The Digital Syndicate | TDS

•••• [ NEWS ] [ LINKS ] [ SOFTWARE ] | [ + ] | [ README!.1ST••••

#Imprint #LegalDisclosure #Disclaimer #AllRightsReserved #Readme.txt

1. Information in accordance with section § 5 TMG:

Thomas, S.
Lyoner Str. XYZ
60528 Niederrad



2. Person responsible for content in accordance with 55 Abs. 2 RStV:

Thomas, S.
Lyoner Str. XYZ
60528 Niederrad

Associations, Executive Officers, Friends, Groups, Partnerships, Family

3. Indication of source for images and graphics:

Books, DeviantArt, E-Mail, Facebook, Google, Mobile, TV, Twitter, WhatsApp

4. Disclaimer:

4a. Accountability for content

The contents of our pages have been created with the most care. However,
we cannot guarantee the contents' accuracy, completeness or topicality.
According to statutory provisions, we are furthermore responsible for our own
content on these web pages. In this context, please note that we are accordingly
not obliged to monitor merely the transmitted or saved information of third parties,
or investigate circumstances pointing to illegal activity. Our obligations to remove
or block the use of information under generally applicable laws remain unaffected
by this as per §§ 8 to 10 of the Telemedia Act (TMG).

4b. Accountability for links

Responsibility for the content of external links (to web pages of third parties)
lies solely with the operators of the linked pages. No violations were evident
to us at the time of linking. Should any legal infringement become known to us,
we will remove the respective link immediately.

4c. Copyright

Our web pages and their contents are subject to German copyright law. Unless
expressly permitted by law (§ 44a et seq. of the copyright law), every form of
utilizing, reproducing or processing works subject to copyright protection on
our web pages requires the prior consent of the respective owner of the rights.
Individual reproductions of a work are allowed only for private use, so must not
serve either directly or indirectly for earnings. Unauthorized utilization of
copyrighted works is punishable (§ 106 of the copyright law).

5. Examples:

5a. Hyperlinking is not copyright infringement, EU court rules

Does publishing a hyperlink to freely available content amount
to an illegal communication to the public and therefore a breach
of creator's copyrights under European law? After examining a case
referred to it by Sweden's Court of Appeal, the Court of Justice
of the European Union has ruled today that no, it does not.

The European Union has been expanding since its creation in the
1950s and is now comprised of 28 member states, each committed
to EU law.

One of the key roles of the EU's Court of Justice is to examine
and interpret EU legislation to ensure its uniform application
across all of those member states. The Court is also called upon
by national courts to clarify finer points of EU law to progress
local cases with Europe-wide implications.

One such case, referred to the CJEU by Sweden's Court of Appeal,
is of particular interest to Internet users as it concerns the
very mechanism that holds the web together.

The dispute centers on a company called Retriever Sverige AB,
an Internet-based subscription service that indexes links to
articles that can be found elsewhere online for free.

The problem came when Retriever published links to articles
published on a newspaper's website that were written by Swedish
journalists. The company felt that it did not have to compensate
the journalists for simply linking to their articles, nor did it
believe that embedding them within its site amounted to copyright

The journalists, on the other hand, felt that by linking to their
articles Retriever had "communicated" their works to the public
without permission. In the belief they should be paid, the
journalists took their case to the Stockholm District Court.
They lost their case in 2010 and decided to take the case to appeal.
From there the Svea Court of Appeal sought advice from the EU Court.

Today the Court of Justice published its lengthy decision and it's
largely good news for the Internet.

"In the circumstances of this case, it must be observed that making
available the works concerned by means of a clickable link, such as
that in the main proceedings, does not lead to the works in question
being communicated to a new public," the Court writes.

"The public targeted by the initial communication consisted of all
potential visitors to the site concerned, since, given that access
to the works on that site was not subject to any restrictive measures,
all Internet users could therefore have free access to them," it adds.

"Therefore, since there is no new public, the authorization of the
copyright holders is not required for a communication to the public
such as that in the main proceedings."

However, the ruling also makes it clear that while publishing a link
to freely available content does not amount to infringement, there are
circumstances where that would not be the case.

"Where a clickable link makes it possible for users of the site on which
that link appears to circumvent restrictions put in place by the site on
which the protected work appears in order to restrict public access to
that work to the latter site's subscribers only, and the link accordingly
constitutes an intervention without which those users would not be able
to access the works transmitted, all those users must be deemed to be a
new public," the Court writes.

So, in basic layman's terms, if content is already freely available after
being legally published and isn't already subject to restrictions such as
a subscription or pay wall, linking to or embedding that content does not
communicate it to a new audience and is therefore not a breach of EU law.

The decision, which concurs with the opinions of a panel of scholars,
appears to be good news for anyone who wants to embed a YouTube video
in their blog or Facebook page, but bad news for certain collecting
societies who feel that embedding should result in the payment of a
licensing fee.

5b. Hyperlinking Isn't Illegal: The Bulk of Barrett Brown's Charges
Were Dropped

Today federal prosecutors requested that the main charge in Barrett
Brown's case-which stemmed from the pasting of a hyperlink containing
leaked credit card data from the Statfor hack-be dismissed, along
with 10 other charges. The motion to dismiss filed by prosecutors
is a big victory for Brown, who was facing more than a century in
prison, as well as advocates of information freedom and journalists.

The biggest concern all along has been that if Brown were convicted
of sharing a hyperlink, it might well dissuade journalists and
bloggers (or anyone else, really) from undertaking similar actions
in their work. With that now derailed, the case now stands as good
precedent that sharing a link to freely available information as
part of a journalistic investigation is not an illegal act.

To briefly recap the case, Brown originally copied and pasted the
Stratfor hyperlink from #AnonOps IRC (Internet Relay Chat) to
#ProjectPM IRC (a relay under Brown's control) as part of ProjectPM,
the imprisoned journalist's effort to unmask the cyber-spy-industrial
The leaked data included the email addresses of 860,000 Stratfor
subscribers, but also 60,000 credit card details. This data was
already available to the public when Brown pasted it to his
IRC, though that didn't stop the Department of Justice, from
claiming Brown's actions were illegal because of they made the
information more public.

The wisdom of pasting a hyperlink of stolen credit card information
into an IRC is worth a debate, but there is no indication that Brown
carried it out with any intent to defraud card holders. Instead,
Brown's ProjectPM team routinely scoured troves of both leaked
and public documents to illuminate the threads connecting US spy
bureaus, private intelligence firms (like Stratfor), programs like
TrapWire, Silicon Valley data analytics firms like Palantir,
as well as banks, venture capitalists and angel investors like
Peter Thiel, and other intelligence contractors.

In short, Brown occupied himself with some of the same work that
Edward Snowden would later pursue with his massive NSA leaks.

While prosecutors did not lay out their rationale in their motion
to dismiss 11 of 12 charges facing Brown, Brown's legal team
emphasized these ProjectPM objectives in its own 43-page motion.
In it, Brown's lawyers argued that the government had failed to
allege an offense (based on legal definitions of "authentication
feature" and "transfer"); penalized Brown for conduct protected
under the First Amendment (pasting the hyperlink); and prosecuted
him under Section 1028 and 1028A of US code of law, which is
"constitutionally vague and overbroad" relative to Brown's

The last point is critical. As Brown's attorneys wrote in the
motion, "A person of ordinary intelligence would have no meaningful
notice as to whether it was a crime to knowingly possess or transfer
an item that satisfies all the requirements of an authentication
feature but is not issued by a government entity." (An
authentication feature is a hologram, symbol, code, etc., issued
by a government entity.) The credit cards at issue in the hyperlink
were issued by private entities, not a government, making it
unlikely that the transfer of authentication features charge would
have held up in court.

Now that the hyperlink charge has been dismissed, journalists can
rest easier knowing that cutting and pasting leaked documents won't
land them a lengthy prison term, and the case lends weight to the
argument that hyperlinking is an act of free speech. Another point
worth highlighting in Brown's motion to dismiss is that even if the
law were precise in its fair warning language (as to the transfer
of authentication features), to prosecute on this basis would still
suppress protected speech.

The decision to drop the case also appears to settle (for now) the
question of whether or not journalists like Brown-as noted in the
motion to dismiss-run afoul of the law in undertaking press
activities such as "newsgathering and research (e.g. by downloading
content from a public website), or verification of sources (e.g. by
reading that content)." If this were illegal, then journalists might
not be able to verify sources and determine fact from fiction,
an integral part of the job.

It's also worth noting a section in Brown's motion to dismiss that
deals with the chilling effect that the hyperlink charges might
have had on cybersecurity research, which also requires dealing
with hacked data:

Private security researchers are often depended on by companies
like Stratfor to conduct unsolicited forensic analysis of data
dumps in order to find out who conducted the hacks and how future
attacks can be avoided. [See Nicole Perlroth, reporting from the
Web's Underbelly, NY TIMES, Feb 16, 2014.] In doing so, these
security researchers (many of whom analyzed the Stratfor hack)
knowingly transfer hacked data onto their systems.

Still, the ruling doesn't negate the enormous legal ordeal Brown
has faced-he spent more than a year in jail, not to mention legal
fees and a government gag order-which is a chilling effect of its own.

The government's case leaned heavily on charges relating to the
credit card data, and if there is a larger lesson to be learned here,
it might be that individuals probably shouldn't post hyperlinks
containing credit card information. Yet while credit card information
is pretty universally understood to be sensitive information,
such a distinction isn't always so clear.


DE = German
EN = English
X86 = 32Bit based system
X64 = 64Bit based system
7z = application/x-7z-compressed
KBPS = Kilobits Per Second
KB = Kilobyte
MB = Megabyte
GB = Gigabyte
ZIP = application/zip
* = recommended link



Copyright © 2012-2020 All Rights Reserved.