3 ms·
Would 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 sh
by seszett 10y ago
Would 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