Hyperlinks, control of access, and copyright

Who is responsible when someone follows a link to a document? The opening starts with the broader conflict behind that question. Copyright owners want protection for their work; web users want access to information. Think of an author who has written a book. Someone uploading an unauthorized copy is a real concern. But we should wait to see exactly which activity this argument addresses before treating every way of sharing access as the same thing.

The two sides haven't yet settled that issue. Some owners say stronger copyright law is necessary. My reaction is to ask whether technology could also help protect a document. The users' concern makes sense too, although pointing out that a restriction limits access doesn't automatically show the restriction is unjustified. At this stage, we have a dispute, not the writer's resolution.

The next paragraph narrows it to links. A printed reference tells you where to find another work; a hyperlink can take you there immediately. Existing copyright law permits suits against distributors of unauthorized copies, even when they didn't make those copies themselves. That creates the question we need to answer: does linking count as distributing a copy?

Keep A and B straight. A wrote the document and put it on a web page. B made a link to A's document. B hasn't been described as taking someone else's work and uploading a separate copy. If A chose to make the document available, why should merely directing people to it make B an infringer?

The answering-machine analogy makes that reaction concrete. A records an outgoing message for callers to hear. B gives someone A's telephone number. Sharing the number makes the message easier to reach, but A is still the person making it available. B hasn't recorded and distributed a separate copy of the message.

The argument applies that distinction to the web. B facilitates access; A controls it. A can change the page or restrict entry. That's why linking to this author-posted document is different from making or distributing an unauthorized copy. The claim is about access to the particular work A has offered, not a rule that everything online loses copyright protection.

Now the practical alternative appears: passwords. An owner can limit access without making everyone who links to the page face an infringement suit. The unlisted-number comparison serves the same purpose—give access only to selected people. This does reduce openness somewhat. The writer acknowledges that cost but thinks it is smaller than the cost of threatening links with litigation.

My broad prediction is that the writer opposes strengthening copyright law in the way proposed. The reason is more specific: linking doesn't transfer control of the document away from its author, and owners already have ways to restrict access. Expanding liability would therefore burden the web's free exchange of ideas without respecting the distinction between pointing to a document and distributing a copy.