> If I understand what you are saying you mean that a link to site A which links
> to copyrighted material on site B is itself a violation of copyright.

no, what i mean is that he was the one who uploaded the clips to
youtube, got banned from youtube and then posted the links on a forum
to the clips as "proof" that google was evil.

- Gravis


On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Peter Olson <peabo@???> wrote:
>> On March 5, 2015 at 11:26 PM Gravis <ring3k@???> wrote:
>
>> the link you posted links to a clip from Al Jazeera that was taken
>> down due to copyright infringement. you do realize that content from
>> Al Jazeera is copyright and that posting it without permission is
>> copyright infringement, right? if you do stuff like that repeatedly
>> they ban you. are you claiming you didn't post the videos and that
>> there is a conspiracy to oppress you? if so, you have a persecution
>> complex.
>
> If I understand what you are saying you mean that a link to site A which links
> to copyrighted material on site B is itself a violation of copyright.
>
> This is a truly hazardous notion (called "contributory copyright infringement"
> by some).
>
> Link A -> link B -> link C -> link D -> link E -> link F (violating) cause all
> downstream links to B, C, D, and E, as well as A, to be violations?
>
> It's involuntary, since A cannot be expected to traverse all paths to links out
> of B to check for this supposed violation, especially with transitive closure
> over the entire Internet and the lack of a useful discriminant for violation.
>
> It's retroactive, because site D can change its outbound links at any time after
> the initial citation of A to B and A will be none the wiser.
>
> Doubtless there are other worms in this can, so I rest my case.
>
> Peter Olson