Comment by gmueckl
5 years ago
In German law, if you add a link to another site somewhere on your own site, you take responsibility for the content on the site you link you. You are required to check for that or face liability. This the result of years of court cases around this matter. And courts don't usually understand much about the web, let alone tech in general.
So while involving lawyers every time is definitely high on the CYA scale, it may make sense to run some instances by a lawyer to be safe(er). The subsidiary's website shouldn't generally be much of a problem, though.
Even in the US I’ve had pushback from lawyers about external links from websites and other official content. The idea is that it’s something of a tacit endorsement.
Yes it’s being conservative but the lawyers definitely prefer fewer links where possible and I’ve had them ask me to remove quite a few.
I am very curious to know if the rule of "being responsible to the link a website links to" applies transitively, i.e. a link in the link my website link to. If applies, then can the law be interpreted as my website needs to be responsible to the entire internet. On the flip side, if the rule only applies to one layer deep, then a url shortener would defeat the whole law
The rule applies to the content you end up seeing after your browser follows all automatic redirects and possibly even interstitials (ads/disclaimers). Redirects are an irrelevant technical detail in this context.
Are they expected to continually monitor the linked website? What happens if they add the link and then a week later something "bad" is added to some sub-page of the linked website?
A quick search seems to indicate that yes, you might be responsible for linking to the altered content. As a website author you have - in principle - a duty to check what you are linking to. It is unclear what that means in practice. I would guess that it would involve a test if timely detection of alteres content on the linked site would have imposed an undue burden. The only part that is absolutely certain is that a website owner must react if they are notified that they are linking to illegal content. Other than that, it's seemingly a grey area.
So how many times have each of the search engines been sued?
Guess why the remaining search engines are so good at classifying certain types of sites of the "adult entertainment" and and other such types?
I am not sure if the courts distinguish between automatically generated pages and authored/curated content that involves human input in its creation. Courts haven't been exactly consistent on these points.
Plenty of times. Have you ever seen a notice from Google referencing chillingeffects.org at the end of your search results?
Has ever happened and does this also cover newspapers?
Yes, I remember a high profile German tech news site involved in at least one such legal battle. If memory serves, it revolved around a link to Alcohol 120%, a tool to rip copy protected disks. The news site lost the case, I think.
Well duh linking to software with an illegal use is not the same as linking to a site that sells freezer cabinets to super markets and comer stores.