Question about links: RE Diebold legal threat and BBV

[Armstead]

Just a dumb question.

the BBV website was threatened for posting links to the website. Isn't that perfectly legal (unless the links were hacked to a private network or limited access pages)?

The Internet is a public place. The mere decision to post a website implies an agreement that all content is available to the public. It's like going out into the street -- you can't prohibit peopel from looking at you when you're out in public.

True, some sites limit access to their innards to subscribers, but the front door is still open to the public.

It seems to me like anyone who threatens someone who posts legal links (not hacking into private pages) has not a legal foot to stand on.

Am I missing something here?

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Sounds like a good candidate

for frivolous lawsuit status. Just like FAUX vs Al Franken. I think the judge laughed that one out of court. Beside just think of all the free publicity BBV will get now.

[SOteric]

2. Your understanding sounds reasonable, and much like

many other things I've come to understand with regard to legal interpretation of dealings on the internet. However, I recently had it pointed out to me by a prominent California attorney, that much of law with regard to the internet is as yet without precedent and folks will keep trying and testing new things if only to establish that precedent in their personal favour.

[lostnfound]

3. Ask Sherman Austin -- he's going to jail for a year for a link

The webmaster of raisethefist.com was sentenced to a year in prison a couple of weeks ago for allowing a link to be posted on his radical website which gave a link to someone else's web page which gave instructions for making something like a molotov cocktail or a pipebomb. He was around 18 years old at the time.

Mr. Austin allowed people to use his server for their own efforts. He was persuaded by the government that under the Patriot Act he could be sentenced for up to 20 years, so he did a plea bargain with the prosecutor who was asking for 4 months. The judge in the case contacted the Justice Department to discuss the case. The judge said he wanted to set an example 'to other revolutionaries' and consequently gave him the sentence of one year.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/03/1442239&mode=thread&tid=25

I'm surprised it wasn't discussed on DU, but from what I can tell it has never come up. It is quite a travesty of justice and a further trampling of free speech.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. Seems the line was crossed

because the linked site was advocating violence and by linking to such information, would imply that you are encouraging people to take violent action. Not a good idea.

In this case it is not the linking, it was what he was linking to. Hence the reason why he probably won't get much sympathy from anyone.

[lostnfound]

13. It's a pretty faint line in this case..

since he was not advocating violence.

[ParanoidPat]

5. It's not clear from your post....

....did he merely post a link to the other site or did he host that site on his server as well? :shrug:

[lostnfound]

12. I'm not sure; but I think the dangerous stuff was NOT on his server

..and the other interesting aspect is that the person who owned the website to whom Austin's was linked was a white guy from a wealthy family, and he was not charged with any crime.

Austin's site did not advocate violence.

My take on it is that he was seen as dangerous because of his presumed appeal to minority youths.

[DEMActivist]

15. It WAS on his server

The facts of the case are:

The kid had a web site where he offered free space to his visitors.

His visitors could upload whatever they wanted and have it housed on his host.

One of his visitors loaded bomb making materials onto his host and the kid refused to take it down or stop display of it.

The kid was charged and convicted.

All very different circumstances than we have here.

[lostnfound]

16. My mistake; thanks for the correction

However, I still think it was completely inappropriate for the judge to 1) contact the Justice department and 2)use his case 'to set an example' for others. I do not think the punishment fits the crime; and in fact, there's some doubt as to whether he actually committed a crime.

[AP]

9. Comparing a discussion of the accuracy of BBV machines to making bombs

although an apt metaphor is some respects, would be a stretch in terms of justifications for throwing people in jail.

[DEMActivist]

6. You're missing nothing

They are claiming that a link to their copyrighted materials is a violation of copyright.

In other words, they are saying that what Google (and every other search engine on the internet) does is a violation of copyright law.

Of course, they will succeed until someone stands up to them and calls them on their atrocity.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. Since linking is common practice

on the internet, isn't it up to them to make sure their precious copyrighted materials are not so easily accessable, so that only authorized users would have access to these memos..

Under the circumstances, I think it is up to Diabold to protect their copyrights and by posting this on the internet in an unsecured location is like putting your cloths out on a clothline. It's there for all the world to see.

BTW: When did inter-company memos become copyrighted materials?

[AP]

10. They're saying "you can't link to something on the net illegally" without

proving it's on the net illegally in the first place.

[AP]

7. It wasn't linking that offended them. It was the thing at the other

end of the link.

Very broadly, the DMCA makes it against the law to facilitate copyright infingement by writing software which circumvents copyright protection. It seems there's a case which stopped some third party from facilitating access to copyright crack-ware.

It also appears that the DMCA also has a provision which exempts linkers from being liable for damages if they link to something challenged, so long as they notify the party with the offending link, and that party then requests that the link not be terminated (but I'm not clear on the kind of material that qualifies for these protections -- is it copyright cracking stuff, or just any old infinging material?).

The issue here, basically, is whether the stuff at the other end of the link even infringes copyright. If it falls within the fair use exception, it seems there's nothing Diebold can do about it. They can't go around threatening people to stop linking to something over which they have no legal rights.

[DEMActivist]

11. Ahh, but they can...and they have...

They can't go around threatening people to stop linking to something over which they have no legal rights.

And they will continue to as long as no one stands up to them and tells them no.

[Pobeka]

14. Well said. Someone has to stand up to them.

It will have to be in court. But it has to be done or they will push people around with threatening letters from attorneys until the "votes come home".