A water filtering company disagreed with the content of a YouTube video which touted their competitor, BestWater, so the company embedded a link to that video in their own site. BestWater claimed infringement and sued.
El Reg reports:
No change, no new audience, no offence
The European Court of Justice has decided that even an unauthorised video can be embedded by a third party without creating a new infringement.
[...] Its reasoning is that since the video was already available on YouTube, and since the defendants merely embedded a link in a Web page--they didn't make any changes--the embedding didn't communicate the content to "a new public". As a result, it didn't create a new infringement.
With thanks to TorrentFreak for its translation, the [judgment] reads: "The embedding in a website of a protected work which is publicly accessible on another website by means of a link using the framing technology ... does not by itself constitute communication to the public within the meaning of [the EU Copyright directive] to the extent that the relevant work is neither communicated to a new public nor by using a specific technical means different from that used for the original communication."
The decision doesn't change the status of the original video, however. For example, had BestWater DCMA'd the video at YouTube, it would probably have been taken down, leaving the defendants with a blank embedding on their site.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday October 28 2014, @07:25AM
So, you can end-run the right to be forgotten by taking a picture of the take down request complete with offending links and put that on youtube?
Ok, Got it.
So now does the Dutch Court [pcworld.com] have to eat crow? They ruled exactly opposite last month.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 28 2014, @08:38AM
I don't consider copying stealing and I personally think copyright should only last a few years.
But their reasoning seems wrong to me- quote:
Its reasoning is that since the video was already available on YouTube, and since the defendants merely embedded a link in a Web page--they didn't make any changes--the embedding didn't communicate the content to "a new public".
Linking to something definitely communicates something, and in many cases it communicates it to a new audience aka group of people.
For example, you could have lots of infringing videos that nobody knows of. The audience is zero.
Then one day Google's bot indexes it, and soon you have an audience of 200000.
You could say Google is not infringing because they're not distributing nor copying the content and making it available to others. Perhaps I'm arguing semantics - and their definition of communicating is the same as what I mean by distribution, but I'd personally prefer to keep the terms distinct. It's the difference between actually distributing drugs and saying "you can get drugs at X" and automatically making available a list of everyone who is distributing anything (whether illegal or legal).
Take another example. With Facebook at least in the past, if you know the URL of a photo/video you can access it even if you're not supposed to have permission. So imagine if I upload private pics and videos to Facebook. And one day Mr B somehow creates a site directly linking to those pictures and videos. Is not Mr B communicating the content to a new public?
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Tuesday October 28 2014, @04:26PM
I agree with AC's reasoning -- embedding content **is** introducing it to "a new public". So what if it is publically available on Youtube already? On the Internet, being able to find something tends to define the functional availability.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 28 2014, @05:14PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:02PM
Its too bad they don't have someone there with some experience in searches, or search engines even...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Translation Error on Tuesday October 28 2014, @06:41PM
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:13AM
I wanted to argue the functional definition of availability, as opposed to the mathematical, but we (and the case itself) are discussing neither of those things. We're discussing **legal** availability. I think it's pretty clear-cut that if you make some content legally available on a public channel, the differences between linking to the content (i.e. referencing it, in the context of other communication mediums) and embedding it are minor.
I could draw an analogy to passing out street flyers for a political rally, then trying to cry foul when your opponent uses the same flyer in a stump speech against you, whether he waves about the flyer itself or only references the contents.
I agree with you, and thank you for helping me clarify my thoughts.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday October 28 2014, @06:03PM
i agree that it does introduce it to a new audience, but embedding or linking should never be considered a new infringement, so this is a good ruling even if the justification here is a bit incorrect. how long do you think the internet as we know it would last if you could hack somebody's site, post a hidden link to copyrighted material, and then sue for infringement? or if somebody posted a link to piratebay and SN/slashdot/fb/etc got sued for infringement?
its the source thats the problem, not the linking/embedding; if linking/embedding were to be a crime, it'd only cause more harm to innocents, while leaving the source, the real problem, alone.
(Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Tuesday October 28 2014, @10:17AM
It seems common sense is not so common !
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 1) by Translation Error on Tuesday October 28 2014, @06:49PM
What does common sense have to do with the law?
(Score: 2) by Silentknyght on Tuesday October 28 2014, @07:31PM
Can someone clarify what the phrase "a new public" means? My concept of public/private is generally binary. Either it is available to everyone (i.e., "the public"), or it is not available to everyone (i.e., it is "private", at least to some degree).