Embedded links to third party content deemed illegal.
This is a pretty radical reversal of previous judgements, the repercussions could be huge.
This is an absolutely absurd ruling that flies in the face of 250 years of copyright law rulings.
Now we'll have to spend money sending it to the Supreme Court to squash it.
Linking to shit is not theft.
Under this ruling, library card catalogs violate the law because they enabled people to know about copyrighted things.
As do all amazon listings, etc.
the law needs updating to reflect the internet and digital formats. that judge has had an awesome day...
From reading I got the idea this was about hot linking images as part of another website's article or presentation. If the scope of this ruling only covers use like that where it appears that the content is owned or sourced by the website that's hotlinking stuff, and it is not, that ruling seems ok.
If the ruling extends to any hyperlink, the internet itself is fucked.
Sounds like the defendant website had something like <IMG SRC="https://remote.com/remote.jpg">. Stopping this is not too unreasonable IMHO so the decision is not remarkable.
You argue that it is "reasonable" to make all links of the form <IMG SRC="https://remote.com/remote.jpg"> illegal.
Presumably you are ok with <IMG SRC="/remote.jpg">, correct?
So the fault is the browser writers and the HTML standard committee, don't you agree? They are the criminals here.
A significant number of sites have fixed their .htaccess (and similar things) to disallow using an IMG tag to pull an image from their site and have the browser render it. Enough that Imgur started a hosting site to explicitly permit such behavior.
Pie is sober
March 13th, 2018 11:48pm