> If I understand what you are saying you mean that a link to site A which links > to copyrighted material on site B is itself a violation of copyright.
no, what i mean is that he was the one who uploaded the clips to youtube, got banned from youtube and then posted the links on a forum to the clips as "proof" that google was evil. - Gravis On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Peter Olson <pe...@peabo.com> wrote: >> On March 5, 2015 at 11:26 PM Gravis <rin...@adaptivetime.com> wrote: > >> the link you posted links to a clip from Al Jazeera that was taken >> down due to copyright infringement. you do realize that content from >> Al Jazeera is copyright and that posting it without permission is >> copyright infringement, right? if you do stuff like that repeatedly >> they ban you. are you claiming you didn't post the videos and that >> there is a conspiracy to oppress you? if so, you have a persecution >> complex. > > If I understand what you are saying you mean that a link to site A which links > to copyrighted material on site B is itself a violation of copyright. > > This is a truly hazardous notion (called "contributory copyright infringement" > by some). > > Link A -> link B -> link C -> link D -> link E -> link F (violating) cause all > downstream links to B, C, D, and E, as well as A, to be violations? > > It's involuntary, since A cannot be expected to traverse all paths to links > out > of B to check for this supposed violation, especially with transitive closure > over the entire Internet and the lack of a useful discriminant for violation. > > It's retroactive, because site D can change its outbound links at any time > after > the initial citation of A to B and A will be none the wiser. > > Doubtless there are other worms in this can, so I rest my case. > > Peter Olson _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
