digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at torrentfreak.com

P2Pnet Wins Landmark ‘Hyperlinking” Case

torrentfreak.com — The file-sharing oriented news website, P2Pnet, has won its case against the Canadian businessman Wayne Crookes. The Supreme Court ruled that linking to defamatory material doesn’t constitute as publishing. Since the case is about linking, the outcome will have implications for all websites on the Internet, including BitTorrent sites.

Who dugg this? Made popular Oct 30, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

30 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • nahsrocketeer75, on 10/29/2008, -0/+60And in a highly unusual move, the Court decision actually referred to businessman Crookes as "a dumbass." Crookes immediately threatened to sue the Court for defamation.
  • inactive, on 10/29/2008, -1/+45Wow this is a big decision
  • Bogo, on 10/29/2008, -1/+27Too bad it happened in Canada - and only in the British Columbia Supreme court.

    That carries about as much weight as Alabama declaring the teaching of evolution unconstitutional...
  • inactive, on 10/29/2008, -1/+16I think this guy has issues because he's saddled with the name "Crookes"...What a doosh
  • CalmLlama, on 10/30/2008, -0/+14So tv-link sites should be hosted in Canadia?
  • bethieanne, on 10/29/2008, -1/+14it seems as though the first round is won, but if he fights enough then a judge somewhere will agree with him, and then the rules will change once more
  • Bogo, on 10/29/2008, -0/+11As rare an occasion as it may be, this time I actually wasn't poking fun at the northern brethren (although I really would have enjoyed it). Simply put, while definitely a good decision, it doesn't carry a huge amount of weight, as it was done by a provincial Supreme Court (the equivalent of one of our state Supreme Courts).

    While not insignificant, it's not necessarily going to be a landmark case used to determine the outcomes of US court or European court cases.
  • keithloughnane, on 10/30/2008, -0/+10There is no geographical distance on the Internet, well except in china.
  • NJank, on 10/30/2008, -0/+10I'm assuming an appeal is on the way. oh, wait. SUPREME court. that's about all there is to say then, huh?

    Well, that is, until a U.S. court says differently, and there's a company with a lot of money who would like Canada to say differently as well. Corruption always finds a way.
  • ivencente, on 10/29/2008, -4/+13@Bogo hey, stop dissing Canada. At least they got good beer and comedians. Sure they live in igloos, but igloos are cool in a cool frosty way.
  • Kinneas12, on 10/30/2008, -1/+7This is a no-brainer case and being tried in Canada means there really was no chance for this going any other way. Freedom of Speech up here is taken very seriously and it takes a LOT for a court to limit someone's.
  • Hyperion1144, on 10/30/2008, -0/+6Now if we can only get that awful Australian net filter stopped.
  • inactive, on 10/30/2008, -0/+5Epic win.
  • kJoe, on 10/30/2008, -0/+4I definitely digg this, being from Canada and BC!
  • FENWAYFREAK, on 10/30/2008, -0/+4Crookes has clearly lost this battle, but he is not done yet, as he is still involved in lawsuits with Google, Yahoo! and several weblogs including Michal Geist’s.

    Do we have a new Jack Thompson already?
  • damien1989, on 10/30/2008, -0/+3Dont spam on Digg you ***** Knob Head, We dont want to go to your Stupid website! We wana celebrate this Win for The Internet!
  • philodygmn, on 10/30/2008, -0/+3Where the hell was this in 1999/2000 for Club 2600 when they needed it against the MPAA over linking to deCSS?! Oh! That's right, free speech didn't have enough DAMNED MONEY BEHIND IT to be paid any attention by goverment plutocrats, in _that_ case!
  • MarkOfTheDead, on 10/30/2008, -0/+2Such practices are understandable in this day and age where once you purchase software and it doesn't work, you're screwed. The store won't take it back and the publisher will not help you.

    Especially when It's an issue that doesn't fit into the standard scope of system requirements, but moreso you happen to get crashes on startup or something else that ends up blamed on the end-user.

    Until these policies are more relaxed, people can and will download first and buy later.I can't speak for everyone, but I pay for whatever I keep on my system, If it won't run I only wasted my bandwidth and a blank disc, not half a day's pay.
  • Matri, on 10/30/2008, -0/+2And Kentucky.
  • InspectorGadget, on 10/30/2008, -0/+2"Since the case is about linking, the outcome will have implications for all websites on the Internet, including BitTorrent sites."

    Torrentfreak is vastly overstating the importance and establishment of international law. Canadian courts don't really set precedent for the rest of the world except by reference or analogy in marginal cases with little domestic precedent.
  • DarkerMaster, on 10/30/2008, -0/+2PHINALLY
  • tylermenezes, on 10/30/2008, -0/+1Hardly a victory, just a short-term one. The lobbyists will have linking to copyrighted material made illegal just like everything else. Except now Google will be forced to remove it from their indexes.
  • atarijedi, on 10/30/2008, -0/+1Contrary to popular conception, igloo's can be quite warm, I have even seen fire-pits built inside them with chimneys.
  • Matri, on 10/30/2008, -0/+1WTF??

    +4294967295 / -8

    WTF??
  • inactive, on 10/30/2008, -0/+1How about people linking to my hard software (OverGrab) and I've worked very hard on it (over a year now continuing it), but you continue to think that linking doesn't affect anyone.
    http://www.overgrab.com
    If you even Google for my site's name you can find null release the latest version on the 2nd one down below my site's homepage.

    It makes developers like me unsure whether to continue to do what I do because its affecting sales. Yesterday I caught someone trying to sell a site using a nulled version of my software. :(
  • inactive, on 10/30/2008, -0/+1Weird, I could swear that I just the ghost of my hope for humanity appear before me for a second
  • MarkOfTheDead, on 10/30/2008, -0/+1Anyone else find his name Ironic?
  • gerogerohey, on 10/31/2008, -0/+0When they start censoring the net, they hold back alot of progress. Just let it be a free for all and maybe it might reach the next technology revolution. ;)
  • arkaycee, on 10/30/2008, -0/+0The US has said differently, sadly. Remember the whole thing about linking to DeCSS sites? (google "DeCSS hyperlink" for more).
  • lolwutpear, on 10/30/2008, -2/+1hukt on fonix?

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.