on-line defamation decision, eh

A Canadian court has recently handed down what seems like an eminently sensible judgment concerning defamation on the Internet: story/judgment.  In essence, the decision means that (for Canadian purposes) linking to a defamatory web page does not itself amount to defamation.  The Supreme Court of British Columbia drew an analogy between hyperlinks and footnotes, which seems appropriate:

Where a footnote leads a reader to further material, that does not make the author who provided the footnote a publisher of what the reader finds when the footnote is followed.

A hyperlink is like a footnote or a reference to a website in printed material such as a newsletter. The purpose of a hyperlink is to direct the reader to additional material from a different source. The only difference is the ease with which a hyperlink allows the reader, with a simple click of the mouse, to instantly access the additional material.

Although a hyperlink provides immediate access to material published on another website, this does not amount to republication of the content on the originating site. This is especially so as a reader may or may not follow the hyperlinks provided.

A couple of takes on the significance of the decision from the defendants to similar actions by the same plaintiff: one, two.

This precedent may give some direction in Australia, where our courts have unfortunately ruled in the past that a hyperlink to a website which infringes copyright can amount to authorisation of that infringement: Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Cooper [2005] FCA 972 (isn’t this like saying that giving someone directions to the red light district “authorises” prostitution and drug dealing?).

(Story originally sighted on slashdot).