Linking to Copyrighted Material Ruled Illegal

Utah Assault on Internet Basics

Whoa! The Internet is littered with copyrighted material, including this on-line electronic magazine. It is incredible that a judge can rule someone in violation of the law for linking to a site where such material may or may not be published with the permission of the copyright holder.

For example, if this were the "real world," would the New York Times be crimalized for telling it's readers where materials could be found, even IF the Times didn't actually reproduce the questionable material. Of course not - this is absurd!

In fact, Sandra Tanner says "How does the court determine anyone didn't get copies from [a] Salt Lake Tribune article? They're not going after the paper," Tanner added, "The newspaper has written about the case and included the disputed URLs."

Here's the worst part of the judges argument: they didn't even provide links!!!! The Tanners just listed the URLs that led to the Church Handbook of Instructions, a Mormon document that provides lay clergy with procedures and guidelines.

The Tanners' lawyer argued this very point. Since the couple were acting strictly as intermediaries — an anonymous source pointed them toward the text — they were not guilty of direct copyright infringement.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a non-profit group that studies cyberspace freedom of expression issues, has entered into the fray.

"It has never been illegal for someone to say 'Go down to Joe's warehouse. He has pirated CDs down there'," said Robin Gross, staff attorney for the San Francisco-based foundation. "These restrictions represents a huge leap (in the law)."

Last week, the Tanner's lawyers notified the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver that they are appealing Judge Campbell's preliminary injunction banning their clients from displaying the Internet addresses on their Web site.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has promised to get involved by filing its own brief expressing its reservations about the restriction.

In fairness, the Tanners already faced one injunction preventing them from publishing the materials themselves on their website.

On the other hand, as a result of the publicity, the Internet is now littered with complete copies of the handbook. Most sites are outside the United States or are "free web sites' that can be operated with relative anonymity. Check out David Gerard's blistering article (published in Australia).

But what is the REAL issue here? Like the Ford vs. Blue Oval News case, copyright infringement is a Trojan horse. The real issue is that The Utah Lighthouse Ministry is an active anti-Mormon voice.

The supposedly copyrighted materials are a "private handbook" for church leaders, not a published, money generating project of the church. What does the Mormon Church really want? Could it be to shut down, or at least cripple, a voice of opposition?

Time Magazine, in it's on-line edition said, "This is a whole new category of information, and it leads to a whole new category of copyright law. This case opens up a can of worms many in the communications arena ardently hoped would remain tightly sealed. Since the advent of web sites, communications analysts have argued that applying the same copyright laws to Internet material as are applied to physical books or music would slow the transfer of information on the Web, ostensibly negating a primary purpose of the medium: the free exchange of information."

The WIZARD will monitor this case daily. This is only a preliminary injunction. Internet copyright law is still in its formative stages. But this case could have incredible impact. The Wizard is very hopeful this judge will apply the "real world" standard that we always propose. Since the URL's were published by the Salt Lake City Tribune, this case ought to be thrown right out of court!

An excellent new article appeared January 5, 1999 in the Salt Lake City Tribune.