EU Rules Linking can be illegal

[DeepFrz]

The EU copywrite laws that are being proposed are also threatening to the internet. They are saying that news articles will be copywrite material for 20 years and if you link to an article you may be breaking copywrite rules. I do believe the fascists are trying to take over and limit the use of the internet for free speech and the dissemination of ideas.

One other good article on the EU plans.
https://juliareda.eu/2016/09/eu-freedom-to-link/

Think of the effort that CF management will have to put in to ensure that none of their links would infringe on these laws.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

The EU copywrite laws that are being proposed are also threatening to the internet. They are saying that news articles will be copywrite material for 20 years and if you link to an article you may be breaking copywrite rules....

But that's not the case. It was a link to a page illegeally containing copyrighted material. Link to the original news article would't matter. After all link to a legitimate adress is just an adress.. Copying the content without permission is another matter as links to pages containing such copies..

BR Teddy

[conachair]

The first comment on the link was bang on the money imho... ...


Can someone please check the CJEU's website for links to copyrighted content?

[MarkJ]

It will be hillarious when the USA gives up its 'ownership' of the internet.
Just like when Iran got onto the UN Committee for Human Rights the Internet is going to change in ways dramatic.

Some for the better as the Mullas stop porn on the net... The country that downloads the most is Pakistan. ISIS, et al, will stop their wars when they cant download a 72 year old virgin, or whatever it is.

I really can't believe how brain dead someone could be to chuck the internet to the wacko countries of the world

[Thorne]

OMG, so sad there are no longer going to be search engines in the EU......

Think about it.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

I feel this is a very dangerous precedent and is of vital importance to all of us on CF. I urge you all to read up on this and be ready to stand up against this form of internet censorship.

https://openmedia.org/en/disappointi...internet-users

You didn't just put a link in a post on CF did you

Why would anyone in the US (and shortly the UK ) worry about anything the EU has to say for itself. You guys still have free speech don't you?

Pete

[DeepFrz]

Oh, you mean the land of the free? hahahahaha

[Cadence]

MarkJ made reference to the UN. They are the biggest joke ever bought by developed nations. It should have gone the way of the League of Nations at the gitgo.

[Lake-Effect]

Before this thread goes totally to ****... there is in the publishing world an allowance made for citing passages of a protected work as part of a review or critique. And linking to a published and publicly visible online article is surely legal in just about any imaginable scenario. So I have little fear that linking to material that is already publicly available will be penalized.

Still, I don't like the EUs approach to the problem of online piracy. I don't like their decision re Google and "right to be forgotten" either.

[barnakiel]

I think it is 100% right to try and stop copyrighted material getting copied and exchanged over the net. This is why people "post the links". This is why the ruling was necessary.

The actual problem is actually elsewhere: this many years down the road and we are still lacking strong, reliable and trouble-free drm.

The above fact is making major model changes to how content is created, marketed and profited from. It is a process and will continue. Art, software, and nude images of this or that starlet on the FB - "leaked" ;-)

Will the ruling be ever enforced by the EU? Well, the EU cannot even agree on what is left and where is the right. Expect zero action next 15 years or so. Then a new ruling ...

Ignorant bureaucrats in Bruxelles and elsewhere making believe they are doing anything but profiting from their political associations and taxpayer funded jobs.

Only another revolution could shake this but the masses are doped with raw meat and cheap beer.

b.

[Stumble]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Before this thread goes totally to ****... there is in the publishing world an allowance made for citing passages of a protected work as part of a review or critique. And linking to a published and publicly visible online article is surely legal in just about any imaginable scenario. So I have little fear that linking to material that is already publicly available will be penalized.

Still, I don't like the EUs approach to the problem of online piracy. I don't like their decision re Google and "right to be forgotten" either.

The only way to get in trouble under this ruling is at a minimum to link to pirated works. That is content that is available without the consent of the rights holder.

Additionally there is some debate in the legal community about the following.

1) does it take actual knowledge of the fact the work is pirated? I tend to think yes.
2) does the rights holder have to send a take down notice before bringing a claim? I lean heavily yes
3) does the nature of the linking site matter much? Debatable, but it seems a commercial site has a higher standard of care than a non-commercial site (CNN.com vs your Facebook page).

This ruling does not make it generally illegal to post links to content, it does raise the bar on linking to content that is known to be in violation of copyright laws.

[Cadence]

I seriously doubt what goes on here could be classified as copyright infringement. Things like the ruckus about singing Happy Birthday takes credence from legit claims.

I would almost think a one liner of someone's work would increase their sales.

I hope the friend, a year older than me in HS, doesn't sue me for those copied book reports.

I thought this was about the last bastion of free speech.

[Pete7]

Absolutely, just think of the traffic that is driven to the cheap catamarans thread on here, never mind the boat yards and marinas when someone asked is there a good one near .........

Pete

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Stumble

(...)

This ruling does not make it generally illegal to post links to content, it does raise the bar on linking to content that is known to be in violation of copyright laws.

This is also how I understand what I have read.

Not all that glitters on the Internet is gold. Far from it.

b.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Stumble

The only way to get in trouble under this ruling is at a minimum to link to pirated works. That is content that is available without the consent of the rights holder.

Additionally there is some debate in the legal community about the following.

1) does it take actual knowledge of the fact the work is pirated? I tend to think yes.
2) does the rights holder have to send a take down notice before bringing a claim? I lean heavily yes
3) does the nature of the linking site matter much? Debatable, but it seems a commercial site has a higher standard of care than a non-commercial site (CNN.com vs your Facebook page).

This ruling does not make it generally illegal to post links to content, it does raise the bar on linking to content that is known to be in violation of copyright laws.

The cited case is basically of a small Dutch site [GS] posting links to unauthorized online copies of pix from Playboy of an apparently well-known presenter. It's not software piracy, the potential commercial gain/loss from the infringement is miniscule for both parties; it's more about control and celebrity embarrassment... kind of a funny test case for hyperlinking. But anyway...

The initial ruling contained the following

...the fact that [GS] knew or should have known that the initial communication of the photos on other websites had not been authorised is not relevant.

... and this has been and should remain the baseline for the Internet. If it exists, I can link to it. The infringement lies solely with the parties who have put the content online.

The latest ruling (the subject of this post) backs away from that, putting in some caveats about "for profit". But this is the thin edge of a wedge. If you have Google ads on your blog that maybe yield a hundred a year, are you now a for-profit endeavour?

So I remain wary of attaching legal responsibility to linking, as a substitute for proper control and protection of somebody elses content or IP.

There are many search tricks one can legally do on Google that will reveal reams of unprotected or pirated content. Are Google and other search engines now massive infringers?