Hacker News Reader

I too got riled up about this linking to copyrighted material being a crime, certainly an extraditable one.

You can't really compare a search engine to a site like TV-links. A search engine doesn't discriminate in what content it indexes. If a search engine would only link to copyright-infringing material, then that search engine can expect as much trouble as a site like TV-links.

If a site mainly exists to facilitate copyright infringement, should it get a pass?

If dealing drugs is against the law, what is directing people on the street to drug dealers?

Things like changing link destinations are interesting from a technical point of view, but not all that relevant to this case IMO. If the site was a chatroulette for online links, this might come into play, but for TV links to have a changing link, in all likelihood it meant simply a broken link.

Indeed, most of this boils down to intent. Pointing people on the street to where they can buy drugs or selling them pipes to facilitate drug use, to me, it isn't the same as dealing the drugs yourself. But I can totally see you can find yourself on the wrong side of the law, when you start facilitating illegal activity.

Again, I agree that linking to content should always be possible, but I can understand where the law and entertainment industry is coming from.

Yeah I completely understand this point of view and I was toying with removing the reference to search engines, but ultimately it boils down to the same thing in all cases, as mentioned in the article:

> US authorities claimed the 24-year-old's TVShack website hosted links to pirated films and TV programmes.

Regardless of the inherent properties of search engines, they are still linking to that content (or to content that links to the content).

I do understand the point of view of the Law, but I think ultimately it can't and shouldn't be enforced.

" A search engine doesn't discriminate in what content it indexes."

That is incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots_exclusion_standard

Tubetrooper certainly discriminates.

Robots.txt doesn't have anything to do with this. Google adheres to robots.txt, but doesn't discriminate in the kind of content it indexes.

Search engines can certainly specialize, like in your (unnecessary) porn site example. But if they specialize in providing links to copyright-infringing material, make profit with advertisements, they can get in just as much trouble.

The OP made the comparison with search engines. How come they can have copyright-infringing links and not get into trouble? It is because they index all information available to them, without discrimination. And then they still have to respond to DMCA claims.

If a search engine specialized in engineering parts, it wouldn't need to host links to copyright-infringing material, so most specialized search engines are a non-issue.

> "The staff have left this store, take what you want" and I really can't see how that could be construed to breaking the law.

This is both breaking the law and a poor analogy.

I'm sorry, I don't understand, how would telling someone that the staff have left the store be breaking the law. And why do you think its a poor analogy. Its a sign post directing people to a place where they could easily access content illegally. Very similar to what TV Shack was doing.

The analogy only fails in the sense that in reality the item stolen was digital media (it could be argued that nothing of value is lost) and in the shop scenario, the content is physical media (and therefore value is directly lost). Despite the difference though, thats irrelevant to the action played by TV Shack (and the sign in the analogy).

It is the second part of the sign that makes the act of posting it most likely illegal (at least in the UK) as incitement [1].

The analogy's main issue is that it fails to distinguish between theft and copyright infringement which is exactly what the anti-piracy bridge are often accused of doing. Also, a sign is a poor analogy as it is in passive view of the public. A better one (ignoring the theft/infringement issue) would be a guy sitting in a pub who would tell anyone who asked him which stores had no staff in, and that they could take what they wished.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement

I realise that incitement is illegal in the UK, but it is America that is pushing for the extradition. I would also argue that a website is in full view of the public (especially with the amount of sharing that occurs).

But like I said in my original response, it doesn't matter whether or not it is copyright infringement or theft, as in the analogy we are discussing the actions of TV Shack not the actual hosting of the material.

What I mean is, this isn't a discussion about whether copyright infringement is illegal, but instead whether linking is illegal, and I think the two crimes presented are comparable enough (although definitely not the same), for the difference to be easily overlooked for the sake of getting across a message.

If you're going to have that discussion, you shouldn't use a poor analogy, nor should you state that said analogy is not illegal, when it could well be the case that it is.

The US legal distinction is "substantial non-infringing use". If you are up to something and, like a search engine, happen to facilitate IP infringement, you're good. If there is no significant purpose to your service other than to help crime, it's criminal.

There are plenty of similar crimes: Conspiracy, harboring a known fugitive, material support for terrorism, receiving stolen goods, RICO. These can be misapplied, but the basic principle is reasonable: helping people commit crime can itself be criminal.

I don't think that's the problem here. I think the problem is with an IP system that's built on assumptions 100 years out of date.