Very interesting debate all down that Jack Schofield page. It's a bit like inciting hatred or something, you don't really do a whole lot but if you're an important bit of pressure, or link in the chain if you will, in inducing the action then you're guilty of an offence.
I'm coming around to the opinion that FACT were right to do, after all it is there job anyway, what they did. For me the key point in prosecution of TV-Links seems to be that they intentionally provided access to copyrighted material. On the other hand, Google et al do not willingly provide such access. They would be unworkable they had to vet all videos etc for copyright compliance, so instead it is more efficacious that as soon as the copyright holder informs them of the breach that they then become obliged to remove the offending article.
More than anything I think what this illustrates is the near impossibility of regulating the internet. Copyright theft, as FACT would tell us, is legally and morally wrong but does that mean that tomorrow we won't have the new TV-Links?
Funnily enough I'm studying e-commerce law at the moment and have a lecture in it tomorrow so I'll put this topic to my lecturer if I get the chance and see if he can offer any valuable insight. If not, I'll try looking into it myself and give it some more thought.
Bookmarks