EU Rules Linking can be illegal

[Stumble]

In this case, the photos were owned by Playboy, the site hosting the photos were a pirate site and the website that was sued provided links to the pirated site.

After Playboy found out about what was going on, the initially send the linking site a take down notice of the links. Saying pretty much 'you are linking to a pirate site hosting our stuff, please stop.' The linking site said, 'nope we are making to much money off of those links to take it down.' So Playboy sued.

Under any interpretation I have seen from knowledgable sources at a minimum there is a requirement that the links be to pirated data, and that the linking site knew or should have known that the links were to pirated data.

There is some question about
- the level of knowledge that can be imputed to a website based on their commercial nature. So CruiserForum is probably (almost certainly) fine, but if you run a website that distributes links to pirated video (PirateBay) you could be hosed. Because PirateBay is in the business of distributing links to pirated videos, CR isn't.

- whether a take down notice is required in order to file suit. I tend to think it isn't required, but a very good idea. It removes the question about if the site has actual or constructive knowledge by informing them in no uncertain terms that the links are to pirated copies of the works.


As always keep in mind that European (excluding England) law is Civil not common, so court ruling are non-precedential. They may inform a later court looking at the same issue, but are not binding. This leads to looser language in court rulings than we tend to see in the US because the courts aren't as worrying about having to undo bad precedent.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

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?

That is the fear. There are many who would say yes. Web sites that have no original content of their own but just links to others have been attacked as destroying value of the copyrighted web content. Infringement of copyright is basically about preventing the copyright holder from getting the full value of what they create. It is easy to make and argument that links do exactly that.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Stumble

In this case, the photos were owned by Playboy, the site hosting the photos were a pirate site and the website that was sued provided links to the pirated site.

After Playboy found out about what was going on, the initially send the linking site a take down notice of the links. Saying pretty much 'you are linking to a pirate site hosting our stuff, please stop.' The linking site said, 'nope we are making to much money off of those links to take it down.' So Playboy sued.

A twist in this case is that the pictures were somehow online before that Playboy issue hit the newsstands. Which raises the issue of protection and control. How were these images released or stolen? A disgruntled photographer or Playboy employee? Lax security? Could this be a botched PR campaign designed to increase demand for the issue? We simply don't know. Shifting the focus from those who had a duty of care to those who simply linked is evading investigation of the actual criminal act.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by 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

Where?!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

That is the fear. There are many who would say yes. Web sites that have no original content of their own but just links to others have been attacked as destroying value of the copyrighted web content. Infringement of copyright is basically about preventing the copyright holder from getting the full value of what they create. It is easy to make [an] argument that links do exactly that.

The power of the WWW is hyperlinks. Everything falls out of that. Copyright holders need to properly secure their IP (many don't; this case seems like one of those) and many have to learn that their IP finds more markets by being more broadly disseminated. Someone who simply aggregates and curates links is still, in most cases, adding value to the content.

[transmitterdan]

Companies that invest in original content will disagree with you. They want users to enter through their home page and be exposed to their adverts. A link site that just sends readers/viewers straight to the good articles/videos bypasses the revenue generators thus destroying value. Believe what you want, but content creators are getting sick of people linking into the middle of their content.

[barnakiel]

Yep.

I am 99% with you. Except where you mention 'destroying value'. What I want to say is that it more like 'not creating added value' than destroying anything. We cannot destroy things that have not become yet.

Other than that I would be surprised if the EU - which is a commercial enterprise - would align with consumer interests. The EU has been created to promote company/commercial/creator business, not to deliver free lunch to couch potatoes.

You want content, you pay for it.

b.

[barnakiel]

Hyperlinking does not create, nor does it destroy, value.

A website does not create value nor does an iPod create value.

Value gets created on access (or consumption) of the (affiliated) content.

The kind of value I could not care less about. Fluorescent toothpaste and evangelical podcasts.

I am not a business owner, nor one enslaved in working for one. I do not have to care about a business owner's value.

I simply respect it when someone says: 'this is my content, please do not link'.

When no such statement present, linking has been assumed innocent.

Things do change over time though.

Link while one can!

b.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Companies that invest in original content will disagree with you. They want users to enter through their home page and be exposed to their adverts. A link site that just sends readers/viewers straight to the good articles/videos bypasses the revenue generators thus destroying value. Believe what you want, but content creators are getting sick of people linking into the middle of their content.

For a long time now, it has been entirely possible for website owners to technically enforce just about any precondition (watch the ads, pay a fee, have an access code, etc) before delivering some arbitrary content, so that it's simply not possible to "just link" to the good stuff... unless the site owner is lazy, careless or technically naive. You can even 'block' Ad-Block now. So the case you're stressing is not that common.

AGAIN, the GS case is about linking to images before that copy of Playboy had hit the stands, so there's alot more going on in this case (who leaked the images and why, etc) than just some linking by GS, which kind of makes it a funny test-case for hyperlinks.

[George DuBose]

Make me laugh...If I had a penny for every time my photos are stolen and reposted, even when other people claim copyright to my photos, there isn't much I can do and trying to get an attorney interested? Ha...

Trying to control the internet is like trying to herd cats.