Read the rest of the article at ZDNet, here.
What's interesting - and worrying - about this case is that Cooper did not actually reproduce the copyrighted material himself, nor did he host it (provide a place to store it) himself. Instead, he simply linked to it from his web site.
I don't know exactly what the law says in regard to this - but I am disturbed that this kind of activity can be considered illegal. Without reading the relevant act(s) I can't say whether it's the lawmakers or the judges to blame (i.e. those who write the law or those who interpret it) but this raises some serious issues for general freedom of the individual.
As a website maintainer, I can acknowledge that I am (now) aware that I'm not allow to link to copyrighted material which has been posted illegally. I can even see that as a reasonable requirement, on face value. But when you get beneath the skin things start to get more complicated.
What if I link to something without realising that it's illegally posted, or even that it is under copyright? What if the owner of the site I link to tells me (either individually or via a general claim) that the material is posted legally, even though it is not? What if I post a link to a site, which at some later date illegally posts some copyrighted material?
The big question that this raises is: why does the law protect big business interests - sometimes in ways which restrict individual freedoms in an unreasonable manner?
After all, how is it a breach of copyright law to link to another site, even if that other site does contain copyrighted material? Stephen Cooper is essentially a third party - he does not provide the material, and he is not alleged to have downloaded it himself. This is somewhat analogous to some person telling another how to do something which is illegal, and getting arrested for it themself. If I tell you where you can seem some graffiti, is that illegal activity on my behalf? Or if I tell you where you can buy some illegal drugs? These are not complete analogies, but hopefully they serve to point out how ridiculous this whole thing is.
The whole copyright issue has just been blown way out of proportion, and always in favour of the copyright holders - who are mostly large corporations (such as music labels and film production companies). Copyright terms keep getting extended in the USA, and with the so called "free trade agreement" Australia has agreed to keep its own laws in line with those of the US.
It's already gotten to the point that, in Australia, it is not legal
to buy a CD and make a copy so that you can listen to in the car as well as
in the stereo at home, or copy it on to your computer as an MP3 so you can
listen to it as part of your large collection. The situation is ridiculous,
and it's rapidly becoming ludicrous. When is the goverment going to realise
this?