Back to that theory about illegal links... (Alan Wexelblat)
ISPs get "safe harbor" from contributory charges at least in copyright cases, why shouldn't those who link ALSO have protection? Is it possibly because they're too small to make too many waves when the thugs from the cartel come after them? The RIAA thought so, but the publicity they've generated hasn't been too good. The blogging and linking world has far fewer grandmas and 12 year olds to sue, so their plight might not be quite as compelling. But we shall see....
Remember last month I mentioned that merely linking to something illegal could itself be illegal? The law of the land is uncertain in the US and now it appears it will be tested in Germany.
Word out of Munich is that a German judge has sided with the Cartel in blocking heise.de, a popular German-language news site from linking to a site discussed in one of heise's stories. As you might guess, the story was on the ease and popularity of distributing content the Cartel would rather lock up. There was, apparently, a link to a site that was, allegedly, involved in such distribution.
If you're wondering why I'm hedging my language so much it's because the original story is in German, a language I'm not fluent in. Babelfish isn't much help, so I'm relying on blog reporting here on toytownmunich.com and here on Constitutionalcode blog.
If someone who is fluent could post an English version of the story that'd be great.
[Copyfight]