Canadian fed court: linking isn't copyright infringement, neither is excerpting an article (http://boingboing.net/2012/06/25/canadian-fed-court-linking-is.html)

The Federal Court of Canada has issued an important decision involving copyright and posting content online. The case involves a lawsuit launched by Richard Warman and the National Post against Mark and Constance Fournier, who run the FreeDominion website. the article was 11 paragraphs long. The reproduction on the Free Dominion site included the headline, three complete paragraphs and part of a fourth. The court ruled that this amount of copying did not constitute a "substantial part" of the work and therefore there was no infringement. The court added that in the alternative, the reproduction of the work was covered by fair dealing, concluding that a large and liberal interpretation of news reporting would include posts to the discussion forum. The decision then includes an analysis of the six factor test and concludes that the use was fair.This finding should put an end to claims that linking to copyright materials somehow raises potential legal risks. The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled against attributing defamation to such links and now the Federal Court has concluded that links cannot be said to constitute unauthorized copying.

(BoingBoing (http://boingboing.net/2012/06/25/canadian-fed-court-linking-is.html))

Oh boy, may the insults by linking beginning..
LOL - slander by linking.. this is gonna be fun in the courts now..

so one could slander by linking a false link but the damage would be done... and not be liable..
this is awful.

This is good news indeed. Finally some common sense being applied.

Oh boy, may the insults by linking beginning..
LOL - slander by linking.. this is gonna be fun in the courts now..

so one could slander by linking a false link but the damage would be done... and not be liable..
this is awful.

You clearly have no understanding of the ruling, or what it applies to.

The ruling covers copyright infringement, not slander or libel. They aren't even remotely similar.

You clearly have no understanding of the ruling, or what it applies to.

The ruling covers copyright infringement, not slander or libel. They aren't even remotely similar.

i guess i mis read it. thank you for informing me. :)

This is good news indeed. Finally some common sense being applied.
Hope it does indeed show common sense prevailing. It does depend; If the powers that crack the whip over the PM's head let it stand then all is well. If new legislation is drafted to sidestep the ruling then the insanity begins anew.

This is proof that sense still does exist in the world. Good news.

This is proof that sense still does exist in the world. Good news.

Or at least acknowledgement that these horses left the barn a long time ago.