A little misleading title in that the mere act of linking wasn't ruled against but rather the direct linking to copyrighted videos. From reading the judges comments it would seem that if the second site linked to the first sites page that displayed the first sites ads & other normally displayed data then there would've been no problem but the fact that he was bypassing that and linking directly to the videos was the problem. The owner of the copyrighted videos really should've had some security measures in place to prevent direct linking in the first place but that's another issue.
The defendant would've also done better if it wasn't for...
Quote:
Davis, who was representing himself without an attorney, defended his Web site in legal filings that were full of bluster and accused SFX of acting like Genghis Kahn. He did stress that he merely included a "hyperlink, which launches the visitor's media player" instead of copying the audio file and republishing it.
Davis, who was representing himself without an attorney.
That has a lot to do with it. Like others said It would have been different if they linked to the site itself but they linked directly to the content from my understanding.
__________________
Cheers, John Irving: My Blog
JLI Media: Please login or register to view this content. Registration is FREE | Website Development (Link Coming Soon!)
