back to article It killed Safe Harbor. Will Europe's highest court now kill off hyperlinks?

The European Court of Justice heard arguments in a case Wednesday that may have internet-wide consequences, since it considers the legal nature of hyperlinks. The continent's highest court, which recently annulled the Safe Harbor agreement that covered transatlantic data flows, is now considering whether people should have to …

  1. John Robson Silver badge

    Take down all road signs...

    Then there will be no burglary...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Take down all road signs...

      There's a reason why some people don't have their name written on doorbells or phonebooks... not for burglars, but for other annoying people.

      Should you be allowed to make public someone else telephone number, for example? That's something that some court should also look at - to understand if phonebooks reaping tools like WhatsApp are legal or not...

    2. MR J

      Re: Take down all road signs...

      That's completely not what this story is about.

      Think of it this way. You install a safe in your home, hidden under the floor in the bathroom. When someone does break into your home they go straight to that safe, it turns out the safe company publishes information about where people purchase their safes and where they are put.

      This is not about directions to the known, it is about directions to the unknown.

      1. localzuk Silver badge

        Re: Take down all road signs...

        @MR J, not quite. It is like someone else saw where they installed the safe and posted it on a noticeboard.

        Doing so wouldn't be illegal either.

      2. User McUser
        FAIL

        Re: Take down all road signs...

        Think of it this way. You install a safe in your home [...]

        The analogy of a safe implies that you are trying to protect something when that was not the situation in this case (that is, the Britt Dekker case.) The better analogy is more like putting the photos in a cardboard box behind a bush on the public sidewalk in front of your house and hoping that nobody stops and looks inside it. This is security through obscurity and it doesn't work. A hyperlink in this context is a guy pointing at the bush and saying "Hey look, there's a box full of photos behind that bush."

        If a file or resource is on a publicly accessible HTTP server then assume that anyone in the public can access it and plan accordingly. The modern hyperlink is at least 36 years old ("Mother of all Demos" not withstanding) so if you don't understand the fundamental rules that this entails then get off the Internet.

        1. xslogic
          Thumb Up

          Re: Take down all road signs...

          Exactly.

          It's not as if HTTP haven't had things like password access for a long time or that encryption doesn't exist.

          The legal implications if they did decide that this was wrong are a little worrying. I can see people ending up having to prove that they got URLs off a legitimate source.

        2. Dazed and Confused

          Re: Take down all road signs...

          > The better analogy is more like putting the photos in a cardboard box behind a bush on the public sidewalk in front of your house and hoping

          Even that isn't good analogy, it is like putting a box full of photos in a public library that you run but just not putting them in the card index. They are there, they are on the selves if anyone happens to look but just not index, until now.

          The legal bods need to come down fair and square on the idea that links are legal and that if there is ever any infringement it is the hosting website that is the one infringing.

          Trying to stop web pages using links is like King Cnut wanting to keep his toes dry.

    3. Vinyl-Junkie
      Joke

      Re: Take down all road signs...

      I don't know about no burglary, but there will certainly be no invasion!

      For those who don't know, the British removed most road signs, street names, railway station signs and signposts after the outbreak of WW2 to confuse any invading Germans.

      1. Sir Runcible Spoon
        Unhappy

        Re: Take down all road signs...

        Unfortunately they have made up for it since then..

        Where are we?

        1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

          Re: Take down all road signs...

          I think Burglary is a bad analogy, but to labour it further...

          Isnt it more like a fence who handles stolen goods, but didnt steal them himself?

          There is a well established precedent for this - Pirate Bay. I dont see the difference between linking to copyrighted material via a torrent tracker or a hyperlink, and i think the courts have already thought about the former long and hard and decided its very naughty.

        2. Robert Helpmann??
          Childcatcher

          Re: Take down all road signs...

          Where are we?

          Amateurs! There is an entire roadway that could be covered in signage ( as shown in this picture of I85 in Atlanta). Also, there are no ads, no construction signs or equipment and no signs covered in shredded plastic in anticipation of replacing or being added to existing signs.

  2. DropBear
    WTF?

    So something found in the top ten Google results is legal to link to, but otherwise it isn't? Something the hosting website itself visibly links to is legal to link to, but if they take down their link mine becomes illegal...?!? STOP THIS NONSENSE RIGHT NOW, you imbeciles!

    1. Ole Juul

      Easily findable?

      Quite right, if it isn't in the top 10 Google results then it's probably not even findable at all by many people.

    2. imanidiot Silver badge

      Which is pretty much the ridiculousness Geenstijl is argueing about when it says that a hyperlink cannot be infringement or "release to the public".

    3. jonathanb Silver badge

      You can link to something that has been published with the permission of the copyright holder, even if the copyright holder doesn't want you to link to it. That was the previous case.

      This case asks whether or not you can link to something that wasn't published, or was published without the permission of the copyright holder.

      1. PassiveSmoking

        Isn't putting a document on a public server an implicit publication? I'd say it is.

        1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
          WTF?

          So you're saying that once a thief has stolen something it becomes legally his ?

          1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            "So you're saying that once a thief has stolen something it becomes legally his?"

            Completely different set of circumstances.

            If you put something on a web-server accessible from the net then it can be accessed by anyone. They don't need to have been provided with a direct link if they can navigate to it. That's how the web works and if someone puts something on the web and weren't aware of that it really should be their problem. That's especially the case if it's a media company that put the file there because having such knowledge should be part of their business. It might be a different matter if it was only accessible via some trickery such as SQL injection.

            There is, however, a question of whether there's a copyright in the URL. But if there was this would make the whole use of the web more or less impossible.

            The file wasn't stolen so comparison with theft is meaningless.

            1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

              > accessible from the net then it can be accessed by anyone.

              With one important caveat - "unless there is access control in place".

              Otherwise - yes. Fully agree. Security by Obscurity (not equal) to security..

      2. Nigel 11

        This case asks whether or not you can link to something that wasn't published, or was published without the permission of the copyright holder.

        Especially if you persist, after the copyright holder has made you aware beyond any reasonable doubt that the material is being made available without its consent.

        Methinks there's an analogy to be made with stalking. A stalker doesn't directly break the law, but his (or her) actions which would be legal if randomly distributed across the population become illegal when persistently targeted at a single individual after being told to stop.

        Stalking is intended to terrorize, and is therefore illegal. Publishing repeatedly updated links to copyright-violating servers elsewhere is intended to assist others to commit a form of theft. Legal? Seems a sensible thing for a court to consider. I hope that they get it right and restrict their judgement to this specific case rather than wreaking wider havoc with the internet.

    4. Drs. Security

      the answer to that (at least according to European data protection law) is no you are not allowed to make somebodies phone number public without explicit consent.

      IMHO this hole case shouldn't be about the hyperlink but about the obnoxious style of the website and their attitude towards these matters.

      They probably went looking for those illegally posted pics over and over again, in my mind that should be under scrutiny not the placement of the hyperlink.

      1. imanidiot Silver badge

        Their obnoxious style is their trademark (it's obnoxious for a reason and on purpose). They started posting those links over and over again as a direct reaction to the way Sanoma Media was handling things. They probably didn't even have to look for the links themselves, Geenstijl has a very active readerbase and chances are high a reader just sent them a list of links every now and then.

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        "They probably went looking for those illegally posted pics over and over again, in my mind that should be under scrutiny not the placement of the hyperlink."

        That's probably true, but how did the magazine find them? Did they randomly spider the entire internet looking for them or just enter a filename into Google? Whatever they did, I think the point is *anyone* else could also do the same. Maybe the magazine ought to be commended for searching out this copyright infringing material and repeatedly bringing notice of this heinous crime to the attention of Playboy. ;-)

    5. big_D Silver badge

      GS knew, after the first take down, that the images are illegally online and they cannot point to them. Therefore, when the pictures "magically" appeared again, they knew before they added a new hyperlink to them, that the images were being illegally hosted, so they willfully broke the law.

      There is a difference to you or me linking to a site showing a story or image and being sent a takedown and we stop. If the image re-appears, we already know that we have been told that the images / story is illegally online, so we don't link to the story again.

      GS made a sport out of deliberately breaking the law and taunting the copyright holder. That is a big difference.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Once a link is posted it becomes public domain. Good luck determining who posted it first.

    Copyright is down to the poster of the data, the link should be subject to take down requests, nothing more unless the link is posted with the intention of monetising copyright material. Though in this case they have repeatedly linked to multiple sources so there is intent to infringe copyright which leaves it in a bit of a quandary.

    "few expected the ECJ to rule the Safe Harbor agreement illegal"

    Not really, everyone expected it to be illegal and everyone expected the EU to follow up with "Privacy Shield", which is about as effective as herding cats.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Public domain?

      In the words of Montoya the Memetic, I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Public domain?

        You are correct but you get the jist.

    2. DavCrav

      "Copyright is down to the poster of the data, the link should be subject to take down requests, nothing more unless the link is posted with the intention of monetising copyright material. Though in this case they have repeatedly linked to multiple sources so there is intent to infringe copyright which leaves it in a bit of a quandary."

      This is true in an ideal world, but since sometimes the posters of data are in countries with different legal systems, that ignore copyright, the legal system won't just say "oh well, tough break kid". Other routes to achieve the spirit of the law can be looked for. Then the question becomes whether the solution proposed helps achieve the result the law wanted in the first place, without breaking other things too much.

      In this case of course, the baiting and multiple linking despite knowing the material is illegal means they should lose, but might do so in such a way so as not to set much of a precedent.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    We see what happens...

    ... when something designed by a scientist for scientists gets in the hands of gossip people and the like...

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    I just googled Britt Dekker.

    I'm with the EU on this one.

  6. frank ly

    An analogy?

    If I store my private documents under rocks in the park, I can't complain if people find them and tell other people where to find them. I should store them under lock and key somewhere.

    I realise that it goes beyond this with 'unauthorised' copies being made and stored under other rocks in different parks, but when will people learn not to store stuff on public facing websites?

    1. PassiveSmoking

      Re: An analogy?

      There is a big problem with that analogy, namely if somebody finds something that doesn't belong to them and keeps it/shares it then it's still technically theft. For example if you leave the front door of your house hanging open and somebody burgles it, then it's still burglary even though they didn't have to break and enter.

      The other big problem with your analogy is that linking to a document doesn't deprive the document's owner of the content, it merely makes everybody aware that the content exists.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: An analogy?

        Yes, it's still theft, but you try reporting it to the police. Your negligence was a contributory factor.

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Theft

        "it's still technically theft."

        In the words of a previous poster, I don't think that phrase means what you think it means

        1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

          Re: your analogy

          Your analogy is missing the point , as are the other analogies in this comments section .

          It depends what your documents buried in the park contain. if its the Mona Lisa, and other people spread the word where to view it - they are accessories in the crime.

          This whole thing is not about "making hyperlinks illegal" it all about what your link is pointing at. You cant ban words just because someone writes something bad.

          Pirate Bay only link to things, and yet torrents arn't illegal , but what they did with them IS.

          1. KeithR

            Re: your analogy

            "It depends what your documents buried in the park contain. if its the Mona Lisa, and other people spread the word where to view it - they are accessories in the crime."

            That implies that simply LOOKING at something breaches copyright.

            We're not quite there yet...

            1. Rande Knight

              Re: your analogy

              "That implies that simply LOOKING at something breaches copyright.

              We're not quite there yet..."

              They've been trying for quite some time if it's the same as 'stealing' a smell.

  7. Richard 12 Silver badge

    If something is accessible via the Internet

    Then it has been published and implicit right to access has been granted to the Universe, unless technical steps are taken to actively prevent unauthorised access.

    A link is an address. It is saying "Go into the library and look at aisle 20 shelf 5, six inches from the left".

    The person who put the book there can lock it and require a key, but anyone can enter the library and anyone can tell anyone where a book is located.

    1. DavCrav

      Re: If something is accessible via the Internet

      "A link is an address. It is saying "Go into the library and look at aisle 20 shelf 5, six inches from the left"."

      It's actually more like "go into my house and look on the first bookcase on the left. Its OK, I don't mind". If the information is on your server, you it might well actually physically be in your house as well.

      You see now that neither analogy is correct.

  8. Richard Parkin

    The continent's highest court ...

    "The continent's highest court", well that's inaccurate.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The continent's highest court ...

      Aye it's in Greenland.

  9. SVV

    Case should not be about hyperlinks at all

    The original source of the photos was a zip file "on an Australian server". Was this a publicly accessible web or ftp server that required no authentication? If so, the Australian server was either (a) hosting stolen content illegally, and therefore it's owners should have been sued, or (b) being used by the copyright owners to store the images, but they foolishly made them publicly accessible, therefore shouldn't have been surprised when the public accessed them. And if they were stolen, then every site that republished them could also have been sued for copyright infringement.

    The question of hyperlinks seems totally irrelevant to me. If you choose to put information on a server that is accessible via http or ftp, etc, without any securrity other than security through obscurity, then you have made the information publicly accessible, so get used to the idea that the public will access it.

    1. Vinyl-Junkie

      Re: Case should not be about hyperlinks at all

      Unfortunately it gets a lot more complicated if the material is hosted in a country that does not accept copyright, or chooses to interpret it in a different way to the original. Then the authorities have no power to block the original source, nor to sue for copyright infringement. So the question then becomes whether it is illegal to keep providing links to such material, and whether it is the provision or the link itself which breaks the law; this is the question the ECJ is considering.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Case should not be about hyperlinks at all

      However, if the person publishing the information on a 'publicly accessible site' did not have permission to publish them in that way then other sites link to them to monetize it (maybe even iframe the information), are they liable.

      In an ideal world of course the source site would get a takedown request, take it down under threat of legal action and no one else would attempt to publish thereafter. ITRW this is never going to happen.

      This is why Google has had it's 'right to be forgotten' ruling go against it and why this case is being considered.

      In this case the law cannot compete with the internet and therefore they are determining whether it should change. However we have to hop ethat the people making the decision are tech savvy enough to realise the implication and, as the ridiculous 'cookie law' shows, it seems they may not be.

      1. Pseu Donyme

        Re: Case should not be about hyperlinks at all

        >... ridiculous 'cookie law' ...

        I do beg to differ: from a privacy point of view the 'cookie law' (i.e. persistent (= tracking) cookies require user consent whille session cookies sufficient for most any other purpose do not) is about the most sensible law ever. It is another matter if ICO's intepretation thereof (failing to make the distinction between persistent vs. session cookies, among other things) is ridiculous.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Case should not be about hyperlinks at all

          If you beg to differ then you must be one of the few. But in that case answer this:

          How many visitors who see the cookie warning on a site don't carry on using that site because they use cookies? My estimate, close to none.

          How many prosecutions have there been due to site not displaying the cookie warning when they do use cookies? My Estimate, None

          Has the cookie law stopped or reduced any use of cookies on website? My guess, not.

          Even you are getting confused with persistent cookies. These are not tracking cookies, although they could be used for tracking. More of an issue would be third-party cookies which can operate between sites, whereas a standard cookie could hold return visit information such as auto login, unfinished shopping baskets etc.

          In any case the law does nothing other than put stupid banners on websites the first time the user visits it.

          1. Pseu Donyme

            Re: Case should not be about hyperlinks at all

            @AC

            The 'cookie law' mandates user consent for persistent cookies. The cookie banners and such are ICO's (flawed) idea as to how obtain that consent. While all persistent cookies may not be tracking cookies, all tracking cookies need to be persistent to be useful, so ICO's guidance at the time could have been using session cookies only without freely* and actively given user consent (for persistent cookies). The result of this guidance would have been eliminating tracking cookies without consent (which I think was the 'cookie law' 's intent).

            It seems that ICO could have issued the above guidance at the time. This would have been much more consistent with the 'cookie law' 's spirit as a privacy law, so I'd be inclined to blame ICO, rather than the law itself for the current mess. What the 'cookie law' 's authoritative interpretation is , though, will eventually be sorted out in the ECJ, the key issue being the question of user consent (where I think ICO has has made a particular mess of it).

            *freely = consent can be given or *not*, that is, the site must work regardless

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Case should not be about hyperlinks at all

              So the law is flawed, if it relies on words such as "spirit of the law". If they wanted an effective law they could have just said "you must obtain explicit user consent to the use of third party cookies on your site and you must not restrict users to using your site, or create a detrimental user experience if this consent is withheld. Consent must be remembered for 1 year or until any change in the use of third party cookies whereupon the user will be required to consent once more"

              Simple.

  10. Vinyl-Junkie
    WTF?

    Even if...

    ...the ECJ rules that hyperlinks to copyrighted material are illegal, how the hell would it be enforced? I can't see ISPs, forum hosters, blog hosters, etc going through every item they host to see if it contains links to copyrighted material.

    Even if they did away with the html code that actually makes it a link, thereby killing all links, what is to stop people simply putting the address and telling people "copy and paste this into your browser bar"? Or, as has happened previously to stop email harvesters on forums, obfuscating the link by putting (for example) wwwDOTtheregisterDOTcoDOTuk.

  11. Unshakeable

    So if a random someone walks up to me in the street and asks me for directions to their hotel - but upon arrival they find that it is closed, am I now responsible for providing them accommodation and a bacon sandwich in the morning ?

    /asking for a friend

    1. Vinyl-Junkie

      Random someone....

      No, but that's not a particularly good analogy.

      If a random someone walked up to you and asked you for your friend's address and you provided it, after your friend had specifically asked you not to share it with anyone, and if that someone then went and robbed your friend, or assaulted them, then you could conceivably be held liable in law for providing that information.

      That is closer to the situation here.

      1. DaLo

        Re: Random someone....

        Not sure you could be, unless you knew the intention was to rob your friend in which case there could be an aiding and abetting charge. Otherwise the person who would be held liable in law would be the robber, as they should be.

        However that does raise an interesting law analogy. If the links are held in the same regard as aiding and abetting - i.e. if you knew, beyond reasonable doubt, they were pointing to 'illegal' material then you are aiding and abetting the 'criminal'. However if you would not reasonably know that or you had legitimate journalistic reasons (in the public interest) then you wouldn't.

    2. DavCrav

      "So if a random someone walks up to me in the street and asks me for directions to their hotel - but upon arrival they find that it is closed, am I now responsible for providing them accommodation and a bacon sandwich in the morning ?"

      No, but if someone asks you how to break into a friend's house, and you tell them, you might be a person of interest to the police.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    An awful lot of books - or their content - are copyright

    So, if I send a message that there is a juicy picture of page 125 of a slightly obscure book, and maybe where that book may be found, am I infringing copyright?

    Real-world analogies to t'interweb are often entertaining.

    F'rinstance; you are chatting to a chum. Said chum's little son is busting to show off to you and leaps up and down for attention in front of you. Said chum gives him a clip round the ear and tells not to be so bloody rude and to belt up.

    On the other hand, you are looking at a post your chum made online. The website also carries ads placed by outfits busting to show off to you, many of which ads are highly animated and distracting - just like chum's brat leaping up and down for attention in front of you.

    Should one tolerate those ads or treat them as plain bloody rude?

    1. Vinyl-Junkie

      Re: An awful lot of books - or their content - are copyright

      A couple of interesting points there. The book one is interesting. As there is no way of keeping the image (copying or photographing it would be breach of copyright in itself so we'll ignore those possibilities) it is questionable whether any breach of copyright has occurred, even if the book is in a bookshop and therefore no royalties have yet been paid to the author for that copy. I think it is the potential to download, keep and/or re-use that makes it certain that the Internet case is a breach.

      As for the ads, I say they are plain bloody rude, which is why I use AdBlocker...

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: An awful lot of books - or their content - are copyright

        "I think it is the potential to download, keep and/or re-use that makes it certain that the Internet case is a breach."

        No, it's the actual act that's the breach, not the potential. If a book is sitting on a shelf there's the potential to make a copy that breaches copyright. But if nobody does make a copy then the copyright isn't breached, even if the book stays there until it crumbles to dust.

        And to be clear, if someone takes the book off the shelf, copies it & puts it back it's breach of copyright but NOT theft.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: An awful lot of books - or their content - are copyright

        @Vinyl thingie

        "I think it is the potential to download, keep and/or re-use that makes it certain that the Internet case is a breach."

        You do realise that, under your logic, you could be deemend a kiddiefiddler? You have a willie and access to children, even if it is passing by on the street. The potential is there, therefore you must be guilty.

    2. Nigel 11

      Re: An awful lot of books - or their content - are copyright

      So, if I send a message that there is a juicy picture of page 125 of a slightly obscure book, and maybe where that book may be found, am I infringing copyright?

      No, firstly because a physical book was presumably published with consent and someone paid for it.

      OK, let's say where an unauthorized reprint of that book may be found. It's not obviously violating copyright - it's not a crude photocopy. The copyright owner contacts the person with this illegal book, he shreds it, and you are informed by the copyright owner that it wasn't a permitted copy and how to tell the difference in future. You then alter the document you published to tell people where to find another unauthorized copy, this time in the full knowledge that it is unauthorized. And repeat. And repeat.

      I think that's a fair analogy to this case.

  13. jake Silver badge

    Whatever.

    If it's been made available on TehIntraWebTubes, it can't be made unavailable.

    EOF

  14. PassiveSmoking

    I'm sorry, but the point at which it's a breach of copyright to point out that something exists is the point where copyright law will be so far up its own arse that it can see its own tonsils. If you don't want people to know about your top secret content then the onus is on you to not put it on a public-facing server.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Well, I suspect the angle will be whether the website can be seen to be aiding and abetting the abuse of copyright. There are already plenty of instances of links being taken down for all kinds of reasons, with DMCA abuse probably being the most common.

      However, the ECJ can only really rule on a point of law and not really on the case in point. Freedom of speech is enshrined in the EU treaties, which the ECJ is required to uphold, so I can't see any judgement that would restrict this. Most likely is clarification of what's at stake and a referral back to the Dutch courts: can a case be made that Geenstijl was complicit in the repeated publication of copyright material? This, of course, needs to be balanced against the defence of free speech in cases like Snowden.

      There is precedent in cases like the repeated publication of pictures of Kate Middleton's breasts where the courts had no problem coming down hard on publishers.

  15. Alan J. Wylie

    robots.txt

    If you don't want it to be public, exclude the page from being searched using robots.txt.

    1. jake Silver badge

      @Alan J. Wylie (was:robots.txt)

      Hopefully you're being sarcastic.

  16. Aslan

    If it can be linked it should be linked. The host of the content is responsible for making it available, hiding it, or protecting it.

  17. Handy Plough

    This is why we cant have nice things.

  18. Dan 55 Silver badge

    'what the phrase "communication to the public" means in the context of the internet era'

    It means a server serving the information for a given address when a non-authenticated/anonymous user asks for it. Anything else is technically wrong.

    I'm afraid we could end up with another cookie law.

  19. Arthur the cat Silver badge

    Non hyperlink pointers

    If I was to write a newspaper article which said "bootleg copies of most commercial software may be found in the electronics markets in Hong Kong"(*) then it would undoubtedly be protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, and yet it's still a pointer to copyright infringing material. Politicians and judges seem to think that "online" is a magic place where centuries of legal practice can be torn up and everything reinterpreted for the benefit of large companies with expensive legal teams.

    (*) Not sure whether that's currently true, but it certainly used to be.

    1. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: Non hyperlink pointers

      The issue isn't the article so much as to what it may facilitate.

      Your article can go into great detail about what software is available, it's prices etc. as long as you don't actually encourage/help people to 'purchase' these obviously illegal products. Hence your article would cross a threshold, if it included full details on the location and times the market is held, or a hyperlink to a seller of bootleg software and encouraged readers to access the provided URL.

      With digital content, it is possible to omit the middleman and simply point at the actual content/product.

      So the 'mistake' Geenstijl made, wasn't necessarily to run the story and let readers search the web themselves, but to provide links to the (copyrighted) material.

  20. Tom 7

    It is like someone else saw where they installed the safe

    except its not cos only a complete areshole would have a safe installed and then rip down their front gate, front door, bedroom door and cupboard door and leave the safe open.

    If a hyperlink takes you to your safe contents dont blame it on the hyperlink.

  21. brotherelf
    Boffin

    Associating freely…

    wasn't it Google's image hosting branch which introduced a "share with your friends" function that actually only protected the content by giving it a long-ish random-ish URL on the fly?

    And of course, then we can start all sorts of comparisons between user:pass@myserv.er/path and myserv.er/path?u=user&p=path and myserv.er/user/pass/path.

    I guess in the end, we will end up with legislation like that white made holding down the shift key illegal (willful circumvention of copy protection measures on a CD that was enforced via autostart.inf): call it a password, and it will magically be illegal to pass on, otherwise, it's fair game.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    OK but where are the hyperlinks to the photos?

    Without them I cannot decide if the copyright was infringed.

  23. TeeCee Gold badge
    Trollface

    Playing the analogy game.

    Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that geenstijl had come across the location of a long forgotten arms cache containing a couple of hundred AK47s, 20,000 rounds of ammo, 12 RPGs, and a half tonne of Semtex for good measure and had gone on to publish said location, along with a "fill your boots" message.

    Are they then guilty of anything?

    The arms cache was already there, anybody could have found it just by looking in the right place..........

    The words; "There's no correct answer" spring to mind.

    1. Commswonk

      Re: Playing the analogy game.

      Are they then guilty of anything?

      I suspect they might well be. Although the cache might be long - forgotten it still must belong to someone, and anyone helping themselves to bits of it would thus deprive the rightful owner which would be theft. Additionally, given that possession of any of the listed items without the proper authorisation would be illegal (at least in the UK) then any action that could be interpreted as encouraging others to go and help themselves might attract legal retribution; "conspiracy to..." might be the starting point.

      The analogy has its weaknesses; as has already been pointed out earlier in the thread copying something does not deprive the copyright owner of possession; it does however breach their rights as the copyright holder. Walking off with bits of firearms, ammunition and explosives does deprive the rightful owner of their possession even if the rightful owner has forgotten about them.

      As has also been pointed out anyone uploading material on to the internet without any protection against unauthorised access only has themselves to blame if someone without authorisation gains access to it. If I leave my house unlocked, and person A tells person B that he has found the premises unsecured, and person B takes advantage of the that knowledge and nicks my stuff then while B may well have committed an offence my insurance company is quite likely to say "contributory negligence" and reduce any payout accordingly. Has person A committed an offence? Guilt might depend on proving the intent behind A telling B.

      If I was a judge in the ECJ I might just be tempted to rule that it is not a function of the court to protect copyright holders from their own carelessness in making it easy to access their material.

      It cannot be long before the ECJ is asked to rule on the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

    2. harmjschoonhoven

      Re: Playing the analogy game.

      Geenstijl would be delighted to publish the location of an arms cash - it is their business. Geenstijl is owned by the Telegraaf Media Groep. The Telegraaf tabloid is notorious in the Dutch printed media landscape and could during the later part of the German occupation (1944) be qualified as a pro-SS paper http://weblogs.nrc.nl/media/2009/10/14/was-de-telegraaf-fout-in-de-oorlog/.

      One of their latest tricks is their attempt to destabilize the relation between the EU and the Ukraine http://www.reuters.com/article/us-dutch-ukraine-vote-idUSKCN0UN0HR20160109.

      An informed man counts for two.

  24. x 7

    those interested in inspecting the evidence may find this useful

    http://bit.ly/1nK96Rq

    she has quite a big nose. Giant saxon blood I reckon

    1. Commswonk

      Having "inspected the evidence" I am astonished that you have commented on her nose

      Would "Giant saxon blood" account for other prominent features as well?

      1. x 7

        "Would "Giant saxon blood" account for other prominent features as well?"

        She has nice long legs, yes

  25. This post has been deleted by its author

  26. Allan George Dyer
    Trollface

    Fools!

    If you'd become lawyers and got jobs at the European Court of Justice, you could be getting PAID for writing these arguments!

    In other news, TheReg sues the ECJ for copyright violations on "legal arguments substantially copied from its Comments pages".

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like