Spanish Court Reverses Course: Says Linking To Infringing Material Is A Crime

from the political-maneuvering dept

We've noted over and over again that Spanish courts have quite reasonably interpreted Spain's copyright law to mean that a site that just links to infringing content is not liable for the infringement. This makes a lot of sense. You should not blame a third party for the actions of its users. Yet the entertainment industry has made these rulings out to be an absolutely horrible miscarriage of justice, and have -- with the support of the US government -- pushed hard for draconian new copyright laws within the country. While public outcry (and leaked State Dept. cables showing that the US was really behind it) helped derail the effort the first time around, supporters are still trying to push it through.

However, while the existing law stands, it's a bit surprising to see that one Spanish court has gone completely in the other direction and found the operators of a couple sites to be guilty of criminal copyright infringement, for which they may face a year in jail, in addition to fines. The lawyer for one of the guys suggests that this ruling is a result of politics, not the law. It's hard not to think that way given how it appears to fly in the face of most other decisions in Spain. I would imagine that there's still going to be an appeal in the case before it's really settled.

Filed Under: copyright infringement, crime, international politics, linking, spain

Spanish Appeals Court: Linking Is Not Infringement

from the and-again dept

For a few years now, we've been pointing out that various Spanish courts have reasonably ruled that merely linking to infringing works hosted elsewhere is not infringement. It seems that Spanish courts have to keep repeating this, and now there's yet another ruling, this time from an appeals court, once again pointing out that linking is not infringement. It's nice to see the courts keep saying this, though it only seems to give fodder to the entertainment industry to whine about how Spain's copyright laws need to be fixed. Let's try this on for size instead: it actually seems to show that Spain knows how to properly apply liability and to not blame an intermediary service provider for actions of its users.

Filed Under: copyright, linking, spain

Czech Pirate Party Tries To Show That Linking Is Not A Crime

from the will-this-backfire? dept

The Pirate Party in the Czech Republic is trying to show that linking is not a crime by putting up sites that merely link to some infringing material. The party is doing this to support a high school student facing massive fines for linking to some works covered by copyright. I do wonder, however, if this will backfire. Law enforcement, industry folks and politicians who simply don't understand the technology will not realize the point of such a site, and merely assume that it's yet another "piracy" site. I would think a more effective means of doing this would be to merely iframe the results of a Google search...

Filed Under: copyright, czech republic, linking

AP Finally Learns That On The Internet, You Can Link To Other Sites

from the about-time dept

Well, look at that. The Associated Press has reached 1993 or so, and realized that they can (and probably should) link to other sites when reporting on a story that those other sites reported first. Of course, they're still learning some of HTML's features, such as the idea that you can link to actual words in a story. Instead, they'll be putting the links (via Bitly) in parentheses right after they cite the source.

Pickups will now include a parenthetical bit.ly link to the original story, in addition to the credit. So in the fireworks story, you might see: “According to the Boston Globe report (http://bit.ly/pDHZ6h)...” The change will be most noticeable on state wires, where pickups are common.

And, of course, they're still working out the kinks. Apparently, some of the tests didn't show up as links, but instead showed the full HTML text for a link (i.e., <a href="...">). Oops. Still, we welcome the Associated Press to the world wide web. Look around, you might enjoy it. Just, please, skip over the blink tag phase.

Filed Under: journalism, linking
Companies: associated press

The Copyright Alliance Blog Takes On Someone Who Wrote Something

from the afterparty-to-be-held-at-the-'tomb-of-the-unknown-writer' dept

A short while ago, we were openly discussing how not to hold an open discussion in the free air of the internet. It was a highly editorial post, stating my (and apparently, others') disagreement with the view that the "high road" is composed of off-hand insults and closed comment threads.

With that in mind, I bring you another blogging faux pas, courtesy of the Copyright Alliance blog. In a post titled "Setting the Record Straight on PROTECT IP," Sandra Aistars takes aim at an article posted elsewhere on the web:

Since the introduction of the PROTECT IP Act we frequently see articles and blog posts that severely mischaracterize and make false assertions about the legislation. For example, today we noticed a piece that claimed that the PROTECT IP bill would be a detriment to entrepreneurship. As an organization that represents individual artists and creators, who are themselves entrepreneurs and small businesses, we share the author's concern for entrepreneurship and economic growth. The creative sector in the United States, which is comprised largely of people you would consider the copyright owner next door, accounts for 11.1 million jobs across the country. Unfortunately his portrayal of the PROTECT IP bill is factually inaccurate in virtually every respect.

This is quoted verbatim. If you haven't noticed by now, there are no links to the original article or any mention of who wrote it. Considering this lack of information, Aistars could be talking about something her neighbor wrote and shoved under her door for all we know. In this day and age, I don't see how you can expect to tackle someone else's arguments without at least mentioning their last name.

It's a shame, too. Aistar's post does a fairly good job laying out her disagreements (even if I don't agree with all of her disagreements) in a very easy-to-follow point-by-point argument. (Although, she does spend more time than is needed pounding home the point about the bill addressing only sites dedicated to infringement, which according to the beneficiaries of this law include archive.org, Vimeo, Soundcloud and 50 Cent's personal website.) The problem is, no one knows who she's arguing with and even worse, nobody can verify whether this mystery person made the claims she's attributing to them.

It would seem that linking to the original article would be second nature... unless you're trying to avoid people actually reading what you're arguing with.

If you're confident in your argument, why wouldn't you link to the article? Techdirt disagrees with pretty much everything and yet, every post links to the source of disagreement. But the more Aistar calls out "the author" as a nameless, linkless being, the less inclined most people are to believe that her piece is even-handed.

If you haven't Googled up the solution to this "mystery writer," I'll go ahead and provide you with the link that the Copyright Alliance apparently couldn't get coded in by presstime:

"Blacklisting Entrepreneurs: PROTECT IP Could Harm Web Startups" by Paul Kedrosky 

Of course, it's no use rushing to the Copyright Alliance blog to ask why this was handled this way. The comments are closed and pingbacks have been politely asked to leave. Ironically enough, Copyright Alliance did take the opportunity to exercise their one-way rights and leave a comment on Kedrosky's post, which takes this whole situation past "obtuse" and into "egregious." Since I told myself that I'd be very even-handed in dealing with this bizarre breach of internet etiquette, I'm ending this post now and opening it up for discussion. Have at it.

 

Filed Under: blog, copyright, linking
Companies: copyright alliance

Belgian Newspapers 'Give Permission' To Google To Return Them To Search Results

from the who-did-what-now? dept

We just wrote about how the Belgian newspapers who, back in 2006, sued Google for linking to their newspaper websites. Earlier this year, the newspapers won that lawsuit, and the court ordered (as the lawsuit specifically asked for) Google to remove those sites from "all" of its sites. However, when Google actually did that, and their traffic plummeted, the newspapers started freaking out, complaining that Google was being vindictive. Talk about sour grapes from a winner. You get everything you ask for... and then you complain?

Of course, the reality is that these newspapers totally miscalculated. They wanted to have everything, which meant Google sending them all sorts of traffic... and they wanted Google to pay them for the privilege. Of course, after these complaints, it appears Google had a chat with Copiepresse, the organization representing these newspapers, and has "received permission" to put the newspapers back in the index, along with promises that they won't be sued again for copyright infringement for doing so. So what has Copiepresse accomplished? It spent five years fighting Google... and won... and then let Google immediately go back to doing what it was doing before. Nice work, guys.

Filed Under: belgium, copyright, linking, newspapers
Companies: copiepresse, google

Newspapers Win Suit Against Google, Get Their Wish To Be Delisted, Then Complain

from the the-world-we-live-in dept

For years, we've been following the bizarre legal attack in Belgium of a bunch of newspapers against Google for daring to link to them without paying. It kicked off in 2006 with a lawsuit. At the time, we couldn't believe that these newspapers seemed to actually be complaining that Google was giving them traffic, but that's what they did. And, amazingly, earlier this year, they won the lawsuit, with a Belgian court telling Google to pay up for past links -- and to remove all of those links.

So... you'd think the newspapers would be happy, right? Nope. David Muir points us to the news that they're complaining about the "harsh retaliation" from Google dropping them from Google's index.

So, let me get this straight. When Google links to them, it's "theft." But when they don't link to them, it's "harsh retaliation." How does that work?

Of course, what it comes down to is that this is all about money. The newspapers just want Google to pay up, so they pretend they're offended by the links, even though they know they need that traffic. So they sued, got their money... and are now suffering because Google won't link to them any more (under direct orders from the court). Perhaps next time, they'll think through the long term consequences of opting out of Google's index...

Filed Under: belgium, copyright, linking, newspapers
Companies: copiepresse, google

Police Arrest A Bunch Of Folks In Europe For Linking To Infringing Content

from the linking-=-crime dept

After the US lobbyists complained about Kino.to, an online site that linked to (but did not store, copy, reproduce, transmit, etc.) infringing works, apparently European law enforcement decided to "do something." Working off of a Dresden-based warrant, police raided homes in Germany, Spain, France and the Netherlands and arrested 13 people, with a 14th still being sought. The site was apparently quite popular in Germany, and with other German-speaking people around the globe. What I'm having trouble understanding is why this is a criminal operation, rather than a civil operation. Anyone who felt they were wronged by the site could have filed a civil suit. Furthermore, despite a number of similar operations, it's still immensely troubling to see people arrested for linking, rather than for violating any of the specific rights prescribed to copyright holders. I recognize, of course, that copyright holders are upset about sites that link to unauthorized versions of their works, but shouldn't the targets be those who actually are uploading the works, rather than those who are linking?

Filed Under: arrests, europe, kino.to, linking

Senator Wyden & Zoe Lofgren Not Impressed By PROTECT IP Or Feds' Responses To Questions About Domain Seizures

from the isn't-that-always-the-case dept

The two elected officials we've seen push back the most on plans like COICA are Senator Ron Wyden and Rep. Zoe Lofgren. So, it should come as little surprise that the two of them have released a statement saying that the answers the government gave Wyden after he asked some questions about the domain seizures were were insufficient. I particularly like Senator Wyden highlighting the government's complete failure to explain how linking is infringement:

“Particularly troubling is their refusal to explain how linking is different than free speech. Given that hyperlinks in many ways form the foundation of the Internet, efforts to go after one site for linking to another site – which the Administration is currently doing and the Protect IP Act would expand on – threaten to do much more than protect IP. There are many actions that we can all agree the Administration can and should be taking to crack down on counterfeiting of U.S. goods and the illegal sale of U.S. IP products that don’t involve advancing novel and unsupportable theories like holding sites liable for linking.”

It's really unfortunate that it appears there's only one Senator and one Congressional Rep who seem willing to actually push back against these abuses of free speech rights, but kudos to Wyden and Lofgren for standing up for pesky little things like the First Amendment.

Filed Under: copyright, domain seizures, free speech, linking, protect ip, ron wyden, zoe lofgren

The Senators Who Say Merely Linking To Certain Sites Should Be A Felony

from the oh-come-on dept

I wrote earlier about how the new PROTECT IP Act guts parts of the DMCA, but as you dig deeper, it's looking even worse. The original (and now updated) article focused on the use of the term "interactive computer service," which was in a draft copy of the bill. At the last minute, that was changed instead to be "information location tool." While, at first, this may seem to be a narrower definition, there are some serious concerns that this effectively makes it illegal to link to any website that is accused of being "dedicated to infringing purposes." That's because an "information location tool" is defined under current law to be: a "directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link."

Yes, you read that correctly: a link is an "information location tool" and such tools may be barred from pointing to sites deemed "dedicated to infringing" purposes. That seems like a massive breach of the First Amendment. If there is relevant information, as someone covering the news, why should I be prevented from linking?

Making matters even worse is a companion bill introduced by Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons, which would ratchet up charges for sites that stream infringing works to a felony. The specific text of the bill is not yet public, and it's likely that it just extends the "public performance" rights to section 506a of the Copyright Act (which only covers distribution and reproduction rights today). But, that leaves open a huge question of what is considered a "public performance" and how you define "streaming" in relation to a public performance. I can see it reasonably applying to a site hosting the content and streaming it... but what about an embed or a link, in which the content never touches the site in question at all? Tragically, we've already seen that the feds consider merely linking or embedding to be a form of a felony -- so it appears this bill is designed to make that even clearer, and that is really dangerous.

Put it all together, and our elected officials are now claiming that linking to something can be a felony. Yeah. Scary.

It seems that we really should highlight the list of Senators who have sponsored these bills, and who are telling you that linking to content should be considered a felony. The first bill is sponsored by:

• Patrick Leahy
• Orrin Hatch
• Chuck Grassley
• Charles Schumer
• Dianne Feinstein
• Sheldon Whitehouse
• Lindsey Graham
• Herb Kohl
• Chris Coons
• Richard Blumenthal
• Al Franken <-- Updated to include, missed him on the first pass

The latter bill is

• Amy Klobuchar
• John Cornyn
• Chris Coons, who has the distinction of sponsoring both dreadful bills

So, there you go. The Senators who think it's okay for the government to put people in jail for linking.

Filed Under: felony, infringement, linking, protect ip