Everyone, please take a deep breath and look at this logically.
If you look at the facts of the case, it's not unreasonable at all, and in fact it makes sense.
It also does not have the far reaching consequences that people are fearing.
Both parties decided to increase site traffic (and therefore earn more $$$) by linking to copyrighted material. Thus they were using un-authorized copyright material to make money. The plantiffs PROVED this to a judge in court.
Key points:
1.) They KNEW it was copyrighted and the sole intention of the links was to aid people in breaking the law.
2.) They did this to earn $$$.
This (as someone has pointed out) is basically Napster.
Don't worry about Google. Google is a legitimate business whose sole existence is not the intentional linking of copyrighted material.
(IANAL)
-J
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone, please take a deep breath and look at this logically. If you look at the facts of the case, it's not unreasonable at all, and in fact it makes sense. It also does not have the far reaching consequences that people are fearing. Both parties decided to increase site traffic (and therefore earn more $$$) by linking to copyrighted material. Thus they were using un-authorized copyright material to make money. The plantiffs PROVED this to a judge in court. Key points: 1.) They KNEW it was copyrighted and the sole intention of the links was to aid people in breaking the law. 2.) They did this to earn $$$. This (as someone has pointed out) is basically Napster. Don't worry about Google. Google is a legitimate business whose sole existence is not the intentional linking of copyrighted material. (IANAL) -J