6 ms·

Supreme Court of Canada: No Liability for Linking

215 points by mef 15y ago

Shenglong 15y ago
[Redacted: Not funny]
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  There's nothing funny aboot that joke.
  - Shenglong 15y ago
    Redacted :( Different type of humor I guess.
    - pavel_lishin 15y ago
      I was actually trying to play along, with the about/aboot switch...
      - Shenglong 15y ago
        Someone down-voted me, so I assumed they didn't like it :(
        zacharycohn 15y ago
        They downvoted because it (probably) didn't add anything to the conversation. This isn't Digg.
ck2 15y ago
It's going to be interesting when a dozen different countries have a dozen different resulting rules for the same question.
- 0x12 15y ago
  Already there is a significant pay-off in researching the laws of the place where you intend to incorporate.
  - egiva 15y ago
    Yeah, I would go one step further to say that there's a need for an international treaty to standardize these laws and regulations for what in essence is a very international internet.
- benmathes 15y ago
  It's both interesting and nerve-racking to see location-dependent legal codes (all of them) butt heads with this technology we've built which makes distance and location irrelevant.
Osiris 15y ago
The Internet’s capacity to disseminate information has been described by this Court as “one of the great innovations of the information age” whose “use should be facilitated rather than discouraged”. Hyperlinks, in particular, are an indispensable part of its operation...The Internet cannot, in short, provide access to information without hyperlinks. It's nice to see some common sense in the ruling
- Wistar 15y ago
  "It's nice to see some common sense in the ruling" No kidding. The first I've seen since the appalling Corley/Goldstein case.
  - marekmroz 15y ago
    That case was in US though.
RyanMcGreal 15y ago
The decision also drew reference to the "centrality of the role of hyperlinks in facilitating access to information on the Internet" and that restricting the use of hyperlinks "would have the effect of seriously restricting the flow of information and, as a result, freedom of expression."
gruseom 15y ago
This is a good ruling, first because it protects freedom of expression, second because it gets the internet in a way that bodes well for the future, and third because the quoted excerpts are written in such clear English that they're actually easier to understand than the surrounding post.
redthrowaway 15y ago
I wonder how this will impact on the legality of sites such as thepiratebay in Canada. The first quote, "I would conclude that a hyperlink, by itself, should never be seen as “publication” of the content to which it refers." would seem to suggest that merely hosting a torrent file, which is analogous in function to a hyperlink, cannot be seen as equivalent to hosting the material to which it grants access. While one of the judges said something to the effect of "intentions matter", there could be a fairly strong case here. IANAL, don't go starting a torrent site in Canada on my advice, etc.
- fleitz 15y ago
  A good friend of mine works for isohunt (Vancouver based torrent site), they're being sued in the US IIRC. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the court finds a different approach for working with torrent sites, that court recently decided that those being questioned by police do not have the right to a lawyer. At least up in Canada we jump through all the hoops to strip people of their rights. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/10/08/supreme-court-charter-right-lawyer-interview.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/10/08/supreme-court...
  - pavel_lishin 15y ago
    Well, that's terrifying.
  - Luyt 15y ago
    Their excuse: "His access to legal advice would have mitigated the impact of the police’s relentless and skilful efforts to obtain a confession from him"
- nobody314159 15y ago
  Not quite the same thing. The ruling said that publishing a hyperlink wasn't the same as re-publishing the original article. Making a torrent file available is providing a way to download the copyright offending file - that's a totally different charge.
  - 15y ago
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- xutopia 15y ago
  As a Canadian I can assure you that we do our fair share of stupidity.
- randomdata 15y ago
  Not really. There was a story on here about a month ago where the CBC (a company owned by Canada) was going after a guy who provided hyperlinks to their audio streams. It would actually be pretty interesting to hear how his story has progressed in light of this. Hopefully we'll see a follow up story.
  - mef 15y ago
    To be clear, the guy was selling an app which provided access to radio programs that the CBC was providing for free. My impression was that the charging money part was the problem as the CBC is funded partly by tax dollars. http://mobile.davander.com/2011/09/cbc-is-forcing-me-to-remove-my-app-from-the-mac-app-store/ http://mobile.davander.com/2011/09/cbc-is-forcing-me-to-remo...
    - randomdata 15y ago
      The content was still served by the CBC and accessed only after the end user activated one of the hyperlinks. He was only charging money for his web browser and home page that hosted those hyperlinks.
    - 9ec4c12949a4f3 15y ago
      I was going to download and torrent their "ideas" radio show (which has generally great content, I recommend it to anyone), then I realized they were selling CDs of the show at some outrageous price that would cost someone thousands of dollars to listen to the whole thing, and realized they didn't host it out of simply being ignorant that someone might want to listen to it from their mp3 player, but simply because someone made this decision.
silentific 15y ago
I understand that this is an important ruling, but do they really need a pat on the back for figuring out how the internet works?

215 points by mef 15y ago

Shenglong 15y ago

[Redacted: Not funny]

pavel_lishin 15y ago
There's nothing funny aboot that joke.
- Shenglong 15y ago
  Redacted :( Different type of humor I guess.
  - pavel_lishin 15y ago
    I was actually trying to play along, with the about/aboot switch...
    - Shenglong 15y ago
      Someone down-voted me, so I assumed they didn't like it :(
      - zacharycohn 15y ago
        They downvoted because it (probably) didn't add anything to the conversation. This isn't Digg.

ck2 15y ago

It's going to be interesting when a dozen different countries have a dozen different resulting rules for the same question.

0x12 15y ago
Already there is a significant pay-off in researching the laws of the place where you intend to incorporate.
- egiva 15y ago
  Yeah, I would go one step further to say that there's a need for an international treaty to standardize these laws and regulations for what in essence is a very international internet.
benmathes 15y ago
It's both interesting and nerve-racking to see location-dependent legal codes (all of them) butt heads with this technology we've built which makes distance and location irrelevant.

Osiris 15y ago

The Internet’s capacity to disseminate information has been described by this Court as “one of the great innovations of the information age” whose “use should be facilitated rather than discouraged”. Hyperlinks, in particular, are an indispensable part of its operation...The Internet cannot, in short, provide access to information without hyperlinks. It's nice to see some common sense in the ruling

Wistar 15y ago
"It's nice to see some common sense in the ruling" No kidding. The first I've seen since the appalling Corley/Goldstein case.
- marekmroz 15y ago
  That case was in US though.

RyanMcGreal 15y ago

The decision also drew reference to the "centrality of the role of hyperlinks in facilitating access to information on the Internet" and that restricting the use of hyperlinks "would have the effect of seriously restricting the flow of information and, as a result, freedom of expression."

gruseom 15y ago

This is a good ruling, first because it protects freedom of expression, second because it gets the internet in a way that bodes well for the future, and third because the quoted excerpts are written in such clear English that they're actually easier to understand than the surrounding post.

redthrowaway 15y ago

I wonder how this will impact on the legality of sites such as thepiratebay in Canada. The first quote, "I would conclude that a hyperlink, by itself, should never be seen as “publication” of the content to which it refers." would seem to suggest that merely hosting a torrent file, which is analogous in function to a hyperlink, cannot be seen as equivalent to hosting the material to which it grants access. While one of the judges said something to the effect of "intentions matter", there could be a fairly strong case here. IANAL, don't go starting a torrent site in Canada on my advice, etc.

fleitz 15y ago
A good friend of mine works for isohunt (Vancouver based torrent site), they're being sued in the US IIRC. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the court finds a different approach for working with torrent sites, that court recently decided that those being questioned by police do not have the right to a lawyer. At least up in Canada we jump through all the hoops to strip people of their rights. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/10/08/supreme-court-charter-right-lawyer-interview.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/10/08/supreme-court...
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  Well, that's terrifying.
- Luyt 15y ago
  Their excuse: "His access to legal advice would have mitigated the impact of the police’s relentless and skilful efforts to obtain a confession from him"
nobody314159 15y ago
Not quite the same thing. The ruling said that publishing a hyperlink wasn't the same as re-publishing the original article. Making a torrent file available is providing a way to download the copyright offending file - that's a totally different charge.
- 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

xutopia 15y ago
As a Canadian I can assure you that we do our fair share of stupidity.
randomdata 15y ago
Not really. There was a story on here about a month ago where the CBC (a company owned by Canada) was going after a guy who provided hyperlinks to their audio streams. It would actually be pretty interesting to hear how his story has progressed in light of this. Hopefully we'll see a follow up story.
- mef 15y ago
  To be clear, the guy was selling an app which provided access to radio programs that the CBC was providing for free. My impression was that the charging money part was the problem as the CBC is funded partly by tax dollars. http://mobile.davander.com/2011/09/cbc-is-forcing-me-to-remove-my-app-from-the-mac-app-store/ http://mobile.davander.com/2011/09/cbc-is-forcing-me-to-remo...
  - randomdata 15y ago
    The content was still served by the CBC and accessed only after the end user activated one of the hyperlinks. He was only charging money for his web browser and home page that hosted those hyperlinks.
  - 9ec4c12949a4f3 15y ago
    I was going to download and torrent their "ideas" radio show (which has generally great content, I recommend it to anyone), then I realized they were selling CDs of the show at some outrageous price that would cost someone thousands of dollars to listen to the whole thing, and realized they didn't host it out of simply being ignorant that someone might want to listen to it from their mp3 player, but simply because someone made this decision.

silentific 15y ago

I understand that this is an important ruling, but do they really need a pat on the back for figuring out how the internet works?