That's not the problem. The problem is that the law wants the webpage owners to be liable for copyright infringements from whatever content users generate.
Gotta love that they can get something removed that's not copyrightable.
I did have this happen to me once when I linked to a non-infringing page that had a link to an infringing page. It was a black mark on my record and I guess it was my fault for not verifying that none of the pages linked to from the page I linked to had any infringing content.
What about a page that links to a page that links to a page with infringing content? :)
OK, there could be an argument that knowingly linking to infringing files is outside of freedom of expresssion. But the article says nothing about a knowledge criterion.
It says "owners of sites found to be making money [directly or indirectly!] from linking to pirated material will face prison sentences of up to six years and the closure of their site. ... users of these link-sharing sites will not be targeted under the new law"
This is even worse. Users who knowingly post links to infinging files would be a more appropriate target than the site owners. Under the new law, anyone who allows user posts will have to pre-moderate everything or prohibit users posting links?
The obvious problem with the law is much more basic: how can the site owner know whether there is or is not infringement at the other end of a link? Are site owners expected to somehow have a list of all copyrightable works and know the terms on which each of them is licensed to each recipient?
Placing the burden on the operator of the linking site creates a situation where no one will dare to make a link, because if it turns out to go to something infringing the linker will be subject to prosecution.
There may be cases where linking violates copyright (Total News seems reasonable, although that's really probably more of a trademark issue), but I think the main problem is that most judiciaries and legislatures are a bit unclear on how the internet works.
However, I'm also in a better position than judiciaries and legislatures, since I'm talking about right and wrong, not legal and illegal.
I've never understood how links can fall victim to copyright. A link is just a signpost instructing your browser where to go next. There is no copying involved, anywhere. Subjugating links with copyright law is morphing reality into fantasy.
Linking to a site that infringes copyrights may make the linker liable on the grounds that they are committing contributory copyright infringement. It's cheaper for search engines to delist sites than fight that battle--particularly if their corporate masters also rely on licensing media for distribution themselves.
A quick search seems to indicate that yes, you might be responsible for linking to the altered content. As a website author you have - in principle - a duty to check what you are linking to. It is unclear what that means in practice. I would guess that it would involve a test if timely detection of alteres content on the linked site would have imposed an undue burden. The only part that is absolutely certain is that a website owner must react if they are notified that they are linking to illegal content. Other than that, it's seemingly a grey area.
The website will be liable for the copyright infringement as if they would have uploaded the material themselves if they do not implement a good filter whatever that is.
I don’t think that necessarily makes it legal - they might be liable for "contributory copyright infringement”, which occurs if you deliberately and knowingly link to copyrighted materials and encourage/enable others to infringe.
Important tidbit: SO's content is CC-licensed and this is probably completely legal (apart from those who fail to add a link to the original). Not that I don't want those sites to burn in hell, but they are not even in a grey zone legally.
The law says it’s only copyright infringement if you know the link contained infringing content, and if you make money with it that’s counted as "you know".
That’s all it says – this website is again blowing everything out of proportion.
I think that's more where this legislation is coming from. Some people have built a business on aggregating links or embeddings of copyrighted material and those sites always use the legal defense of "we don't host any of the content so it's not our problem." I imagine this is very frustrating to copyright holders, so it's reasonable that they would seek redress of some kind.
Of course, making any copyright-infringing link illegal would be far too heavy-handed, but I don't think that's a likely decision here.
Can anyone explain to me how displaying those sites on demand is not copyright infringement? I'm seriously curious, I don't know much about copyright laws.
Web sites are already responsible for copyright infringements committed by their users
reply