4 ms·

Gah, this story always gets me riled up. I'm of the stance that linking to copyright material should most definitely NOT be breaking the law. It doesn't make se

Gah, this story always gets me riled up. I'm of the stance that linking to copyright material should most definitely NOT be breaking the law. It doesn't make sense on a number of levels (e.g. What position does this put any search engine in) but additionally he's not actually stolen the content, nor is he providing it, he is merely facilitating the access of it. Its equivalent to a sign on the street saying, "The staff have left this store, take what you want" and I really can't see how that could be construed to breaking the law. However I think there are other more technical issues that are not based on morality, such as the fact that the destination of a link can change without with the any indication. One minute a link could point to example.com and the next, a copyright infringing video on another video host. I do realise that in this case there was intent to provide a resource for those looking to illegally watch online content, but that is all it is, a resource. And the Brit inside me is also getting wound up by the US's involvement in this, the whole extradition thing is completely over the top and as much as I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist exclaiming Hollywoods influence over the government, in this case I think its bang on. I completely agree with the sentiment expressed at the end, that "the US cannot be allowed to be the copyright cops of the world".

blauwbilgorgel 14y ago
I too got riled up about this linking to copyrighted material being a crime, certainly an extraditable one. You can't really compare a search engine to a site like TV-links. A search engine doesn't discriminate in what content it indexes. If a search engine would only link to copyright-infringing material, then that search engine can expect as much trouble as a site like TV-links. If a site mainly exists to facilitate copyright infringement, should it get a pass? If dealing drugs is against the law, what is directing people on the street to drug dealers? Things like changing link destinations are interesting from a technical point of view, but not all that relevant to this case IMO. If the site was a chatroulette for online links, this might come into play, but for TV links to have a changing link, in all likelihood it meant simply a broken link. Indeed, most of this boils down to intent. Pointing people on the street to where they can buy drugs or selling them pipes to facilitate drug use, to me, it isn't the same as dealing the drugs yourself. But I can totally see you can find yourself on the wrong side of the law, when you start facilitating illegal activity. Again, I agree that linking to content should always be possible, but I can understand where the law and entertainment industry is coming from.
- experiment0 14y ago
  Yeah I completely understand this point of view and I was toying with removing the reference to search engines, but ultimately it boils down to the same thing in all cases, as mentioned in the article: > US authorities claimed the 24-year-old's TVShack website hosted links to pirated films and TV programmes. Regardless of the inherent properties of search engines, they are still linking to that content (or to content that links to the content). I do understand the point of view of the Law, but I think ultimately it can't and shouldn't be enforced.
- chopsueyar 14y ago
  " A search engine doesn't discriminate in what content it indexes." That is incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots_exclusion_standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots_exclusion_standard Tubetrooper certainly discriminates.
  - blauwbilgorgel 14y ago
    Robots.txt doesn't have anything to do with this. Google adheres to robots.txt, but doesn't discriminate in the kind of content it indexes. Search engines can certainly specialize, like in your (unnecessary) porn site example. But if they specialize in providing links to copyright-infringing material, make profit with advertisements, they can get in just as much trouble. The OP made the comparison with search engines. How come they can have copyright-infringing links and not get into trouble? It is because they index all information available to them, without discrimination. And then they still have to respond to DMCA claims. If a search engine specialized in engineering parts, it wouldn't need to host links to copyright-infringing material, so most specialized search engines are a non-issue.
coob 14y ago
> "The staff have left this store, take what you want" and I really can't see how that could be construed to breaking the law. This is both breaking the law and a poor analogy.
- experiment0 14y ago
  I'm sorry, I don't understand, how would telling someone that the staff have left the store be breaking the law. And why do you think its a poor analogy. Its a sign post directing people to a place where they could easily access content illegally. Very similar to what TV Shack was doing. The analogy only fails in the sense that in reality the item stolen was digital media (it could be argued that nothing of value is lost) and in the shop scenario, the content is physical media (and therefore value is directly lost). Despite the difference though, thats irrelevant to the action played by TV Shack (and the sign in the analogy).
  - coob 14y ago
    It is the second part of the sign that makes the act of posting it most likely illegal (at least in the UK) as incitement [1]. The analogy's main issue is that it fails to distinguish between theft and copyright infringement which is exactly what the anti-piracy bridge are often accused of doing. Also, a sign is a poor analogy as it is in passive view of the public. A better one (ignoring the theft/infringement issue) would be a guy sitting in a pub who would tell anyone who asked him which stores had no staff in, and that they could take what they wished. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement
    - experiment0 14y ago
      I realise that incitement is illegal in the UK, but it is America that is pushing for the extradition. I would also argue that a website is in full view of the public (especially with the amount of sharing that occurs). But like I said in my original response, it doesn't matter whether or not it is copyright infringement or theft, as in the analogy we are discussing the actions of TV Shack not the actual hosting of the material. What I mean is, this isn't a discussion about whether copyright infringement is illegal, but instead whether linking is illegal, and I think the two crimes presented are comparable enough (although definitely not the same), for the difference to be easily overlooked for the sake of getting across a message.
wpietri 14y ago
The US legal distinction is "substantial non-infringing use". If you are up to something and, like a search engine, happen to facilitate IP infringement, you're good. If there is no significant purpose to your service other than to help crime, it's criminal. There are plenty of similar crimes: Conspiracy, harboring a known fugitive, material support for terrorism, receiving stolen goods, RICO. These can be misapplied, but the basic principle is reasonable: helping people commit crime can itself be criminal. I don't think that's the problem here. I think the problem is with an IP system that's built on assumptions 100 years out of date.

blauwbilgorgel 14y ago

I too got riled up about this linking to copyrighted material being a crime, certainly an extraditable one. You can't really compare a search engine to a site like TV-links. A search engine doesn't discriminate in what content it indexes. If a search engine would only link to copyright-infringing material, then that search engine can expect as much trouble as a site like TV-links. If a site mainly exists to facilitate copyright infringement, should it get a pass? If dealing drugs is against the law, what is directing people on the street to drug dealers? Things like changing link destinations are interesting from a technical point of view, but not all that relevant to this case IMO. If the site was a chatroulette for online links, this might come into play, but for TV links to have a changing link, in all likelihood it meant simply a broken link. Indeed, most of this boils down to intent. Pointing people on the street to where they can buy drugs or selling them pipes to facilitate drug use, to me, it isn't the same as dealing the drugs yourself. But I can totally see you can find yourself on the wrong side of the law, when you start facilitating illegal activity. Again, I agree that linking to content should always be possible, but I can understand where the law and entertainment industry is coming from.

experiment0 14y ago
Yeah I completely understand this point of view and I was toying with removing the reference to search engines, but ultimately it boils down to the same thing in all cases, as mentioned in the article: > US authorities claimed the 24-year-old's TVShack website hosted links to pirated films and TV programmes. Regardless of the inherent properties of search engines, they are still linking to that content (or to content that links to the content). I do understand the point of view of the Law, but I think ultimately it can't and shouldn't be enforced.
chopsueyar 14y ago
" A search engine doesn't discriminate in what content it indexes." That is incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots_exclusion_standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots_exclusion_standard Tubetrooper certainly discriminates.
- blauwbilgorgel 14y ago
  Robots.txt doesn't have anything to do with this. Google adheres to robots.txt, but doesn't discriminate in the kind of content it indexes. Search engines can certainly specialize, like in your (unnecessary) porn site example. But if they specialize in providing links to copyright-infringing material, make profit with advertisements, they can get in just as much trouble. The OP made the comparison with search engines. How come they can have copyright-infringing links and not get into trouble? It is because they index all information available to them, without discrimination. And then they still have to respond to DMCA claims. If a search engine specialized in engineering parts, it wouldn't need to host links to copyright-infringing material, so most specialized search engines are a non-issue.

coob 14y ago

> "The staff have left this store, take what you want" and I really can't see how that could be construed to breaking the law. This is both breaking the law and a poor analogy.

experiment0 14y ago
I'm sorry, I don't understand, how would telling someone that the staff have left the store be breaking the law. And why do you think its a poor analogy. Its a sign post directing people to a place where they could easily access content illegally. Very similar to what TV Shack was doing. The analogy only fails in the sense that in reality the item stolen was digital media (it could be argued that nothing of value is lost) and in the shop scenario, the content is physical media (and therefore value is directly lost). Despite the difference though, thats irrelevant to the action played by TV Shack (and the sign in the analogy).
- coob 14y ago
  It is the second part of the sign that makes the act of posting it most likely illegal (at least in the UK) as incitement [1]. The analogy's main issue is that it fails to distinguish between theft and copyright infringement which is exactly what the anti-piracy bridge are often accused of doing. Also, a sign is a poor analogy as it is in passive view of the public. A better one (ignoring the theft/infringement issue) would be a guy sitting in a pub who would tell anyone who asked him which stores had no staff in, and that they could take what they wished. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement
  - experiment0 14y ago
    I realise that incitement is illegal in the UK, but it is America that is pushing for the extradition. I would also argue that a website is in full view of the public (especially with the amount of sharing that occurs). But like I said in my original response, it doesn't matter whether or not it is copyright infringement or theft, as in the analogy we are discussing the actions of TV Shack not the actual hosting of the material. What I mean is, this isn't a discussion about whether copyright infringement is illegal, but instead whether linking is illegal, and I think the two crimes presented are comparable enough (although definitely not the same), for the difference to be easily overlooked for the sake of getting across a message.

wpietri 14y ago

The US legal distinction is "substantial non-infringing use". If you are up to something and, like a search engine, happen to facilitate IP infringement, you're good. If there is no significant purpose to your service other than to help crime, it's criminal. There are plenty of similar crimes: Conspiracy, harboring a known fugitive, material support for terrorism, receiving stolen goods, RICO. These can be misapplied, but the basic principle is reasonable: helping people commit crime can itself be criminal. I don't think that's the problem here. I think the problem is with an IP system that's built on assumptions 100 years out of date.