Eh, if he were only linking to the pages where the streams were, I'd be against the ruling, but I'm gathering that he was directly linking to the files themselves. And that's not entirely kosher.
I'm not saying that I'm not guilty of it, but even small-scale sites run by 14-year-old scriptkiddies out of parents' basements ask you not to put direct links to their crap on your site. To me, it's really more of a courtesy issue than anything else. In this particular case, being courteous would've kept his ass out of court, and we wouldn't be talking about the ruling.
True, but we don't send someone to JAIL for hotlinking, do we? Well, NOW I guess we do, but BEFORE. How you gonna sue somebody for a hotlink? Just tell 'em to take it down...
Certainly nothing over which we need to get litigious.
I imagine they probably asked him to not do it before going to court. I bet he refused to do it, because if he'd taken it down as soon as he knew they didn't like it, there probably wouldn't have been a court case.
I agree with the ruling in this case, though. It was a ligitimate enough reason for them to not want him to link directly to the audio files. Because he's basically giving it to the public ad-free. And if it's not ad-free, then his web page was getting all the ad use and the official sponsers weren't getting anything.
But it's the same principle as putting in an image from another source on your page. People get testy about it and make the image turn into one preset image so you'll take it down and not waste their bandwith or for whatever other reason they don't want you using the source rather than downloading it and hosting it yourself.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-01-06 07:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-06 11:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-07 12:09 am (UTC)I'm not saying that I'm not guilty of it, but even small-scale sites run by 14-year-old scriptkiddies out of parents' basements ask you not to put direct links to their crap on your site. To me, it's really more of a courtesy issue than anything else. In this particular case, being courteous would've kept his ass out of court, and we wouldn't be talking about the ruling.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-07 01:33 am (UTC)Certainly nothing over which we need to get litigious.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-07 02:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-07 03:12 am (UTC)I agree with the ruling in this case, though. It was a ligitimate enough reason for them to not want him to link directly to the audio files. Because he's basically giving it to the public ad-free. And if it's not ad-free, then his web page was getting all the ad use and the official sponsers weren't getting anything.
But it's the same principle as putting in an image from another source on your page. People get testy about it and make the image turn into one preset image so you'll take it down and not waste their bandwith or for whatever other reason they don't want you using the source rather than downloading it and hosting it yourself.