That doesn't say content, that says linked.
It was hot linking, not just linking. Here is the difference:
Linking: Helen Thomas
Hot Linking: 
Posted on 01/24/2007 12:04:07 PM PST by LibWhacker
whoa!
Bump for later reading
It is actually SOP to do so.
This is a draconian solution to a problem that only exists because of the ignorance and incompetence of the plaintiff and his attorney.
All this means is that you can't steal content... not that any one here would embed content without permission.
Look where we are going. If names are copyrighted, we can't type them, we can't link to media....Net Censoring.
In my (albeit non-legal) opinion, he's guilty of violating copyright.
The meat of the issue is in the few couple of paragraphs of the article.
In the prior decision...
That court went on to describe the process of hypertext linking: "The customer is automatically transferred to the particular genuine web page of the original author. There is no deception in what is happening. This is analogous to using a library's card index to get reference to particular items, albeit faster and more efficiently."The difference is, in this case, the guy isn't making it clear that he's not hosting the content-- and he's stripping of the advertising that SFX has placed on their feeds. I think SFX has a legitimate case of copyright infringement.
What this means is that the plaintiff, his attorney and the judger are too ignorant and incompetent to know that part of competently administering a web server is to block hot-linking if you so desire.
It's SOP to block hot-linking, and requires minimal knowledge and effort.
I'm not sure if that is what was said, "his site linked to an 'audio webcast' without permission".
That doesn't say content, that says linked.
There's an entire generation of people in positions in power whose mindsets are still stuck in the transistor age:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE
This is a judicial solution to a technical problem that has already been solved. If you don't want people hot-linking to your images/videos, merely configure your server to only serve them to requests originating from your own web pages.
This is web server administration 101.
Just wait until Pelosi et. al. make conservative chat sites a hate crime, with jail time. Evidence gathering will go back to the day Al Gore invented the internet.
I agree with you that this should have been done.
However, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to go after the guy for copyright infringement.
Your argument would be analogous to this:
If I forget to lock my vehicle in a parking lot, and some kid steals my radio, I can't take legal action to get it back because SOP should be to lock my vehicle.
You link to content.
The word "link" in this context has no meaning without content to link to.
An HTML link looks like this:
< a href="http://website.com/motorcycle.mpg">Motor Cycle Movie</a>
In this case, the link is to the "motorcycle.mpg" movie.
You can't expect too much from a judge. But we should be able to expect a judge to know the difference between a reference to something and the thing.
Too much for a legal mind? Apparently.
The nature of the internet is that all links are ALLOWED!
Fascism is upon us.
Nope, never saw a single Anna Kournikova pic on FR.
To play devil's advocate to my own argument, though:
A case could be made by the defendant that, because hot-linking was not blocked, it was implied consent to hot-link.
That doesn't say content, that says linked.
It was hot linking, not just linking. Here is the difference:
Linking: Helen Thomas
Hot Linking:
Of course.
A solution involving lawyers is ALWAYS preferable to expecting morons to get a clue.
This is more akin to the skinhead in the car in front of you showing porn movies on his in-car video screen and suing you for watching them while driving in the car behind him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.