Comments on: It is... the FORBIDDEN link! http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/24/it-is-the-forbidden-link/ the blog that is not dansdata.com Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:15:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: Daniel Rutter http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/24/it-is-the-forbidden-link/#comment-2178 Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:48:46 +0000 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/24/it-is-the-forbidden-link/#comment-2178 But there is absolutely no reason why Australians <i>shouldn't</i> be sued (or at least sent the famous Cease and Desist letters with an offer to settle for several thousand dollars...) just like the Americans - well, no reason that doesn't exist in the USA as well, anyway. We have no more legal protection from scattershot media-company lawsuits than Americans do. The "inconsistencies" you mention do not in fact provide any sort of protection; yes, copyright infringement is not generally a criminal offense here, but it generally isn't in the USA either. The DMCA <i>makes</i> some actions which wouldn't necessarily otherwise be any kind of offense into criminal acts, but Australia has "harmonised" its copyright laws with the USA, so we're the same there, too. But there is absolutely no reason why Australians shouldn't be sued (or at least sent the famous Cease and Desist letters with an offer to settle for several thousand dollars...) just like the Americans - well, no reason that doesn't exist in the USA as well, anyway. We have no more legal protection from scattershot media-company lawsuits than Americans do. The "inconsistencies" you mention do not in fact provide any sort of protection; yes, copyright infringement is not generally a criminal offense here, but it generally isn't in the USA either.

The DMCA makes some actions which wouldn't necessarily otherwise be any kind of offense into criminal acts, but Australia has "harmonised" its copyright laws with the USA, so we're the same there, too.

]]> by: Kordos http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/24/it-is-the-forbidden-link/#comment-2177 Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:25:47 +0000 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/24/it-is-the-forbidden-link/#comment-2177 It is important because Australians downloading a tv show or moive are not getting sued in like joe average in America the only one I can think of is the guy who was distributing the simsons movie. Regardless of if you think its a good idea/bad idea to sue pirates iI think its important to point out the inconsistencies in our copyright laws which like many of our laws regarding the internet are outdated and don't know what they are talking about. It is important because Australians downloading a tv show or moive are not getting sued in like joe average in America the only one I can think of is the guy who was distributing the simsons movie. Regardless of if you think its a good idea/bad idea to sue pirates iI think its important to point out the inconsistencies in our copyright laws which like many of our laws regarding the internet are outdated and don't know what they are talking about.

]]> by: Daniel Rutter http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/24/it-is-the-forbidden-link/#comment-2176 Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:16:29 +0000 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/24/it-is-the-forbidden-link/#comment-2176 This is probably true, but it's also unimportant. People getting sued for zillions of dollars just for downloading music, movies and TV are, I think without exception, being sued in civil court. This is, if anything, likely to be <i>worse</i> for Joe Average, if only because you're not going to be able to get a Legal Aid solicitor to defend you for free in civil court. This is probably true, but it's also unimportant. People getting sued for zillions of dollars just for downloading music, movies and TV are, I think without exception, being sued in civil court.

This is, if anything, likely to be worse for Joe Average, if only because you're not going to be able to get a Legal Aid solicitor to defend you for free in civil court.

]]> by: Kordos http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/24/it-is-the-forbidden-link/#comment-2175 Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:59:00 +0000 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/24/it-is-the-forbidden-link/#comment-2175 Sorry, correction, it is illegal to download copywrited material but you can only get charged with a criminal offense in australia for using that material on a commercial scale http://www.copyright.org.au/search?SearchableText=piracy click on copyrightcompliance, infringement and piracy (pdf file) Sorry, correction, it is illegal to download copywrited material but you can only get charged with a criminal offense in australia for using that material on a commercial scale
http://www.copyright.org.au/search?SearchableText=piracy
click on copyrightcompliance, infringement and piracy (pdf file)

]]> by: Bruce http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/24/it-is-the-forbidden-link/#comment-2174 Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:42:40 +0000 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/24/it-is-the-forbidden-link/#comment-2174 That's an interesting theory Kordos, got any authority for it ? That's an interesting theory Kordos, got any authority for it ?

]]> by: Kordos http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/24/it-is-the-forbidden-link/#comment-2173 Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:26:46 +0000 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/24/it-is-the-forbidden-link/#comment-2173 The ACC has no idea what it is doing, here (in oz) I can download whatever copywrited material I want from the net - movies, tv shows, games whatever and they wont touch me - but the second I start distributing the copywrited material - then they can sue me The ACC has no idea what it is doing, here (in oz) I can download whatever copywrited material I want from the net - movies, tv shows, games whatever and they wont touch me - but the second I start distributing the copywrited material - then they can sue me

]]> by: rsynnott http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/24/it-is-the-forbidden-link/#comment-2162 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:08:17 +0000 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/24/it-is-the-forbidden-link/#comment-2162 Reyalp: I only know of one case where an anti-deep-linking-to-pages policy was upheld, and it was a very long time ago in the UK; the offender was also taking clear financial advantage. I was once threatened with a lawsuit by a crazy Internet person for deep linking. Only he thought that it was _copyright infringement_, of all things. (I had linked to a blog post where he voiced support for the IRA, our local terrorist group, with commentary doubting his sanity.) Reyalp: I only know of one case where an anti-deep-linking-to-pages policy was upheld, and it was a very long time ago in the UK; the offender was also taking clear financial advantage.

I was once threatened with a lawsuit by a crazy Internet person for deep linking. Only he thought that it was _copyright infringement_, of all things. (I had linked to a blog post where he voiced support for the IRA, our local terrorist group, with commentary doubting his sanity.)

]]> by: DBT http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/24/it-is-the-forbidden-link/#comment-2161 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:37:49 +0000 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/24/it-is-the-forbidden-link/#comment-2161 So when are they planning to sue Google? You did say they were lawyers, didn't you? HELLO!?!1! So when are they planning to sue Google?

You did say they were lawyers, didn't you?

HELLO!?!1!

]]> by: Daniel Rutter http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/24/it-is-the-forbidden-link/#comment-2159 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:54:23 +0000 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/24/it-is-the-forbidden-link/#comment-2159 Yeah, the whole idea's basically incoherent. In the cases where an actual linking policy - a straight don't-link-to-anything-but-our-home-page sort of policy - has actually been treated with anything other than great hilarity by a court, I think that policy has always come along with a "click-wrap" license. So if you visit the home page of dumbcompany.com, the first thing you see is a ton of legalese with an "I agree" tickbox at the bottom, like what you get when you join an online forum. Then it gives you a username and password, or at the very least sets a browser cookie. This is, itself, riddled with legal and logical holes, but at least it shows you're serious about your crazy policy. The ACC, in contrast, let everyone in like any normal site, and hide their link-forbidding policy away on a page that most of their visitors won't even see. It's not exactly in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard", but it's getting there. Yeah, the whole idea's basically incoherent.

In the cases where an actual linking policy - a straight don't-link-to-anything-but-our-home-page sort of policy - has actually been treated with anything other than great hilarity by a court, I think that policy has always come along with a "click-wrap" license. So if you visit the home page of dumbcompany.com, the first thing you see is a ton of legalese with an "I agree" tickbox at the bottom, like what you get when you join an online forum. Then it gives you a username and password, or at the very least sets a browser cookie. This is, itself, riddled with legal and logical holes, but at least it shows you're serious about your crazy policy.

The ACC, in contrast, let everyone in like any normal site, and hide their link-forbidding policy away on a page that most of their visitors won't even see. It's not exactly in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard", but it's getting there.

]]> by: reyalp http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/24/it-is-the-forbidden-link/#comment-2158 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:51:14 +0000 http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/02/24/it-is-the-forbidden-link/#comment-2158 What I always wondered about the stupid linking policies (which have occasionally been upheld or even established by courts!) is whether linking to a search query that will lead you to the forbidden subject is also against the rules ? What if I just tell you which terms to search for ? Or post the text of the link, but not using an href ? Write the URL on a post-it note ? What if you use software that automatically OCRs the postit note and takes you to the URL ? If I post a link to tinyurl or similar, am I liable, or is it tinyurl ? If I were an independently wealthy lawyer, I could see a lot of fun exploring this in courts :) What I always wondered about the stupid linking policies (which have occasionally been upheld or even established by courts!) is whether linking to a search query that will lead you to the forbidden subject is also against the rules ? What if I just tell you which terms to search for ? Or post the text of the link, but not using an href ? Write the URL on a post-it note ? What if you use software that automatically OCRs the postit note and takes you to the URL ? If I post a link to tinyurl or similar, am I liable, or is it tinyurl ?

If I were an independently wealthy lawyer, I could see a lot of fun exploring this in courts :)

]]>