4 ms·
I realize this is the EU, but if this ruling were to happen in the US, sites like cracked.com who link to copyright-encumbered content all the time (mostly Yout
by morganvachon 10y ago
I realize this is the EU, but if this ruling were to happen in the US, sites like cracked.com who link to copyright-encumbered content all the time (mostly Youtube clips of movies and TV shows, often produced by highly litigious houses like Disney/Marvel Studios) and make a ton of money from ads, would quickly be sued out of existence.
- seszett 10y agoWould that be a bad thing though? Those websites are purposefully acting in a way that doesn't respect the copyright of the owner of the content they want to show. That they do this through a third-party host shouldn't be that important.
- shiven 10y agoYes. As a strong opinion holder in the copyleft philosophy of any and all content, I feel such sites have a right to exist and profit from content as much as the copyright holders (who are not necessarily the creators of said content). But hey, this is just the opinion of some random dude on the Internet.
- madgar 10y agoA random dude on the internet who must know that they their opinion is not current law in any of the countries under discussion?
- Natanael_L 10y agoUsing the status quo as the basis of an argument of how things should be isn't very meaningful...
- posterboy 10y agoIf what is and what isn't law was that clear cut, the case wouldn't escalate to the European Court of Justice. Add to that that laws are arbitrarily incoherent and therefore the decision is just one possible interpretation of the law, albeit one that will be upheld.
- Natanael_L 10y agoWhy shouldn't it, when the host is a much more obvious target?
- seszett 10y agoThat the host is breaking the law doesn't mean the site that links to the host isn't breaking it as well.
- Natanael_L 10y agoIf it already is accessible to that public, a mere pointer shouldn't be illegal.
- posterboy 10y agoIt could be counted as advertising illegal activities, which is often illegal, too.
- Natanael_L 10y agoByebye phonebook
- icebraining 10y agoUsually the amount taken of a work is evaluated for a fair use defense, as is its inclusion in a broader work (article, in this case). Taking a small excerpt of a movie for purposes of parody is different from publishing a photo wholesale.
- morganvachon 10y agoI agree, but again using Cracked as an example, they have many times linked to a 30+ minute video to make a one-sentence joke. That's far beyond fair use as far as the law is written. They also obviously do not get prior permission from the publisher; a typical older article from Cracked will have embedded videos that show "this was removed for copyright violation" placeholders.
- icebraining 10y agoYou don't need prior permission if it's fair use, and it can still be fair use even if the video is removed (the DMCA ensures it has to be taken down regardless, at least until the uploader sends a counter-notice, and YT goes even beyond that). Still, the 30m for a single joke might be infringing, yes, but so what? If it would be infringement if they served the video from their own servers, why shouldn't it be by embedding from YT?
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago>If it would be infringement if they served the video from their own servers, why shouldn't it be by embedding from YT? // Because then the infringement, if there is one, is YouTube's and not the linker-to-YouTube's.
- icebraining 10y agoNo, according to the courts, (in the EU) it isn't. My question is: why shouldn't it be?
- 10y ago