So, according to this article
, watching copyrighted videos online via an embedding site is not infringing/illegal as currently defined. Nor is running a profitable embedding/advertising site.
As I understand it, said profitable embedding/advertising site, as an entity making use of an unedited copyrighted work for financial gain without a license, would *become* illegal under PPNZ policy as it currently stands.
Do people agree with this interpretation of current policy? If this *is* our policy, do people see that as a good thing?
I for one like the idea, especially the clear implication that PPNZ thinks copyright should cover money made from a work, instead of anything at all to do with making copies of a work.
I think this looks like it refers to a USA case. I think this
(linked) looks like a copy of the list of restricted acts under USA law, and it doesn't seem to contain 'authorising' a restricted act (which is the basis on which the Australian case was decided), so IMHO, from what I can see, I think this is the correct interpretation of USA law.
[EDIT: Regarding our policy, I think the intention was to allow hash codes of files, but not linking. I think under Swedish law linking was deemed illegal, but hash codes were deemed legal, however it looks like Swedish copyright law is different again from USA and Australia/NZ, so I don't know if that means anything for us.]