3 ms·

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

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.

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.