 james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | reply to Link Logger
Re: Is having link to copyrighted material illegal? said by Link Logger:say perhaps I post in twitter (I don't use twitter but for example), that I'm going to see the movie X at theater Y, is that not posting a 'link' to where you can 'see/get' the movie and as such would that be illegal, certainly the movie makers want your friends to know your going to this movie, but that also implies that I'm seeing the movie in the fashion they intended Are you insane? That's nothing like what we're talking about... that's like posting a link to a product on Amazon. And obviously couldn't be made illegal in any way.
A better example would be your friend hosting a showing of a movie at his house, charging people an entry fee to cover his costs (that's illegal by the way) and you're the one who finds people to come to the movie. And guess what, it hurts the movie exactly as much (tip: doesn't hurt them at all). |
|
 swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | reply to Link Logger
Re: Is having links to copyrighted material illegal? Any original expression in a copyrightable category - such as writings, pictures, music - at least one copy of which is also "fixed in a tangible medium" - is copyrighted automatically at creation. You can also register the work with the copyright office, and this gets you some minor additional rights, but basically the law protects the work at creation.
To the question above about seeing the text of a copyright - it's not something the copyright holder makes up according to his preferences. Rather, it's defined by statutue, and the terms are alike for all works of the same kind.
And to the original question about linking: linking to something hosted by the copyright owner, or with its permission, is never infringing. That's whay it's OK to link to the Flash installer, for example - it's at Adobe, and Adobe is inviting people to download it.
Linking to infringing items is more questionable. A Supreme Court decision a few years ago expanded the characterization of contributory infringement a little. I think under the current rule, if the link is intended to encourage infringement, or this can be inferred, it may be an infringement itself.
Disclaimer: I did the JD and took the copyright class, but I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. |
|
swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | reply to Link Logger
Following up to remark about isohunt: it's actually not linking to infringing items. Isohunt links to torrent files. Those in turn are pointers to trackers, and infringing items may be available from still other locations via the trackers. So isohunt's activity is several steps removed from linking to infringing items.
Also, not all of the torrent files lead to infringing items. Some are out there with permission. Also, as far as I know, isohunt does not vet each of the items at the end of the chain, in advance, to decide whether they're infringing; instead they're listed more or less automatically, and the isohunt maintainers offer to take down links upon receiving complaints.
Thus, the question of Isohunt is far from a simple case like a link to an infringing file. |
|
 Its a SecretPlease speak into the microphonePremium
join:2008-02-23
Da wet coast
kudos:3 | reply to james
Re: Is having link to copyrighted material illegal? said by james:A better example would be your friend hosting a showing of a movie at his house, charging people an entry fee to cover his costs (that's illegal by the way) and you're the one who finds people to come to the movie. I believe this would be aiding and abetting if the friend charges for the movie.
--
"In the future, that which is not mandatory will be illegal" |
|
swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | reply to Link Logger
Re: Is having links to copyrighted material illegal? Someone asked:
"Is it copyrighted automatically at creation or at publishing? If a paper is not published then how could its copyright impact me if I do an independent work? Or is it a matter that it is copyrighted on creation, but enforced upon publishing (in whatever fashion)?"
The copyright comes into existence at creation. E.g. notes for a book, studio outtakes in music, etc.. It's true that enforcement becomes relevant only after someone else has been exposed to the work.
Independent creation is a complete defense. A court or jury has to judge whether two works coincide so much that they could not have been created independently, but if the evidence is consistent with independent creation, then both parties have good copyrights.
Note that this is a major difference with patent law, where independent invention is not a defense and the second inventor, even if unaware of the earlier patent, can be liable for infringement. |
|
|
|
