Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Federal Judge Makes Linking To Other Websites Illegal

  1. #1
    You do realize by 'gay' I mean a man who has sex with other men?
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana.
    Posts
    21,635

    WTF? Federal Judge Makes Linking To Other Websites Illegal

    A federal judge in Texas has ruled that it is unlawful to provide a hyperlink to a Webcast if the copyright owner objects to it.

    U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay in the northern district of Texas granted a preliminary injunction against Robert Davis, who operated Supercrosslive.com and had been providing direct links to the live audiocasts of motorcycle racing events.

    Lindsay ruled last week that "the link Davis provides on his Web site is not a 'fair use' of copyright material" and ordered him to cease linking directly to streaming audio files.

    The audio Webcasts are copyrighted by SFX Motor Sports, a Texas company that is one of the largest producers of "Supercross" motorcycle racing events. SFX sued Davis in February, noting that fans who go to its own Web site will see the names and logos of sponsors including wireless company Amp'd Mobile. (Anyone who clicked on the link from Davis' site, however, would not see the logos of companies that paid to be sponsors.)

    While Lindsay's decision appears to be the first to deal with direct or "deep" links to Webcasts, this is not the first time courts have wrestled with the legality of copyright law and direct links.

    In 2001, a U.S. federal appeals court ruled that a news organization could be prohibited from linking to software--illegal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act--that can decrypt DVDs. "The injunction's linking prohibition validly regulates (2600 Magazine's) opportunity instantly to enable anyone anywhere to gain unauthorized access to copyrighted movies on DVDs," the appeals court said.

    A Dutch court reached a similar conclusion in a suit dealing with someone who had allegedly infringed Scientology's copyright scriptures, as did an Australian court in a case dealing with pirated MP3 files.

    But in those lawsuits, the file that was the target of the hyperlink actually violated copyright law. What's unusual in the SFX case is that a copyright holder is trying to prohibit a direct link to its own Web site. (There is no evidence that SFX tried technical countermeasures, such as referer logging and blocking anyone coming from Davis' site.)

    A 2000 dispute between Ticketmaster and Tickets.com suggested that such direct links should be permitted. A California federal judge ruled that "hyperlinking does not itself involve a violation of the Copyright Act" because "no copying is involved."

    Davis, who was representing himself without an attorney, defended his Web site in legal filings that were full of bluster and accused SFX of acting like Genghis Kahn. He did stress that he merely included a "hyperlink, which launches the visitor's media player" instead of copying the audio file and republishing it.

    That wasn't enough to convince the judge. Lindsay ruled that: "SFX will likely suffer immediate and irreparable harm when the new racing season begins in mid-December 2006 if Davis is not enjoined from posting links to the live racing Webcasts. The court agrees that if Davis is not enjoined from providing unauthorized Webcast links on his Web site, SFX will lose its ability to sell sponsorships or advertisement on the basis that it is the exclusive source of the Webcasts, and such loss will cause irreparable harm."

    http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6145744.html

    Thats crazy stuff, in other words, lets say you are building recip links, but rather than linking to a sites index page, you bypass that page and link directly to the porn listings, if the site owner doesnt want you to do that, you are liable under the law.

    This case is going to have far-reaching consequences imho.

    Yet another reason why this country needs some kind of law reform, the idiots sitting on the bench dont know enough about the interwebs or the googles to be passing these kinds of rulings.

    Regards,

    Lee


  2. #2
    maxpower
    Guest
    I don’t know man I love my free range :chicken: :chicken: :chicken: not sure fencing all of us in is such a good idea. I can deal with the random stupid court ruling in Mississippi or something that in the end will not amount to crap much more than some “comity” deciding what is ok to do and what is not :signhere:


  3. #3
    chick with a bass basschick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    7,922
    yeah, but how would you like an illegal site like a cp site linking to YOUR site? i know i wouldn't! i'd appreciate legal protection in this area although i can see vast complications. and you never know - this could be overturned...

    i don't see the average website owner complaining about extra traffic but where i see potential issues is blog owners linking to companies when complaining about those companies.


  4. #4
    JohnV
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
    .......

    Yet another reason why this country needs some kind of law reform, the idiots sitting on the bench dont know enough about the interwebs or the googles to be passing these kinds of rulings.

    Regards,

    Lee
    hopefully, and I stress HOPEFULLY, those sitting on the bench have well educated advisors...

    regarding the issue, I believe that if the defendant was linking to the plaintiffs main index page, all would be good....


  5. #5
    chick with a bass basschick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    7,922
    hasn't happened yet. every time i read a transcript, it makes it obvious that neither or lawmakers nor most judges have a clue how anything online works - nor anything using computers.

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnV View Post
    hopefully, and I stress HOPEFULLY, those sitting on the bench have well educated advisors...

    regarding the issue, I believe that if the defendant was linking to the plaintiffs main index page, all would be good....


  6. #6
    Gay is the new Black
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    1,561
    Quote Originally Posted by basschick View Post
    yeah, but how would you like an illegal site like a cp site linking to YOUR site?
    Um...

    "had been providing direct links to the live audiocasts of motorcycle racing events."

    "Anyone who clicked on the link from Davis' site, however, would not see the logos of companies that paid to be sponsors"


    How I read this is More of a PLUS in that Hot linking can become the grounds of a Law Suit.

    In a nutshell - He is stealing bandwidth by posting a link directly to the .mp3 that bypasses the website or any indicator of the website altogether and launches a media player in it's place.

    It ends up looking like a feature of company A rather than of the copyright owner; company B

    where i see potential issues is blog owners linking to companies when complaining about those companies.
    Review sites too?
    Be Who You Are!


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •