5 ms·

I love this because it should decide once and for all whether linking to "infringing content" is actually a crime or not. Right now it's already being treated l

I love this because it should decide once and for all whether linking to "infringing content" is actually a crime or not. Right now it's already being treated like one, so the downside can't be any worse. But the upside could be that MPAA & friends can't get away with using DMCA to takedown links to infringing content anymore, which means Google will be able to reject all the mass-takedown of links in its search engine, too.

macspoofing 13y ago
>I love this because it should decide once and for all whether linking to "infringing content" is actually a crime or not. That's already been decided, multitudes of times over many cases. Adding indirection to infringing material does not shield you from liability.
- Piskvorrr 13y ago
  Soooo...HN (or whoever posted this) is now also infringing, since it's just more indirection? And anyone now linking to HN is also infringing? I think that eventually encompasses the whole of WWW.
  - macspoofing 13y ago
    Be serious. Courts usually take a very pragmatic view on this and take intent and context into account. HN linking to the Gawker story is seen differently than piratebay posting magnet links, even though the level of indirection is higher in the latter case.
    - josteink 13y ago
      But you find the exact same links that Gawker posted in this very thread. Does that make HN guilty of copyright infringement or not?
      - tjgq 13y ago
        From the POV of a court, bits are coloured [0]. Just because two links are exactly equal, it does not mean that either both of them infringe or both don't. [0] http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
        probably_wrong 13y ago
        That link was super interesting. I found this concept frustratingly hard to explain to people, so I think I'll try this explanation next time.
        tjgq 13y ago
        I think (and the article also suggests) that it is especially hard to explain to people who come from a CS background. We often get too caught up in our own way of seeing the world that does not, for better or worse, correspond to how most people see it.
      - HNaTTY 13y ago
        You should read up on DMCA Safe Harbor. It's a very important concept that you should understand. To answer your question, no.
- valleyer 13y ago
  Did you consider taking that position to its logical end before proposing it?
  - dhimes 13y ago
    It doesn't look to me like macspoofing is proposing this- just saying it's what the courts have decided.
  - macspoofing 13y ago
    Why should I? Courts don't. As I wrote in another post, courts have a more pragmatic view than you give them credit for and take intent and context into account. This is why torrent files and magnet links and other levels of indirection won't shield piratebay and other such sites from liability, and also why HN linking to a Gawker story (which links to copyrighted material) isn't going to cause problems for HN.
    - valleyer 13y ago
      Sorry, sarcasm detector fail

macspoofing 13y ago

>I love this because it should decide once and for all whether linking to "infringing content" is actually a crime or not. That's already been decided, multitudes of times over many cases. Adding indirection to infringing material does not shield you from liability.

Piskvorrr 13y ago
Soooo...HN (or whoever posted this) is now also infringing, since it's just more indirection? And anyone now linking to HN is also infringing? I think that eventually encompasses the whole of WWW.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  Be serious. Courts usually take a very pragmatic view on this and take intent and context into account. HN linking to the Gawker story is seen differently than piratebay posting magnet links, even though the level of indirection is higher in the latter case.
  - josteink 13y ago
    But you find the exact same links that Gawker posted in this very thread. Does that make HN guilty of copyright infringement or not?
    - tjgq 13y ago
      From the POV of a court, bits are coloured [0]. Just because two links are exactly equal, it does not mean that either both of them infringe or both don't. [0] http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
      - probably_wrong 13y ago
        That link was super interesting. I found this concept frustratingly hard to explain to people, so I think I'll try this explanation next time.
        tjgq 13y ago
        I think (and the article also suggests) that it is especially hard to explain to people who come from a CS background. We often get too caught up in our own way of seeing the world that does not, for better or worse, correspond to how most people see it.
    - HNaTTY 13y ago
      You should read up on DMCA Safe Harbor. It's a very important concept that you should understand. To answer your question, no.
valleyer 13y ago
Did you consider taking that position to its logical end before proposing it?
- dhimes 13y ago
  It doesn't look to me like macspoofing is proposing this- just saying it's what the courts have decided.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  Why should I? Courts don't. As I wrote in another post, courts have a more pragmatic view than you give them credit for and take intent and context into account. This is why torrent files and magnet links and other levels of indirection won't shield piratebay and other such sites from liability, and also why HN linking to a Gawker story (which links to copyrighted material) isn't going to cause problems for HN.
  - valleyer 13y ago
    Sorry, sarcasm detector fail