EU Rules Linking can be illegal

[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

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that it can be illegal for websites merely to link to copyrighted content, even if they don’t host such content themselves.

[UNCIVILIZED]

They'll surely have "fun" enforcing that one. As it would practically necessitate shutting down the internet, as well as virtually all social media.
So while I've not read all of the info in the link, corporations will likely kill this quickly. Since it will be a killer for them in terms of advertising & revenue. Both formal advertising, & informal. Which the latter probably generates more revenue than the former. So...

[sailorboy1]

They think they can control what people do on the internet? Good luck with that!

[SV DestinyAscen]

There's always a balancing act between liberty in expression vs. protection of IP. If your entire "innocent" site involves providing links for almost always providing illegal or IP violating content, of course you should be potentially liable.

[sailorchic34]

It's dealing with for profit websites that link to pirated software, music, etc. on another website, that do so for profit.

https://www.ft.com/content/a1125e96-...a-de4532d5ea35


Lets hope this does not bite me in the posterior

[DeepFrz]

sailorchic34, its more broadreaching than that I think.

Links are the lifeblood of the Internet, and this ruling will have a chilling effect on our right to share and access information freely. Nobody should need to worry about being sued merely for linking to freely available content. Forcing people to pass complex legal tests before sharing links is just unworkable.

[The Garbone]

Don't fret folks. There is absolutely no reason to be concerned with powerful central authorities regulating expression. It is for the good of the children.

[AnglaisInHull]

I've read a couple of news stories on this; the one on openmedia.org is more alarmist than most.

There will be many more court cases before the boundaries are clearly established.

[Lake-Effect]

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

This is such a cop-out on the part of the EU. While I have no problem with the reasonable protection of IP, attacking those who link to instead of those who actually host infringing material is definitely a bad precedent.

(sort of like politicians attacking illegal immigrants instead of the companies that hire them. Did I just say that? Yes I did )

It remains to be seen if this is just a convenience tool to shut down linksites, or whether it is the thin edge of the wedge... but again it's a bad precedent.

[roverhi]

Our current Commander and Chief is in the process of turning over control of the internet to these Euro Bureaucrats and their ilk throughout the world. Like censorship and bureaucratic meddling just to gratify their need to control everything down to your bowel movements, wait till next week.

[reed1v]

Originally Posted by roverhi

Our current Commander and Chief is in the process of turning over control of the internet to these Euro Bureaucrats and their ilk throughout the world. Like censorship and bureaucratic meddling just to gratify their need to control everything down to your bowel movements, wait till next week.

We have a "commander in chief"? Thought the guy that use to be in charge has decided to ignore his responsibilities since he will be kicked out of office soon.

[Numawan]

Please read the press release of the European Court of Justice before spewing too much non-sense
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/d...cp160092en.pdf

[transmitterdan]

I don't get a lot of comfort from the ruling itself. It seems to say a for profit site would be presumed guilty of copyright infringement via a link and at the same time a non-profit site would be innocent. Is this how the ruling reads?

[Cadence]

Enforcement on things like CF, for copy write infringement, would not only be difficult but not worth the effort. The president of such a ruling is scary.

[Stumble]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

I don't get a lot of comfort from the ruling itself. It seems to say a for profit site would be presumed guilty of copyright infringement via a link and at the same time a non-profit site would be innocent. Is this how the ruling reads?

The ruling is far narrower than that. This is actually pretty similar to the US process.

You can post anything you want, including any links that you choose. If the copyright holder contacts you and says 'that data is ours and has been posted without our consent' then you have an obligation to remove the links. YouTube deals with this by the thousands every day (see take down notices).

The presumption is that any link can be posted, and that it is fair game. But if the copyright holder informs you that it is illegal, and you choose not to do anything you can be on the hook. Which sounds like a pretty fair way to handle it (with some concern around the edges).