Important court decision: Organized indexing of infringements is also infringement
 

"Not hosted here", "remote", "not our uploads", "not direct link" etc, is not an excuse according to a dutch court decision. If the index is organized, like categories, submissions and with instructions where and how to find files, the operators must also ensure it's not unauthorized before it's published. Otherwise they commit the copyright infringement too.

The decision was made in a case between BREIN and newsgroup indexer FTD, a community with half a million users.

http://www.anti-piracy.nl/nieuws/ber...sberichtid=214 (dutch)

Earlier, a related english court decision also ruled the hoster Newzbin is responsible when "making it available". If those two decisions combined will spread to other jurisdictions (most likely), other operators of organized index methods like torrents, tubes, forums, will face heavy administration to ensure the files are not unauthorized.

If this catches on in other countries, it could be a powerful precedent in future litigation. Interesting....

Yes, at least within EU they often look at decisions in other member countries in cases like this.

Guess this ruling goes against file sharing forums then.

One small step for man, one giant step for mankind.

Interesting read. "not our uploads" does not work - amazing.

a small step closer....

yup:thumbsup

very carefully worded so it doesn't step on Google's toes - your blog directory might turn out to be illegal if it happens to link to blogs with stolen content, but you can serach away on Google for just about any file you want and find in less than 3.5 seconds LOL

Very good news. It might not effect search engines but what about Youtube?

Excellent news, glad to see steps taken in the Euro arena as well.

good news for sure. Let's just hope it catches on ;)

vcr fair use branding bugs.

Less free = more sales.

Good news!

Every dog has his day. Change is in the air.

dont forget those awesome things called message forums you guys like so much, the "not hosted here" infringement includes that argument LOL

pot meet kettle, every single day people post links to youtube vids etc that are copyright infringement but oh noes you guys are above that stuff. Every day people link clips/sliced scenes from hollywood movies on gfy etc, no different than porn users sharing vids. LOLs

Well, it would need to hit Cyprus after the Netherlands and then..... .. .. ..

I always enjoy a good FletchXXX post on this matter.
:)

The only real impact that I see this ruling having long term is to force those that use stolen/unlicensed copyrighted content to move their stuff to countries that do not give two squirts of piss about the legality of them

cant stand this holier than thou shit from these infringers, they sit back on gfy and act like they are pure and clean, then they start linking youtube vids in threads all day.

sharing clips is sharing clips, they are as guilty as those they want locked up LOL :1orglaugh

Well looks like youtube might have to close shop in that country.

Not trying to start shit here but doesn't YouTube allow linking to it's content by offering up the URLs and the embedding code on the page with the videos?

you missed the point entirely.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image..._missed416.jpg

Completely different scenario.

A)people post short clips from a movie here, has anyone EVER posted an entire movie on gfy? if so that would be a problem, but personally i have only ever posted partial scenes from films like pretty much everyone else. this is not infringement, it is true fair use policy.

B)most of the youtube clips i have seen on GFY are music videos. music videos are adverts which spread the word. companies like this idea.

I have no doubt about that :)

thats your opinion, if youtube clips were not infringement they wouldnt constantly be removing them, your fair use argument is no different that porn traders who share scenes.

youtube is filled with infrgining vids, and they are linked every day on gfy, everything from sports clips - hollywood movies like Kill Bill.

You see it the same way porn traders do. Partial scenes from Kill BIll = no diff than partial scenes from some blowjob movies. :) Anyway not here to argue the point I made, just to stir debate. Everyone likes to think they do not behave like porn traders when in fct, they do.

:1orglaugh Why buy the cd when the whole cd is on youtube? Just because you put one track up at a time does not make it different than putting up a whole movie. Fuck I rarely put a cd in my computer anymore I just go to youtube and search and play what I want to hear.

exactly, see im not the only one who witnesses this hypocrisy, people share music via youtube every single day here on gfy and its no different than porn traders. Record companies have music vids removed all day long. Unless on their channel

Hypocritical or not, youtube does not allow porn, so it is not what most of us here at GFY care about. Youtube does not effect our bottom line.

not talking about the MUSIC, talking about the MUSIC VIDEOS. Music videos are advertisements meant for free distribution to spread the word.

i don't go to youtube looking for an album, you might, i dont.

Step In the Right Direction Bump

speaking for myself its not opinion, its fact. i post clips from youtube to illustrate the topic i.e. dennis hopper's death. i post a clip from one of his movies. this is a tribute. this is fair use. i am not selling anything, i am supplementing the content of a thread.

That's all I can see happening too.

you couldnt be more incorrect, Record Companies have them removed all the time. They stop embedding of them etc.... Music videos are not "free advertisements" LOL They are intellectual property and protected by copyright laws, this is funny.

here is just one of many record companies stopping even embedding of its videos

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13526_3-10438599-27.html

But Google is indexed :D

here is even better

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/...-audio-youtube

keep on sharing guys lol

the majority of music videos on youtube REMAIN on youtube because the companies want them there to advertise the group/album whatever. You know that is true.

Ok, THAT DOES IT!!! I HAVE FINALLY HAD IT!!!


Now you are DEFINITELY going to have to come down and stay over for a long weekend sometime, have some drinks, cruise around on the boat....


.... and have conversations like THIS ONE! (loved that point)


.:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:thumbsup:thumbsup

you have stolen celeb content sites in your sig, i dont think you even understand this discussion LOL :1orglaugh

dismissed.

This should illustrate the point more clearly.
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/20...air-use-rights

Fair Use.

"Fair use is rooted in the first amendment," said Donaldson. "So if you're telling a story, and you need or want, and it's reasonable to use little pieces of other people's stuff to tell that story, that's protected as a first amendment right."

"According to Aufderheide, one thing judges will ask is 'did you use this for a different purpose than the original or are you merely taking something that somebody's actually selling, and getting it for free?' Basically - are you taking market value from them?"

On both of these points the majority of people posting on GFY adhere to fair use.

No one is taking market value from a record company for instance when they post a music video on GFY. Music videos are created and distributed for the purpose of advertising, if you don't know that you should read more.

Really? show proof that these celeb sites have stolen content, with evidence that these sites have done what you are charging. You have made a serious statement which you need to back up with proof.

Does the country the business reside in have something to do with it?

But I see what you're getting at. That's why the Internet needs policing in some way that sites that are illegal in a country, then the country itself can ban them. If you can't sell it legally on the streets why should you be able to sell it illegally on the Net?

For quite a while now I have regularly got a message like this video is unavailable in your country for certain youtube things.

"Illustrative purposes" is a legal reason to use a piece of copyrighted material fairly. Such as quoting from a news article and also linking to the source.

I would say that it will more impact youtube itself who is a collection of catagorized links, than boards and people who link to the link list, per se.

I guess it could be rationed out to the nth degree and include everyone everywhere who links to anything which itself links to...... and so forth.

From the OP: "If the index is organized, like categories, submissions and with instructions where and how to find files, the operators must also ensure it's not unauthorized before it's published. Otherwise they commit the copyright infringement too."

Just to help balance this a bit.... not all youtube vids fall into this category of course. Many are created for the public, many are created privately by individuals. For example, the video I linked in here yesterday of the forecast model of the ocean currents and oil travel. They have use conditions posted right along side all of the forecast model videos. They want that video to get out to the world.

But yeah, for the most part I agree. I don't post movie clips or music videos for this very reason.

Netherlands is now the home of some of the best anty piracy precedents - first they had landmark mininova decision, and then this.

Tnaflix, empflix, empornium, puretna are some of the worst offenders and they're based in Netherlands, ripe for a lawsuite and huge fines. Any one there willing to try?

The whole GFY/YT clips arguement is ridiculous. If YT is finally forced to go 100% legal, only those clips approved by rightholders will remain and get posted at GFY from that moment on - until that we have to guess what we post here from YT is fair use, not really having a chance to know for sure (clip can be both infringing or approved by rightholder with equal probability given the current state of things). But even if it is an infringement it is so minor compared to what's going on at real piracy forums it's not even funny.

And when they're forced to go 100% legal, none here except maybe for several idiots is going to complain that not all of the clips that were previously available can be posted at GFY now.

Define "porn" sire.
:2 cents:

nice outcome. I hope they do something similar in the US

That would be dreamy tootsie. But I think you will need to cross your toes on that one.