how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
 Link LoggerPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
 ·Shaw
| reply to AB
Re: Is having link to copyrighted material illegal? said by AB:You're asking about hosting links on a website, and not speaking of simple personal possession in a browser's bookmarks or favorites folder. The thread title doesn't seem to make that distinction. At any rate-- There are always people who want to blow smoke up our asses and pretend they're unaware of any wrongdoing on their part, whether that be strictly legally speaking or from a moral standpoint, and these people often walk a fine line with, or use as cover, any law which may technically be open for interpretation or is not easily or avidly enforced. And sometimes the law itself is 'wrong', and shouldn't be adhered to, enforced, or paid any attention to. I'm not going to pontificate on which side of the fence this particular petition to the court or the court's ultimate ruling belongs on, but I do hope Mr. Fung is not one of those who would pretend there's no mud clinging to his shoes as he walks through the swamp. He knows full well what he's doing. Whether or not he's well within legal and moral boundaries in hosting these links, I'm not prepared to say. Guess that's part of the reason we have these courts. One of the things I have been looking for is a sample of an online copyright for a movie so I can see if it states within the copyright any limitations as to advertising or distribution of the movie. Now this gets a little weird to say the least as 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 (ie I'm paying for a ticket to see the movie, now if my link included how to sneak into the theater then perhaps that would be different), so no doubt intent is going to play a factor in this as the idea behind isohunt really is to get a 'free' copy which is definitely a copyright violation for most movies on that site?
Now the important thing as you mentioned is the onus is on isohunt to have obtained whatever permissions or evidence would be required to put up the link, you can't claim ignorance here as that is not a viable defense (you took the action, therefore you assume the responsibility of any failure to research or otherwise seek provisions for your action). Now certainly the idea that they will take down a link is one thing, but they could be responsible for damages while it is up and for the cost of having someone monitor the site for copyright infringing links (you are inflecting a cost upon a company for your actions, and therefore could be consider liable for those costs, the courts could enforce a seek permission first before posting the link ruling which would basically drive isohunt out of business as I doubt they could cover that cost for all the links they have).
It will be very interesting to see how this goes (if the courts even agree to hear the case), what arguments will be taken and what the final ruling will be and then how much sway that will have outside of Canada (if any and if he loses if he moves his servers again). I'm sure Google and the other search engines will be quietly standing at the back of the court making notes like crazy.
The question is basically what other people think of this action, what the arguments will be and what the final outcome will be. I'll go out on a limb here and predict that he will lose his case and isohunt will either close or move again, but it is a better idea for him to test this case in Canada then the US as the punitive costs if there are any are likely to be smaller in Canada then in the US.
said by AB:sometimes the law itself is 'wrong', and shouldn't be adhered to, enforced, or paid any attention to True, but wouldn't it just be better to change that law? In Canada for whatever stupid reason the Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to write/change some laws, which I always thought was wrong as their job is to enforce and maintain the laws created by government, but somehow that has been perverted on occasion, they can offer their interpretation as feedback to the government so they can tune the law, etc but as for defining or creating it that is not their role.
Blake
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool | | |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | said by Link Logger:One of the things I have been looking for is a sample of an online copyright for a movie so I can see if it states within the copyright any limitations as to advertising or distribution of the movie. Most studios overstate their rights. There is no penalty for doing so.
If Canada is like most western nations, then don't expect any clear answers in the law. Advertising is copyrighted and therefore distribution of their advertising is a exclusive right. The titles of their works and the names of their theaters are probably further covered by trademark laws, which would allow you to tell your friends about a movie.
However, as excesses go, companies are now using "copyright" to limit speech in the sale of physical property, with conflicted results -- such as the Louis Vuitton case (won) in France »www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422673041 (The court ruled that eBay was responsible for the "illicit sale" of [non-counterfeit] perfumes from the LVMH empire, which can be sold only through the brands' "selective distribution networks." )-- or this case (lost) in the USA »www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/ti···nsive-tr (Ruling that Tiffany cannot expand copyright's protections to prevent 3rd-party sales).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
 MchartFirst There.
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL | reply to Link Logger
»www.hulu.com/watch/1522/master-a···he-world
There you go. | |
Link LoggerPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Shaw
| Denied, one of few downsides of being Canadian  I really wanted to see the Summer Olympics via Silverlight on MSNBC, but same issue with that.
Sorry, currently our video library can only be streamed from within the United States
Hulu is committed to making its content available worldwide. To do so, we must work through a number of legal and business issues, including obtaining international streaming rights. Know that we are working to make this happen and will continue to do so. Given the international background of the Hulu team, we have both a professional and personal interest in bringing Hulu to a global audience.
If you'd like, please leave us your email address and the region in which you live, and we will email you when our videos are available in your area.
You picked a pretty good flick for an example as I thought it was good enough to purchase.
Blake
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool | |
 james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | reply to Link Logger
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). | |
 Its a SecretPlease speak into the microphonePremium
join:2008-02-23
Da wet coast
kudos:3 | 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" | |
|
