When linking becomes illegal...

[TryAgain]

Catchy title but that's what happened in the Miramax vs. kungfucinema.com case recently.

I'm not concerned about the legalities involving selling imported copyrighted material. It's explained pretty well in this [wired.com] wired.com article.

But what does the law say about linking? When does linking become illegal? Did Miramax have a case (concerning the link)?

Is this post illegal? (I'm linking to an article that links to a site that links...)

Background story: Studio Warns Kung Fu Site [wired.com] (wired.com)

[hannamyluv]

I'm no lawyer, but I don't think Miramax has a case there. I believe the copyright law says that something along that you can't distribute the copyrighted material. Since he is not distributing, nor is the site he is linking to, it's a pretty weak case.

Anyone can send a cease and desist. I could send one to you telling you just about anything I want. It doesn't mean that it is leagal.

I think half the time, these companies send these things hoping to just scare the pants of some poor guy and get their way, even if they have no foundation for their claims.

[bird]

The company asked him not to sell or distribute a movie that they had bought the rights for.
He never did so to begin with, and the site he linked to had stopped doing so a few months earlier, after they had been informed of the purchase.
Since that link had become useless to his visitors by that, he removed it voluntarily, and informed the company about the fact (he might also have thanked them for helping him weed out his stale links...).

What exactly is made "illegal" by all this?

The fact that someone sends a C&D simply demonstrates their opinion that something is wrong. Whether that opinion is correct or mistaken is ultimately up to the courts to decide.

Since he obviously wasn't "selling or distributing" the movie himself, the relevant points of the C&D would have been "otherwise exploiting" the movie. This is almost as vague as "something we don't like you to do". I don't know about US law, but around here that wouldn't be enough to base a lawsuit on. You need to be much more specific about the actions you want the purported infringer to refrain from.

[henry0]

One of my sites is news and business news oriented
I do daily publish many news and some are links to press articles; I do not take credit for those and I indicate upfront where it is coming from who's the author etc...

Well some newspapers do have rules that do not allow offering such link
So I believe it really is a one case at a time review
Again depends on how their copyright etc.. is set.
Regards
Henry

[bird]

Well some newspapers do have rules that do not allow offering such link

They can invent as many rules as they like. That doesn't make them enforceable. It's not the newspapers (or movie distributors) that create the laws.

[henry0]

Bird, point well taken
Does any one know of a legal site with forum?
I'll like to thoroughly check the legal aspect

[edited by: henry0 at 4:34 pm (utc) on Dec. 18, 2003]

[martinibuster]

There is precedent in the United States for causing someone to stop linking. Think back to the DeCSS case, MPAA vs. 2600 [2600.com] involving a link to a site where the file could be downloaded.

The magazine, 2600, was told by the U.S. Courts that not only could it not publish the information, but it couldn't link to it. The MPAA had claimed that the linking was, "contributory copyright infringement [zdnet.com.com]."

[henry0]

Thanks for the link Martinibuster,

I did think that not linking right may be enforced
I have a writen permission from the Washington Post and the WallStreet journal and others to do so.