How ironic....

Here is a link to an article about it being illegal to link to copyright information;

Worse still, I'm going to paste an abstract;

Copyright ruling puts hyperlinking on notice

A court ruling has given the recording industry the green light to go after individuals who link to material from their websites, blogs or MySpace pages that is protected by copyright.

A full bench of the Federal Court yesterday upheld an earlier ruling that Stephen Cooper, the operator of mp3s4free.net, as well as the internet service provider that hosted the website, were guilty of authorising copyright infringement because they provided a search engine through which a user could illegally download MP3 files.

The website did not directly host any copyright-protected music, but the court held that simply providing links to the material effectively authorised copyright infringement.

"Mr Cooper had power to prevent the communication of copyright sound recordings to the public in Australia via his website," the judges said.

holly shit

I'm not sure this is all that bad. It's really a ruling that these people "actively" promoted copyright breach. Even the ISP in this case -- who put ads on the pages.

I knew the Dewy Decimal system was illegal...

don't get me started on micro fische

Does this have implications for Bit-torrent trackers?

Or websites that link to Youtube/Dailymotion/other video sites to catalogue where all the episodes of a TV show are?

Hey guys, I'm running Peer Guardian on my Bit Torrent box.  Blocks connections with known P2P fink sites, and the database updates daily.  Not perfect, but after I inspected the blocked sites log I was surpirised at the questionable sites it blocked.

Court orders Google to pull Belgian news

The Brussels Court of First Instance ruled that
Mountain View, Calif.-based Google could not rely on exemptions, such
as claiming "fair use," because it says it reviews press articles when
it displays headlines, a few lines of text, photos and links to the
original page.

"Google is reproducing and
publishing works protected by copyright," it said. "Google cannot call
on any exceptions set out by law relating to copyright or similar
rights."

It decided in favor of Copiepresse,
a copyright protection group representing 17 mostly French-language
newspapers that complained the search engine's "cached" links offered
free access to archived articles that the papers usually sell.

Copiepresse
said the ruling was based on EU law and could trigger similar cases
against Google in other nations, saying it had been in touch with
copyright groups in Norway, Austria and Italy.

What about Google keeping a cache of the first little bit of all the pages they index

Fair use or copying?

It always annoys me when the cached snippet contains something I was searching for  but the actual page has been changed, or when picture in the image search are no longer there, so I'm stuck with the weeny little preview picture if I want the image at all

I don't link to copyrighted content that often, I normally just host it on my own server and link to it.

The net is wonderful, now it's to the lawyers to screw it all up!

It says they offer free access to archived articles that they usually sell.  But yet, they made the article publicly and freely available.  Did they publish some kind of expiration on the content such that it should no longer be considered freely share-able after Date X?  Does that capability exist?

As far as I know, indexing material already available on a network has been held up in court as not being a copy right violation. So I wouldn't worry much about linking to copyrighted material. Even if they do pass laws that help the RIAA enforce their rights sites will just move out of the country and be harder to shut down. 

it is interesting regarding "Mr Cooper had power to prevent the communication ..."... is he obliged to prevent the communication of copyright sound recordings (or any material for that fact)?  he certainly shouldnt infringe copyrights ... but communicating its sources??  this to me is a clear violation of free speech...   what do i know? i am only an engineering plebb...

i hope my post does not constitute "communication of inflamattory thoughts"...

hehe.. what about Google?

they're covered if indexing material already on a network is OK, but so are some things that the recording industry would like to be illegal 

i wonder how that translates to verbal communication.. if i tell you about a site containing infringed material, have I broken the law?  How many degrees does that apply to?  ie if tell you about a guy who knows about a guy who knows about a guy who knows about a guy who has a site that links to a site that contains said material... how does that work?

Sri, it depends whos asking the questions!

It's a shame that linking, one of the basics of the web, is getting messed with my lawyers.  

well mick, i dont knwo what you are talking about!!!  I asked nothing  i saw nothing and more importantly I know knothing,

Alright, I re-read the article. Apparently this in Austrailia, and yes it looks like their courts have ruled that hyperlinking to copyrighted content or even indexing it is illegal.

 In the USA however, I know that indexing copyrighted, or even downright illegal material (child-porn) is not illegal and the same goes for hyperlinking to it. It is the person who violates the copyright and makes it initially available is the one at fault and you'd be hard pressed to sue someone in the USA for hyperlinking to it.

I give the child-porn example because police have been using Google to find people distributing and making the sick stuff.

Fair(y) Use explained

but this is absurd! The Internet is no longer the big thing it was... this means we can almost no longer share what we love. Whoever is trying to enforce this is pathetic.

In Japan, according to a story in ars technica there is consideration a set of new intellectual property rules that would allow any webcaster to redistribute any copyrighted  television content—provided that royalties are paid. 

TV Broadcasters in the US would hate this kind of system but the recording industry is actually proposing something along the same lines for Web Pod broadcasters of music (whether recordings of studio 'owned' materials or 'the-boys-next-door' self made recording... 

Love the cilp Bric!

'The public domain is a disgrace to the forces of evil'
hehehehehe

typical of the RIAA, the music makers always have a haffy.

A second video where Disney characters  recite the Documentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use.....

hehehe

Where do you find these things?!?!

(Ok, I know the answer is YT, but focus on the expression instead) 

Two totally different sources.... the second came by way of Boing Boing I believe, I can't remember where the first came from --

But the real answer is:

Particls Rocks !!!

I've got my ticker so it brings me up a world of stuff relevent to my day job.... and sometimes the offbeat stuff seems to fit conversations going on in Topics here.... 

hahahah Brilliant confluence of products

From