-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Politech] - (small) Downside in OPG v. Diebold - hyperlinking still threatened Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 21:47:07 -0400 From: Ethan Ackerman <eackerma@private> Reply-To: <eackerma@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Greetings Declan, I thought you might be interested in one of the observations the OPG v. Diebold court repeated in its opinion, one that (unfortunately) seems to be rather common consensus among federal judges: ---Some instances of hyperlinking can give rise to claims of contributory or vicarious infringement or inducing of infringement.--- This is not an idea new to judge Fogel's opinion - indeed he rather minimizes it, relegating it to footnote 12 - but it seems to be taken as unchallenged truth in more and more judicial opinions. One of the requests that EFF attorneys (I suspect, thoughtfully and intentionally) made in this suit was for a declaration that "Hosting websites that link to allegedly infringing material is lawful." (EFF's complaint, at http://www.eff.org/legal/ISP_liability/OPG_v_Diebold/First_Amended_Complaint .pdf) The judge agreed that the hyperlinking was entirely OK in THIS case, but recognized that hyperlinking COULD give rise to liability, and refused to make a blanket declaration that hyperlinking is never a vicarious or contributory infringement. EFF knows what it is doing on this issue and just what could be at risk, having addressed other threats to hyperlinking in the past. ((See www.mail-archive.com/politech@private/msg00896.html for EFF comments on a previous case.) Why is this email more than an academic footnote? It shows that hyperlinkers can face liability under copyright law as CURRENTLY written. Broadening the definition of inducement, as legislative proposals such as S.2560 (the INDUCE Act) would do, only serves to further threaten acceptable types of hyperlinking, not to mention the chilling effect it would have on those links currently on the margin. -Ethan Ackerman -----Original Message----- From: politech-bounces@private [mailto:politech-bounces@private]On Behalf Of Declan McCullagh Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 1:04 AM To: politech@private Subject: [Politech] OPG v. Diebold: You abuse copyright law, you pay $$$ [ip] [...] Fogel's decision: http://www.eff.org/legal/ISP_liability/OPG_v_Diebold/20040930_Diebold_SJ_Ord er.pdf [...] _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Oct 01 2004 - 21:51:54 PDT