Is linking to pirated content infringement by proxy?

vbimport

#1

Is linking to pirated content infringement by proxy?.

[newsimage]http://static.rankone.nl/images_posts/[/newsimage]Most people agree that sharing up copyright protected content, housed on a computer you own, via a peer-to-peer network is an infringing act. But now, society and technology has reached a point to where we need to decide where the infringement ends.


Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/is-linking-to-pirated-content-infringement-by-proxy-38087/](http://www.myce.com/news/is-linking-to-pirated-content-infringement-by-proxy-38087/)


Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

Geez, after reading that article, it really seems crazy. In my state if you flash headlights to let someone know there is a cop ahead doing a speed check, you get fined $1000 dollars. That is linking in a sense, no one has broken the law but you are telling someone that the “Law” is doing a spot check. That always seemed unfair to me, till I had a kid and saw people driving down my private dirt road doing 70 on dirt bikes and go karts and were endangering my family. On the other hand, linking a song or movie does not cause that kind of damage. I’d rather see the “authorities” going after people who harm other people, i.e. pedophiles, rapists, armed robbers, people who break and enter.

There should be some method of stopping a site tht hosts pirated good fast, really fast. If the resources where put into that kind of technology instead of lawyers, the problem would greatly be reduced. A couple of CRAY computers doing a continuous search for a list of potentially pirated goods would put a dent in it. I don’t think the effort should be wasted after a certain point in time. When you can get a movie for $5.00 dollars at Walmart, it days are over. Some kid getting fined $10’s of 1000’s of dollars for a 99 cent song is criminal, a slap on the hand the first time. If someone keeps doing it well then that person is a thieve. banning that person from the internet is a lot better than going to jail.


#3

going after links first, then the source generates more cash than going after the source from the outset. it is blatantly obvious that stopping the sharing of copyright protected content is not what the industries are actually after. not until they have crucified as many people in court first, making as much money out of them as possible. as with other things, the RIAA, MPAA etc make their own rules then ‘convince’ the governments around the world to do their bidding. most of what they put out is such crap that the only way they can make any money from it is to (under the table) encourage people to download and share it, so they can sue. just a bunch of ass hats!


#4

There is much truth in what you say. The lawyers on both sides are interested in making as much money as possible. If defense lawyers where actually altruistic, they could easily get together and make landmark defense cases to end this all and establish some kind of sanity. I can’t see it happening. I’ve know too many lawyers.