand the *AA websites shut down. We can then go after all sites that link to *AA sites by applying the transitive link property again. Eventually this will completely orphan the *AA websites with no outbound or inbound links.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Infrinnging links now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The blogs in question clearly directed traffic with the blogger's knowledge. Google on the other hand automatically generated the link (also loosely covered by a 'common-carrier' protection legal defense strategy).
Lastly it comes down to money. Google would fight it and win. The IFPI and the MPA (the global versions of the RIAA and the MPAA respectively) have to build up a case history prior to going after Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It all comes down to intent
More so, if the blog in question has advertising on it, and profits from it's traffic (and perhaps a traffic increase because of the links to stolen content) then they are doing so for financial gain.
It's the point everyone forgets about places like Pirate Bay: they all sing kumbaya and claim it's all about making everyone equal, in the meanwhile the owners are stuffing millions of euros into private offshore accounts. Don't fall for the hype, someone is making money off the stolen content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It all comes down to intent
So, someone has figured out a way to monetize it properly. Someone else should be taking notes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It all comes down to intent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It all comes down to intent
What was stolen ? Is the original author missing something ? Then they better call the police. Infringement is NOT theft. Try reading up on Thomas Jefferson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Intent
Can you point to where in the law it says that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Intent
Just because you are on the internet doesn't mean that the law of the land you live in doesn't apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Intent
What makes it so 'obvious' ? Perhaps some people like their 'material' distributed to the widest possible audience.
Also, Please stop with the Stolen crap, No one has had their works stolen unless they no longer have it. FFS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Intent
Obvious? Let's see: unreleased record albums. Videos of movies not yet released. Movies shot in theatres with a camcorder. "hacked" software (like adobe stuff with keygens). I could go on and on. All of that is pretty darn obvious.
Remember too: Ignorance of the law or circumstances isn't a defence, it's an admission of guilt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intent
Sorry, but that's not even remotely close to being true.
Like it or not, if someone has a copy of something they didn't rightfully gain, they have stolen it. a digital copy isn't any different from shoplifting
Like it or not, it is different. One is a physical item, one is not. That you don't recognize a difference simply means you refuse to acknowledge reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see nothing
But at the same time if you point at the unlawful act, you are guilty of copyright infringement ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fawk all the RIAA(s) in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]