Dutch Court Rules Hyperlinks Can Constitute Infringement

Ubi_NL writes "In yesterday's ruling of Playboy (via publisher Sanoma) vs Dutch blog Geenstijl, the court ruled that hyperlinking to copyrighted material was itself infringement of copyright. The court ordered the blog to remove all links to the infringing links (court ruling in Dutch). How this ruling fits into the supreme court ruling that hyperlinks cannot by themselves infringe copyright is still to be discussed, possibly in an appeal."

Comments

And standing next to me is stealing my air

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when did the Dutch start to appoint justices as dumb as America's Thomas?

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[Znork]

Unfortunately it doesn't seem that new, there's also the judge Chris Hensen who happened to be running a commercial anti-piracy together with the council for the plaintif while deciding that links to TPB should be blocked.

Frankly I suspect it's rare with members of the various parts of the judicial system in the field of IP who do not have significant financial interest in enforcing IP. Whether it's revolving door interest or more blatant abuses the field of government granted monopolies has always been lucrative for those on the inside, which probably makes the field very attractive for those with slightly lower ideals than what could be expected in a judiciary.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[DJRumpy]

Can't agree more. These links could sit out there for 50 years, and if no one knew about them or no one used them, not a single case of infringement would happen. Simply pointing to 'stolen goods' (I use that term with tongue in cheek) doesn't make the finger pointer guilty of infringement.

It's kind of ridiculous as to the power the media companies are employing in the courts and in the political system.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[mumblestheclown]

I think your wild, conspiratorial accusations are completely out of line.

Slashdot and its biases theories aside, there are a lot of grown ups out in the world who have looked at IP law in general and, while perhaps accepting that there are occasional absurdities and oddities around the edges that do need to be worked out, have concluded that it is fundamentally good. They (we) have looked for this from multiple angles, including econonomic theory, economic REALITY (we now have excellent examples of rates of development vs strength of IP regulation - and guess what - IPR does seem to matter quite a bit), and ethics. You may disagree - you may have your own arguments against IPR - fine, fair enough - but for you to immediately proclaim " I suspect it's rare with members of the various parts of the judicial system in the field of IP who do not have significant financial interest in enforcing IP. Whether it's revolving door interest or more blatant abuses the field of government granted monopolies has always been lucrative for those on the inside, which probably makes the field very attractive for those with slightly lower ideals than what could be expected in a judiciary." is irresponsible and juvenile.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[mumblestheclown]

You don't seem to understand how IPR works. As it works in most countries, "infringment" is a judgement call based on intent, amount, use, and so forth. For example, I can link to CNN.com from my homepage. No problem there. However, let's say CNN one day accidentally uses a picture that they dont have the rights to there. Am *I* guilty? no judge in the world would say yes. On the other hand, let's say I make a direct link on my homepage to "get your free copy of (latest hot movie here)" which direct links to a page or actual file on somebody else's site. What this ruling says is that the judge CAN consider this and CAN treat this differently, as damn well he should be able to.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[DJRumpy]

If we follow your process through to the logical conclusion, then it would imply that the person linking to the content intended to download every linked object, which is patently ridiculous. The person creating the links doesn't necessarily intend to do anything with the links other than to profit from site visits via ads or whatnot.

Note that in both of your examples, you are the one linking to and accessing the IP in question.

This is a dangerous judgement, make no mistake. It opens up any search engine which frankly is an algorithm and not self aware. These just scrape sites and produce the links. There is no 'intent' there.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, well as long as you have looked at it from multiple angles and reached a conclusion you must be correct. In fact, I'll bet your facts, logic, and statistical models are unimpeachable. Referring to IPR instead of copyright, trademark, and patent protection was the coupe-de-grace...

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[Hazel Bergeron]

there are a lot of grown ups out in the world who have looked at IP law in general and, while perhaps accepting that there are occasional absurdities and oddities around the edges that do need to be worked out, have concluded that it is fundamentally good.

Isn't that the very problem the parent was describing? The judiciary should not be concluding that particular laws are fundamentally good, but applying them indifferently.

If nothing else, more law guarantees more work, so an impartial judiciary would not even celebrate the existence of some body of law.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[hairyfeet]

You just hit the nail on the head, blatant bribery has turned the judicial system into a kangaroo court.

Once upon a time we had this notion called "conflict of interest" where if the judge didn't recuse themselves the superior courts would toss the case and give the judge a good ass chewing to boot. Now it doesn't matter how blatantly the judge is involved with one side, nobody will say squat and the corps know this. Frankly the whole thing is just sickening..

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[Anonymous Coward]

except that this ruling is the OPPOSITE of what you just said.

piss off, troll. I don't know what your stakes are here (considering low UID) - but third party liability is not acceptable in any instance.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[Caesar Tjalbo]

I think your wild, conspiratorial accusations are completely out of line.

The problem is: we don't know. The legal world of IP (judges, lawyers, academia) is pretty small and specialized. The same judges handle the majority of cases, lawyers are also professors. All of them appear on commercial seminars. You can't speak of "wild, conspiratorial accusations" if key players don't try to avoid the suggestion of conflicts of interest.

All we have are the interpretations of law, treaties and precedents. General line: behavior on internet is being molded into the existing IP framework. Specific example from a different case: to the courts there's a difference between a 'link' (not infringing) and a 'deep link' (infringing). That's not to say the every ruling is suspect, in fact most are well researched and well thought even if the conclusion is less desirable, but rulings (and laws, treaties) aren't necessarily realistic, sensible or fair. Judges go far in explaining the law so that, another example, search engines for usenet can be found to be infringing themselves, not just facilitating.

there are a lot of grown ups out in the world who have looked at IP law in general and, while perhaps accepting that there are occasional absurdities and oddities around the edges that do need to be worked out, have concluded that it is fundamentally good.

Here's an oddity to think about: Dutch copyright is based on the exclusive right to publish and multiply a (copyrightable) work. How is that exclusivity possible when talking about computers which do nothing but copying, let alone internet? Is the working of computers and internet "fundamentally" wrong? Or, in this case, is it "fundamentally good" to blame a blog for infringing when it posts a link to leaked material?

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[fustakrakich]

Your naivete is endearing, or at least it would be if there wasn't so much needless BS for people to suffer.

You may disagree - but yes, the system is inherently corrupt, designed to have everyone clawing their way over each other to the top of the heap. Nothing 'conspiratorial', just normal, everyday nature at work. All other systems work precisely the same way. It is universal. It is also a scientifically proven fact that authority WILL be abused. Please, don't try to tell us it is not being so abused in this case, like so many others. That would be absurd. Your society feels that this level of abuse is acceptable. But that doesn't make it any less abusive. If this were 1820, would you be arguing for the property rights of the slave owner? Would you not condemn people if you witness them abusing an animal?

This little 'IP' business must be turned away completely. You seem to believe it's helpful to society, but it's only because it's convenient for you to believe propaganda at this point, for whatever reason.

You teach 'ethics' through guidance and example, not by dictate and prohibition. And you can foment nothing but disrespect when you don't apply the rules evenly, just like a coat of paint.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the bit where it's true. By the way, paid shill, I hope your kid downloads a couple of Nickelback CDs. Then, if you can still tell me $40 = $ 200,000 with a straight face, I will know they're holding your family hostage to ensure your good behavior.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[fustakrakich]

This ruling is a direct infringement of free speech rights, which I understand is not codified into Dutch law, but it is infringement, much more offensive than that of copyright can ever be. I suspect that you yourself have a dog in this race, as 'IPR' is for the most part, completely indefensible.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[fizzer06]

You still butt hurt about a Black jurist on the Supreme Court?

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[Kartu]

Your post would be so much more insightfull, had it contained real "excellent examples of rates of development vs strength of IP regulation".

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[HungryHobo]

"as damn well he should be able to."

from your comments I'm guessing you make your money through IP in some way but not at the coal face actually creating stuff, rather off to the side leeching money away as some sort of manager, lawyer or similar.
Copyright, trademark and patent law aren't all one homogenous mass, they've very seperate covering very seperate things and what can be good in one industry can be toxic in another: like patents applied to software.
IP law isn't whatever you want it to be or whatever would let you get a bigger house.

No he damn well shouldn't be able to any more than he should be if you reference a book which blatantly plagarises others.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[morgauxo]

Yes and all the things that the 'grown ups' of the world have ever decided were good have been so?

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[UnknownSoldier]

Gee, lawyers & judges would *never* have a vested interested in MORE laws to provide work for themselves. /*cough* bullshit

Sadly Shakespeare's wisdom "The first thing we need to do is kill all the lawyers." won't solve the problem of greed.

Imaginary Property is neither real, nor property. Stop pretending it is, because I have a patent on two *numbers* to sell you ...
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeNumber.html

Because of their importance in encryption algorithms such as RSA encryption, prime numbers can be important commercial commodities. In fact, R. Schlafly (1994) has obtained U.S. Patent on the following two primes (expressed in hexadecimal notation):
98A3DF52AEAE9799325CB258D767EBD1F4630E9B ... and
93E896DAFD9DFECFD00B466B68F0EA68AF5DC9.

The fact that the fashion industry operates without copyright, and the for the last, you know, a few *hundred* *thousand *years* WITHOUT copyright, patents, and trademarks is proof that it is *ONLY* because of greed that we have these legal fictions in the first place.

When are you going to grow up and stop drinking the imaginary Kool-Aid (TM).

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[skywire]

There was a time when a number of grown ups out in the world looked at chattel slavery and concluded that it was fundamentally good.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[Hatta]

Fuck you and your condescending attitude. Free speech is more important than copyright. Period.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[MysteriousPreacher]

It's not just happening in courts. Janelly Fourtou, an MEP pushing hard for toughened IP laws, also happened to be the wife of the guy heading up Vivendi Universal - a company that stood to benefit from such changes. Even if there was no intended self-interest, anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with propriety would surely avoid championing IP when she herself has such an obvious self-interest. It's not difficult to come away feeling that her husband switching to a career in sausage making would coincide with Fourtou losing her interest in IP in favour of a sudden and strong interest in laws that favour sausage makers.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[Anonymous Coward]

(...) we now have excellent examples of rates of development vs strength of IP regulation - and guess what - IPR does seem to matter quite a bit (...)

[citation needed]

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that exclusivity possible when talking about computers which do nothing but copying, let alone internet? Is the working of computers and internet "fundamentally" wrong? Or, in this case, is it "fundamentally good" to blame a blog for infringing when it posts a link to leaked material?

In the future, the only legal use case for the internet is transmitting advertisements. The situation is apparently similar with the traditional postal service today. No wonder more and more people are going postal these days.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[Anonymous Coward]

including econonomic theory, economic REALITY

If you knew anything about economics at all, you'd support the free market by advocating that copyright be abolished. We've seen copyright abused again and again and again, and it is not up to us to come up with a business model for charlatans; if they can't find one, they will and should fail.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[Duhavid]

"... losing her interest in IP in favour of a sudden and strong interest in laws that favour sausage makers." ... losing her interest in IP in favour of a sudden and strong interest in laws that flavour sausage makers.

FTFY

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[mumblestheclown]

Since you seem to have missed the point entirely, I repeat these words again: intent, amount, and use.

The law is not a software algorithm. It is evaluated by rational individuals using principles and guidelines., not hard and fast rules. Your "to it's logical conclusion" claim is slippery slope tail end nonsense that does not apply.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[mumblestheclown]

Heh. You are so wrong it hurts. But thanks for the speculate character assassination.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[tehcyder]

Fuck you and your condescending attitude. Free speech is more important than copyright. Period.

Free speech is the freedom to say what you want without government censorship, not the freedom to copy other people's works and not pay for them. They are two different things.

You may well believe that it is perfectly legitimate to copy anything you are able to, but that is nothing to do with free speech.

It's a bit like how copyright infringement!=theft, as people love to point out here.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[tehcyder]

If you knew anything about economics at all, you'd support the free market by advocating that copyright be abolished

How can it be a fucking market, free or otherwise, when you don't intend to pay anything?

The people producing music, writing or whatever release their works, and you copy them. There's nothing to do with economics going on, there's no trading, no swapping of goods for money or goods for other goods.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[Hatta]

We're not even talking about copying others works here. We're talking about providing a how-to. That is clearly free speech which is being suppressed by the Dutch government.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you get hit by a bus

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[oshkrozz]

There are allot of grown ups who will also go and buy the iPhone 5 today based entirely on the marketing they have seen without ever asking a fundamental question of "Is this a good idea".

IP laws are designed to help entrenched economies not new and developing ones, as such that a "new" market has a phase with little IP law surrounding it and rapid expansion in technology. It is worth comparing two technologies that appeared around the same time: The Steam Locomotive and the Telegraph. The Telegraph was no more or less expensive to build out to every community then a rail line. However, the steam engine did not suffer from many patents, and very few of the mechanics of it were patented (air brakes being the most popular invention and patented by Westinghouse however a train didn't "need" them it was a safety issue and ultimately a cost issue -- less accidents means more money). Telegraph and Telephone (its successor) where locked up into a single monopoly due to heavy patents. The railroad expanded rapidly with over 180 railroad companies at the peak and rapid innovation created lots of jobs (see recent times to the rise of the computers and the overall lack of patents until recently that created many of the companies now fighting each other).

The phone on the other hand ... was locked down to one company, in 100 years there was barely any innovation (from 1876 to 1976 the phone pretty much worked and looked the same, a train even 20 years later had major improvements) until the breakup of that monopoly after that, you can see the major transformation in the phone in just a short 40 years.

Imagine for a moment if the Wright Brothers could have gotten a look and feel patents for having an engine and two wings one on top of the other, as you can see there is no wright aviation company because although they got the initial idea they had a very hard time improving on it why you might ask? because they were over protective of their patent. Imagine if they could have locked down the whole industry with the kind of patents that are allowed today (on the plus side we would never have needed TSA)

Most people who do substantive research on this find that very few emerging technologies were helped by patents, however many monopolies, or large corporations were very much protected with the use of IP laws as they helped maintain the status quo.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[dywolf]

not to be an ass...well yes, actually that is why im doing it, but, devil's advocate time cause i see a lot of hyperbole and little content!

"It is also a scientifically proven fact that authority WILL be abused."

where? by whom? show me the study.

"If this were 1820, would you be arguing for the property rights of the slave owner? Would you not condemn people if you witness them abusing an animal?"

burn straw man! burn!

"it's only because it's convenient for you to believe propaganda at this point, for whatever reason."

now you're telling the witness what he actually saw.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[fustakrakich]

show me the study.

Start with the Stanford Prison Experiment. That's a very famous one. That, and many others document the known facts of unchecked authority.

You simply use 'strawman', and 'show me a study' to deflect attention away from a perfectly valid question.

now you're telling the witness what he actually saw.

Yes, and did you know that everything you see is upside down? It's true... look it up. Now, if the brain has to perform that trick day in and day out, just imagine all the other tricks it pulls on all the senses to keep you from being seasick and throwing up all the time. And do try to understand the power of corruption, and the corruption of power. They are a matched set. Not really separable.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[celle]

"Free speech is the freedom to say what you want without government censorship, not the freedom to copy other people's works and not pay for them. They are two different things.

    And when is the government saying you can't copy something not government censorship? Patents and copyright are direct violations of free speech as you have defined it as the government is censoring information, the content and reasons are irrelevant.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[Fned]

I think your wild, conspiratorial accusations are completely out of line.

Slashdot and its biases theories aside, there are a lot of grown ups out in the world who have looked at IP law in general and, while perhaps accepting that there are occasional absurdities and oddities around the edges that do need to be worked out, have concluded that it is fundamentally good.

They are fundamentally wrong.

The absurdity and oddity is at the CORE of this thing:

1) Copies of things in computers have no intrinsic value. You gain nothing of value when you create them, and lose nothing of value when you destroy them.
2) Copyright grants an exclusive right to make copies.
3) Copyright, on computers, gives an exclusive right to sell something that has no value

Only access has value. Making copies is a great way to grant access, but everyone can do that part by themselves for free now, for anything digitizable. We don't need to pay someone to do that anymore.

Old business models in this new enviroment are insane at a base level: pay out-of-pocket for the valuable part, the creation of the work, and then try to recoup costs by selling value-free copies of the work that anyone can create with a twitch of their finger. Fucking bizarre.

They (we) have looked for this from multiple angles, including econonomic theory, economic REALITY (we now have excellent examples of rates of development vs strength of IP regulation - and guess what - IPR does seem to matter quite a bit), and ethics.

When you look at it from a computer science reality angle, you run into an insurmountable problem: Bits don't have "Colour" can't be made to have "Colour"; the property doesn't exist in Computerland. Yet IP law is absolutely 100% "Colour" dependent.

Solution: Break one of the following things: IP Law, Computers. Your pick.

You may disagree - you may have your own arguments against IPR - fine, fair enough - but for you to immediately proclaim " I suspect it's rare with members of the various parts of the judicial system in the field of IP who do not have significant financial interest in enforcing IP. Whether it's revolving door interest or more blatant abuses the field of government granted monopolies has always been lucrative for those on the inside, which probably makes the field very attractive for those with slightly lower ideals than what could be expected in a judiciary." is irresponsible and juvenile.

Somebody hit a nerve?

IPR will remain broken as long as it remains so deeply fixated on trying to monetize copies. Patent and trademark law will be a lot better off without that albatross around their necks.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[shutdown -p now]

we now have excellent examples of rates of development vs strength of IP regulation - and guess what - IPR does seem to matter quite a bit

"Strength" generally translates to persecuting more / doling out tough punishments. Have there been any studies that instead look at what is the effect of narrowing down scope of IP (e.g. restricting software patents), or shortening patent & copyright terms? If not, then your argument doesn't fly.

Re:And standing next to me is stealing my air

[mike4ty4]

1. When you use the term "grown ups" are you accusing the other people here of being childish? 2. It' important also to note that there are also people out there who are not opposed to _all_ copyright, but opposed rather to its continuous expansion.

The specific ruling:

[Anonymous Coward]

The court considered if the publishing of the hyperlinks by GeenStijl.nl constituted a publication (Dutch: ‘openbaarmaking’) as defined in article 12 of the Dutch Copyright Act. In principle, placing a hyperlink on a website is not a publication, unless three criteria are met: there must be an intervention, a new audience and profit.

- Intervention: The leaked pictures of Britt Dekker were stored on FileFactory.com, a cloud service to store files and share them with others. However, these files can’t be found through search engines, only users with the exact URL have access to the files. The URL to the file with the leaked pictures was publicly unknown, until GeenStijl.nl made it available to its large audience by publishing an article about it, the court says. Therefore, the actions of GeenStijl.nl are an intervention, according to the court. Without this intervention, the public wouldn’t have had access to the pictures before their official publication in Playboy.

- New audience: According to the court, there wasn’t an audience for the pictures before GeenStijl.nl published its article.

- Profit: By publishing the URL to the pictures, GeenStijl.nl had the unmistakable intention to attract more visitors, the court states. With success: in 2011, the article about Dekker was the best viewed topic on GeenStijl.nl, according to the statistics.

Taking the three criteria and the circumstances of this specific case into account, the court concludes that GeenStijl.nl has infringed on Sanomas copyrights by publishing the URL to the leaked nude pictures of Britt Dekker.

Re:The specific ruling:

[NettiWelho]

Can the ruling be appealed to a higher court or is this final?

Re:The specific ruling:

[Walterk]

They're appealing: Dutch link

Re:The specific ruling:

[Walterk]

[..] FileFactory.com, a cloud service to store files and share them with others. However, these files canâ(TM)t be found through search engines, only users with the exact URL have access to the files.

Wrong. As some other posters have already shown, google happily indexes and searches FileFactory.

Re:The specific ruling:

[Racemaniac]

But always, or only after an other site made a link to it? The point is not whether it shows up in google now, but whether it would have shown up if no site linked it in the first place. And even if it can be found via google, if it has some generic name not saying what's in it, it's still unlikely anyone would find it.
The judge is saying that by hyperlinking it, geenstijl made it findable for everybody. And if that is the case, he might have a point. If them linking actually made it accessible for everybody (why before that it wouldn't have been possible to find those files, or extremely unlikely), then they did more than just linking... Of course you can still argue they didn't upload it, which is also true. But i can understand the decision somewhat (doesn't mean i agree with it). This is different from just linking to a youtube video you could have just as easily found using the search function of youtube.

Not sure which side i'd choose, but it's not so black & white as many here claim it to be.

Re:The specific ruling:

[1u3hr]

Wrong. As some other posters have already shown, google happily indexes and searches FileFactory.

No it doesn't. FF blocks indexing. See http://www.filefactory.com/robots.txt

Google indexes links to FF it finds on other sites. You can't just get a file listing of uploads to FF from FF (well, maybe with a court order).

Re:The specific ruling:

[beelsebob]

That's nuts? What's to stop me from asking a friend to link to them, making them appear on google, and then linking to them?

Re:The specific ruling:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Without this intervention, the public wouldn’t have had access to the pictures before their official publication in Playboy."

But that's silly. Pssst ... if you go to the lowest shelf at the back wall of the basement of the library (behind the door marked "Beware of the tiger"), you can find a book with otherwise unpublished pictures of Britt Dekker stuffed between the pages. I don't see how telling people that location can constitute "copyright infringement". That's all a link is doing. "It's over here, on this web site, with this file name." That's copyright infringement? I can understand whoever uploaded the file being brought up on charges of copyright infringement, and same for whoever downloaded it from that link, but just saying what the link is? Weird. I guess the obvious indications that the site benefited from the publication is a decent argument, but I can see where this precedent is going to lead to some odd situations.

Re:The specific ruling:

[bytesex]

The 'intervention' criterium I can get along with - it means you're going out of your way to do something that can be interpreted as facilitating illegal activity. The other two criteria, however, I think are bogus: 'new audience' - this is about news, new audience is what it is supposed to do, and 'profit' is senseless as an argument. Typical Dutch aversion to capitalism.

Re:The specific ruling:

[mnooning]

Your synopsis makes sense of the ruling. Thank you. As with all court rulings, one must consider the narrow context of the issue(s) involved, for which the ruling was made.

Re:The specific ruling:

[skywire]

The three-pronged test in Dutch law produces clearly wrong results because it looks at an ill-chosen or incomplete list of characteristics of the actions that it is intended to categorize. The crafters of the test probably had in mind certain implicit criteria (such as the actual distribution of content or actually making it available) that would first have to hold before the three-pronged test would be applied to determine whether such an action constituted "publication" in a legal sense. Yet the court is blindly applying the test to any human activity, even those that clearly could not possibly constitute anything like "publication". In this case, we see where the warnings of critics that even news reporting that mention URLs will end up being prohibited are being borne out. A news story will by design inform the public of the existence of something, make it easier to find if it truthfully reports its location (as in "authorities claim that the building at 1020 N. Main St. is a crack house and therefore a public nuisance"), and of course bring profit to the news organization. An analogy to the application of the three-pronged test by the Dutch court might be this: A guidebook to a certain national park in Africa offers a flowchart for distinguishing the large fauna in the park. Someone on a ranch in North America acquires a copy, and begins to insist that the work horses on the ranch are zebras, because all the tests in the guidebook lead one to that conclusion.

Re:The specific ruling:

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't understand a word of that. But now I really want pfofferjes.

Dutch servers becomes the untouchable?

[Taco Cowboy]

I'm not very clear on the jurisdiction of the Dutch court - but if hyperlinking equals infringement ruling only applies on sites which are hosted on Dutch servers, this will effectively make Dutch servers sort of the "untouchable"

Why would anyone want to host their sites on a Dutch server where court ruling such as puts on insane and unnecessarily limit?

About time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Those pesky search engines keep linking to my web pages without permission.

What's up Netherlands?

[Lord Lode]

First all your websites have to put an annoying message at the top saying they are using cookies (duh, who doesn't).

Now this.

Re:What's up Netherlands?

[Anonymous Coward]

the cookie deal is european wide legislation. each nation is free to implement it with their own law provided it at least satisfies the requirements in the european law.

Re:What's up Netherlands?

[Anonymous Coward]

Website do not need to report that they use cookies. Websites need to explicitly ask permission when they want to track a user, unless it is absolutely vital for the website to function (like a shopping cart, or survey spread over multiple pages). There is a large difference between the two.

The law gets a lot of flak, but only because tracking users has become so ubiquitous and nobody wants to put in any work to comply (mostly: finding an advertising network that does not track its users).

Re:What's up Netherlands?

[xSander]

Yeah, and the Dutch "cookies law" is much more rigorous as a result. BTW, it's not really a cookies law, it's a law that requires websites to ask permission to track their visitors through whatever method, even IP addresses (as those can be tied to a specific person in most cases.)

Re:What's up Netherlands?

[fnj]

even IP addresses (as those can be tied to a specific person in most cases)

I know we're talking about Dutch privacy law in particular here, but that idea is so pernicious, and the mafiAA loves the lie so much, that it should never go unchallenged. So the following is in NO WAY an attack singling out you or your post.

The idea is BULLSHIT. Granted, it does use weasel-wording ("tied to" and "in most cases"), and It may (or may not) be legally recognized and upholdable bullshit, but bullshit is bullshit. The MOST a public IP can identify is a single host, not single person, and generally it only identifies a group of hosts, again not people.

1) Almost all businesses use many-to-one NAT for access by employees and others to public internet. Every desk and every notebook looks like the same IP to the public internet.

2) A large fraction of home users have wireless routers with many-to-one NAT. Any member of the family, and any visitor to the house, is on the same IP. If the wireless is open, anybody passing nearby outside can look like the same IP, whether wired or wireless, and if it's in an apartment or in a house close to other houses, a lot of neighbors can look like the same IP. If the wireless is secure, it could be hacked, with the same result.

3) Even if the subject is some kind of cheap lightweight with a single PC connected direct to DSL or cable, it must be recognized that it is more than likely that the subject has allowed and does allow others (family, friends, visitors on official or casual business or pleasure, etc) to sit in front of the PC and use it.

If "contraband" is traced to the IP, only by invading personal privacy and examining ZE PARERSSS (i.e., forensics on the hosts) can a prima facie case be made that some individual MAY (NOT ipso facto MUST) be at fault for violating an evil, immoral law.

Re:What's up Netherlands?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even then, it still only points to a computing device. Not a user directly.

Re:What's up Netherlands?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the privacy law errors on the side of safety, but the point is:

- A home is still in most cases inhabited by one family. Knowing anything about a family is still a breach of privacy according to dutch privacy law.
- Most mobile devices are used by a single person and especially if ipv6 gets used more, this will likely mean that you will be able to track single persons easily.
- The point of the law is to in no case allow the privacy to be breached. Yes, in many cases 1 ip is not one person, but in enough cases it is. So in those cases tracking would be a privacy brach, so it is not allowed. This is different from the contraband laws since there they have to prove the ip is used by a single person to prove that person is guilty. You are very right that this is idiotic, but that's not what this law is for.

Re:What's up Netherlands?

[fnj]

AC has an interesting and useful post. I just wish to state that I in no way object to any part of the privacy law.

My issue is with the CONCEPT that an IP identifies an individual, and my concern is with any jurisdiction in the world applying this mistaken idea the other way round, to persecute individuals.

Security by obcurity?

[Anonymous Coward]

So Dutch courts protect Security by Obscurity?

No surprises here. Judges have as much of a clue of those things as the sec department in my company. Oh, wait...

Re:Security by obcurity?

[Grismar]

This not a simple case of security through obscurity, though. If it were, then all physical cylinder locks or password security could also be considered "security through obscurity". After all, the security only lies in not publishing the exact configuration of bumps on the key required to open the lock, or the characters making up the password.

The point in this case is that the public had no means of guessing or finding the URL other than trying every possible combination. GeenStijl provided the public with the right combination (the key or password if you will) and this is where their publication further infringes on the copyright.

Re:Security by obcurity?

[Erik Hensema]

Copyright law protects Security By Obscurity. So the judge was correct in this case.

In order in infringe on copyright law, you'll have to make a copied work public. So, as long as you don't publish a copied work (i.e. keeping it obscure), it's not an infringement. This, for instance, allows you to make a private copy of a copyrighted work without infringing on copyright law.

In this case, a private copy was made. Nobody knew where to find the copy, except for the person who placed the copy online. So, while the copy was on the internet, it wasn't public. Geenstijl made the copy public by making the URL known to the general public. Therefore Geenstijl infringed on dutch copyright law.

Re:Security by obcurity?

[Anonymous Coward]

yet somebody managed to find the link and pass it on to geenstijl.nl
-> obviously the position that the link was unfindable is false

Re:Security by obcurity?

[Eraesr]

That is such a short sighted thing to say. You have no idea who supplied the link to GeenStijl. It might've been someone working internally at FileFactory or even PlayBoy.

Re:Security by obcurity?

[Anonymous Coward]

To expand on your analogy: they don't have a lock (== HTTP authentication), they just hide their entrance door. C'mon. Of course, somehow mathematicalls, hiding the door appropriately and not publishing the bump configuration on the key are somehow equivalent. But still you and me know the difference, and I'd hope a judge deciding on the case should, as well.

But hey. My opinion on the legal profession has deteriorated over tens of years steadily.

Re:Security by obcurity?

[v1]

This not a simple case of security through obscurity, though.

I see this from a different point of view. There are two distinct things I'd consider here, the link itself (separate from the content it takes you to), and the act of directing you to content owned by someone else.

Most of us have had exposure to people trying to get links taken down. What has to be considered here is what they're trying to claim for protection. The actual provider of the content is not the link. It's what's at the other end of the link, which in these cases is the person claiming to be wronged. I don't see them having any right to claim infringement of content because they alone are the ones providing it. I don't see any difference between this and say for example, my posting a note on a telephone pole saying "go to SuperScreen Theatre and watch Xmen 7". I'm not infringing on their ownership of anything xmen, I'm merely informing people that you're offering it. There's no fundamental difference in what I have done if XMen 7 is a regular paid show or a free-of-charge sneak preview that SuperScreen actually only informed a small group of people about. The difference there being one showing was public or charge normal, and the other was a "free if you know about it" kind of thing. But there was no difference in my posting of the notice. The only change was on the provider's end, and why should that change the legality of what *I* did?

So at least how I'm seeing it, the providing of the link itself should be legal, and that's what most people here will also be assuming.

But then we have to address the url itself. If it contains a secret parameter such as a unique ID, login, etc, is it legal to give that way? And I mean in any form, not just an easily clickable hyperlink. You can't call it a trade secret because you're sending it out to at least a subset of the public. It's a fact so you can't copyright it. An unauthorized person using it could be charged with unauthorized access (using credentials that were "stolen") but the person providing the link isn't the user so that doesn't apply to them. (and then you get into the IMHO completely BS concept of "contributing to infringement" etc) I don't see any angle to view this as illegal.

I think this is just some frustration on the part of the providers. They had a system in place that was assisting with their revenue, was convenient for them and their customers, and was mostly under their control. A bit like mailing out coupons to some of your good customers. But then they decided to change how their offer was being sent out, say for example by emailing their customers links to the coupon to download and print out. But now someone has posted the url to that coupon so it'd available to a lot of others. So others are going there and downloading and printing the coupon too, which is not what the provider intended or wants to have happen. So they're looking for a way to call what the poster is doing is "illegal" - not because it IS illegal, but merely because they want it stopped. The provider has no real ground to stand on, other than "I don't like it, I didn't intend for that to happen." They made a change to make things more convenient for themselves and their customers, and in doing so they gave up a bit of control over who they were giving things away to. They switched from using a secured private distribution method to using an insecure public distribution method. They continue to claim "privacy" but they themselves made it public. It's no different than my opening the curtains at my house and then getting upset when people look in my window. What I want doesn't have any bearing on what you see, I'm the one that made it available and it's my fault that you were able to see it. I have no right to demand you look the other way.

Re:Security by obcurity?

[gr8_phk]

In this case, a private copy was made. Nobody knew where to find the copy, except for the person who placed the copy online. So, while the copy was on the internet, it wasn't public. Geenstijl made the copy public by making the URL known to the general public. Therefore Geenstijl infringed on dutch copyright law.

No, someone placed the copy online and then gave the URL to someone else - that would constitute infringement by your own definition. That the someone else made the URL available to the public would be further infringement. Never mind that if the person who put them up there didn't own them already, there was yet more infringement. And if the company actually put them up there then they are rather stupid IMHO.

Re:Security by obcurity?

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I tell no-one where I live, my house will never be burgled. Good.

Re:Security by obcurity?

[vrt3]

The actual provider of the content is not the link. It's what's at the other end of the link, which in these cases is the person claiming to be wronged.

That's incorrect actually. I read the verdict (I speak Dutch), and what happened is that the photos leaked and were uploaded by some unknown person to FileFactory.com and later to other filesharing sites. GeenStijl.nl posted an article saying "hey, Britt Dekker's nude photos are leaked, you can see them OVER THERE".

I don't know how GeenStijl.nl came to know the URL. Got a tip from the person who leaked the photos, I guess.

As someone here said: the case is more nuanced than would appear from the summary, but I don't really know what to think of it.

Re:Security by obcurity?

[Anne Thwacks]

Since you dont know what to think, I will tell you. This is clearly an infingement, but probably not in the way the summary says. (I can read Dutch, but do not understand what I have read :-)

The link is NOT the infringement. The infringement lies in the description explaining what the link is. The person who put that description there aided and abetted the infringement, which was committed by the person that uploaded it to the file sharing site. The site host is not guilty unless perhaps of incitement by actively encouraging this kind of posting (if they did so).

The LINK ITSELF is not an infringement. If you carry a stolen phone in a brown paper bag, then the brown paper bag (and its supplier) are not guilty. If you do not know the contents are stolen, and have no reason to suspect it might be then you are innocent. The person that told you the brown paper bag contained a bar of chocolate for his sick mother is very guilty indeed. However, if you advertise "I deliver stolen mobile phones in brown paper bags"! expect a guilty verdict.

Re:Security by obcurity?

[Anonymous Coward]

And your house is very well hidden, then it is unlikely you will be burgled. Alas I suspect your house is not hidden but rather its existence is public knowledge (that is you can see it if you walk down your street).

Lets try a different thing that a house. A push bike. If you leave your bike unlocked in the front garden it will get stolen.
However how about if you leave it (unlocked) in an unlocked shed in the back garden. Less likely to be stolen as it is not visible by anyone walking down the street.

If I however stick a large a sign tell everyone you leave your bike unlocked in the shed then how blameless am I in its theft?

Re:Security by obcurity?

[Jedi Alec]

Actually, the person who first published the link...was Britt Dekker, the model for the pictures, who published the links on Twitter, so it was only available to her over 100k followers.

Re:Security by obcurity?

[Hatta]

This not a simple case of security through obscurity, though. If it were, then all physical cylinder locks or password security could also be considered "security through obscurity".

All physical locks ARE examples of security through obscurity. You can recreate the key be examining the lock. You can't do that with public key cryptography. That's the big difference that the "security through obscurity" meme is supposed to highlight.

The point in this case is that the public had no means of guessing or finding the URL other than trying every possible combination. GeenStijl provided the public with the right combination (the key or password if you will) and this is where their publication further infringes on the copyright.

GeenStijl made a discovery which they communicated to the public. Free speech. This ruling is barbaric.

Re:Security by obcurity?

[KingMotley]

If you can explain the logical difference between why it is legal to give one of these URLs out, and not the other because one is "lock"ed and the other is not, I'd love to hear it:
http: //{hard to guess string with colon in it}@host
and
http: //host/{hard to guess string that may have colon in it}

Re:Security by obcurity?

[Anonymous Coward]

So in fact, she was the one who breached the copyrights of Playboy in the first place? Why wasn't she taken to court then? As a model she holds no rights to the pictures in question, am I right?

And BTW (and I know it's not you, I just don't want to create a separate post) comparing obscure hyperlinks to passwords and locks is as accurate as Elmer Fudd's aim. A hyperlink is a human-readable address for content already available on the web and not in any way a security measure. So an obscure hyperlink is more like a house with no number on it. GeenStijl simply pointed a finger at it and said: "You can find nude pictures of Britt Dekker there!" - something a good paparazzi does every day before breakfast.

Re:Security by obcurity?

[Anonymous Coward]

So Dutch courts protect Security by Obscurity?

Modded 'interesting'? How about modding it BS? This is a copyright case, it has absolutely nothing to do with security. The files are not secure, all you need is an URL to access them. I am allowed to access that URL and share it with all my friends. What is not allowed is to publish is with the intent of making a profit. It's about money, not security.

Re:Security by obcurity?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, though your analogy is quite confusing. Let's stick to analogies involving chocolate (yummy!) and let's try again: There is a girl called Playboy holding a box of chocolates made by Britt Chocolate Factory. Then comes an unidentified suspect, takes (steals?) that box and gives it to another guy called FileFactory to distribute. FileFactory doesn't care he holds a stolen box of chocolates, and he doesn't say it out loud either. Here comes a young boy called GeenStijl and starts shouting out "Hey! This guy has free chocolate!" Now, the legal problem is how did GeenStijl learn about FileFactory distributing chocolate. Was it miss Dekker - the CEO of Britt Chocolate Factory that tweeted about it trying to advertise her product, and making the information public in the process? Or was it GeenStijl working with the unidentified culprit, making the information public with intent to make profit on the stolen chocolate? These are the questions that should have been answered: Who was the person who gave the chocolate to FileFactory and how did GeenStijl learn about it if it wasn't made public? And not whether shouting "This guy has free chocolate" is against the law. Hyperlinks are only means for infringement, they cannot become an infringement in itself - you cannot fine people for making a stabbing motion, because it is used in stabbings. Or lock people up for holding car keys when they're drunk.

Re:Security by obcurity?

[tehcyder]

GeenStijl made a discovery which they communicated to the public. Free speech. This ruling is barbaric.

No, what is barbaric is a childishly simplistic black and white view of the world with absolute freedom of speech on one side, and evil communism/fascism on the other. It's not as simple as that.

Re:Security by obcurity?

[Hatta]

Yeah, it's all shades of grey until its your speech they target.

This brings to mind the old joke about a man who approaches a woman in a bar and says "would you sleep with me for a million dollars?". She thinks and says "OK". Then the man says "would you sleep with me for 5 dollars?". Agahst the woman exclaims "What kind of woman do you think I am?" The man replies, "We already know what kind of woman you are, now we're just haggling over price."

Principle means something, and without it you're just a whore. Maybe you want to live in a world where essential liberties are sacrificed if it economically benefits the powerful, but I sure as hell don't.

Re:Security by obcurity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick reply from Sweden. The laws here were changed recently and there is no longer any leniency for being in possession of stolen goods in physical forms. There is no "good will" clause. If an object is reported as stolen and you are found in possession of it, eve with receipt(!), you are guilty of a crime.

sgg63562hwyv6572vu

[Anonymous Coward]

"However, these files can’t be found through search engines, only users with the exact URL have access to the files"

trolololo:

https://www.google.nl/search?q=site%3Afilefactory.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=site:filefactory.com+filetype:zip&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=QUX&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&filter=0&fp=1&biw=1440&bih=770&cad=b&sei=Gd9RUKvyD-mc0QWBmoCQDA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&sei=2fRSUNy8KKGm0QWOroH4Cw

https://www.google.nl/search?q=site%3Afilefactory.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=site:filefactory.com+720p&oq=site:filefactory.com+720p&gs_l=serp.3...4732.8524.4.9049.5.5.0.0.0.0.365.1238.0j3j0j2.5.0...0.0...1c.1.B59GNHkYEVg&pbx=1&fp=1&biw=1067&bih=493&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&cad=b&sei=2_RSUOvGGqet0QWXrICoCw

https://www.google.nl/search?q=site%3Afilefactory.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=site:filefactory.com+HD&oq=site:filefactory.com+HD&gs_l=serp.3...27593.28006.8.28612.2.2.0.0.0.0.86.123.2.2.0...0.0...1c.1.cBIjdvh2Hig&pbx=1&fp=1&biw=1067&bih=493&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&cad=b&sei=3fRSUL6iBM2Z0QX2koCoDw

Re:sgg63562hwyv6572vu

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that a query like "britt dekker nude pictures" would not (at that time) return the links that they published.

When it would be legal to post links like that, everyone could get around copyright issues by putting their material at some filesharing host and linking it on the main site.
The judge considered that to be unacceptable.

Re:sgg63562hwyv6572vu

[Anonymous Coward]

So now they need to make sure that google can find them before they post the link, that should be feasible...

Inventor of hyperlinks is turning in his grave!

[macraig]

Oh, wait... he's very much alive and fuming about this bullshit.

Re:Inventor of hyperlinks is turning in his grave!

[lightknight]

Indeed. For the life of me, I can't understand what twisted logic and absence of technical knowledge is required to come up with many of the internet-related ruling these past few years. I keep hearing them, and think, "Surely you jest!" But no, they're actually being serious.

Constantly explaining the facts of life to people who really do live in bubbles is slowly eroding my own sense of sanity. "Do our thinking for us, but let us have veto control over it in case what you're saying displeases us" -> Gah!

Re:Inventor of hyperlinks is turning in his grave!

[macraig]

When even the people responsible for conceiving and popularizing its usage are saying these rulings are bullshit and being ignored, you know the people doing the ruling are completely delusional. Or evil. Or both.

Re:Inventor of hyperlinks is turning in his grave!

[fnj]

The law is an ass, and I'm looking at you, those who make and enforce laws and judge cases. I am not holding members of the public who sit on juries blameless when they immorally convict someone for breaking an evil and immoral law.

Re:Dutch servers becomes the untouchable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everyone hosts their site only for the purpose of publishing someone else's copyrighted material.

Next mission

[Jerry Smith]

Have Google check and filter _everything_ because of this ruling.

Maldenesque

[macraig]

Is she the illegitimate love child of Karl Malden? That's the most distracting schnozz I've seen on a woman in a while.

Re:Maldenesque

[wonkey_monkey]

I'm sick of tired of people mocking others for their physical appearance!

Besides, she's clearly the love child of Owen Wilson.

That's how it works

[Kupfernigk]

Lawyers totally depend on security through obscurity. Laws are deliberately made made vague and obscure, thus providing job security for lawyers.

Re:Dutch servers becomes the untouchable?

[Anonymous Coward]

But just about anyone does have links to other people's copyrighted sites.

Well it could be I suppose

[Chrisq]

If I link to http://mysite.com/It was the day my grandmother exploded. I sat in the crematorium, listening to my Uncle Hamish quietly snoring in harmony to Bach's Mass in B Minor, and I reflected that it always seemed to be death that drew me back to Gallanach. that could be copyright infringement in a URL.

Solution

[StripedCow]

A solution easily presents itself: just link to a google search.

Re:Solution

[joostje]

The whole point of the reasoning of the judge was that the link wasn't in the google index (at least not at the time GeenStijl published it).

Re:Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

You could add the sites to the google index quite easily by linking to them from one or more sites.

Re:Solution

[nospam007]

So it's a pro-Google judgment?

Don't link to crap before the Google crawler visited.

Re:Solution

[omnichad]

So robots.txt is supposed to apply to humans now? I guess that just means that nobody can visit a web site with a robots.txt file blocking their access.

Is making a bookmark infringement? What if I print the URL on paper? Is it just making the link clickable? What if I change that link to plain text and tell people to copy and paste it into their address bar?

I think Google should just block all Dutch IP's effective immediately. See what a web without linking is really like. When the court ruling is reversed, Google access is restored.

Re:Solution

[toriver]

Exactly: Saint Google absolves you from your sins... :)

That's really insane!

[aglider]

Hyperlinks are just references. Just like we have done so far in speeches, in books and articles.
References don't contain the referenced information, they just direct the reader/listener to another "information container".
Back to the web technology, a reference to a file is not the file itself (like the information author+title+publisher is not the book).
A reference to a "pirated" file (whatever the content is) is still a reference, not the "pirated" file.
You could say the reference helped the pirated file to be spread on the net. Yes, indeed it did.
But still that's not infringement. They should ash to remove the reference and that'd be all.

Re:That's really insane!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is obvious and even the Dutch supreme court recognised this.

The point in this case is that the hyperlink is not to a public site, but to a semi-private site that you can only find with the hyperlink (GeenStijl, who will appeal this ruling, point out that google does index filefactory).

This is certainly no general ruling that hyperlinks to infringing content are illegal or constitute infringement in general. The question is whether the hyperlink can be seen as an act of publishing, e.g. opening up to the public something that was not publicly accessible before. Obviously, hyperlinks in general point to material that is already publicly available, so this does not apply.

Re:That's really insane!

[fnj]

Oh for gosh sake. It's not a "semi-private" site, whatever that means. The links in question are to publicly readable files sitting on a publicly accessible server - with URLs that inherently exist but which were not publicly discoverable until the links in question were made. Period, end of story. The front page of File Factory states in huge lettering "The easiest way to upload and share your files in the cloud". It's PUBLIC. For an uploaded file to be publicly discoverable and reachable, all that has to happen is for the uploader, or anyone else who knows the URL of the file, to publish a link to it.

And no, "hyperlinks in general" do not have to point to material that is publicly linked already. A link is a link. How do you think the first link gets made? The first link made is just the first link, nothing more; no different from any other link. What if the link in question should be to an otherwise un-indexed page of links put up by a third party or by an open cooperative, none of which links are legally objectionable when the link in question is made? What if then a third or FOURTH party later changes the block of links to make it legally objectionable? Just who is performing the act of publishing in that case? Hmmm?

Does everyone making a link have to exhaustively research the legalities, not only when he makes it, but continue to scrutinize it forever after to make sure nothing changes to make him liable under some stupid law? This case may stand under this interpretation of the law, but anyone with any imagination whatsoever can visualize cases where the whole legal house of cards falls down.

This interpretation of the law is an assault against the foundation of the WWW. If you examine the subject critically, you are forced to the conclusion that the law is struggling to cope with technology that is allowing anyone to see what a mockery the law is. The law has not yet come to grips with the fact that, for the first time in history, any ordinary individual is enabled to enjoy his own image of a Renoir or Michelangelo at no cost, and any individual can pass the enjoyment on to another individual at no cost to either party. You can't artificially hide data or knowledge, and you can't artificially enforce scarcity, when no physical basis exists for either any more.

Re:That's really insane!

[TangoMargarine]

This makes me curious whether URLs that are non-hyperlinked (i.e., "pre"/plaintext/whatever) would fall outside of this ruling. After all, they're not actually hyperlinks :)

Re:That's really insane!

[skywire]

>They should as[k] to remove the reference and that'd be all.

You were doing so well until you experienced a brain malfunction and went off the rails while typing the last line. That undermined everything you had said before.

Re:That's really insane!

[skywire]

The point in this case is that the hyperlink is not to a public site, but to a semi-private site that you can only find with the hyperlink

That's like saying that because a little hole-in-the-wall greasy spoon has the best gyros in town, and word has not spread far, it is really a private club. If the court thinks that a publicly accessible website is somehow "semiprivate", they are idiots.

Re:That's really insane!

[skywire]

Well said! Mod parent way, way up!

Re:That's really insane!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are clueless.
A site that holds files with names you cannot predict and cannot list *IS* a private site.
You can only retrieve the files when you know their names. This is similar to only being able to login when you know a username and password.
That the login: prompt is publicly accessible does not matter, it is the secret information you need to know to login that makes it private.

Ah, the Dutch...

[outsider007]

And farting in bed can constitute an oven.

Linkgin'2WP = infringement

[servitore]

So linkin2 http://wikipedia.org/ is infringement :-))

Re:Linkgin'2WP = infringement

[Erik Hensema]

No it isn't. Wikipedia was known by the general public before you linked them from your comment. Furthermore, the content on wikipedia isn't infringing.

I've got copies of music available on my private server at home. That server can be reached from the internet. If you'd somehow found out the url of the copied songs, then you'd be publishing (i.e. making them known to the general public) them, which would be infringing. And my personal copies are legal since I'm allowed to make a private copy of music I own.

Re:Linkgin'2WP = infringement

[truedfx]

If I find the URL to the songs, I am allowed to make private copies of them even if I don't "own" them (so far that has remained legal under Dutch law), and you can be sued for distributing them to me. If I then make the URL public to others, according to this ruling, I may also be sued, but that does not get you off the hook.

Re:Linkgin'2WP = infringement

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you placing your music on a publicly accessible server is the first problem. You are the one making them available not the person advertising them (ie linking).

Re:Linkgin'2WP = infringement

[skywire]

While I think copyright laws are simply evil and should be abolished, that does not change the fact that you are extraordinarily confused about the current state of the law and lacking in understanding of simple English words like "private". Or are you just an unusually skillful troll?

Apparently...

[dutchd00d]

Apparently, common sense isn't a requirement for a judge in the Netherlands. Here's what should have happened:

Judge: Your client made these files accessible on the world-wide web?

Lawyer: Yes your honor.

Judge: Without any sort of access control, like a login procedure or some such?

Lawyer: Yes your honor.

Judge: And now they're complaining that someone linked to them?

Lawyer: Yes your honor.

Judge: Please inform your client that he is an idiot. Case dismissed. *Bang*!

Re:Apparently...

[wonkey_monkey]

Given the undiscoverable nature of the data, the URL in this case could be considered to be a password. A normal login procedure is just a correct sequence of bytes, same as a URL to fetch a specific piece of data. Those who know it can get the data (and should be the only ones authorised to do so by the owner), those who don't, can't. Discovering a URL can be just as hard as discovering a username and password.

Re:Apparently...

[Anonymous Coward]

p>Judge: Your client made these files accessible on the world-wide web?

Lawyer: Yes your honor.

Actually: no, your honor.

These pictures were planned for the december edition of Playboy, and apparently Sanoma, the publisher, does not like the fact that they are on the web and is trying hard to stop that. GeenStijl kept updating the links in their articles to new locations when Sanoma had Filefactory and Imageshack remove them, and they had been informed this was copyright infringing material. It is typical for their attitude.

In Dutch, when someone fucked you over badly you will typically describe their behaviour as "geen stijl", literally "no style". This website's attitude is that it's fun to be assholes.

To me this is an edge case. On a technical level a hyperlink certainly is not a publication of the linked item, but on the other hand persistently linking and relinking to material that you know to be infringing copyright certainly is behaviour that actively assists in spreading it. To me that comes a bit too close to pushing someone in front of a speeding car and blaming only the driver for the injuries to be quite comfortable with it. But the judge used different arguments. On first sight they don't seem to be unreasonable to me, but I can't oversee what side effects it may have. I'll be interested in what Bits of Freedom will have to say about this.

Re:Apparently...

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the undiscoverable nature of the data, the URL in this case could be considered to be a password.

No, no, and no.

It's not a password because it's a "sequence of bytes," it's a password because of it's purpose - it's intended to prevent unauthorized access. A URL's stated purpose is the exact opposite - to grant access, i.e. make a document, file, or application accessible.

Re:Apparently...

[Anonymous Coward]

ALL digital information is represented as the "correct sequence of bytes."

Saying a URL is like a password for that reason is like saying a door is a key because they're both made of metal!

Re:Apparently...

[toriver]

You use the word "undiscoverable" as if there is such a thing. Everything is "discoverable".

If I take down the number sign next to my door it does not make my apartment "undiscoverable". Someone can still open the door and walk in. Obscurity is not security.

Re:Apparently...

[Anonymous Coward]

Folks, parent is a troll -- a sophisticated one, but a troll nonetheless.

Re:Apparently...

[wonkey_monkey]

A URL's stated purpose is the exact opposite - to grant access, i.e. make a document, file, or application accessible.

But it can be used in exactly the same way as a password. If I programmed my webserver to respond only to a specific, randomly-generated URL which was not determinable by means other than brute force, how is that not equivalent to a password?

Re:Apparently...

[wonkey_monkey]

You use the word "undiscoverable" as if there is such a thing. Everything is "discoverable".

My point is that a convoluted, randomly generated URL is of the same class of discoverability as username/password combo.

If I take down the number sign next to my door it does not make my apartment "undiscoverable".

No it doesn't, but then your analogy isn't a valid one. A house sign is not an address or a set of directions, and an apartment is visible by anyone nearby, rather than only those with the directions.

Re:Apparently...

[wonkey_monkey]

I'm really not (apart from the sophisticated part *straightens bow tie*). What is the difference between using a login page on a website versus uses a preformed secret URL to establish your permissions to access data?

(Nearly) Every content is copyrighted

[cpghost]

If linking to copyrighted content is prohibited in NL, links to everything not in the public domain would be illegal; including links to content licensed under CC, BSD, GFDL, [L]GPL, etc... This is by all means the whole Internet. Should this ruling be enforced, the Dutch internet is about to disappear in a puff of logic; destroyed by incompetent lawyers and lawmakers. This is amazing, considering that the Netherlands were pioneers, connecting Europe to the (early) Internet. How deep the fall.

Re:(Nearly) Every content is copyrighted

[servitore]

Y-Y, so e.g. linkin2 http://wikipedia.org/ is infringement :-)

Re:(Nearly) Every content is copyrighted

[91degrees]

If linking to copyrighted content is prohibited in NL

It's not though. Wilfully linking to material that infringes copyright can, in certain circumstances, also be considered copyright infringement. Linking to CC or GPL content is legal because they give explicit permission to be shared.

Re:(Nearly) Every content is copyrighted

[Anonymous Coward]

Wilfully linking to material that infringes copyright can, in certain circumstances, also be considered copyright infringement.

The problem is, you have no control over what's on the other end of the link you publish. It's just an address.

You can publish a link to a page that contains no copyrighted material, or to a page that contains copyrighted-but-freely-licensed material, and tomorrow the owner could stick infringing material on the page and you are now guilty of infringement as well.

This ruling is stupid. The only way to be in compliance is to never link to anything ever.

Re:(Nearly) Every content is copyrighted

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming I understand it all correctly, intent also comes into it.

Re:(Nearly) Every content is copyrighted

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but how do you prove your intent was honorable when the person on the other end of the link can change the content?

Re:(Nearly) Every content is copyrighted

[91degrees]

You can publish a link to a page that contains no copyrighted material, or to a page that contains copyrighted-but-freely-licensed material, and tomorrow the owner could stick infringing material on the page and you are now guilty of infringement as well.

Do you think that might have happened in this case then?

Seems that if this was the case, they might have mentioned it at some point. And I presume the court would have required the plaintiff to demonstrate this was not the case.

Law isn't as stupid and inflexible as you seem to think. This is one of the reasons we still have humans interpreting it.

Re:(Nearly) Every content is copyrighted

[Anonymous Coward]

... and a cow can be considered a horse. But it clearly is not one.

Re:(Nearly) Every content is copyrighted

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter, because if a URL can be infringement then no one is safe from accusations of infringment, ever.

Re:(Nearly) Every content is copyrighted

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in a ruling similar to this one.
It requires both the content to be an infringement and the link to actually advertise the infringing material.

Re:(Nearly) Every content is copyrighted

[91degrees]

Surely nobody's safe from accusations of anything ever. If someone accuses you of something then you need to defend yourself.

Extremely interesting case

[zmooc]

I think this is an extremely interesting case. My first reaction was a typical knee-jerk don't touch my free hyperlinking speech! However, this goes further than that.

What has happened here, is that a URL was used that was effectively just as secure as one secured by a username/password. Only difference is that the username/password (or in this case another secret key, which is a mere technicality) were in the URL itself. The reasoning of the judge was that by publishing this secret, Geenstijl has effectively published the material that was protected by the secret. I think that's not that odd a decision. However, it is a very dangerous one.

What this boils down to, is whether the location of credentials should matter. One thing we all agree on, is that username and password passed in HTTP headers should be considered confidential. Using or publishing them without permission is most certainly illegal in most countries. Should a secret key or credentials that are part of or can technically be made part of a URL be treated in the same way? I think they should in obvious cases; for example using or publishing an url like http://slashdot.org/login?user=zmooc&pass=yo without my permission would probably be illegal. How obviously secret does an URL have to be for publishing it to be illegal? And who is to decide on that?

That's what this case is about or at least should be about.

Re:Extremely interesting case

[swilver]

Except, Google found it -- it was indexed by Google.

If Google can find it so can others.

Re:Extremely interesting case

[Anonymous Coward]

before or after it got 'published'?

Re:Extremely interesting case

[joostje]

At the time GeenStijl published the link, the link wasn't indexed by Google. That was the whole point of the reasoning of the judge.

Re:Extremely interesting case

[AlXtreme]

Why would publishing a link to another site be illegal? If someone knew your username and password providing a direct login-link would probably violate slashdot's ToS but I can't follow the step to such a link being illegal.

What the judge did was equating publishing a link to a previously unknown copyrighted work with publishing the copyrighted work itself. It would be the same as making it illegal to tell people they can find ABC on the pirate bay if no one knew so before.

It was clear from the ruling and the reaction that this ruling came from a judge who doesn't understand that you can't be responsible for the content when you link to another party. It will be overturned in the appeal, or it will be the end of Google over here.

Re:Extremely interesting case

[Anonymous Coward]

I get that, but the fact remains that theoretically someone could stumble upon it, bot or human. I've trimmed back a couple of directories in the URL path and found all sorts of things that weren't specifically linked on a web page, or put in numbers and letters with the same pattern to find additional files. http://example.com/dir/dir/file32533.zip logically means there might be a "file32534.zip". Is mentioning on a web site "Hey, I just noticed there *is* a file32534.zip" going to be infringing if the material in it happens to be copyrighted? Uploading the file, downloading the file, yes.

Re:Extremely interesting case

[zmooc]

Using credentials without permission is illegal. If you knew my username and password or any other secret key that is used to protect a resource, using them would be considered illegal intrusion unless you had my explicit permission. Also, sharing them would be facilitating illegal intrustion. Such information being stored in or combined into a URL does not change the matter.

However, if you couldn't know you were using such credentials, it becomes another matter. And that is what this court case is about or at least should be about: to what extent can Geenstijl be expected to identify the URL they received as being or containing secret information that can be used to access secured resources. This is a very difficult matter and it surprises me Sanoma managed to convince the judge Geenstijl should have known this information was not public. It seems to me that in order to determine that, one should proof that the URL was not communicated to more than a handful of people that all knew it was a private secret AND Geenstijl should have known that as well OR it should be plainly obvious from the URL that it contained secret credentials (which seems impossible to me since I'd consider such an url to be irony or sarcasm). To me this seems pretty much impossible to proof.

I also agree with you that the judge in this case appears not to understand the matter. However, he/else appears to make a interesting point.

It would be the same as making it illegal to tell people they can find ABC on the pirate bay if no one knew so before.

That depends; does Pirate Bay offer an explicit mechanism for hiding information on their website? I doubt it. I don't know the site were Britts naked pictures were posted, but I do know Youtube; it allows me to mark a video "private". It will then never publish the url the video is on. Some people use this for sharing private family videos and the like. Can they expect their videos to be considered "legally private"? I doubt it. However, what is to be determined here and what I'd like to know is were the line between my login-url and a not-so-private youtube url is or should be.

Re:Extremely interesting case

[zmooc]

Stumbling upon such a url would be highly unlikely. About just as unlikely as guessing your /. username and password right in one go, which would be illegal.

Looking a node higher in a structure that is known to be hierarchical obviously is not "stumbling upon", nor is looking a node lower in a structure that appears numerically linear (like your zip file naming scheme). It is about just as logical as knowing there's an eight floor in a building once you've established you're on the ninth floor. Its existence is obvious. Those situations cannot reasonably be compared to URLs that have been constructed in a random, hard to guess way on purpose.

Re:Extremely interesting case

[Anonymous Coward]

What this boils down to, is whether the location of credentials should matter [...]

Should a secret key or credentials that are part of [...] a URL be treated in the same way?

I think they should in obvious cases.

I think it should not. That's why: the medium offers a way to express unmistakably I want this to be secret, and that's HTTP Auth. So folks can perfectly know when they're crossing the line. Judges would be wisely adviced to encourage such bright lines when there are some. Enough grey areas around already.

But yes, legal professionals like to bathe in grey areas. Lots of them. They make a living on that.

Re:Extremely interesting case

[fa2k]

Technically, it's extremely stupid to rely on URLs to remain secret. On many browers, they are transmitted to a search provider as you type them. I've had Googlebot start hitting my personal web server, and I think it's because I type the URL on my Android phone. (can't be 100 % sure, I posted links to single files on it on IRC and once on slashdot. Would be an interesting experiment.). The URLs are also stored in the history, of course, and the cache files are possibly readable by anone on the system.

Re:Extremely interesting case

[zmooc]

I am inclined to agree with you. However, the situation has become somewhat complex; while HTTP does offer a great way to protect specific resources, it is not used in practice. I can't think of any modern website that uses it; practically everybody uses form-based authentication. Therefore, it has become somewhat muddy where the line is and when it is crossed.

So this means that when I encounter a HTTP Auth protected resource, the situation is entirely clear. However, when I encounter a non HTTP Auth protected resource, it is NOT safe to assume it isn't protected through some other means.

Judges will not look at what RFCs say. The will look at the real world, which differs quite a bit from the ideal world described in many specifications. They will say that website visitors cannot be expected to know all RFCs by heart. Also, they cannot be expected to even see the often very clear messages exchanged at the protocol level... too bad, but that's the real world.

Re:Extremely interesting case

[arose]

Theoretically someone could stumble over http://someuser:p0wned@example.com/secret.zip as well, yet publsishing it would directly expose a very real password. It seems that the judge in this case was very insightfull by recognizing that a private link is no different

Re:Extremely interesting case

[Anonymous Coward]

So legality or illegality of something is determined by Google, ie: a multinational corporation was just officially anointed as the guardian of our legal system

Re:Extremely interesting case

[Anonymous Coward]

No, google was just an example. The fact the judge used was that noone could find the link (google or otherwise) before geenstijl published it, even if they wanted to. The link was randomly generated and the url was not published by the uploader. The thing the uploader did was send it privatly (so not a comment: a direct mail) to geenstijl. They then had reason to suspect it was copyrighted and they knew it wasn't leaked by anyone else yet. So when they then deliberatly made the sectret link public, in effect they published the copyrighted data.

Re:Extremely interesting case

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a small detail you forgot to mention:

In an HTTP URL, it's not always obvious what parts are parameters that are being passed on (e.g. credentials) or just location-information.

Example (using mod_rewrite)... in the following URL, are there any "credentials" or not?

http://www.randomwebsite.com/james/file342

The thing is... you can't tell... maybe it's some file called "file342" in some directory called "james".... maybe it's passing off "james" and "file342" as some parameters (login/pwd set) to some dynamic code. But, from the outside, it's difficult to tell.

Could someone guess or figure out such as URL by himself?

In this specific case...

If the file was http://www.filefactory.com/4e32894lots_of_random_stuff389472394832 you can claim no one could discover it by chance. What if the URL was http://www.filefactory.com/leaked_photos ?

If the URL was of this second type (where the content is self-evident by reading the URL and there are no signs of "credentials" being pass on), would it THEN be legal to link to it?

What are the EXACT criteria for defining some URL as "impossible to discover by a person" or not? What if I link to some copyrighted material which is located at an URL which is "possible to be discovered by a person without my help"; am I then still infringing or not?

Re:Extremely interesting case

[Warhawke]

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of username and password . Usernames and passwords passed in plain-text are de minimis security. At best, at least under United States law (I'm not sure how Dutch law treats IP) the information may be classified as a trade secret. But copyright infringement has not occurred because direct copyright infringement requires actual copying.

This would be a perfect example of security by obscurity. A poster argues above that the same argument can apply to the configuration of key bumps, so that this can't really be called security by obscurity , but in actuality all that StO comprises is security where an attacker's knowledge of the vector alone will constitute access. In the case of a key, the attacker must have 1) the knowledge of the key configuration, and 2) a blank key with a method to cut that key. SbO is hiding a key under a rock; knowledge of the location alone is all that is needed to compromise the security portal, and no other device is required other than the vector. I'd say it would be presumptive to say "we all agree" that information such as that should be confidential, since, to some degree, it requires a "looking the other way" and 3rd party nondisclosure to keep the security valid and uncompromised. You'd essentially be saying that we should bind all people, as a matter of law, to nondisclosure to protect poor security. Tennessee did that with Netflix passwords, and there's a very strong argument that such a law is blatantly unconstitutional as a limitation of free speech. Denmark'sMMV, however.

If the copyrighted works are accessible by simple knowledge of an arrangement of characters in a hyperlink, and no other security measure is required, then they are protected only by StO. Depending on what you're talking about, this may be enough. U.S. trade secrets require 1) something that provides economic advantage by being kept secret, and 2) reasonable efforts to keep that thing secret. StO might well-enough be reasonable, though not advisable, to protect trade secrets. But this wasn't a trade secret case. It's a copyright case. In many countries, and for a while in the United States, copyright requires disclosure of copyright notice, which means disclosure of the work. You couldn't keep something locked in a vault, and then when someone published something allegedly infringing, you pulled the item out of the vault and claimed copyright infringement.

Furthermore, in order to constitute copyright infringement, copying must actually occur. I'm assuming this was a contributory copyright infringement case, similar to U.S. P2P uploading cases, but even under such rules, generally at common law, contributory or secondary copyright infringement requires more than a provision of a link. The Dutch Supreme Court has established that hyperlinking to copyright material is not copyright infringement. This ruling, which states that hyperlinking to copyrighted material is copyright infringement, stands in contest to that, no matter what way you want to spin it. It should be overturned. If the plaintiff had brought a misappropriation of trade secrets claim, then it might have had more success. But copyright infringement through hyperlinks, either direct or contributory, is not a recognizable wrong.

Re:Extremely interesting case

[Anonymous Coward]

I see your point if the URL is truly random and can't easily be guessed. But if that's the case, is a "scrambled" URL the key distinction being made here, versus other URLs that you could plausibly find through other means whether indexed by search engines or not? If so, I still have a tough time accepting that sharing a not-easily-guessed URL, which doesn't involve copying any of the actual materials in question, constitutes an infringing act. It's like pointing at a bookshelf in a library. That's not infringing even if someone subsequently takes the book off the shelf and photocopies the whole thing, or if the book on the shelf was an illegally-copied work in the first place. Pointing is not copying.

I guess I'm going to have to try to read more detail about that ruling, because it still doesn't make sense to me.

Re:Extremely interesting case

[Anonymous Coward]

The offense was not copying, it was publishing. Nobody claimed the pointing was copying. The pointing was making
available content that the owner did not intend to publish for free, by giving out information where it could be found.

If Playboy magazine had an option for subscribers to read it online after inputting a username and password, and then
allowed access to the content via a URL that a non-subscriber could not have guessed but is now handed over to the
subscriber who has logged in, publishing that secret URL on Geenstijl would be illegal just as well.

Re:Dutch servers becomes the untouchable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the ruling specificly states that the reasoning must include that people shouldnt have been able to just google the same stuff and that a profit was made by the defendedant making the link public.

URL or hyperlink?

[srussia]

Did the site actually link to the content or merely reported its URL? Would such a distinction have mattered?

Re:URL or hyperlink?

[fnj]

A very good question indeed. And what if the link was to an unindexed page linking to an unindexed page linking to an unindexed page linking to the "bad" item itself? Exactly who would be the naughty party in that case? The chronologically first in the chain? The chronologically last, who completes the chain? The guy putting up the "bad" item in the first place? All of them together? None of them?

What if party A lists the first 5 characters of the link and then links to party B, who lists the next 5 characters, and so on for as many parties as it takes to list the entire link in pieces so it can be copy-and-pasted together by the user? Are all the parties naughty? None of them? Am *I* the naughty party for suggesting the technique right here? What if the pieces are encrypted, and yet another party lists the encryption key? Which one(s) are naughty in that case? What if the link isn't really listed accurately anywhere, even in pieces; what if only clues are listed, like some scavenger hunt?

What if somebody makes a site with AI, to which you pose questions in written language (is it animal? vegetable? does it start with "p"?), and it gives helpful answers so you can finally dope out the link yourself, though it was never actually handed to you?

Re:URL or hyperlink?

[skywire]

Linking is reporting a URL, and nothing more. There can be no distinction between two ways of naming the same thing, so your questions cannot be answered.

Cookie warnings

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's annoying at all to be notified that a website wants to track me. I think it's bloody annoying when they track me without telling me.

And it doesn't apply to cookies that are needed to make the website function. It doesn't apply to session cookies, and from what I understand also not for "save my preferences" and similar cookies. It applies to cookies that aren't linked to functions that are obvious to the visitor. If a site can't be straightforward enough to funtion without being annoying they should have a critical look at themselves. The majority of Dutch websites I visit don't seem to have a problem. Advertisers might try to fall back to choosing the ads they show based on the content of the web page instead of on the person visiting it. They used to be quite capable of doing that before they were able to track everyone.

Dutch privacy law basically states that data you store may only be used for the purpose it was collected for. A shop can for instance store debit/credit card data for the purpose of handling payments, but may not use it for connecting the dots between what a customer buys. Of course they try: recently the largest Dutch railway company has been reprimanded by the Dutch privacy watchdog for collecting detailed data about traveling behaviour of holders of supposedly anonymous electronic tickets (OV-chipkaart, similar to the London Oyster card). They have stopped collecting this data and have destroyed what they had collected.

The cookie law makes sense from this perspective: if you want to collect more data or do more with the data than what is needed to perform the function you offer to the visitor then you have to ask their permission for it. Privacy is the right to be left alone, it means that it is not acceptable for others to be as nosy as they possibly can be about your life.

Why should visibility on google be a factor?

[Anonymous Coward]

And, since this post is copyrighted (me) but is VERY unlikely to EVER appear on Google, is slashdot now (because it gets paid for ads on the site) in violation of my copyright?

Re:Why should visibility on google be a factor?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you willingly chose to post it on Slashdot. That was your act.

Why do people like you ask stupid questions that ignore the actual reality of the situation?

Re:Why should visibility on google be a factor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Visibility is a factor since that is the point of publication: making it generally visible. So the file on filefactory wasn't publicly accessible: you need the link to find it. Then one site publishes said link and thus makes it publicly visible, ergo they published it.

In a way, this means that putting copyrighted material on filefactory is NOT a problem/illegal since this does not make it publicly available (Filefactory doesn't allow searching). That's pretty cool!

On the internet, there is no private site.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you disconnect or restrict access to the site by requiring some shared secret to get in.

The internet is no more private than the public parks and the road system connecting them.

You don't have to ask permission to go off your drive and on to the road, do you? Nor for walking OFF the public road and walking up to someone's door across their "private" path? So why are sites put on the public internet trying to be private? LOCK THE FRIGGING DOOR MORONS.

Re:

[davide marney]

The scenario is I publish your secret URL on my blog. You then move your files. I then update my blog with the new address. According to the judge, that's an infringement on your copyright.

I really don't see how that can be right. The address of your publication is not the publication, as can be seen by the fact that the address changed, but the content did not. The fact that you consider the address a secret is immaterial from a publishing standpoint, which is what copyright is supposed to be about.

Re:

[davide marney]

Using credentials without permission is illegal.

. Under what law?

So I can't create an index of books and movies?

[erroneus]

If I were to create an index of books and movies and told people where they can BUY them, am I guilty of infringing on copyrights?

Clearly, no. We call this "advertising" and it's big business.

"Contributing to the deliquency of..." is not the same as being a delinquent minor is it? We have similar laws which fill similar needs. Why don't they just push for a law which describes what is actually happening rather than harm the law twisting it out of proportion and purpose?

I think it is beyond reason to argue that links to copyrighted works does not aid in the distribution of such materials. But it goes at least equally beyond reason to argue that providing hyperlinks is the same as infringement.

Define the crime better and we can talk.

Re:So I can't create an index of books and movies?

[Anonymous Coward]

They did not tell people where to BUY the Playboy magazine. If they did so, Sanoma would never have considered going to court.
What they did is tell people where to find the content of Playboy without having to spend any money.
That directly infringes with the right of Sanoma to make copies of Playboy and sell them for money.

how does that work?

[amoeba1911]

COP: Have you seen anyone here selling counterfeit Rolex?
Pedestrian: Yeah I saw a guy holding a suitcase of watches just five minutes ago.
COP: Can you point in his direction?
(Pedestrian points)
COP: You are under arrest for copyright infringement!
...
Judge: GUILTY!

Re:how does that work?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hey! There's a gun over in that hay pile." Am I now guilty of murder if you use it? All I did was tell you where to find a gun.

Re:how does that work?

[Anonymous Coward]

Be honest now, Its more like the pedestrian is standing on a crate and holding a sign advertising the guy thats selling the watches...

Re:how does that work?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hey! There's a gun over in that hay pile." Am I now guilty of murder if you use it? All I did was tell you where to find a gun.

If the person in question indicated that they wanted to commit a crime with it, then yes, you could be charged with a crime.

Re:how does that work?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's always annoying when the aspie neckbeards try to imagine a world where the law works like a computer program.
The law recognizes intent, people! What was the intent of the linker? Not some good-citizen help-out-the-authorities report, and not a free-speech comment on the situation. The intent was to facilitate the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material.

Re:how does that work?

[angel'o'sphere]

The COP can't arest you for copyright infringement.
Only the copyright holder can make a case.
After all it is a civil case and not a felony.

Re:how does that work?

[gl4ss]

well, if you were aware that it would be used for murder by the guy who you told it to. otoh, if you believed that it would prevent murder you'd be off the hook.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_you_be_accessory_to_murder

And in other news...

[CuteSteveJobs]

Tech-savy Slashdotters Rule Dutch Court Judgements Can Constitute Sanity Infringement

Directionrights = Copyrights

[Zamphatta]

Yeah, 'cause, you know... pointing to where something is, is the same thing as making a copy of it. Don't you all know that by now? This is why, when someone asks you where the nearest McDonald's is, and you tell them to take a left at the 3rd light, you're making a copy of McDonald's without their permission.

One Word Summs It All

[Anonymous Coward]

"Stupid"

So how is a "link" different from any reference in a book, a scientific article or a news article. The fact that the technology makes reaching the reference (linked stuff) easier should not be the issue.

The website in question can disable the users account and send him a letter of warning. The fact that the website allowed this linking with user name and pwd in the url is the company's fault.

The Dutch judge seems to be a dimwit; I hope the rest of the Dutchians(!) are within normal limits. I wonder how they would rule on a "Fair Use" issue!

Re:One Word Summs It All

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately you appear to be too stupid to understand the difference between having a reference in a news article that tells you where to find material (which you then have to buy), and directly linking to a freely available copy of copyrighted material that the publisher did not want to provide for free.

The Dutch judge is more clever than you and so he understands this difference.

You also don't understand the whole idea of the Geenstijl website. The one who published the link is not a user who can be disabled, it is one of the editors of the site itself.

...blond balls.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Isn't deciding this really the job of the legislature? Clarifying new things?

But that would require elected officials to grow balls.

Re:Dutch servers becomes the untouchable?

[nedlohs]

Which means if you have ads on your site (or some other member to generate revenue) and you link to anything you do not directly control (most links) then you are risking infrnging. After all whomever does control the content you linked to can block it from showing up in google (after you've linked it) and change the content from something not infringing anyone copyright to something that does.

Of course courts are supposed to see through such cases.

what does holland matter

[Anonymous Coward]

been years since they mattered, and this just ensures they never again ever become any use to anyone....
hows those mobies and tv coming .....oh wait they aren't.

canada whom says its up to the user to visit illegal links got it right ...WHY?
CAUSE according to that because a hammer was used in a murder they need to become illegal ....
thats why hyper links CANT BE INFRINGEMENT.....there is nothing you infringe....look up the damn word.
WHAT it is is there govt is just a bunch a retards....as i suspect the judges are and the nation as a whole....
time make sure if you have pensions invested or other funds to make sure you voice that YOU do not want investment in holland.

Puppet Court

[Anonymous Coward]

They only decided that becausee it's what the Obama Administration aka New World Order wants.

Re:Dutch servers becomes the untouchable?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are forgetting that it has to be proven deliberate. If you once post a link with "find puppies here!" and the linked site changes it to illegal copyrighted stuff, the judge should favor you. If on the other hand, you sites always does this, (" look puppies" but in reality copyrighted data), then it is not a defence.

Re:

[nedlohs]

That would depend on what jurisdiction you are under.

In NY you have: Article 156 of the penal code.

156.05:

A person is guilty of unauthorized use of a computer when he or she knowingly uses, causes to be used, or accesses a computer, computer service, or computer network without authorization.

and 156.00.8:

"Without authorization" means to use or to access a computer, computer service or computer network without the permission of the owner or lessor or someone licensed or privileged by the owner or lessor where such person knew that his or her use or access was without permission or after actual notice to such person that such use or access was without permission.

Knowing a username/password combination doesn't make you authorized, you also need permission from the owner. Other states have similar laws, and I would suspect a bunch of other countries do too but I'm not going to attempt an exhaustive search.

Credibility of Dutch Courts: LOW

[G3ckoG33k]

Had this decision been made in 1994 I would have understood that they discuss it, at all.

Seeing this Slashdot headline in 2012 makes me more embarrased than showing off my jewelry in a public bath.

This makes me wonder how ageing those judges were.

Sorry, the credibility of Dutch Courts in this particular case is rated: LOW

amoeba1911

[G3ckoG33k]

You are under arrest for providing with this example, under the doctrine of promoting and assisting crime. /FBI

I thought the USA was supposed to be bad

[Anonymous Coward]

in terms of the erosion of freedom?

Re:

[IndustrialComplex]

In pretty much every jurisdiction that has updated their laws since the internet was invented.

Accessing a computer without authorization is illegal (pretty much everywhere). Knowing HOW to access the computer does not grant authorization for access. Don't confuse the ability to do something with permission to do it. Otherwise, simply posessing the key to a house would imply permission to enter the house.

Re:Dutch servers becomes the untouchable?

[SleazyRidr]

Step 1: Post something cool on the internet
Step 2: Wait for people to link to it
Step 3: Change the page to something copywritten
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit!

That Slope Is Slippery

[organgtool]

So someone published pictures on a PUBLIC FACING web server and made no effort to secure that data with an actual password. Instead, they thought they could just use an obscure name and no one would stumble onto the pictures. It is not clear from the article, but it sounds like the uploader was not a rightsholder of the pictures. If that is true, then they certainly committed copyright infringement by making the files available on a public server, even if they thought they could control distribution by using an obscure name. But how does publishing a link to these images constitute infringement? How was the person who created the link supposed to know that the uploader was not a rightsholder of those images? This sounds like a slippery slope and I'm very disappointed in the decision.

IP

[Stirling Newberry]

Stands for Institution Peculiar.

The judge considered it a special case of infringe

[slashrio]

ment, because the publisher of the links had commercial gain in doing so. And that's what the 'supreme court' had ruled: publishing of links is not infringement, save in 'special cases'.
The 'specialty' of this case is the commercial interest in publishing the links, and the fact that this action actually released the pictures into the greater public.
So the general 'supreme court' ruling that linking is not publishing still stands, except for this special case.

How deeply does this recurse?

[istartedi]

If a site with links to violating material is in violation, then links to that site are in violation. The ruling is absurd on its face because if you follow it you could get "death by Bacon" on the Internet. OK, I really didn't have much to say here. I was just looking for an excuse to write "death by Bacon".

Oh, and everyone is a terrorist pirate. Please report to the nearest public school football stadium for um... west nile vaccine. Yeah... that's it. Vaccine...

The day after this ruling...

[pubwvj]

...Dutch web surfers found all hyperlinks removed and that the world wide web was flat text. Pity them.

Solution...

[jd659]

All the site providing the links need to do is to include "password=xyz" in the URL and call it a "secret link". If the logic is that the published URL with the password somehow infringed the original copyright, then publishing the link TO the forum will also constitute the infringement as well. By that logic, Google will be guilty of infringement if it indexes the sites with "password=xyz" in the URL. And the forum site could say "sorry, your Honor, we intended the site to be password protected, yeah the implementation sucks, but we cannot be guilty by your previous ruling!"

Cops

[Anonymous Coward]

In my jurisdiction (US) cops technically don't have to know the law, nor have to state a reason to arrest you. They only need those things to charge you.

Those district attorneys must get really bored as they continue to find more innovative ways to abuse the law AFTER you have been arrested for resisting arrest or the not-opening-the-door-for-your-wife local ordinance, or they just don't like you, or nothing at all.

So what about links in court documents?

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

If a lawyer includes a text link to a website in a court filing, are they required to obtain permission from the site author to do so or be guilty of copyright infringement?

Can a future owner of that website rescind permission?

Do either of those answers change if the court filings are digitized and made available electronically through a website owned by the Dutch court system?

crime by reference?

[h8sg8s]

Is this extensible to prosecute any reference to copyrighted material as a crime? It sure looks that way..

Is he linking to content?

[Stan92057]

Is he linking to content? Then ya its infringement, if hes linking to the playboy home page thats not infringement and playboy should pay for any new customers that came from that link. But what i think doesn't matter, im not a lawmaker but i do VOTE.

Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

the court ruled that hyperlinking to copyrighted material was itself infringement of copyright.

Well, just post the address but without the anchor tag. That won't be an hyperlink, just plain text that happens to be an address.

The beginning of the end for Google and Bing...

[AngryDill]

...as they get sued out of existence. Just about everything in their indexes is copyrighted!

Re:The beginning of the end for the Internet

[lpq]

Are you kidding? The whole internet is based on linking.
If every link had to secure written permission and licensing from any target before linking to it -- it would cripple the web.

I really didn't think the Dutch were stupid...was he bought out?

Linking to something is the verbal equivalent of visually pointing at something. You can't visually point at something in a verbal media, but hotlinking to it is the closest human analog. To claim that such is illegal is attempting to deny the basic human right to communicate.

Only under a despotic regime could such a ruling stand (meaning more that I believe the ruling will be overruled than anything else).