HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
A federal judge in Texas has ruled that it is unlawful to link a webcast without the permission of the copyright owner.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
No Linking To Webcasts
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Messages
- 21,888
Well I guess we can kiss the internet goodbye. While I understand he was probably giving them some serious bandwidth expense without the ad revenue to back it up, it seems like the decision far overreaches. By that standard, another news site couldn't link to a review on HardOCP without written permission!
klingonscum
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2004
- Messages
- 133
A few things to bear in mind...
1) A US District Court is not a Federal Court (I believe...I could be wrong) and as such does not set precedent for other cases outside of its limited jurisdiction (and perhaps not even then). If this was a "Federal 5th Circuit Court" or "Federal court of Appeals" or something like that, yes - worry. And I can pretty much guarentee you an appeal will be filed on this decision because this sort of thing is a big juicy bone for a constitutional lawyer to sink his teeth into and quite likely would take the appeal on pro bono.
2) The 2001 Federal Appeals Court decision on the news organization linking to DVD Decryption software is a totally different issue; the issue wasn't "linking to copyrighted material is illegal without permission of the copyright owner", it was "the DMCA says not only can you not try to break copyright protection on protected media, you can't even publish directions on how to do it, and by God, if we had a way to do it, we'd toss you in the hoosegow for even knowing what DRM is, you damned dirty copyright infringer you". By stretching the "thou shalt not even provide an algorithm to do so" clause of the DMCA, you can make it cover hyperlinking to said algorithm - in much the same way the interstate commerce clause is stretched to allow the formation of otherwise unconstitutionally created government agencies such as the US Geological Survey, the Department of Education, and the US Dairy board
.
3) The Dutch court decision...well, I guess it sucks to be Dutch. Fortunately, we have a longstanding history of ignoring legal opinion originating in legal systems outside our national borders. Unfortunately, the latest batch of Supremes keep trying to break that wall down and use "international court" opinions within their opinion (and it'd be really cool of some foreign judge then proceeded to sue THEM for copyright infringement, but life just never seems to be quite that poetic).
4) Ditto for the Australian decision.
--KS
1) A US District Court is not a Federal Court (I believe...I could be wrong) and as such does not set precedent for other cases outside of its limited jurisdiction (and perhaps not even then). If this was a "Federal 5th Circuit Court" or "Federal court of Appeals" or something like that, yes - worry. And I can pretty much guarentee you an appeal will be filed on this decision because this sort of thing is a big juicy bone for a constitutional lawyer to sink his teeth into and quite likely would take the appeal on pro bono.
2) The 2001 Federal Appeals Court decision on the news organization linking to DVD Decryption software is a totally different issue; the issue wasn't "linking to copyrighted material is illegal without permission of the copyright owner", it was "the DMCA says not only can you not try to break copyright protection on protected media, you can't even publish directions on how to do it, and by God, if we had a way to do it, we'd toss you in the hoosegow for even knowing what DRM is, you damned dirty copyright infringer you". By stretching the "thou shalt not even provide an algorithm to do so" clause of the DMCA, you can make it cover hyperlinking to said algorithm - in much the same way the interstate commerce clause is stretched to allow the formation of otherwise unconstitutionally created government agencies such as the US Geological Survey, the Department of Education, and the US Dairy board
.3) The Dutch court decision...well, I guess it sucks to be Dutch. Fortunately, we have a longstanding history of ignoring legal opinion originating in legal systems outside our national borders. Unfortunately, the latest batch of Supremes keep trying to break that wall down and use "international court" opinions within their opinion (and it'd be really cool of some foreign judge then proceeded to sue THEM for copyright infringement, but life just never seems to be quite that poetic).
4) Ditto for the Australian decision.
--KS
Reread what you just wrote.
Of course a United States District Court is a Federal Court; what else could it be? But to be fair you were close, a ruling in a District Court only applies to those in that district (and even then an Appeals Court could temporarily block the ruling until the appeal is heard). Also an Appeals Court's decision applies only to those in its jurisdiction (usually a mix of a few states). The only court decision that applies to everyone in the United States is a Supreme Court ruling.