linking now illegal, google on "to sue" list
Australian courts have just delivered another pearler, with wording so broad that linking is illegal and everyone from bloggers to Google is in the firing line. Copyright ruling puts hyperlinking on notice - web - Technology - smh.com.au.
A court ruling has given the recording industry the green light to go after individuals who link to material from their websites, blogs or MySpace pages that is protected by copyright.
...
Ms Sabiene Heindl, general manager of Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI), said similar action could be taken against individuals who, like mp3s4free, used the internet to link to copyright-protected material.
...
Ms Heindl said that this could apply even if a person had embedded a copyright-infringing YouTube clip in their blog or MySpace page.
...
"Mp3s4free was different in the sense that it actually catalogued MP3 files that were infringing copyright material - Google doesn't do that," she said.
"There is, however, action that is being taken against Google in other jurisdictions, and we're awaiting that eagerly."
Well, the internet was nice while it lasted.
Yes... but the upheld ruling is for: "sound recordings downloaded from files at remote websites accessed via links on an appellant’s website"
Not linking as such but giving the appearance that the work on offer is yours etc is just not on.
People/sites should be careful what content they embedding and how they are linking to media files. Copyright should be upheld. The press are beating up on this one.
Hey anonymous, is that your real name?
It should be made incredibly clear what consitutes cataloguing of links and what, in complete detail, breaking this law entails. Everyone uses the internet, it is part of free speech, people also expect links (if you don't link you are sometimes considered as not verified information)Links can be evidence and can prove any point. Even the point of copyright infrigment. For instance you could have a site which 'shames' other site who hold copyrighted information, linking to those as evidence. You could then be subject to breaking the law in this circumstance.
It is therefore imperitive that the law is explained in full as it jepodises the whole internet world. This is our free world, our free speech in peril. The government want to slowly take this away from us and they will do it through copyright.
Not everyone uses the internet, H Prav. It's probable that most people in the world haven't used a telephone.
Back on topic, this law looks so broad as to be basically meaningless. I hope. Anyway, the court has limited jurisdiction.
TRiG.