It's a defamation case and you will note the main question was whether or not publication occurred. The rules governing dissemination of copyrighted material are completely different.
if providing a link by google to an article is not publishing then why do you think providing e.g., a hyperlink to a magnet link by a torrent search engine becomes publishing of a copyrighted material?
(torrent search engine shows links to a link to a "link" to a material)
"Facilitating" defamation isn't defamation, so not a crime. Facilitating copyright infringement is explicitly prohibited, whatever the definition of "publish" is.
You're right; my spectacles-supplier makes it possible for me to watch infringing videos. So they're "facilitating".
Arguably a website operator can do something about it; Vision Express can't, and nor can Apple.
The battle between copyright maximalists and the "information wants to be free" crowd won't end until there's a copyright regime that most people think is fair. I think that means that (a) all copyright expires on the authors death, or after 70 years, whivhever comes first; (b) copyright infringement is a purely civil affair; (c) copyright holders get to sue for lost royalties, which they have to demonstrate, thus suppressing actions against people whove never made a penny from infringement.
That's how it was when I was a kid, and it seemed pretty fair. All the subsequent changes have been to favour the RIAA and the MPAA, enacted by the US government, and then rammed down the throat of the rest of the world through trade agreements and so on.
So long as they didn't encourage discussion of the contents of the torrent (paragraph 33) nor enticed the user to choose that torrent over another one (paragraph 51). Or anything else considered in the decision (I'm only a quarter of the way through reading it :p)
It is an interesting point though, it's not publishing but in my limited understand it just means that Google isn't bound by links that it has on its pages.
As much as I'd like torrents to be more tolerated, there is a difference in that the torrent sites contain the .torrent files which contains all the necessary info to download files. ie, They're supplying more than just a link.
There is legally and effectively nothing different about the two. They both give you what you need to get the file. The extra layer of indirection of having to get peers from DHT rather than a tracker doesn't matter.
Given the topic is the difference between an article and a link to it (one level of indirection), the indirection does matter (at least, if you are google).
A torrent file only contains a hash checksum of the data and a tracker url (basically a "link" to the tracker). A magnet has the same hash but uses the DHT to find seeders while a torrent file looks for seeders connected to the tracker.
Personally I don't see that as being materially different to a magnet link.
The only difference is the DHT is acting like a kind of super-tracker.
> I’ll bet it depends on the relative wealth of the parties.
Sure, in the same way that the outcome of an election depends on the relative amount of campaign spending by each side.
This is an example of a belief that is extremely common despite the fact that there is a mountain of evidence contradicting it and almost nothing in support.
> “I think where you have to change your thinking is that money causes winning,” said Richard Lau, professor of political science at Rutgers. “I think it’s more that winning attracts money.”
> decades of research suggest that money probably isn’t the deciding factor in who wins a general election, and especially not for incumbents.
> Most of the research on this was done in the last century, Bonica told me, and it generally found that spending didn’t affect wins for incumbents and that the impact for challengers was unclear.
> the strong raw association between raising the most cash and winning probably has more to do with big donors who can tell (based on polls or knowledge of the district or just gut-feeling woo-woo magic) that one candidate is more likely to win — and then they give that person all their money.
> 80 to 90 percent of congressional races have outcomes that are effectively predetermined by the district’s partisan makeup — and the people that win those elections are still given (and then must spend) ridiculous sums of money because, again, big donors like to curry favor with candidates they know are a sure thing.
Partiality in law is clear and the evidence is overwhelming. Poor defendants lose while wealthy defendants can drag out the process indefinitely. Wealthy plaintiffs can bankrupt individuals trying to defend themselves: the music industry used this strategy during the time of Napster -- feel free to look it up.
Impartiality is the hypothetical story we tell ourselves to make us feel good about, for example, Hunter Biden taking selfies with 20g of crack cocaine while black men do 10 years or more for the same crime. There are so many examples that if this one offends your politics, let me know, and I'll provide you with examples that will comport with your preferred media source.
Problems in the law are clear; partiality less so. Are there more black men who post selfies online with 20g of crack and never get charged for it, or more who go to jail for having 20g of crack?
When Hunter Biden gets extra protection from the law, does that source more from his money or from his political status?
When Michael Milken got extra persecution from the law, was his wealth an asset or a liability?
When high-status individuals get away with well-documented crimes with zero or minimal consequences while low-status individuals are taken to the cleaners by zealous prosecutors eager to pump their conviction rates, the public learns that all men are not equal before the law and that corruption is acceptable to the people that matter.
This is well-understood and I’m not breaking any new ground here by saying so.
What I am saying that is perhaps offensive or provocative is that this happens in the USA.
