If it’s the court’s conclusion that the person publishing the link assumes liability, does this mean that the actual web publisher of the infringing material is not liable or has now had some of that liability transferred to the link’s publisher?
But I also think nothing about a URL can be construed as infringing of copyright per se, and what some service may or may not provide as a response to that link is a completely ephemeral thing for which they are also solely liable. A picture of a thing is not the same as the thing itself, and a URL hyperlink to a web object is not the same as the web object itself. Am I going astray to say so?
