4 ms·
I find it strange that merely providing a link to something can be problematic here, when it's the user's browser that follows the link, and Instagram's server
by dxdm 5y ago
I find it strange that merely providing a link to something can be problematic here, when it's the user's browser that follows the link, and Instagram's server that decides what content to serve for it.
Can I get into hot water when the content of the link changes after I link to it?
But then, the judges might not know the tech well, while I don't know much about law. Maybe the intent of the embedder to have the content displayed by embedding a link to it is all that's needed here? Without their embedding, the viewer would not see the copyrighted content.
Interested to hear more knowledgeable perspectives that can elaborate on the legal basis of these decisions.
- marcosdumay 5y agoHum... You are aiding in an illegal act. You know perfectly well what the browser will do when presented to that link, you know the site doesn't follow the law, and you know your user will be harmed on this specific way. I don't see a problem with you being held responsible. (Also, civil laws have a tendency of spreading blame over as many parties as possible when the victim is seen as powerless. That's a very good tradition that the EU started by the way.) If you didn't know that the linked site would misbehave, or what the browser would do, then you shouldn't be blamed. Still, if the victims are seen as very powerless compared to you, it's not rare for laws to still place you as an intermediary and require that you go settle your damages down with the other party. I think the GDPR shouldn't do that, but I don't know if it does.