Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 8:17 pm
You last visited July 27, 2017, 6:52 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

"Is It Now Illegal To Link To Other Websites?


Last Edited: December 21, 2006, 3:24 pm

A friend says 'perfect paranoia is perfect awareness' which just may hold true in this instance.   

Via SteveQuayle.com, Q factor.


"Is It Now Illegal To Link To Other Websites?
Landmark Sydney legal ruling sets precedent for wholesale devastation of Internet news websites and blogs

Prison Planet | December 20, 2006
Paul Joseph Watson

A landmark legal ruling in Sydney goes further than ever before in setting the trap door for the destruction of the Internet as we know it and the end of alternative news websites and blogs by creating the precedent that simply linking to other websites is breach of copyright and piracy.

Following our report last month that an RIAA legal argument would, if the case was eventually won, criminalize simply making files available on the Internet, many readers scoffed at the serious implications of the case. Such a precedent would change the entire face of the Internet because "making files available" is so loosely defined it could criminalize simply placing links on ones website or blog to other websites.

Some accused us of yellow journalism and scaremongering yet the warning that the Elektra vs. Barker case could criminalize the very mechanism that characterizes the Internet was not concocted by Alex Jones or Paul Joseph Watson, it was a statement made by the very lawyer fighting the case, Ray Beckerman.

And that's exactly what has now happened in Sydney, where an Australian federal court has opened the door for simply linking to other websites to be classified as piracy.

A landmark ruling was upheld against Stephen Cooper, who ran a website which acted as search engine for locating and downloading MP3's not from his own website but from other MP3 download websites. Cooper was charged with piracy and his ISP is also being targeted for not shutting down his website quickly enough.

"Sabiene Heindl, general manager of Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI) said the decision meant that anyone who stuck a link on MySpace or on their bogs could now expect a knock on the door from its briefs," reports the UK Inquirer .

And for those who dismiss the precedent as only applying to those who link to copyrighted MP3 files, consider this - Cooper was only doing the same thing as Google in providing a means of finding files on other website. The MIPI is also preparing to take action against Google in "other jurisdictions," meaning it is building a case to sue Google for linking to all manner of different files from its search engine hub.

If such a precedent becomes accepted, it would be the death knell for alternative websites like the one you're reading now and others, who primarily rely on linking to other sources in order to collate important news and information. It would also put an end to some of the biggest websites on the Internet such as Fark.com and the Drudge Report , which are both almost exclusively devoted to collecting the world's most interesting news and offering it to readers in one place, by linking to scores of different websites.

Under these terms only internal linking would be permitted, which would not significantly impact commercial powerhouses like Amazon.com but would effectively put an end to all blogs.

The skids are clearly being greased for the mandated introduction of Internet 2, a tightly controlled, surveilled and regulated cyberspace police state run solely by telecommunications giants in consort with the U.S. government and the United Nations. Net Neutrality campaigners are desperately trying to raise awareness to the dangers of this as legislation that will kill the Internet as we know it is on the brink of debate and passage in the first session of Congress early next year. ....."

"..........Dovetailing the onset of Internet 2 are government propaganda campaigns to demonize the existing Internet as a wild backwater for hate crime, child pornography and a terrorist recruiting ground. We have detailed these moves at length in previous articles .

The last outpost of freedom of speech, the world wide web, is in the crosshairs of corporate lobbyists and big government control freaks, who are putting the finishing touches on the pincer attack plan that will put paid to the greatest technological revolution of the latter 20th century."


Entry #709


JAP69Comment by JAP69 - December 21, 2006, 6:17 pm
The main stream media must be grinning from ear to ear on this one.
konaneComment by konane - December 21, 2006, 6:28 pm
They probably dreamed it up and passed it on as a must do.
ToddComment by Todd - December 21, 2006, 9:15 pm
Speaking about the idea that links will become illegal, I wholeheartedly disagree with the tone of this article, as well as the vast jumps in logic it makes. These are scare tactics, nothing more. The whole design of the web itself is a "network of hyperlinks", and it is a waste of human thought to even contemplate the possibility that it will somehow be deemed "illegal".

The Internet 2 comments are slightly more realistic, but it will certainly not be the demon-child that the article tries to conjure. I especially love the "end to blogs" comment, but only for its ridicule factor. The "Internet 2" will be several factors faster, and will facilitate a tremendous leap in human achievement. It is not something to be feared. Naturally, they will learn from the many mistakes made in "web 1" (if I can call it that), to hopefully create an environment that can be more trustworthy, and less apt to virus/worm attacks, spamming, and denial of service attacks, among other things.

The only thing worth considering is the impact of net neutrality, which is something that everyone should learn about, because it will directly affect the way you pay for Internet services. ("Net neutrality" is a term that is actually being used to describe BOTH sides of the issue, which makes it very confusing.) The bottom line is that the side that advocates no ISP content restrictions is the "good" side. The "bad" side has some lame-o arguments about 911 services not getting the right bandwidth to make phone calls, and other such alarmist propaganda. Don't believe it.

I hope this helps boil down the issues mentioned in the article.
konaneComment by konane - December 21, 2006, 9:33 pm
Yes, knowledge has debunked the BS!!! Thank you!!

There is one factor which has worried me since posting info about it on my blog and that is the possibility of the UN gaining ANY sort of control over the internet. Hope that never happens.
Comment by LOTTOMIKE - December 21, 2006, 11:04 pm
i guess we are living in the "frontier" days of the web.we will look back and tell our grandkids that at one time the internet was a place to be free and roam.
Rick GComment by Rick G - December 22, 2006, 2:03 am
There is no need for an "Internet 2" under any circumstances. This is a government-sponsored internet scam that will ruin the internet as we know it.

When will we put our feet down and say NO to governement intrusion on every aspect of our lives? When will we grow the damned gonads to protect one of the most dearly-held individual rights of our country, the right to free speech?

The answer is NEVER. As long as it's proposed to us for our "own good", the lemmings in this society will continue jumping over the cliff.
konaneComment by konane - December 22, 2006, 8:36 am
Todd debunked this article in his comments below. Since he is the tech expert, am sure his knowledge base is far beyond the author of this story. However, I'm never one to pass on posting stuff from the tinfoil hat crowd.

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.