Slashdot Mirror
Australia Rules Linking to Copyright Material Also Illegal
An anonymous reader writes "A recent ruling in Federal court upheld the ruling that the operator and ISP that hosted the site 'mp3s4free.net' were guilty of copyright infringement violations because they provided access to the copyright material. From the article: 'Dale Clapperton, vice-chairman of the non-profit organization Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), explained the ruling as follows: "If you give someone permission to do something that infringes copyright, that in itself is infringement as if you'd done it yourself. Even if you don't do the infringing act yourself, if you more or less condone someone else doing it, that's an infringing act."'"
Well both the text of the article and the legal document make one thing very clear: By linking to any copyrighted material in Australia you are encouraging someone to download and use that material illegally.
Since almost everything published is protected under copyright almost all hyperlinks are illegal! The web as a whole is nothing but one great big collection of pirates and must be shutdown to protect the record industry!
chown -R us
``Australia Rules Linking to Copyright Material Also Illegal''
So, basically, linking to almost anything on the Internet is now illegal in Australia. After all, the vast majority of what is on the Internet is copyright material.
And what if you're not the one doing the linking? For example, your site is a forum and other people post the links there? Apparently, you're guilty, too. Even if you're the ISP hosting the site and had nothing at all to do with its content, you're guilty.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I'm just guessing, no expert at this, but...
Maybe a workaround would be to not provide the link itself, but only the url.
That is... no using of the a href tag.
Then, it could be considered as citing, just as books cite authors... you see the name, book, editorial, etc... and you have to manually search for it to buy it. In this case, you'd have to copy the url and enter it in the address bar.
While it's easy to get sad, this kind of behavior is leading to a counterculture. Lots of stuff is being released using Creative Commons, GFDL (Wikipedia, etc), or even public domain. And the great thing is that a lot of it is much better than the next Pop Idol/American Idol song.
I have to wonder whether this sort of publishing would be anywhere near as successful, if the content industry weren't such bastards. I guess there is a market for good old customer service.
When you say copyrighted material, are you referring to copyrighted material in general, or only that material who's copyright ownership is actively defended?
The problem is that while Google can afford a barrister, your average blogger can't. Your average small ISP can't, for that matter. So it very quickly leads to only large corporations daring to publish anything for fear of crippling legal defence costs.
How about having a photocopier in a library?
So, with this logic used in this ruling... ...does that mean copy machine manufacturers are liable for people using their products to copy books, magazines, photos, money? does that mean computer manufacturers are liable for people using [i] their [/i] products to infringe on copywright? where is the line drawn? blank CD companies? CD recorders?
This ruling seems to encompass just about anyone on earth since most products can and may be used for facilitating copyrigbht infringements.
A few weeks ago Fox threatened Quicksilverscreen (and Quicksilverscreen's ISP) with a takedown notice. Not because Quicksilverscreen served any infringing material, but because it linked to it on YouTube (amongst others).
http://quicksilverscreen.com/is-linking-illegal/
So is Australia setting the precident for the US? I hope not.
biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
Next stop - close down the local library - everyone there is either infringing copyright or contributing to it ...
This isn't a joke or something hypothetical. If you pay attention to discussions in the publishing industry, one of the statistics you'll see bandied about is that each book sold is read on the average by four people. This is invariably used to show that there's a huge missed "marketing" opportunity. 3/4 of readers are getting their books without paying for them.
Now, if you look at the books you have at home, you'll probably have trouble finding even one that was read by more than two people, right? So where does this average of four come from? Right - libraries. Publishers have long considered public libraries a major cause of lost income. If they could shut them down, they would, and they're starting to see how this might be done.
Publishers have been heartened by recent "advances" in copyright law and the advent of electronic publishing. They see these as tools to end the practice of lending books to others, by moving to a system where every reader must pay for what they read. It has worked for the software industry, except for the ongoing problem of piracy. The music recording industry is slowly succeeding at making illegal the sort of sharing that used to be common when music only came on physical recording media like records and tapes. There's a good chance that sharing of what used to be printed material can also be stopped in the forseeable future.
So don't take libraries as some sort of God-given exception that will always be with us. Libraries were created by reformers who wanted to make information available to everyone despite the desires of publishers, and the publishing industry is looking forward to the day that libraries can be eliminated.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
You will probably be still able to. Except not having money to pay for PremiumIP(r) that allows transfers from your hosts to exceed 1kbps, having to put your personal data all over the site to discourage Terrorism(tm) (and encourage stalkers), I'm sure they can invent some other niceties to discourage - but not ban (that pesky 1st amendment) - anything not sanctioned by big money.
The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
Fortunately for all of us, the whole "no, no, you have to do this is the eeeeevil terrrrrorists will get us" argument carries about as much credibility as Tony Blair or GW Bush these days, and is rapidly becoming a ticket to not being reelected...
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Unfortunately, that's the point. Your money, and that of other concerned individuals, doesn't mean much compared to that of a big industry organization.
"People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals...", as a movie character once said. And he was right. A lot of individuals already realize they've been had. Those are the ones posting on Slashdot. But the herd will continue to do whatever the cowboys tell them to as long as they've got the feed (music) and the cattle prods (legal penalties). When music becomes something you listen to once, then pay for to listen again, people at large will continue to pay. They'll grumble for a while, but they'll get used to their new pens, as long as they're kept fed.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
Actually, there are several examples here in the UK where popular discontent has resulted in major changes in government policy in recent years. The Poll Tax fiasco led to a popular revolt, the law being changed, and a landslide victory to another political party.
Yes, the tax was changed to something even more unfair, which charges pensioners in the house they lived in all their lives more the mass-resource-using family of 6.
The landslide didn't happen, the Poll Tax riots were arround 1990, and legistlation to scrap the tax had been passed by the 92 election. The Tories stayed in power with the backing of the media, particularly Murdoch and the Sun. It wasn't until the ultra-sleeze Labour party got it, with the backing of the media, particularly Murdoch and the Sun.
Incidently, Thatcher got in in 1979, after being endorsed by The Sun, and Murdoch.
The Gowers Review of IP, discussed here just last week, proposes several significant shifts in the IP landscape
Many reviews propose things, as to what eventually gets enacted? At best it'll slow things down slightly, over the mid to long term, the tide won't be turned against big buisness, it never has.
the government could lose the whole ID card and "anything in the name of fighting terrorism" issue first.
They'll compromise on a DNA database and centralisation over passports and driving licenses, which is an ID card to practically everyone anyway. Besides, driving licenses are going european in 6 years.
The only major exception I can think of in recent years is the Iraq War, where 2 million protestors marching in our capital city did not result in Blair backing down
2 million? That number just goes up and up. Besides, what about the other 58 million that didn't march? Where was the massive swing to libdems in the 2005 election? If the war was important to enough people, why are Labour still in power?
and the fact that it has cost him his job and his party most of its political power will be little comfort to those suffering as a result.
War was in 2003, Blair is still in power in 2006, doesn't seem a direct cause and effect to me.
It'll be 10 years as PM when he leaves. When did you think he'd go?
I agree that Council Tax is wildly unfair, as are most other local taxes that have been proposed, for one reason or another. That's not really relevant to my point, though, which was simply that enough people dislike something enough, it will change.
What a terribly defeatist attitude. In recent years, we've seen massive upheaval for businesses post-Enron, boardroom culls becoming more common, increases in business taxes and statutory minimum standards for employee compensation, and so on. It's not nearly as one-sided as you seem to think.
I doubt it. My "think of the children" trumps your "FEAR THE TERRORISTS!" on the DNA database. And the European driving licence is nothing like the proposed horror that is ID cards + NIR in the UK.
The figure was the one widely quoted in the UK media at the time, and frequently since. My MP is now a Lib Dem, who toppled a long-established New Labour toadie who went into the last general election with a huge majority. Labour are still forming the government because our electoral system is corrupt: they lost the popular vote in England, and only held onto office because of MPs from neighbour countries whose votes on England-only issues will not in general affect their own electorates. Even without that, it's absurd that a government that took only around 1/3 of the popular votes cast can hold an absolute majority in Parliament, and calls for reform of the Commons as well as the (unelected) Lords are starting to get louder.
Blair is still in office. He hasn't been in power for at least a year. His party stood by him long enough to get a third term, because kicking out your leader just before a general election is electoral suicide whoever he is. (Many Labour candidates did actively avoid using him in their campaigns, however; in fact, Charles Kennedy was the only major party leader who was regarded as a net asset by his parliamentary candidates before the last election, and he got kicked out under dubious circumstances shortly afterwards, something many of his party have since regretted.)
Today, Blair faces backbench rebellions on key legislation, causing him to lose votes for the first time since 1997, and has had to force through other manifesto commitments under a three-line whip in the face of popular opposition that would have seen enough MPs rebelling to defeat the motion otherwise.
Internationally, Blair's reputation is "Bush's poodle". Locally, Blair's reputation is the lame duck waiting for Brown to take over. His political credibility is gone, his influence on policy almost negative. Many of his pet "legacy" projects, like ID cards, are going down the pan rapidly (witness the latest stage of the U-turn on the NIR plans just today, and many other related but quietly-made announcements in recent months). Basically, Blair is toast, so is his whole New Labour vision, and the best Brown can hope for if he is crowned Prime Minister is to undo the damage and separate himself from the legacy in
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
technicaly, all torrent sites that only run the .torrent files could also be illegal in australia, since they (in some way) link to copyrighted material.
portfolio
You can use it for that express purpose, but that is utterly missing the point. The site in question exists for the sole purpose of linking to copyrighted material. Google has many other legitimate uses. See the difference?
Snide comments aside, I think this is utterly stupid. Blowing shit up is illegal. Writing a book on how to blow shit up and where to buy all the parts is not. Why should saying, essentially, "This guy, who's site you can find here, is hosting copyrighted material," be illegal?
That's a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious: because greedy corporate bastards with their hands up the politician's backsides have decided they aren't snorting enough coke off of enough supermodel's asses and they deserve more compensation.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton