Wikipedia defines Web as a collection of documents and resources linked by hyperlinks and URLs. A user views Web pages using a browser and navigates between them using hyperlinks. When you create a website on the internet in pubic domain, you want visitors to come and explore your site. If they enjoy your content, they may write about it on their own sites and link to your webpages.
That's how things work. If you don't want the internet crowd to discover your "secret" content, either use password protected pages or don't upload stuff on the web at all.
But two recent court rulings, one in the US and other one in Australia, could have some impact on the nature of internet and the way we link to content stored on other web-servers.
In both the cases, judges have agreed that direct linking to copyright content (like music or webcasts) posted elsewhere online without permission can be illegal. Say you find some video or MP3 files on a website, you cannot link to that file directly as per the ruling.
Is this ruling evil and the judges dumb to take such a decision ? Well, if we think from the content owner's perspective, he has the right reasons to file a complaint.
If people deep-link to your media files, your page-views reduce and there's significant loss of advertising revenue as well because people will get your content even without paying a visiting to your site. And you still have to pay the bandwidth bills when people directly download content off your web servers. So the court ruling sounds pretty reasonable but am sure a majority of influential minds won't agree here.
Infact, a similar issue happened with Digg podcasting as well when they allowed people to watch videos or listen to podcasts without even leaving the Digg website as they were deep-linking to the MP3 and MOV files of video bloggers and podcasters. Maybe some content owners didn't like the idea and so Digg slightly changed their linking policy - now podcasters can decide whether Digg should deep-link to their content or not.
Find this article at: http://labnol.blogspot.com/2006/12/directly-linking-to-copyrighted-files.html
web: http://www.labnol.org/ email: amit@labnol.org
Reader Comments
The RIAA has been screaming bloody murder for years now and P2P sharing is thriving like never before.
Good luck to them implementing these profound new regulations.
Written on 23/12/06 1:46 AM
I love the idea of sharing information and agree with the statement in the article that if you don't want your stuff linked to...password protect that stuff or secure it by other means.
I do hate the fact that lawyers are being brought into a place that was intended to be about the swapping of information. Live it, learn it...share it!!
Written on 23/12/06 6:05 AM
Pft...I see the chances of these regulations definitely becoming a part of America's future. Seems that any more these associations are bed partners with lawmakers and if you have the money...you have the vote. Money definitely talks in the US.
I love the fact that France found that people's privacy is more important than the whole piracy issue as brought up in a recent RIAA suit. Go France!
Written on 24/12/06 12:09 AM
I wonder if rather than linking if you put the link but leave off the .html if that would violate the restriction. If not maybe this is a simple way to get around that. This way visitors can just copy, paste and add the html to the end of a link. Maybe there could be a standard suffix code letter like h for html. or just leave a space and put the suffix in.
Written on 27/12/06 12:30 AM
"Directly Linking to Copyrighted Files On the Web Is Now Illegal - Weird but True"
Actually, it's not true at all. A preliminary injunction is not a finding, and no ruling has been made. While that case may still come down in favor of the copyright owner, the only person enjoined from deep linking is the defendant, and only in regards to the plaintiff.
Given the ramifications, I seriously doubt that the case won't be appealed, and judges with a better understanding of IP law will do the right and sensible thing and toss out this case as frivolous.
Beyond that, this only sets precedent for the state of Texas, and potentially only for the district in which the suit was filed. Though they may choose to of their own free will, no other judge in any other state will be bound by the ruling in any way.
Let's also consider the fact that this guy was representing himself in court, something no person should ever do. It's entirely possible that the injunction was the simple result of the defendant being incapable of actually defending himself.
I think this is pretty much the case, because the heart of this matter according to the plaintiff is copyright infringement. My argument before the court would be that absolutely no copying has taken place by the defendant, and therefore infringement is factually impossible. Essentially, the claims cannot stand and should be dismissed because of that, and not because of fair use.
The title of this post is factually incorrect and should be changed to accurately reflect what has happened.
Written on 27/12/06 5:10 AM
If I were to post screenshots of a movie that someone else downloaded from a P2P server, would I be breaking the law? I am not in possession of the movie, but simply sent screenshots of the movie. Is displaying the screenshot itself a copyright violation? I've spent the last three hours searching for any information, but have found no conclusive answers.
Written on 31/1/07 7:37 AM
How effective is this in India. One really wonders.
I just saw this - bltant voilation
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=158221
Written on 19/3/07 11:29 PM