Yes, I have read a lot on this forum so decided to start one more topic in order to clarify if this idea is good or not. So here is the deal: I receive DMCA notices constantly and having my dedicated server hosted in the USA I'm a bit concerned because of the potential troubles. My site is for those guys and gals who want to share their XXX rated materials....well...it is supposed to be their own homemade vids and pic but at the moment our site is full of adult links to pirated adult videos and movies made by such companies as Vivid, Penthouse and others. Luckily we have image hosting outside of the server (traffic reduction) but I discovered that LINKS themselves are illegal too so here is my question: will it be legal to post links on other server and post links to the page that contains the links to the copyrighted materials? got my idea? To make guys to post their links somewhere else (say: http://www.theirsite.com/theirlinks.html) and to place THIS link to our site. Will it be considered as a linking to the infringed content if my site will have the link NOT TO THE ILLEGAL CONTENT - BUT TO A PAGE OUTSIDE OF MY SERVER with the links? so it turns from "links to illegal content" into "links to the page with the links to illegal content". Any thoughts? Sorry if my monologue above was a bit puzzling =) Thanks a million in advance!
You will still be subject you to DMCA copyright infringement take-down notices. There may be a way to reduce risk. i woudl have to understand more in order to weigh in....
Hmm...not sure to be honest, Mr. Enrico. Could you please show me where exactly in Section 512 of Title 17, United States Code (or anywhere else) can I get info describing linking to the site (not to the infringed content) illegal?...
Just use common sense. You already know the content is copy written, and you know it is illegal to download it. What makes you think providing a gateway, or "conspiring" to infringe or defraud is not illegal? It's an old question and the answer is still the same. If you provide access and or promote it, you are still liable and if it were my stuff, I would name you in the lawsuit as well. You cannot hide behind, "but I wasn't hosting the content on my servers". It's an old argument, and it doesn't work. It's conspiracy. Plain and Simple, especially because you know exactly what you are doing. And don't start with the "But how am I supposed to be responsible for what other people link to ?" That is an old argument as well. Then don't link to them.
If someone wants to sue you, they can do it for any reason they want. That's the fun of America. Why not just have members approve content first to make sure it's not copyrighted? Unless of course you still want to host the illegal stuff so you can make money from it somehow
hmansfield, Common sense is a serious thing yet I'd love to get a real argument based on a quotation from the Law. For example (sid theme though) here is the news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4387903.stm in brief - a guy registered itunes.co.uk in 2000 (before iTunes was even registered as a trademark or simply invented), but earlier this month the UK domain name registry, Nominet, handed the name over to Apple. where is common sense here??? simple but efficient power of money so back to track - I'd LOVE to get a law example saying that liking to the site with copyrighted content is a crime. Good example on how it can be explained: on the moment the link was added there were no illegal materials. and I am not responsible for any changes on the sites that do not belong to me, am I??? You all are quite correct here- this was quite seriously discussed before yet I didn't find any answers that would satisfy me. "It is illegal"....yeah maybe it is.... maybe not???? no doubt it Warner Bros would decide to sue they are able to get jailed whoever they want (yeah, I agree with you Random guy =).
One day, if you are ever fortunate enough to actually create something that is profitable, after all the blood , sweat, tears and money that you and your staff (whom you have to pay) put into it to get it right...you will have an entirely different outlook on others telling everyone how to download it for free, cutting you out of the profits for your own product. How do you feel about people scarping your content for auto blogs, or copy cat sites that have stolen your design ? Are any of your sites "creative commons" so that anyone can use any or all of the content how ever they see fit ? If you do PPC, do you publish your keyword list and marketing plan for others to copy ? If you really believe that you have a right, and that this is O.K, how about if you post up your niches and profitable streams for others to use ? You probably won't do that because you worked hard to get them there, and you would probably like to keep your ideas profitable, and not have everyone just taking your stuff. Right? Then why do you think it's O.K. to decide that others don't deserve that same respect ? Illegal or not.
If you start using the domain in a manner that infringes the trademark than you are going to loose that domain, regardless of the registration. The thing that really lost the domain was the fact that he offered to sell it to Apple. That shows bad faith registration (as he has to renew the domain name). From what I saw in that article, he would ahve not had a problem really up until he offered to sell it to them, at a high price no doubt. Now back to your issue. You are responsible to any sites you link to. Please, read another posters topic about getting a DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act; US Law) take down notice for linking to copyrighted material. Now, his wasn't a real DMCA from the company, just really a prank, however, as you can see in that thread, it happens to people all the time. Stop trying to find work arounds to help you break the law. Its just like having a forum and someone posting the links there. Your still responsible for them. Your generally given a little bit of leway. If you received a notice to appear in court you could probably send a letter (from your lawyer) explaining the situation like that, however, you posting here will probably negate that argument for this particular site.
well, I'm not sure about your issue, but one thing that would help for sure is placing this text somewhere visible: "Please contact us for any problems regarding to content" (or stuff like that, have no inspiration now )
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ial&hs=ART&q=metallica+rapidshare&btnG=Search Will Google be sued for linking to the infringed content? Literally - here are plenty of results that ARE direct links to download Metallica's full albums. How is that possible Google can do that and I cannot??? also - according to the modern copyright logic this forum is responsible for linking to the illegal content now, is it not??? =))
what I am doing here is a simple research. As you can see I still am trying to find some reasonable answers to my questions. Something more serious that slavish "it is law", "it is illegal" and "you cannot because those guys above you said so". Unfortunately nowadays we can too often see the law serving 1% of this Planet population my dear fellow. Playing against those 99% ....
Well I'm not exactly sure how well this argument would hold in court but I do know that a line has to be drawn at some point. If it were illegal to have a connection to a site with copy written material then quite frankly every person who owns a website would be breaking the law. Every page online is linked to another page indirectly in some way. Look at it this way how exactly would all the different search engines be legally allowed to provide links to all the sites on the web with out first getting approval from the sites owner. They obviously profit from it indirectly and don't share the proceeds. So for those who are saying that "it's the law" are really not being realistic about technology. We've seen laws become redefined after Napster and Mozilla. Pirating is still illegal but the methods of prosecution have changed. It's a loosing battle trying to keep up with technology. Just as we've seen with record companies, all artists and designers are just simply going to have to adapt to the change and accept that their work is going to be used or stolen or pirated. Finding a way to profit from it instead of loosing your money trying to fight it is going to become the norm. Thus law outdated. If you want you could go out and try to sue every individual whom violates your copy write but it's not exactly cost efficient. Your not going to get money from someone who is broke. And a broke person can definitely take a chunk out of your profits from the actual sale of the material. Artist and designers are just going to have to become more creative. Huh...go figure, an artist might actually have to get creative again. What a concept.
Search engines are able to because of the nature of their links. They still get sued quite often. Link to the crap if you want, you've been told the answer and if it does not satisfy you, then do whatever it is you want. Judging by your posts you are going to keep trying to find a loophold our round about way to do this. When you get slapped with a lawsuit, remember what you have been told.
Dude, if you want to make some kind of political statement and go against the system because in your view others, (who have a lot more money than and you a TEAM of lawyers) do it, then go ahead. You are going to do it anyway, it doesn't matter what we say here. You seem to be a pretty intelligent person, what part of "It's O.K. to link to others peoples protected stufff" sounds right. to you ? In what part of your mind, do you think that "protected", and "copyright", don't apply to you ?
Look you're never going to find a definitive answer for whether this is right or wrong? I know initially it sounds wrong but on the other hand linking to someones work is in a since helping that person gain recognition for their work. I think people are a little to sensitive about these issues. If someone were to take your work and outright claim that its theirs then yes that is wrong. But that's not what has been discussed here. All that I've seen is someone looking to provide another infrastructure for linking related content making navigation of the internet easier. Which in all reality is a good thing for everyone. So anyone who fights this is really just sour that they didn't come up with the idea themselves. Like I said you will NEVER find a definite answer to whether this is right or wrong. Law is a relative subject. It is only depicted how it is interpreted. If you think your idea is a good one then go ahead and do it. Yes, you might get sued. Yes, your name might get published in the media. Yes, your life may change. Just do what everyone else does, take advantage of the recognition and sellout the second someone offers to buy you out and move on. Like I said earlier you can't be sued if your broke. Let the idiot sue you and make you famous. Then sell out!!!
There is a definitive answer. You are conspiring to assist people in stealing products or information that are not open source, they are not creative commons, they are for sale, and you are showing people where to go to steal it. It's not a grey area..somebody creates software, or music..protects it, and puts it up for sale....you decide that they shouldn't sell their work and let everyone know where to get it for free, therefore stealing from the creator of the work. What is so hard to understand ? You don't have the right to do that ! It is against the law in the real world, and it's against the law online..there is no special consideration just because a computer is used instead of a pick up truck. Don't you get upset when someone steals your stuff ? What right does anyone have to take your stuff, and give it away to the entire neighborhood? Everyone tries to justify it when it;s other peoples stuff, or a faceless entity, but the minute they are stolen from, they all of a sudden feel like they have been wronged.
WE are not discussing ETHICS here! My question was quite plain - where is the line in that damn law describing linking to the site that contains links to the copyrighted content. and NOTHING more. We could talk forever giving lots of arguments to each other but damn - the goal of this discussion is quite not what you've just said. I am musician myself and if you'll check for: http://www.google.com/search?q=tvan...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a You will find a great deal of links to MY DAMN ART. and I do not care as long as people listen to my music. So do a great deal of real musicians who do not sell their asses to mega labels like Universe or BMG but enjoy creating music, sharing their art with others and being free. BUT AGAIN - it is NOT what I am talking about. Show me the law describing linking to the site as a bad thing. If you cannot - simply say so =) and thanks to all of you for so nice discussion!
Geez, you really could have done a Google search and found it for yourself, instead of all that yelling: The DMCA also prohibits trafficking in devices or tools that help other people circumvent access-control and copy-control measures. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2), (b). "Trafficking" means making, selling, giving away, or otherwise offering these devices or tools to the public. Beware: you can "traffic" in circumvention tools simply by posting them on your website or linking to other websites that host them. For example, in 1999 a Norwegian teenager created a software program called "DeCSS" that allowed users to circumvent CSS, the encryption technology used by movie studios to stop unlicensed playing and copying of commercially distributed DVDs. A number of websites posted the source and object code for DeCSS on the Internet, and other websites linked to them. The Second Circuit held that hosting and linking to the DeCSS code violated the DMCA's anti-trafficking provisions, and that this application of the DMCA did not violate the First Amendment. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001). This decision is controversial, and it is not clear that other courts would necessarily follow its reasoning. Nevertheless, it illustrates how risky it is to host or even link to devices or tools that enable others to break access- and copy-controls. Source:http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/circumventing-copyright-controls