|
Is It Now Illegal To Link To Other Websites?
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/internet_now_illegal_to_link_to_other_sites.htm
Landmark Sydney legal ruling sets precedent for wholesale devastation of Internet news websites and blogs
Prison Planet | December 20, 2006
Paul Joseph Watson
A landmark legal ruling in Sydney goes further than ever before in setting the trap door for the destruction of the Internet as we know it and the end of alternative news websites and blogs by creating the precedent that simply linking to other websites is breach of copyright and piracy.
Following our report last month that an RIAA legal argument would, if the case was eventually won, criminalize simply making files available on the Internet, many readers scoffed at the serious implications of the case. Such a precedent would change the entire face of the Internet because "making files available" is so loosely defined it could criminalize simply placing links on ones website or blog to other websites.
Some accused us of yellow journalism and scaremongering yet the warning that the Elektra vs. Barker case could criminalize the very mechanism that characterizes the Internet was not concocted by Alex Jones or Paul Joseph Watson, it was a statement made by the very lawyer fighting the case, Ray Beckerman.
And that's exactly what has now happened in Sydney, where an Australian federal court has opened the door for simply linking to other websites to be classified as piracy.
A landmark ruling was upheld against Stephen Cooper, who ran a website which acted as search engine for locating and downloading MP3's not from his own website but from other MP3 download websites. Cooper was charged with piracy and his ISP is also being targeted for not shutting down his website quickly enough.
"Sabiene Heindl, general manager of Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI) said the decision meant that anyone who stuck a link on MySpace or on their bogs could now expect a knock on the door from its briefs," reports the UK Inquirer .
And for those who dismiss the precedent as only applying to those who link to copyrighted MP3 files, consider this - Cooper was only doing the same thing as Google in providing a means of finding files on other website. The MIPI is also preparing to take action against Google in "other jurisdictions," meaning it is building a case to sue Google for linking to all manner of different files from its search engine hub.
If such a precedent becomes accepted, it would be the death knell for alternative websites like the one you're reading now and others, who primarily rely on linking to other sources in order to collate important news and information. It would also put an end to some of the biggest websites on the Internet such as Fark.com and the Drudge Report , which are both almost exclusively devoted to collecting the world's most interesting news and offering it to readers in one place, by linking to scores of different websites.
Under these terms only internal linking would be permitted, which would not significantly impact commercial powerhouses like Amazon.com but would effectively put an end to all blogs.
The skids are clearly being greased for the mandated introduction of Internet 2, a tightly controlled, surveilled and regulated cyberspace police state run solely by telecommunications giants in consort with the U.S. government and the United Nations. Net Neutrality campaigners are desperately trying to raise awareness to the dangers of this as legislation that will kill the Internet as we know it is on the brink of debate and passage in the first session of Congress early next year.
Earlier this year under the headline, The End of the Internet?, The Nation magazine reported ,
"The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online."
"Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out."
Internet 2 is being billed as the next generation of the world wide web and it has already set global speed records in terms of data transfer, far outstripping the old Internet.
Adblock
One of the fathers of the Internet, David Clark, who served as chief protocol architect for the government's internet development initiative in the 1980s, has been given $200,000 by the National Science Foundation to covertly work on a "whole new infrastructure to replace today's global network," according to Wired Magazine .
Clark has vowed to create a "brave new world" in designing the new Internet, characterizing what he wanted for the new network to be "a coherent security architecture."
Dovetailing the onset of Internet 2 are government propaganda campaigns to demonize the existing Internet as a wild backwater for hate crime, child pornography and a terrorist recruiting ground. We have detailed these moves at length in previous articles .
The last outpost of freedom of speech, the world wide web, is in the crosshairs of corporate lobbyists and big government control freaks, who are putting the finishing touches on the pincer attack plan that will put paid to the greatest technological revolution of the latter 20th century.
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
Twarrior
|
Date: December 22, 2006 @ 4:49 AM
This is unlikely. Alot of countries that are not as rich as the USA is, rely on all of these things just for pure economic survival not being able to "bring in the bucks" that the super powers are able to manifest. We'd be looking at World War III. Litterally. The end to the Internet? lol ... how about a third World War? That one's more likely.
However to all you doom and gloomer extremists -- WWIII does not mean nukes and the end of life on Earth. Think of it like the Iraqis War. Only a HELL of alot bigger. |
|
TotallyFrust...
|
Date: December 22, 2006 @ 6:35 AM
As to the article, I believe there was a case in the US a while concerning the very same subject. In that case, the Xerox rule applied. Simply linking does not prove infringement of any kind. In addition, the opinion also noted that any ruling involving this would run afowl of the 1st amendment.
Since Australian law does not apply outside of Australia, and the Internet does it seams like an unenforceable ruling. Given that Australian law is much more draconian on copyright matters and it took them some eight years to get this far there I'm betting they'll be a bad memory long before they could get enough contries to buy into the concept to be of any benefit.
The thing about the Internet that drives them all crazy is siply its so wide spread. They can't simply pay of a couple of politicians and get it all and their pockets aren't deep enough to pay off all the politicians they need to effectively control it. They got DMCA only to find that many contries simply do not honor it providing safe harbors for some. Even here in the States that pesky firsat ammendment stand in the way of this approach and that is not likely to change. In England the whole copyright approach is being looked at with a lean toward lightening up as is the case in Canada. As mentioned, third world contries aren't interested at all in squeezeing out every shopping dollar and countries such as China and Russia would be content to see them all dry up and blow away....Seems to me that if their plan still includes control of the Internet they would have better luck from writing to Santa. |
|
TotallyFrust...
|
Date: December 22, 2006 @ 6:39 AM
Multiple typos....Early morning...grrrr
Oh well, I always wanted to create my own language. Translating above shouldn't be too difficult for folks here since you are sharper than most:-) |
|
Twarrior
|
Date: December 22, 2006 @ 6:58 AM
Well I hope that ut never becomes legal here. Linking to someone elses website and getting into trouble for it (even if it was "unknowingly" like "your search engine spidered something" would directly mean: a third party can be held responcible for the actions of a first party, related or not. Knowingly or not.
If that passed: it would also likely turn this country into something not unlike Nazi Germany.
It would mean if a "first party" commited a murder -- and you happen to live in the "next apartment over" from the murder victim and as a result "become a suspect" -- it would mean the cops could arrest you without a warrent, hold you without cause, try and sentence you without a jury or representation and lock you up indefinately (or) exicute you.
People like to live in their fantasy world of "oh well its the Internet, not real life!" ... well when the RIAA sues children -- the parents become quickly aware that the Internet is just as real as anything else. |
|
InsaneWayne
|
Date: December 22, 2006 @ 11:34 AM
I do hereby give my permission to any member of Dmusic and/or boycott-riaa to copy and paste my text, postings, articles, ect ect, for quoting me at other sites. I would wish for a link to http://www.dmusic.com to be added to my quotes.
I also give permission to any member of Dmusic to download my posted mp3s and burn them as .wav, .mp3, .ogg, ect ect for internetless friends as long as it stays free (I posted em for free dun be charging yer friends!) (and send cute groupies my way ;) )
At a certain level, some "news" sites depend on advertising to support the site. If an end user can read those articles at another site then the advertising that paid for it isnt seen. That's not very fair. A LINK to the orginal article fixes this problem.
I found Dmusic and boycott-riaa thur a link in a post at http://www.zdnet.com. I'd like to thank that poster for the link. |
|
Tallisman
|
Date: December 22, 2006 @ 11:34 AM
I too believe that this unlikely to happen, not that these corporate psychopaths won't try... you can see them with $ in their eyes, and a monopoly of the greatest form of information exchange would be hella lucrative!
to me the argument is flawed. A link is merely a pointer... a path, a road to the desired info. If they succeed in banning links, then they should cancel all bus routs to NBC and CBS as well as rip up the road to Sony, or else taxes will sky rocket to pay for the law suits against the department of public works for providing links, or roads) to these places.
Google is a staple now, as it should be, fully integrated into our current lexicon. Wikipedia, what a fantastic tool (as will be this dmusic wiki). Bollocks. Crap.
Not gonna happen. And i bet companies like Google will not rest until they have put this to bed.
Sleep tight!
T |
|
Twarrior
|
Date: December 22, 2006 @ 12:15 PM
"InsaneWayne
Date: December 22, 2006 @ 11:34 AM
I do hereby give my permission to any member of Dmusic and/or boycott-riaa to copy and paste my text, postings, articles, ect ect, for quoting me at other sites. I would wish for a link to http://www.dmusic.com to be added to my quotes.
I also give permission to any member of Dmusic to download my posted mp3s and burn them as .wav, .mp3, .ogg, ect ect for internetless friends as long as it stays free (I posted em for free dun be charging yer friends!) (and send cute groupies my way ;) )
At a certain level, some "news" sites depend on advertising to support the site. If an end user can read those articles at another site then the advertising that paid for it isnt seen. That's not very fair. A LINK to the orginal article fixes this problem.
I found Dmusic and boycott-riaa thur a link in a post at http://www.zdnet.com. I'd like to thank that poster for the link."
As the *head* of Boycott RIAA (Second only to the head of DMusic, leflaw) I hereby give my full permission for you to use the news tab in the top navigation under which there is a "submit" link. Any articles you submit that you write (or any from other sites from which of course as you said -- will include the originating url -- as was, is and always forever shall be our standing policy anyways) will be queued for review and should they be accepted for the front page -- shall be bestowed for all to see to bask in their glory.
I also hereby bestow upon you the invitation to take your audio content and crate a Dmusic account with which you can upload up to 75MB worth of it, absolutely free of charge -- provided it is your original content, of course :-)
Welcome aboard Wayne, we're happy to have ya! I wish all of our users were as fourth coming!
"Tallisman
Date: December 22, 2006 @ 11:34 AM
I too believe that this unlikely to happen, not that these corporate psychopaths won't try... you can see them with $ in their eyes, and a monopoly of the greatest form of information exchange would be hella lucrative!
to me the argument is flawed. A link is merely a pointer... a path, a road to the desired info. If they succeed in banning links, then they should cancel all bus routs to NBC and CBS as well as rip up the road to Sony, or else taxes will sky rocket to pay for the law suits against the department of public works for providing links, or roads) to these places.
Google is a staple now, as it should be, fully integrated into our current lexicon. Wikipedia, what a fantastic tool (as will be this dmusic wiki). Bollocks. Crap.
Not gonna happen. And i bet companies like Google will not rest until they have put this to bed.
Sleep tight!"
I will not rest until the RIAA is put to bed or I die of old age (whatever happens first! :-D )
|
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: December 22, 2006 @ 2:57 PM
This is all highly amusing because the RIAA is so damn stupid.
Why don't they just follow the links and remove the "illegal" music that this guy located for them?
Let's say I know there is a meth lab down the street and put a sign in my yard that says...
Meth Lab
=====>>
1201 Main St.
In the RIAA's world (and maybe in Australia), I'd get arrested for putting up the sign. In the real world, the law would be more interested in what's going on at 1201 Main St. |
|
grumpygeezer
|
Date: December 22, 2006 @ 4:20 PM
"However, to all you doom-and-gloom extremists -- WWIII does not mean nukes and the end of life on Earth. Think of it like the Iraqi War. Only a HELL of alot bigger."
Bigger and worse. And who's to say nukes won't be used?
Are you willing to bet against North Korea using one if the circumstances get to the point they feel pushed into a corner?
A tyrannical loose cannon like N.K.'s leadership is likely capable of just about anything.
|
|
RaidHHI
|
Date: December 22, 2006 @ 4:41 PM
grumpygeezer,
It would seem you and I agree too often. :)
I would suspect world war III will involve nukes. Likely, North Korea taking a shot or two at the usa or another country nearby. (I'm told they're weapons can't travel the distance to get here yet, but it's only a matter of time before they can).
North Korea has already demonstrated they are armed, know they have it, and will detonate it. Do you really think they tested it entirely to see if it would work? They wanted people to know, "Hey, check us out, we have nukes! Not really big ones yet, but enough to hurt".
|
|
InsaneWayne
|
Date: December 23, 2006 @ 4:49 PM
WWWIII will use PsyOps and the winners will tell you YOU won, doublethink about it ;)
I really think advertisers may try and stop people from copying and pasting ENTIRE articles, and wish for posters, bloggers and such to post links, the links will then take you to the orginal articles with the advertising that helps pays for it.
If I did put a sign in my yard pointing to a crackhouse, the SSCENT team would search MY house again wondering how and why I knew about the crackhouse....
Twarrior; I'm happy ya'll put up with me |
|
lowdbrent
|
Date: December 24, 2006 @ 12:06 AM
What does Australian news have to do with the site for boycotting an American record company funded special interest group? |
|
tomsong
|
Date: December 24, 2006 @ 12:55 AM
Yeh. Right.
"What does Australian news have to do with the site for boycotting an American record company funded special interest group?"
To the rest of you----my vote is to bring back Thumbtack. Let's see a show of hands. I will speak to him, what do you all say? Blood is thicker an' all dat.
Twarrior Kelso, lowdbrent has issued you a challenge. Myself, I love to see a low-hanging fat curveball when I see it, a bootyful thing which I could swat over the fence, as if I was born to it.
TWarrior/Kelso----Instead of parading your Invisible Emperor's Jammies in front of the many longtime loyalists here---such as (but not limited to: JazzMary, GDZieman, Thumbtack, CodeWarrior)--any one of whom could write a fullout Wikipedia essay on the IFPA, WIPO, Jay Berman, Webcasters Treaty at the drop of a hat)----why not respond to the challenge issued by this lowdbrent person and fire off a tutorial on International Copyright 101.
Your many previous posts boast of the awesome powers you have inherited as Gawd, second only to Leflaw. I can't even figure out why Schmoo has the authority to hand over the access to Dmusic Root.
Insane Wayne doesn't need a welcome message from you. He was a charter member of Boycott before you were born.
Your love affair with RaidHHI is contrary to the explicit polling of everyone on this board, and you are blind to it. But that would require that youa sk someone else what's the story. RadidHHI is laughing at you. Simply put, you stepped into a cowpie.
Lowdbrent challenges you, let's hear it. Why do we post articles on international law vis a vis Recording Idjits of America?
So far, TWarrior/Kelso---your essays on the BBS-1995 era have garnered zero, zip, nada responses. Yawn.
And in the process, you have driven away *most* of our loyal chat room buddies from the last 7 years.
The first rule of chat room etiquette decrees that you wait and listen, and see "who is who" amongst the bodies bumping around in the dark--before introducing yourself, what you do, what are your personal preferences --- and only then---ask for collaboration.
Simple social structure that people learned in the old days of the Well and Echo, an era which you admire so much.
I am baffled why anyone is given admin status and thinks they are a little hitler (small h.)
And in the end, TWarrior/Kelso---your own internet ventures would seemingly be in conflict with Leflaw's long-standing investment in Dmusic; that is, you would wouldn't think twice about the opportunity to siphon away Dmusic songwriters and artists to your own website(s).
Hell yeh.
Let us draft Thumbtack back into harness. Start a new thread. Thumbtack for Admin.
All is forgiven.
Merry Christmas. |
|
independentm...
|
Date: December 24, 2006 @ 3:39 AM
*Ouch, oooh, hot - HOT potato!*
Er, probably shouldn't say anything but I guess I'm gonna anyways, so let me start with:
Hi tomsong! Long time, no see!
--------
"I can't even figure out why Schmoo has the authority to hand over the access to Dmusic Root."
Uh, I DON'T have that kind of authority as it has never been mine to give. Twarrior gets whatever site access levels/permissions he has from leflaw and Joe themselves. (But I did introduce him to the DMusic team because of his expressed desire to help us out with things.)
I'd be all in favor of seeing you and Thumbtack participating around here more often. The wisdom you two hold has been missed.
But please be a little patient with Twarrior. He is very new to Boycott Riaa and you are correct that he doesn't know everyone yet, (and is still learning the "rules" in our playground) but doesn't it always take a little time for any social group to adjust to the "new kid on the block"?
"What does Australian news have to do with the site for boycotting an American record company funded special interest group?"
If Twarrior wants to field that question, it is his perogative to do so or not. (I would have taken a swing at that ball, but at the moment I have very little time to use the Internet at the moment and thought it better to swing at this "hot potato" instead.)
Is it required that anyone here (even in admin capacity) nesessarily be as saavy on copyright
law & applications as JazzMary, GDZieman, Thumbtack, CodeWarrior or yourself? (Good Lord, that would be a very TALL order. FEW people in the world grok such things as clearly as do you guys.)
As I understand it, Twarrior is here to help implement/upgrade the functions and structure & usability of Boycott Riaa.
Not everyone is a guru, (no mater the meme) but don't we all bring our own individual talents to this party?
If we can all learn to get along and focus our skills on our stated purpose/agenda without too much infighting and bickering amongst ourselves, I bet we will accomplish even more great things in the days and years to come.
--------------
Uh, ok. Time for me to get out of the way. I hope sticking my nose in wasn't the wrong thing to do.
Play nice folks! |
|
pepe512000
|
Date: December 24, 2006 @ 11:18 AM
TWarrior....Humility is your best defense/offense within this site.... :) |
|
InsaneWayne
|
Date: December 24, 2006 @ 12:17 PM
I'd like to welcome Twarrior to the Dmusic/Boycott-Riaa/Gnutella/ect family and I know he's new
it's a big job running a site, I know. It started as a chat room, then an MSN group was added to host regular user's pics, then a few educational pages got written, I was amazed that I was the one who wrote the "rules" page... 6,000+ members of an all-age non-sex site? wow, not bad. Seeing my essays on other groups and other sites, flattering (add a link plz). I still have no idea how to post a graphic thingy from my PC to a webpage, how to use an html editor, how to get a border, background, ect ect.... I'm an artist not a high school kid (ya know they can make fancy myspace pages in 10 seconds flat)
paying attention to who's who takes awhile
it's nice that Dmusic has used a few of my suggestions (I cant be the only one who thought "legal services" should be it's own tab tho')
Dmusic is for a lot of differant people, anti-contract/anti-riaa bands, political anti-corperate rebels, pirates, burnt out artists who just want a better way for their children, internet geeks, music fans looking for DRM free legal music, ect ect, and lets not forget THE GROUPIES! I even welcome the trolls, it's so easy to prove em wrong and further our anti-riaa points.
any popular site doesnt belong to the owners, it belongs to the members who love and support it |
|
grumpygeezer
|
Date: December 25, 2006 @ 12:23 AM
Bring back thumbtack? That would be great if he participated regularly! (I know, he sold the site to leflaw some years ago, but it would be nice seeing thumbtack's input again.)
And I agree with you that Twarrior probably should be maintaining a lower profile, as far as posting comments go, for a reasonable period of time (for the reasons you gave). He did seem to come on pretty strong and fast.
I concur with Shmoo and InsaneWayne about us trying to get along and work toward our common goals. To that end, constructive criticism is most certainly grist for the mill.
And, in regard to gfmlcka and several of the others who stopped participating, I hope they are still occasionally reading these forums and not planning to stay away for good.
But I trust the troll that was bothering us will continue to be kept away.
(I can't help but think that troll turned a few people off, too.)
Re: "And in the end, TWarrior/Kelso---your own internet ventures would seemingly be in conflict with Leflaw's long-standing investment in Dmusic; that is, you would wouldn't think twice about the opportunity to siphon away Dmusic songwriters and artists to your own website(s)."
Ouch! That could be a cause for concern . . . something I hope won't happen!!!
|
|
grumpygeezer
|
Date: December 25, 2006 @ 7:23 AM
Just to re-visit one of the generalities I mentioned in my previous post about "constructive criticism" being helpful:
Tomsong, it's hard to resist pondering upon the severity of your verbal onslaught (of December 24, 2006 @ 12:55 AM) against TWarrior.
Obviously, he either deserves all of it or he doesn't.
I'm going to wait to see how things get sorted out, and for whether there's good cause for my sensing that I'm speaking for more readers than just myself (in what I've written in this post and the one previous).
|
|
independentm...
|
Date: December 26, 2006 @ 7:44 AM
Found this at slashdot:
Judge Rules Against Deep-Linking of Content - News.com
"A Texas judge has ruled that, if a copyright owner objects to the linking of content from another web site, that link must be taken down. This case, which may have some far-reaching implications, centered around a motorcross website. The site, run by a Robert Davis, provided links directly to live feeds of 'Supercross' events streaming from the SFX Motor Sports site. The company filed suit, claiming that the direct links were denying it advertising revenue. The article cites previous cases, where sites were prohibited by judges from linking to files which violated copyright law (such as DVD decryption software). From the article: '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 referrer logging and blocking anyone coming from Davis' site.)'" |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: December 26, 2006 @ 2:44 PM
So... is anyone going to answer lowdbrent's question???? |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: December 26, 2006 @ 5:07 PM
"What does Australian news have to do with the site for boycotting an American record company funded special interest group?"
The answer is Universal, Sony/BMG, EMI and Warner, which is the only American company in the group. |
|
lowdbrent
|
Date: December 27, 2006 @ 2:54 AM
All foreign record labels are subject to the local laws in foriegn countries. Just because a policy holds in one country doesn't mean it applies to all.
The same thing applies to the artists. I used to work for a band that was signed to Warner. They had to contract with every discrete division of Warner in Europe individually. Just because one division signed an act did not mean that you were represented globally.
As for a Texas judge ruling in the US...that doesn't surprise me. It was also a Texas patent judge that awarded ClearChannel a patent on a recording "process" that was legally unpatentable, and had been performed since the 70s. They didn't patent software, or specialized equipment. They paid the judge enough money to patent live concert recording and CD duplication. |
|
grumpygeezer
|
Date: December 27, 2006 @ 5:26 AM
"Just because a policy holds in one country doesn't mean it applies to all."
Provisions of international treaties for intellectual property rights would apply to those nations that signed onto those agreements. But internet transactions might be liable in almost any nation. For example, hasn't the RIAA filed litigation against the Russian-based website AllofMP3.com? The cartel must think they've got a case.
|
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: December 27, 2006 @ 6:55 PM
I think the reason that this is still at least meaningful to us is that as soon as the labels get one country to pass a ridiculous law, then they start the process of convincing other countries that, in the interests of unifying international copyright law, they should consider adopting the same law.
That's what the RIAA will be saying, anyway, and people like Howard Berman listen to them. That's how we got the DMCA. |
|
IkeBetina
|
Date: December 28, 2006 @ 6:36 PM
Sounds like New World Order to me. I think I'll call it "Big Sister" |
|
RaidHHI
|
Date: December 30, 2006 @ 4:21 PM
The DMCA has done so well for people so far. Sony, RIAA/MPAA all seem to be enjoying themselves. If you own an ipod, you can't buy music for it from some sites; However! You can always import free scene ripped or otherwise mp3s into it.
"For example, hasn't the RIAA filed litigation against the Russian-based website AllofMP3.com? The cartel must think they've got a case."
The cartel's case is so weak tho, that they've tried to pressure the Government to withhold there access to the WTO.
"Your love affair with RaidHHI is contrary to the explicit polling of everyone on this board, and you are blind to it. But that would require that youa sk someone else what's the story. RadidHHI is laughing at you. Simply put, you stepped into a cowpie."
In some ways, yes I do tend to laugh.. er, with him, not at him. :) He's just speaking about the past as if he's an authority on it, and he could be I suppose, but I have my doubts... :)
|
|
|