3 ms·

> now has an obligation to check whether or not the owner of every single linked page owns the copyrights That isn't what the ruling says: you can still assume

> now has an obligation to check whether or not the owner of every single linked page owns the copyrights That isn't what the ruling says: you can still assume content is legal. Only when you know (or "should have known") it isn't do you need to unlink it. In this case, geenstijl.nl (which is a professionally-run news site that likes to troll and stir up anything to get traffic) repeatedly linked to leaked playboy pictures uploaded somewhere on the internet. There was no way they could claim innocence. They expressly and repeatedly decided to link content they knew was illegal and would get them a ton of traffic.

fauigerzigerk 10y ago
>That isn't what the ruling says: you can still assume content is legal. Only when you know (or "should have known") it isn't do you need to unlink it. That is simply incorrect. Here's what the ruling says: When hyperlinks are posted for profit, it may be expected that the person who posted such a link should carry out the checks necessary to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published. "Carry out the checks necessary" means that you cannot simply "assume content is legal".