back to article An 'embed' link isn't a new infringement, says EU Court of Justice

The European Court of Justice has decided that even an unauthorised video can be embedded by a third party without creating a new infringement. The case, reported by TorrentFreak, centres around a dispute by a water filtering company, BestWater International, and a couple of men who work as contractors for a competitor (their …

  1. Andrew Jones 2

    But..... I'm pretty sure when you upload a video to YouTube - you can specifically choose not to allow it to be embedded.....

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      re: embedding videos

      Probably, but you can still embed the URL. All that changes, afaik, is that the end user gets a 'view video on YouTube' graphic instead of the embedded video. So it takes two click instead of one.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    DMCA'd the Video?

    Since when did the US DMCA laws apply to Germany?

    If the German water company objected to details shown in the video that they own the copyright to then they should use local German or wider EU laws to get it removed. AFAIK, German/EU copyrights aren't valid in the USofA.

    However if I am wrong I am sure that corrections will be forthcoming.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: DMCA'd the Video?

      AFAIK trade regulations were adopted... for trade.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: DMCA'd the Video?

      Maybe, due to overuse of the DMCA, it has become a part of common parlance:

      DMCA, v. To abuse copyright law in order to have inconvenient information removed from the web.

    3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: DMCA'd the Video?

      "they should use local German or wider EU laws to get it removed."

      Although not specifically stated in the article, reading between the lines and the actions of the copyright holders implies that they posted the original video to YouTube so if they wanted it removed they only have to delete it. No laws required.

      Since they didn't remove it, then they want it there for some reason. Maybe they can't afford to host video and its bandwidth cost on their own servers so have to rely on a free service? I suspect if they had hosted it themselves the judgement may have been different.

    4. MrZoolook
      Facepalm

      Re: DMCA'd the Video?

      "AFAIK, German/EU copyrights aren't valid in the USofA."

      Seriously!? Folliwing that logic, any US bound copyright isn't valid anywhere else. No, I think you are mistaken.

  3. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    "had BestWater DCMA-d the video"

    Is it the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, or is it the Digital Copyright Millenium Act ?

    I always thought it was DMCA.

    Whatever it is, it should die.

    Now.

  4. Herby

    Could have easily pointed to...

    ...a library book by its ISBN. Same thing.

    If you don't want linking, don't publish (to YouTube or anywhere else). Of course we do this all the time in bibliographic references, and nobody complains. With the web, it is just a bit more immediate.

    1. Dr Paul Taylor

      Re: Could have easily pointed to...

      and the remarkable thing is that a court managed to follow this bit of logic that is obvious to Reg readers.

  5. Frankee Llonnygog

    Confused

    Did they just legalise torrent searches?

    1. Grikath

      Re: Confused

      Torrent searches in and of themselves have never been illegal. Sites that specifically aim to publish torrent links to copyrighted material may be, depending on where you are. There's a difference..

      1. Dick Emery

        Re: Confused

        So what if you just embed a link to a torrent link on another site that points to copyrighted material like a movie perhaps?

        1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

          Re: Confused

          What if...

          You link to a Cat Video and the content gets changes to Child Pron?

          Are you guilty of distributing Child Pron? Anyone who clicks of the link and views that shite should (theoreticall) just report to Jail, do not pass Go and ... well you know the rest.

          The only thing you can do to protect yourself is to video you clicking on the link and seeing the Cat Video. Then you have evidence that the link worked. You should also put some text on your site that says something along the lines

          'Joe Bloggs is not responsible for the content that is located on external sites'.

          Don't know if the Plod would accept that though but you could cite the BBC who do something similar.

          But don't put that video on the interwebs though.

      2. James 100

        Re: Confused

        "Sites that specifically aim to publish torrent links to copyrighted material may be, depending on where you are."

        This ruling would seem to change that, at least for the EU, though - since hosting a collection of links *isn't* infringing activity by this ruling (and the precedent they cited about linking), it should be a lot harder to justify going after them and demanding that third parties censor access to them.

  6. Elmer Phud

    Phew

    I was concerned for those who paste a link and go 'This is shit!'.

    FB and Twitter traffic would drop dramatically

    1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

      Re: Phew

      Got a link?

      1. Swarthy Silver badge

        Re: Phew

        "Got a link?"

        Probably, but it's shit.

  7. Steve 129

    WOW, a rational decision from a judge on the issue of linking and copyright !!!

    Seriously !!??? Is hell freezing over??

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022