Thanks: 0
Results 1 to 5 of 5
-
Judge Rules Against Deep-Linking of Content
"A Texas judge has ruled that, if a copyright owner objects to the linking of content from another web site, that link must be taken down. This case, which may have some far-reaching implications, centered around a motorcross website. The site, run by a Robert Davis, provided links directly to live feeds of 'Supercross' events streaming from the SFX Motor Sports site. The company filed suit, claiming that the direct links were denying it advertising revenue. The article sites previous cases, where sites were prohibited by judges from linking to files which violated copyright law (such as DVD decryption software). From the article: 'But in those lawsuits, the file that was the target of the hyperlink actually violated copyright law. What's unusual in the SFX case is that a copyright holder is trying to prohibit a direct link to its own Web site. (There is no evidence that SFX tried technical countermeasures, such as referrer logging and blocking anyone coming from Davis' site.)'"It is not enough 'I succeed'. Everyone else must fail.
-
12-22-2006, 09:18 PM #2j7wild Guest
remove the whole website?
that's absurd!
just remove the content in question!!
damn lawyers!!
-
12-22-2006, 11:19 PM #3
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- Greenfield, IN (near Indianapolis), USA
- Posts
- 1,689
- Credits
- 1,110
-
12-23-2006, 11:36 AM #4j7wild Guest
-
I believe the interpretation of the writer quoted above may be incorrect. I quote another website I found:
Source: Internetcases.com
Live Nation Motor Sports, Inc. (formerly known as SFX Motor Sports) has convinced a federal judge in Texas to enjoin fan-site owner Robert Davis from streaming live webcasts of racing events through his site supercrosslive.com.
It appears that Davis was simply running the live ClearChannel webcast of Supercross racing events through his own website. According to papers filed by the plaintiff, Davis was "transferring" the webcasts to his own website and thereby displaying or performing them in real time. It doesn't look like there was any copying of the sound recording -- instead, Davis was broadcasting or performing the "same audio web cast."
The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff would likely succeed on its claim that defendant's actions constituted copyright infringement.
In concluding that the "transfer" of the audio webcast to the supercross.com website was likely an infringement, the court cited to National Football League v. PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture, 211 F.3d 10 (2d Cir.2000) in which the Second Circuit upheld a permanent injunction against a defendant accused of providing unauthorized satellite transmissions of NFL games to viewers in Canada. In that case, the court held that the process of uplinking the NFL's original signal to a satellite was an unauthorized public performance of the broadcast.
Perhaps the court would have come to a different conclusion on the question of whether the defendant's "transfer" of the audio webcast was a public performance had it compared it instead to in-line linking. This concept was discussed earlier this year in Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., 416 F.Supp.2d 828 (C.D. Cal. 2006). In-line linking is the process where a web developer shows an image on his or her website by providing a path in the <img> tag to a file residing on another server.
In the Perfect 10 v. Google case, the court concluded that Google did not itself display or distribute images to which it in-line linked. [More] It applied the "server test" (as opposed to an "incorporation test") to conclude that "the website on which content is stored and by which it is served directly to a user, not the website that in-line links to it, is the website that 'displays' the content." It found that in aggregating images from other sites, the Google image search engine was not in the process of storing or serving content. "Rather, [users'] computers have engaged in a direct connection with third-party websites, which are themselves responsible for transferring content."
Live Nation Motor Sports, Inc. v. Davis, (Slip Op.) 2006 WL 3616983 (N.D.Tex., December 11, 2006).
Is my interpretation correct?Our greatest accomplishments cannot be behind us, because our destiny lies above us. - Matthew Mcconaughey - Interstellar
Similar Threads
-
Inside Deep Throat
By j7wild in forum General Chatter - Movie RelatedReplies: 2Last Post: 05-07-2006, 08:01 PM
Bookmarks