EU Court Rules Embedding YouTube Videos Is Not Copyright Infringement

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Court Rules Embedding YouTube Videos Is Not Copyright Infringement

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday October 26, 2014 @09:05PM from the fair-share dept.

Maurits van der Schee writes "The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that embedding a copyrighted YouTube video in your site is not copyright infringement. From the article: "The case in question was referred to EU’s Court of Justice by a German court. It deals with a dispute between the water filtering company BestWater International and two men who work as independent commercial agents for a competitor. Bestwater accused the men of embedding one of their promotional videos, which was available on YouTube without the company’s permission. The video was embedded on the personal website of the two through a frame, as is usual with YouTube videos. While EU law is clear on most piracy issues, the copyright directive says very little about embedding copyrighted works. The Court of Justice, however, now argues that embedding is not copyright infringement."

68 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Bit too late by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 21:12 · Score: 0

For those kids who got shipped out to the USA for linking videos. If only they had embedded them.
1. Re:Bit too late by Cyberdyne · 2014-10-26 21:46 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  For those kids who got shipped out to the USA for linking videos. If only they had embedded them.
  In fact, the same court had already ruled in a earlier case (Svensson) that linking to a file does not constitute copyright infringement either.
  The court doesn't seem - at least from this report - to have taken into account that the uploader on YouTube has the ability to permit or deny this embedding, which would have strengthened the argument that it is that uploader who was to blame, not others linking to the video there. I wonder if the copyright owner went after them as well - considering a copyright takedown against the video on YouTube would have disabled the embedded view anyway?
  What could be interesting here is how this relates to recent UK court orders forcing the largest UK ISPs to censor access to "pirate" websites like TPB, some of which also merely link to files which may be online in breach of copyright?
2. Re:Bit too late by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 22:22 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  In the case of TPB, Swedish court ruled that they did not commit copyright infringement, but aided and encouraged such actions by others, even though no crime could be proven. How that would work out in an EU court is hard to predict.
3. Re:Bit too late by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 00:09 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  In the case of TPB, Swedish court ruled that they did not commit copyright infringement, but aided and encouraged such actions by others, even though no crime could be proven. How that would work out in an EU court is hard to predict.
  I wouldn't use that as a reference to how a Swedish court would rule in the future either.
  The entire TPB case is such a major clusterfuck of retardedness and corruption mixed up.
  It is supposed to be illegal for the Ministry of Justice to be involved in specific cases, the officer in charge of the raid was on Warners payroll, the Judge were a member of the same copyright interest group as the Swedish equivalent to RIAA and the prosecutor had just a month before the raid concluded that TPB didn't do anything that broke the law. (But he changed his mind suddenly after being told that TPB had to be taken down.)
  Also, one of the softwares brought up as evidence of assisted copyright infringement were the World of Warcraft binaries that Blizzard even encouraged people to share together with the trial-code you got when you purchased a license.
  You can't expect a similar situation to occur in all copyright cases.
4. Re:Bit too late by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  Most of them don't even link to files these days, it's pure links and magnets, so they argument of the UK goverment is just a sham. THey know this themselves, but they don't get to assert control if it's free. THey don't get to check up on you and arrest you if you don't like them.
  People keep complaining the the US is becoming a policestate, the UK is basically ahead of them at this point in time...
Justice by Thanshin · 2014-10-26 21:17 · Score: 4, Funny

The fact that we need a court to decide that "embedding a copyrighted YouTube video in your site is not copyright infringement." is already a failure of the system as a whole.
Next we'll have the court deciding that "Mentioning the fact that you saw a video on YouTube is not copyright infringement as long as you specify you don't know whether the video was copyrighted or otherwise."
(I now wonder if this post is copyright infringement. After all, I'm replying an article about a court ruling about people who embedded in their web pages videos from Youtube which were copyrighted! ... OMG I don't want to die in prison!)
1. Re:Justice by Sique · 2014-10-26 21:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The fact that we need a court to decide that "embedding a copyrighted YouTube video in your site is not copyright infringement." is already a failure of the system as a whole.
  No, that's one of the things a court is for: Clear up legal facts if they are not explicitely stated in the law. The E.U. copyright directive and the laws in different countries don't mention embedding, and thus a court decides when the question comes up. In this case, the system works exactly as it is supposed to be.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
2. Re:Justice by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 22:17 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Now we just need a court to rule that torrent links are not copyright infringement either.
3. Re:Justice by StripedCow · 2014-10-26 22:59 · Score: 0
  
  The E.U. copyright directive and the laws in different countries don't mention embedding, and thus a court decides
  That was the point. The fact that embedding is not described in the law means that this is a failure. Please read the original comment again if you still don't get it.
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
4. Re:Justice by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 23:04 · Score: 1
  
  No, that is silly. Courts are there to clear up legal facts *when the law is unclear*.
  You don't need a court to declare breathing, eating and any number of other things to be legal, even though none of those are mentioned in law.
  Yes, some people *would like* linking and embedding to be illegal. They try their best to pervert the law to benefit them, and this includes abusing the legal system by having it rule on obvious issues like this. It's not what courts are for, it is abuse.
  Obviously, what is "unclear" varies from one person to the next and therefore we have to give these people the benefit of doubt. There is no doubt in my mind that this kind of abuse is malicious, however. Corporate lawyers are paid to know that "there isn't a law against it" == "it's not illegal". I don't think they are *that* dumb that they don't get that, and the only reason they end up with interpretations that claim embedding or linking is illegal is because they stand to gain from it. I.e. they're not trying to abide by the law, they are trying to bend the law as far as it will bend in order to serve their own purposes.
5. Re:Justice by king+neckbeard · 2014-10-26 23:41 · Score: 2
  
  The fact that the party bringing up this case wasn't immediately laughed out of court indicates there is a problem.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
6. Re:Justice by StormReaver · 2014-10-26 23:48 · Score: 1
  
  ...that's one of the things a court is for: Clear up legal facts if they are not explicitely stated in the law.
  You just restated his argument using different words.
7. Re:Justice by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 00:20 · Score: 0
  
  It's not the law's job to describe everything that may ever be done to content, even if it hasn't been invented yet. You'd have 10000 pages on how to eat a peanut legally if that were so.
8. Re:Justice by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 00:21 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Why go even further and get a court to rule that any link is equivalent to a bibliographical reference/citation in a printed book/journal - that is telling you where to find the referenced item.
9. Re:Justice by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 00:26 · Score: 0
  
  That's not how it's supposed to work, though.
  It's supposed to be that if something is not explicitly illegal, it's legal.Otherwise you would be living in a very tyrannical society.
  For example, it is not explicitly legal or illegal to breathe. Yet we don't go to jail for breathing without a permit.
10. Re:Justice by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2014-10-27 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  Then again it also means I can take the content created by anyone on youtube and embed it into my own ad-studded website and make cashy money from their efforts.
  I think youtube throttles down performance for embedded videos though, just from personal observation.
11. Re:Justice by pr100 · 2014-10-27 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  The courts are there to decide the cases that are brought before them. If someone chooses to bring an action for copyright infringement in a particular circumstance then it's the function of the courts to decide the case.
  The wisdom of bringing, contesting or appealing cases is really a matter for litigants and their legal advisers; not for the court.
12. Re:Justice by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 01:28 · Score: 0
  
  Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
13. Re:Justice by OolimPhon · 2014-10-27 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  You'd have 10000 pages on how to eat a peanut legally if that were so.
  You haven't read much EU legislation, have you?
  I wouldn't be surprised if such a document didn't already exist, and no, I am not joking.
14. Re:Justice by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, since they would have had to have chosen to allow embedding when setting up the video, it shouldn't be infringement. If they didn't want people to be able to embed it, then they should not have allowed that feature. Then, embedding would have required downloading the video, and re-uploading it, which would have been infringement.
15. Re:Justice by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  You'd have 10000 pages on how to eat a peanut legally if that were so.
  This unwarranted calumny of the EU must stop immediately. There are barely even 7800 pages of such regulations.
16. Re:Justice by wvmarle · 2014-10-27 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  Now such a comment shows you have a serious problem - one with not thinking through the problem, and showing a thorough lack of understanding of even the basics of the concept of copyright. Note that every video, every work out there is copyrighted. Also your home videos. The whole notion of those anti-copying groups that say "don't share copyrighted material" is stupid - whether you can share copyrighted material with third parties depends on whether the copyright owner has given permission or not. Simply uploading to YouTube may very well arguably include an implicit permission to share, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
  There is a general agreement that linking to material is OK, however this is much more than just linking - this is embedding. Linking is easier: it basically tells "look, over there you can find this or that, you may go have a look". Nothing from the original content is visible in your web site, clearly no copyright infringement.
  Embedding a video goes a lot further than that. It is getting quite close to renting a video and showing it to all your friends and all other people that ask. Whether that is legal, generally depends on the copyright license of the rights holder.
  If no restrictions on this, you could take all the content of your local newspaper's site, embed it in your web site (using frames or so, so you're not actually copying the news articles to your own web site), and you got your own news web site. I'm pulling it a bit more to an extreme, but it's basically the same: it's embedding. However now you must see the issues this may have.
  As I understand it, YouTube has an option to indicate whether you allow your video to be embedded in another web site. If you allow this, there's no issue of course.
  A complicating factor in this case will certainly be the fact that the uploader of the video is not the copyright holder of the original material... and that when I see videos from YouTube broadcast as part of a TV show, it very often says (C) YouTube - also something that I have bad feelings about, whether it is true or not.
17. Re:Justice by StripedCow · 2014-10-28 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  Correlation != causation.
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Sad, sad, sad by mnt · 2014-10-26 21:19 · Score: 1

Embedding? Copyright infringement? EU Court? We need a new copyright law.
1. Re:Sad, sad, sad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 21:41 · Score: 0
  
  in this case, the infringement was by the youtube poster, not by the embedding website. provided that they are separate unaffiliated entities, that is.
  the court is what needs fixing if they missed that entire angle.
2. Re:Sad, sad, sad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 01:34 · Score: 0
  
  You missed the entire angle. The youtube poster "BestWater International" had a video of its own on its own account at youtube. Someone linked that video to their page. Youtube poster "BestWater International" sued the page owners because they haven't asked permission to link their video.
3. Re:Sad, sad, sad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  They should use a service where they can decide who can see their movie then, perhaps even one without an explicit "embed video" link. They could also host it themself but i guess they do not want to spend money/time on it - because being an asshole in court is so much better.
Embedded is one of those fuzzy words by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 21:31 · Score: 2, Informative

The term embedded in this context just means a fancy type of hyperlink that displays contents from another site on your webpage. This is exactly equivalent to hotlinking images, and it can be stopped in exactly the same way. Anyhow, hyperlinks are not infringement, so it's obvious by extension that embedded linking isn't infrintement either.
It's probably important to note that embedding a link to a pirated copy of the work doesn't magically make the pirated copy legal.
I think it just means that only the site hosting the pirated work can be charged with copyright infringement. However, I predict this may change in the future when site A links to site B that suddenly "disappears" when the copyright owner tries to hold someone accountable, and then site C later appears with all of site B's stolen content, and site A magically has links to site C (in other words, it's obvious to everyone that the owner of site A also owns site B and C, but nobody can prove it because of some corporate bullshit). At some point, the content owners will manage to collect damages from A, which will set the dangerous precedent that effectively means nobody is allowed to link to an infringing site.
1. Re:Embedded is one of those fuzzy words by Mike+O'Hara · 2014-10-27 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  The term embedded in this context just means a fancy type of hyperlink that displays contents from another site on your webpage. This is exactly equivalent to hotlinking images, and it can be stopped in exactly the same way. Anyhow, hyperlinks are not infringement, so it's obvious by extension that embedded linking isn't infrintement either.
  If I had mod points...
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
2. Re:Embedded is one of those fuzzy words by mark-t · 2014-10-27 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  My Youtube-fu is poor. Does it offer facilities to people who post videos to prevent other people from embedding that video?
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
3. Re:Embedded is one of those fuzzy words by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 04:43 · Score: 0
  
  You can mark them as "private". But the thing is, they are using the wrong distribution system, if they want such tight controls they should not use YouTube which encourages sharing and embedding links/videos. They could host it themself in a less-easy-to-embed and control access in any way they want, down to individual accounts. But then they do not get the exposure and it costs to build and maintain.
  tl;dr: They are lazy or cheap and thought being sue-happy was the solution when they put things in public and the public have the gall to watch it!
From the UK ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 22:16 · Score: 0

The EU upholding common sense and protecting individual liberties? Thank goodnesss the UK is trying to get out! This "interference from Brussels" is enough!
1. Re:From the UK ... by Wootery · 2014-10-26 22:50 · Score: 1
  
  If anyone was claiming that everything the EU does is wrong, then you'd have a point.
2. Re:From the UK ... by RDW · 2014-10-26 23:47 · Score: 1
  
  Have you met Mr Farage?
3. Re:From the UK ... by gl4ss · 2014-10-27 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  the thing is, sometimes it's better to have a court 'far away' decide whats fair. they don't need to think about local interest groups, who they're fucking etc..
  this is why I still think it was a good decision to go into EU by Finland - so that our mp's and toll fucks couldn't make us pay full brand new tax on used fucking cars from germany.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
4. Re:From the UK ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  so that our mp's and toll fucks couldn't make us pay full brand new tax on used fucking cars from germany.
  How about the tax on cars bought for other purposes such as driving?
5. Re:From the UK ... by Wootery · 2014-10-27 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. He might be very strongly against the UK being part of the EU, but I don't know that he's dumb enough to suggest that literally everything they do it bad.
6. Re:From the UK ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  Nope. He might be very strongly against the UK being part of the EU, but I don't know that he's dumb enough to suggest that literally everything they do it bad.
  I'd not be too sure about that, He *IS* a politician, after all.... :)
Internet vs meatspace by Overzeetop · 2014-10-26 22:23 · Score: 2

This is an interesting ruling because, currently in the US, playing a radio station over speakers in a business is copyright infringement. This is very close to the meatspace equivalent of embedding a copyrighted work. Since this is an EU case it obviously would not hold a great deal of weight in a US court (though international rulings are considered in some cases), but it brings up an interesting dissonance in copyright law.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
1. Re:Internet vs meatspace by drinkypoo · 2014-10-26 22:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  This is an interesting ruling because, currently in the US, playing a radio station over speakers in a business is copyright infringement. This is very close to the meatspace equivalent of embedding a copyrighted work
  No, in fact it's nothing like that whatsoever. If the EU had ruled that it was legal to display youtube videos in a public place for the purposes of entertainment, then it would be similar. It isn't. There is no parallel here.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:Internet vs meatspace by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 22:50 · Score: 0
  
  Similar in Australia.
  http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/19167934234f385fee0a469.pdf
3. Re:Internet vs meatspace by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 22:53 · Score: 0
  
  display youtube videos in a public place for the purposes of entertainment
  Exactly! Because a website is clearly not a public place used for the purpose of entertainment.
4. Re:Internet vs meatspace by drinkypoo · 2014-10-26 23:05 · Score: 2
  
  Exactly! Because a website is clearly not a public place used for the purpose of entertainment.
  It's amusing that you were trying to be sarcastic, because your statement is clearly correct. A website is not a place. It's a piece of media. New situations require new rules. I'm enjoying websites in my office, which is not a public place. If you were to present my website as a public performance without my permission, that would be stupid and weird, and you would owe me some money. Obviously, if your performance is a live critique of people's blogs, your audience is stupid, and that would be fair use. But if I embedded someone's Youtube video in my page, then handling public performance of that material would be between you and the copyright holder, and it would have nothing to do with me whatsoever.
  Youtube offers control over embedding on other sites, just like websites provide access control (even if it's just what's in the server) so that you can control who is permitted to view your content. While discussions about circumvention are outside the scope of this comment, in general this provides sufficient copyright control* to handle this specific problem as relates to Youtube, if not websites.
  * yuck
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
5. Re:Internet vs meatspace by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 23:24 · Score: 0
  
  A website is not a place.
  Sure. But isn't that just a technicality? In practical terms, the suggested example of re-broadcasting radio in a store is the same. In both cases someone's work is being presented to an audience in a context that someone else controls, and possibly makes money from, with no explicit permission or fees from the original content owner.
  
  New situations require new rules.
  Not necessarily. By carefully considering the similarities and differences with existing situations, old rules can be applied. Sometimes, this might highlight logical flaws in the old laws.
6. Re:Internet vs meatspace by drinkypoo · 2014-10-26 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  Sure. But isn't that just a technicality?
  What else is there when you're writing laws?
  
  In practical terms, the suggested example of re-broadcasting radio in a store is the same.
  It really isn't, because of the difference between a website and a public place.
  
  In both cases someone's work is being presented to an audience in a context that someone else controls,
  Youtube lets you prevent embedding.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
7. Re:Internet vs meatspace by Overzeetop · 2014-10-27 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Really? You are mistaking the rebroadcast as "entertainment" whereas it's generally background sound, not the primary purpose of the business. Music played in a retail store is a good example. People don't come to the store to be entertained by the music, they come to shop for clothes. The purpose of the music is to help set a mood, just as the posters on the wall, or the color of the carpet, or the type and style of lighting.
  Lets look at it as a public place - you say that a website isn't one, but it's accessible to the general public. It's a public facing, interactive area representing the organization which presents it. A website comes with many of the rights (free speech) and restrictions (libel) that having a physical presence does.
  And take it further - Amazon's only merchant space is a website. If this were to be adopted in the US, then Amazon could link copyrighted videos via YouTube on their site. That would allow them to post a video stream of John Legend on the page where they sell Teen clothing, but prevent Rue 21 from putting a computer monitor on the wall and streaming the same video.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
8. Re:Internet vs meatspace by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  > A website is not a place. It's a piece of media.
  A website is media in public broadcast.
  
  I might own the sculpture, but putting it up for viewing* in a public park tends to loosen my control on said viewing of said sculpture.
  
  * or is there some other reason I'd put it up on display in a public-facing unrestricted domain?
9. Re:Internet vs meatspace by tlhIngan · 2014-10-27 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  This is an interesting ruling because, currently in the US, playing a radio station over speakers in a business is copyright infringement. This is very close to the meatspace equivalent of embedding a copyrighted work. Since this is an EU case it obviously would not hold a great deal of weight in a US court (though international rulings are considered in some cases), but it brings up an interesting dissonance in copyright law.
  Embedding is something unique only to the "cyber" world. About the closest equivalent is not playing a radio in a store, but having the radio station broadcast from your store - your patrons gets to hear the music, the content is managed by the radio station, and it's available elsewhere (over the radio). And radio stations have mobile studios for this purpose - they park in front of a business and play music from that location. It's backhauled to the station proper as it has the powerful radio transmitter and antennas, but for the moment, the station is "embedded" on the property. Copyright concerns are handled by the station since it's their content.
  Basically it's who retains control of the content. Your radio in the business doesn't work because if the radio station doesn't want you doing that, they can't shut off your radio. Whereas they can shut off embedding on their own video, or stop playing content on the mobile studio.
10. Re:Internet vs meatspace by drinkypoo · 2014-10-27 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  People don't come to the store to be entertained by the music, they come to shop for clothes.
  Right?
  
  You are mistaking the rebroadcast as "entertainment" whereas it's generally background sound, [...] The purpose of the music is to help set a mood, just as the posters on the wall, or the color of the carpet, or the type and style of lighting.
  Yeah, you pay for all of those things. And thanks to copyright law, you pay when you play music for your shoppers. And "setting a mood" is the same thing as "entertainment". The difference is that the entertainment is not the primary purpose of the business, but that's a difference without a distinction. The purpose is to entertain people on some level so that they will shop in your store. If it didn't have value, they wouldn't play it.
  
  Amazon's only merchant space is a website. If this were to be adopted in the US, then Amazon could link copyrighted videos via YouTube on their site.
  And guess what? They already can, but for different reasons. Namely, Youtube gives the copyright holder control over who may embed the content. That wasn't even brought up in this case, for whatever reason.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
11. Re:Internet vs meatspace by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 13:41 · Score: 0
  
  Sure. But isn't that just a technicality?
  What else is there when you're writing laws?
  
  In practical terms, the suggested example of re-broadcasting radio in a store is the same.
  It really isn't, because of the difference between a website and a public place.
  
  In both cases someone's work is being presented to an audience in a context that someone else controls,
  Youtube lets you prevent embedding.
  The internet has varying levels of access, however most 'public websites' (we even call them 'public' websites) make media available to 'the public'. Viewing public web content is imho just the same as playing radio in a public place. It's really quite an interesting parallel - public radio station is played in a public place, doesn't really sound like infringement to me, however they've ruled it is illegal. Public internet content (youtube video in question was set as public media - there was no password or access control) displayed on a public site (I assume it's open to the public?) is the same thing, the issue the creators (not uploader) had was that their content was being presented as someone else's content. Which would be like a store playing a public radio station, and implying they produced what was on it, which is now nothing like the previous ruling in reasoning and intent, but legally very very similar.
  But all the people pointing out that the problem should have been between the content producers and the person who made it publicly available for embedding on youtube, not the people who actually did embed it are dead on - there shouldn't even be a case here, not sure how it even made it into court.
  We don't need new laws on embedding, when the issue is that content can be made publicly available.
  The real discussion I thought this would trigger should be about how easy it is (or isn't) to make content publicly available through some method, yet prevent it being embedded (which is - as a web developer - not really such a complex task to achieve, but probably most content creators who are putting content up aren't aware)
  I'd be more interested in how the HTML X spec can improve on the current method of checking headers, which can be relatively easily manipulated.
  Of course, how interesting would it be if the HTML (whichever new version) spec became also a legal guideline, where grey/black developers could penalised for going against the intent - i.e. scraping/tunnelling content, etc, but they'd have to start legally enforcing things like the 'Do Not Track' header first. And very hard to run any legal system over anything on the internet, as it's international, and it's futile to try to apply geographically based legal systems to something that has no geography.
12. Re:Internet vs meatspace by wvmarle · 2014-10-27 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  This is an interesting ruling because, currently in the US, playing a radio station over speakers in a business is copyright infringement. This is very close to the meatspace equivalent of embedding a copyrighted work
  No, in fact it's nothing like that whatsoever. If the EU had ruled that it was legal to display youtube videos in a public place for the purposes of entertainment, then it would be similar. It isn't. There is no parallel here.
  A web site on the Internet is quite arguably the cyberspace equivalent to a public place.
  The display of a YouTube video on a screen in your shop, streaming from YouTube, is quite arguably the same as embedding it in your web site.
  A lot will depend on the copyright license of the material in question. You're certainly allowed to play music in your store if you get explicit permission from the copyright owner of this music to use their material in your shop. Maybe they even come and play live in your shop. If you put a video out on the Internet, and explicitly add "only link, do not embed this video in any other site", and someone does embed it after all, you may still be able to claim copyright infringement as it's explicitly stated you don't want this.
So what about newspapers who steal them? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 22:42 · Score: 0

In Denmark, I know of two of the largest remaining newspapers:
http://www.bt.dk/
http://www.eb.dk/
They take youtube hits and stream them from their own site.
If it were my video, I wouldn't mind them embedding them but ripping the video and using them with their own ads on?
Crazy EU logic (again) by Godwin+O'Hitler · 2014-10-26 22:57 · Score: 1

There is every difference between embedded content and linked content.
If you rip the video, store it on your site, then display it, there is absolutely no visible difference to the reader.
How do the underlying mechanics of how it got there change anything?

--
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
1. Re:Crazy EU logic (again) by StripedCow · 2014-10-26 23:01 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if a copy is made, you lose the possibility of removing the content or changing it.
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
2. Re:Crazy EU logic (again) by DeHackEd · 2014-10-26 23:07 · Score: 2
  
  In the embedded scenario the owner retains control. Frankly said owner should simply disallow embedding and let the embedder look like an idiot until they realize what they did.
3. Re:Crazy EU logic (again) by coofercat · 2014-10-27 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  There's a very distinct difference between "rip the video, store it on your site, then display it" and embedding. Ripping/storing is a very deliberate act to copy something.
  Simply embedding a video (or an image, or anything else, one would suppose) on a site makes no copies of it, and so, as per the ruling is not copyright infringement. If you're a copyright holder and have a problem with something you can see embedded on a page, go after the person/site hosting the content. That makes pretty good sense to me.
4. Re:Crazy EU logic (again) by Jason+Levine · 2014-10-27 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  If you're a copyright holder and have a problem with something you can see embedded on a page, go after the person/site hosting the content.
  And if the content was a video that you (the copyright holder) uploaded to YouTube, then simply edit the video and set it to disallow embedding. Your embedding problem will be solved with zero lawyer costs and in less time than it would take to fire off a "Don't Embed Our Content" C&D letter. If the website then rips your video from YouTube and displays it on their website, by all means get the lawyers involved, but a simple embedding issue isn't something you need lawyers to solve.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
5. Re:Crazy EU logic (again) by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  I could be wrong, but I imagine it's possible to insert some other player that fetches the public video. Not every youtube-accesser uses the canned embed.
  
  I'm not entirely sure though, and I don't know how savvy the people in question are.
6. Re:Crazy EU logic (again) by 91degrees · 2014-10-27 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  There does seem to be some inconsistency here. The UK and the Netherlands have both ruled against people for linking or embedding infringing material, under laws against facilitating copyright infringement.
  
  It certainly does depend on whether the crime is the end result of deivering the material, or the process of duplication. Different courts seem to have different opinions on the matter.
7. Re:Crazy EU logic (again) by Godwin+O'Hitler · 2014-10-28 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  OK that's fair enough, it does make a difference to how easily the problem is tackled once the infringement is discovered.
  But I'm still not convinced that an irate copyright holder who finds their content on a Web page actually cares whether it's embedded or not, or should even have to care.
  
  --
  No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
So now ... by gstoddart · 2014-10-27 01:04 · Score: 1

So now don't they have to pretty much make the only consistent and logical conclusion ... that linking to something is in no way copyright infringement?
They won't, of course, but haven't the courts previously said that linking to a place which does copyright infringement (or tells you how) is the same as infringing?
So how can you possibly claim that embedding a link to a video which is served from someone else is any different? If I can embed a link to a YouTube video, how am I infringing any less than pointing a link at, say, The Pirate Bay?
As usual, it seems like the courts barely understand these things, and give rulings which are contradictory depending on what suits them.
If the video is on YouTube, and I didn't put it there ... a link to the video isn't copyright infringement, nor is embedding a link to it to prove my point. But, if I tell you where you can find tools or actually reach documents ... magically, I'm infringing.
We really need to have a consistent set of laws which encompasses the aspects of this which are the same. And it can't be identical, but of a different legal status depending on arbitrary differences.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I am assuming that this applies... by mark-t · 2014-10-27 02:15 · Score: 1

... to videos that are already available on youtube in the first place. For example, if the copyright holder had put them on youtube. And this decision would prevent the copyright holder from claiming infringement or damages for anyone who had embedded said video into their own website.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
What's next? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 04:50 · Score: 0

So what next...are they gonna start dragging people into court for humming a tune that they don't have the rights to?
This idiocy needs to stop. Perhaps if there were some more consequences for bringing such frivilous lawsuits to court...
Justice by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 05:44 · Score: 0

The fact that we need a court to decide that "embedding a copyrighted YouTube video in your site is not copyright infringement." is already a failure of the system as a whole.
How so?
The purpose of the courts is to settle disputes. In this case the dispute is over the extent of intelectual property rights, and whether a particular action violates said right. One party believes their IP rights have been violated, the other believes that acted within the legal limits imposed by copyright law, thereby respecting the first parties rights.
If we could rely on people to not be mistaken (or lying) when they assert that someone has violated their rights we wouldn't need courts.