Slashdot Mirror
Legal Motion: Hyperlinks Are Protected By the First Amendment
Barrett Brown, a journalist and the former unofficial spokesperson for Anonymous, was arrested in 2012 and charged with sharing a hyperlink that pointed to information downloaded during the Stratfor hack. His trials begin in April and May. An anonymous reader notes that his attorneys have filed a legal brief (PDF) asking for dismissal of the case, saying that Brown's First Amendment right to free speech protects his sharing of a hyperlink. They argue that "Brown did not 'transfer' the stolen information as he arguably would have done had he embedded the link on his web page, but merely created a path to files that had already been published elsewhere that were in the public domain." The brief also says the statute under which Brown is being charged does not make it clear that a link constitutes "republication" of information. They add, "This construction also significantly chills scientific research conducted by private cybersecurity researchers for the same reasons."
A motion filed by lawyers is not a judgement and is nowhere near legal precedent, as the typically sensational /. headline implies. Lawyers regularly file motions claiming the sun rises in the West and sets in the East.
This is what it says, the editor just mangled it a bit. It's missing context. The government is relying on copyright case law, which traditionally distinguishes "in-line" linking from "embedded" linking. This is neither: it's a traditional link, and so their reliance on that is flawed. - - - First, republishing the hyperlink did not make the Stratfor file available to others. As explained above, the “hyperlink” was a text string that conveyed a location where the Stratfor file could be found, and nothing more. The conveyance of information regarding the location of data is not a crime under 1028 because unlike “in-line” or embedded links, the hyperlink that Mr. Brown republished did not contain any Stratfor file data. Second, the sharing of location information is not sufficient for criminal liability under Section 1028 because to hold otherwise would stretch interpretation of the statute far beyond the reach that Congress intended. Indeed, the conduct complained of in LiveNation is known as “inline linking”—where an infringing website acts as a portal or frame for infringed content sourced at another website. In LiveNation, the “inline linking” on the infringer’s site allowed the web-surfer to “display” (or listen to) protected material without having to leave the infringer’s webpage. In copyright cases, courts have distinguished “in-line” linking for purposes of liability. As illustrated above, an “in-line link” refers to the process whereby a webpage can incorporate by reference (and arguably cause to be “displayed”) content stored on another website. By contrast, “traditional” linking (as is alleged in this case) transports the user to the linked-to page without incorporating third-party content via “in-line” linking or framing. This has been held to not constitute direct infringement, in the copyright context, even if the linked-to page is infringing. By contrast, Mr. Brown’s alleged republication of a hyperlink in a chat room cannot be described as “in-line” or “embedded” linking.
0x5921D69C
Heh, on second examination that sentence isn't in the original motion. It's from The Guardian writer who seems not to have fully understood what they were talking about.
0x5921D69C
If I post a link to a website that which at that moment doesn't host "forbidden" content but later does, am I liable for providing access to said "forbidden" content? Logic would dictate that a person can only be held accountable for their own actions, not the actions of another.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Didn't he have this useful disclaimer ?
Perhaps I'm kinda dimmed right now, but where did you get that "disclaimer" from ??
Back to that hyperlink that Mr. Brown is charged under ... anyone with a brain which consists of at least two neurons rubbing together will know that a hyperlink is a LINK and can *NEVER* become a re-publication (or a copy of) whatever content the hyperlink points to.
Furthermore, a hyperlink is merely a placeholder to a certain container (folder, site) in which the content may not be static.
For example, this link - /. structure (a discussion thread in this case) and the content (the discussion thread in question) changes as more people adding more comments onto it.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/... points to a placeholder within the
As an American, I am sadden, very sadden that the government of the United States of America has become so fascist that they even try to charge people over a hyperlink !!!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Reason being is a hyperlink is a verb or action while pointing is an expression.
Gibberish,
Semantic nonsense.
A hyperlink is a reference. It can be used to show someone something. Essentially it is pointing at something, and if the hyperlink contains some kind of information about the target, it is like pointing and telling the person what he is about to see there.
Allow me to illustrate.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/03/05/0230207/legal-motion-hyperlinks-are-protected-by-the-first-amendment: That would be pointing and not saying anything. Like pointing at a dope dealer's house without giving you any idea what you will find there. I don't tell you to go there, I don't give you any information about it. I just point at it. Whether you go there or not is not really something I can influence because all I technically did was point my finger at it. I should probably inform the police about it, but if you go there and get robbed, or your dope, that's your own business.
Hyperlinks are protected speech: That would be pointing while telling you what to see there. Like pointing at said dope house and telling you about it. Depending on what I say it may be legal or illegal. "That's where a lot of people go to get dope" could be either. "Go in there, you get good weed in there" is most likely illegal because I'd actually try to make you do something illegal. "Don't go there, it's dangerous!" would probably actually be legal. It depends on context, my intention and what I say to you. If I warn you about it and you go in regardless, how am I responsible for it? I pointed it out not to tell you to go there but to warn you to NOT go there.
PORN!!!: That would be pointing at the dope hut while telling you it's something different. I.e. lure you in. That is most certainly not legal in most countries. That would probably be an example of pointing to a malware exe while telling you something different (because few people are actually stupid enough to install malware deliberately on their computer). It's not unlike the incitement example in the previous paragraph, but with a twist, I also lie to you about the contents of the dope hut, telling you it's something you will probably want (money, girls, fame...) in case I'd assume you don't want dope.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.