by Mike Masnick
Thu, Apr 29th 2010 11:55pm
There are people out there who believe that just talking about the fact that infringing content is out there is infringing itself, but that seems like a plainly ridiculous standard for judging infringing content. Yet, we see cases like this all the time. Recently, there was Twitter taking down a tweet for merely linking to a blog post that talked about a leaked album (but which didn't link to the leak), and now TorrentFreak points out that the site RLSLOG has been totally taken offline (again) after Universal Music sent a takedown request. The only problem? RLSLOG doesn't actually host any content or infringe on any copyrights. It's a news site that talks about infringing content that's available, but is that infringing itself? It's difficult to see how anyone would properly judge that to be the case, but it didn't stop the site's host from taking them offline thanks to Universal Music's legal threats.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- For World 'Intellectual Property' Day, A Reading From Thomas Macaulay
- Dutch Court Rules That Freely Given Fan-Subtitles Are Copyright Infringement
- China's Public Prosecutors Complain About Leak Of Anti-Corruption TV Series They Bankrolled To Raise Awareness
- New Survey: Most Millennials Both Pay For Streaming Services And Use Pirate Streams When Content Isn't Legally Available
- Singapore Court Tosses Copyright Troll Cases Because IP Addresses Aren't Good Enough Evidence