4 ms·

This might be a dumb question… But doesn’t this mean having a site with bit torrent magnet links would be legal as you’re not hosting or publishing copyrighted

This might be a dumb question… But doesn’t this mean having a site with bit torrent magnet links would be legal as you’re not hosting or publishing copyrighted material?

8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
i thought that was already the case. or at least legally grey
stonegray 4y ago
Magnet links are especially interesting in this context as they're essentially a 20-byte number, and contain no data about what they link to aside from the hash. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number
- beardog 4y ago
  Magnet links can specify a name for the download ('dn'), tracker addreses to find peers ('tr') (but DHT can be used these days), and actual links to the files on the web via web seeds. However they can be as bare-bones as you say.
cwillu 4y ago
“To accept that the provision of a hyperlink is not enough to amount to participation in the process of publication which is completed when a third party clicks on the hyperlink so as to view the webpage, however, is not to deny that the provision of a hyperlink might combine with other factors to amount to participation in that process of publication of matter on that other webpage.” [¶66] “It will be recalled that the Court of Appeal in this case adopted the possibility of defamatory matter being published by way of incorporation by reference into a search result. In our view, this suffers from two difficulties. The first is that whereas incorporation by reference clearly has a place in contract law 64 and other areas of law, such as patent law and the law relating to wills, it can have no place in the law of defamation, which requires that the defamatory meaning be conveyed for publication to be complete. [...]” [¶45] I'd be wary of claims that this is broad decision affecting all areas of Australian IP law. Also be mindful that “publication” has a technical meaning; one of the dissenting opinions makes a good case that the majority is erring [¶149-154].
alkonaut 4y ago
So you'd be liable for having helped people download some material, rather than being liable for publishing the material. That seems like a reasonable distinction, but not helpful for the person wanting to run ThePirateBay.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

This might be a dumb question… But doesn’t this mean having a site with bit torrent magnet links would be legal as you’re not hosting or publishing copyrighted material?

8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago

i thought that was already the case. or at least legally grey

stonegray 4y ago

Magnet links are especially interesting in this context as they're essentially a 20-byte number, and contain no data about what they link to aside from the hash. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number

beardog 4y ago
Magnet links can specify a name for the download ('dn'), tracker addreses to find peers ('tr') (but DHT can be used these days), and actual links to the files on the web via web seeds. However they can be as bare-bones as you say.

cwillu 4y ago

“To accept that the provision of a hyperlink is not enough to amount to participation in the process of publication which is completed when a third party clicks on the hyperlink so as to view the webpage, however, is not to deny that the provision of a hyperlink might combine with other factors to amount to participation in that process of publication of matter on that other webpage.” [¶66] “It will be recalled that the Court of Appeal in this case adopted the possibility of defamatory matter being published by way of incorporation by reference into a search result. In our view, this suffers from two difficulties. The first is that whereas incorporation by reference clearly has a place in contract law 64 and other areas of law, such as patent law and the law relating to wills, it can have no place in the law of defamation, which requires that the defamatory meaning be conveyed for publication to be complete. [...]” [¶45] I'd be wary of claims that this is broad decision affecting all areas of Australian IP law. Also be mindful that “publication” has a technical meaning; one of the dissenting opinions makes a good case that the majority is erring [¶149-154].

alkonaut 4y ago

So you'd be liable for having helped people download some material, rather than being liable for publishing the material. That seems like a reasonable distinction, but not helpful for the person wanting to run ThePirateBay.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]