pirated content Linking to Pirated Content Is Not Copyright Infringement, Says EU Court Adviser

[Reefa]

Linking to pirated content that is already available to the public can not be seen as copyright infringement under the European Copyright Directive. This is the advice Advocate General Melchior Wathelet has sent to the EU Court of Justice, in what may turn out to be a landmark case.

 

One of the key roles of the EU’s Court of Justice is to interpret European law to ensure that it’s applied in the same manner across all member states.

 

The Court is also called upon by national courts to clarify finer points of EU law to progress local cases with Europe-wide implications.

 

In recent years the Court was called upon to rule on several cases related to hyperlinking, in an effort to established whether links to other websites can be seen as copyright infringement.

 

Previously, it ruled that links to copyrighted works are not infringing if the copyright holder published them in public, and the same is true for embedding copyrighted videos.

 

But what if a link points to content that is not authorized by the copyright holder? Would this still be allowed? According to EU Advocate General Melchior Wathelet, it is.

 

In an advisory opinion to the EU Court of Justice, which will issue a final ruling later, the Advocate General reviewed a dispute between the Dutch weblog GeenStijl.nl and Playboy.

 

In October 2011, GeenStijl.nl published a post linking to leaked Playboy photos, which were hosted on the file-hosting service FileFactory.

 

Playboy publisher Sanoma successfully requested the removal of the photos at the hosting service, but in response GeenStijl continued to link to other public sources where they were still available.

 

The Dutch Court asked the EU Court of Justice to rule whether these links can be seen as a ‘communication to the public’ under Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive of the Copyright Directive, and whether they facilitate copyright infringement.

 

In his advice today the Advocate General acknowledges that the hyperlinks facilitate the discovery of the copyrighted works, and make them more easily available. However, this isn’t copyright infringement.

 

“…hyperlinks which lead, even directly, to protected works are not ‘making them available’ to the public when they are already freely accessible on another website, and only serve to facilitate their discovery,” the EU Court of Justice’s writes, commenting on the advice.

 

The Advocate General argues that “linking” is not the same as making the content available, which would apply to the original uploader. This means that GeenStijl’s actions can not be characterized as copyright infringement.

 

“The actual act of ‘making available’ is the action of the person who effected the initial communication. Consequently, hyperlinks which are placed on a website and which link to protected works that are freely accessible on another site cannot be classified as an ‘act of communication’ within the meaning of the Directive.”

 

“In fact, the intervention of the owner of the site which places the hyperlink, in this case GS Media, is not indispensable to the photos in question being made available to internet users, including those who visit GeenStijl’s website,” the Court clarifies.

 

The advice is a setup for a landmark ruling. However, the Court stresses that the advice only applies to this particular case.

 

Technically, most torrent sites including The Pirate Bay, mostly link to material that’s already available elsewhere. However, in these cases the general purpose of the site may also be taken into account.

 

That said, the advice is good news for news sites, bloggers and the general public, as incidentally linking to relevant copyrighted material should be allowed in most cases.

 

The Advocate General’s advice is not binding, but the European Court of Justice often uses such advice as the basis of its rulings. The final verdict is expected to be released later this year.

 

SourcE

[knowledge-Spammer]

Linking to pirated content that is already available to the public can not be seen as copyright

may be admins stop removing post for copyright now then ? hehehe

[luisam]

As I understand, it means if I post a link to mediafire where someone uploaded  i.e. a Blu-Ray rip of The Force Awekens I AM NOT INFRINGING ANY COPYRIGHT REGULATION!

By extension, posting links of pirated movies, music, ebooks etc  to host sites is Not Copyright Infringement.

[steven36]

Try to tell this to the UK  and countries  that block  whole sites who link to nothing but a public p2p tracker . Even though part of the EU feels that way some countries never fully go along with the EU anyways.  And places like USA  witch are not part of the EU once they put a DMCA  on a link  its  Copyright Infringement,, Just ask Kim Dotcom about this.  Kat and Torrentz  remove every reported link and most file host do too . So how will this ruling help anything except  for maybe the 3 countries that may go along with this ruling.

[straycat19]

I am not sure of the law in the UK, but from what I understand the Court Advisor really holds no legal status as to his decisions, the court can do whatever it wants.  Also not sure how the contributing factors work into UK law, but in the US you can be convicted of a crime for many reasons not associated with the actual crime itself.  Instead of a movie or album, think of it as a watch or a ring.  Someone steals it, makes it available, you take possession of it (receiving stolen property), you sell it (conversion), to someone else (receiving stolen property), and then under the RICO statues this could be termed an ongoing criminal enterprise and additional charges filed. You could even be charged with the actual theft since participation can be before or after the fact.  What everyone looks at as copyright infringement is also theft because it denies (theoretically) the owner of compensation for the watching or hearing of that item by the person who actually has it in his/her possession.  I believe the only saving grace is that they don't follow the standard laws that pertain to durable items because it would absolutely clog the court systems and people would live an entire lifetime before their case was ever heard.

[Sylence]

10 hours ago, knowledge said:

Linking to pirated content that is already available to the public can not be seen as copyright

may be admins stop removing post for copyright now then ? hehehe

 

Almost all pirated contents are available to the public. pirated contents in a password protected FTP are so rare 

[SnakeMasteR]

9 hours ago, luisam said:

By extension, posting links of pirated movies, music, ebooks etc  to host sites is Not Copyright Infringement.

 

If you uploaded it, of course it is, mediafire will whoop your a$$ pretty fast after DMCA complaints.

 

If you upload stuff to hosters that allow for monetization per download and share links, you not only make it available to the public but at the same time you get some money out of it, proof of copyright is a requirement for DMCA, so it's on you to prove that you have any rights on it, which is doubtful.

 

There is no mention of movies, music, ebooks, just pictures. Hollywood will never allow for sharing some blockbusters on OCH's or torrent, same goes for the music industry, they will make sure that laws work in their favour, not yours and will continue that this stuff can cost you your future, means thousands and thousands of hard-as-fcuk dollars in damage.

 

The short version of all this is that the initial source made the infringement posting pictures of a upcoming Playboy magazine, not the site sharing only a link to it, not sure where that is even remotely discussing file hosters, movies, music, ebooks.

[Jaley]

In my opinion, providing linking to pirated content shouldn't even be counted as copyright infringement. Copyright infringement in laymen terms is when one were to upload somebody's work without permission or downloading it without the author's permission this is copyright infringement. Linking copyrighted materials act as a form of middleman to have easier access to that infringing content should any copyright infringement occur it will depend on the end user where they have downloaded the material off that link.