This is how the EU's supreme court is stripping EU citizens of copyright protections

Re: I don't fully understand...

Sorry Andrew, once again you are chasing a reality that should not exist.

A hyperlink is the equivalent of someone saying to a room full of people that something exists and where it is. That isn't a crime, even if they are telling them where copyrighted material exists. They haven't themselves disseminated the copyright material. If it were a crime, it'd be absurd. It could even be argued that banning such a link would be an infringement of the right to freedom of expression.

So, why does that suddenly change when it is a link on a website? The link itself doesn't contain any illegal material. It is a quickdial on a phone.

Your view leads to the conclusion that hyperlinks are a crime unless they have the express permission of the owner of the copyright of that destination. Something that would make the internet a pointless place.

Re: I don't fully understand...

Your argument (possibly made more in hope than expectation) is "Not illegal. Because internet."

Actually, no, that is not my argument. In fact, I explicitly related it to a non-internet situation I felt was similar.

OK, let's take 2 more analogies:

1) I know of a person who has almost every film ever made on DVD, who will copy them for you on demand. When people ask me about potential sources of pirate DVDs, I give them this guy's contact details.

2) I know of a website where one can download almost any film. When someone asks me where they should download pirate material, I tell them the address of this site.

Am I guilty of copyright infringement in either of these 2 cases? Because these are the closest real-world analogies I can think of, and come extremely close to hyperlinking, yet I would be surprised if I had violated copyright myself.

I will actually turn it around: Your own argument is that it's illegal "because internet".

Re: I don't fully understand...

'Your argument (possibly made more in hope than expectation) is "Not illegal. Because internet."'

Can we please distinguish between the internet as a whole and the WWW? That's an important distinction to make because hyperlinks are how the web works; no hyperlinks, no web. Every page on The Register has loads of them. So can we get rid of the notion that hyperlinks in themselves are illegal or a breach of copyright?

We then have to consider some of the areas of complaint. One is the row about deep linking. One site publishes content. Another has a link to that content. First site complains that its content is being "stolen". As above, hyperlinks are how the web works. If you don't want people to link to it, don't publish it on the web. Possibly the context in which the deep-linked material is presented is intended to deceive the viewer into thinking that it was the second site's work. In that situation there may be a case to answer but it's a case about the deceptive presentation, not the link itself.

The other is material uploaded and made in breach of copyright. That's the offence. A link to it is, in itself, no more than a statement of fact. To go beyond that you have to look at the circumstances in which the statement is made.

Take an example: You tell me that you're looking for a good picture of a sunset. I find a really cracking example on the web and email you a link. It turns out that the picture was actually a third party's picture, uploaded in breach of copyright but with no indication that that was the case. All I've done is make, in all innocence, a factual statement as to where you can find what you were looking for.

If someone is publishing a list of links to such material in a context where there's a clear implication, if not an outright statement that the material is hooky then secondary liability comes into play but it's not the links themselves that are the problem, it's the context which forms an incitement to commit further breaches of copyright that should give rise to secondary liability. What's more it's not the communication's being in the form of a list of hyperlinks that gives rise to the liability, the same liability arises from telling someone that there are stolen phones for sale in a particular pub.

Re: I don't fully understand...

Does this logic imply that if I were to link to your story from my blog, (after saying the brilliant author has some interesting points in <THIS> article) I am guilty of copyright infringement?

Do I have to get permission from you to post a link to your story?

Or are some links bad, and liable for copyright infringement, but others that are good for the linkee's business (as they drive traffic) and are not good?

If in real life someone asks me what the sirens are, and I point down the street and say that I believe the Police are responding to a robbery, am I an accessory?

I do listen to my brain - by every rational argument, there is no reason to surrender British sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

I have to assume you are joking, or do you really base your opinion on such strawman reasoning? No I don't think the EU are destroying the web, and I don't think the web was a British invention.

Switzerland in not the EU, thus CERN (where the WWW was invented) proves that co-operation between European nations works just brilliantly without the rip-off EU parliament granting us permission from on high to co-operate. I fail to see how prominent scientists with reputations to uphold support the remain camp based on invalid reasoning.

If you vote to remain then you agree that someone who is unlikely to be British or live in Britain should have authority to overrule our parliament and dictate our laws. That viewpoint is contrary to the constitution of our and most other countries, it is treasonous.

Re: a hyperlink just tells you how to find it.

What if an experimental poet writes an original work about (e.g) trees entirely in the form of one or several hyperlinks/urls. Should they not hold the rights over their work? If the url's actually can be used to recover a webpage (because they're an IT literate sort of poet), does s/he both retain (poem!) and not retain (url!) copyrights in their "url" work?

https://the-artist.retai.ns/copyright2/works.of

https://their-own-creativity.no/matter?the=medium&_OR=substance

https://withoutthisruli.ng/each%20hyperlink/could_%F0%9F%90%9D_considered

https://an-infringeme.nt/~ofthe/copyright.of

https://the-linked.to/#work

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=IANAL

Re: "A decision to put hyperlinks beyond the reach of copyright"

"

If you have a private telephone numbers (and you are someone many would like to know the number of), and someone publish it without your consent, how would you feel?

"

Private unlisted numbers are often published in lists sold to tele-marketing companies. I may well be hacked off, but I would not regard it as a breach of copyright. Get used to the fact that not everything that is annoying is illegal.

Re: "A decision to put hyperlinks beyond the reach of copyright"

You might feel unhappy if your private phone number is leaked, but that has nothing to do with this case...

But using your example, web site A hosting copyright violating content and being linked to by web site B is sort of like person A knowing your private phone number and person B saying "ask person A if you want AC's private phone number". Even if you passed a law making it illegal to divulge a private phone number, meaning person A can be fined or jailed for telling, do you really suggest that person B should also be breaking the law by merely telling people who to ask if they want this illegal information?

It is no different than if someone you know wants to buy drugs and you happen to know someone who sells drugs. If you say "talk to Bob" when asked "hey do you know where I can buy some drugs?" you aren't committing a crime (at least in the US, that's not enough to be legally an accomplice)

Re: "A decision to put hyperlinks beyond the reach of copyright"

"If you have a private telephone numbers (and you are someone many would like to know the number of), and someone publish it without your consent, how would you feel?"

Breach of DPA, NOT copyright.