\u201cKind of amazing to see how our standards of hotness, and the art of commercial erotic photography, have changed over time,\u201d Jardin commented.<\/p>\n
While the linked material undoubtedly appealed to many readers, Playboy itself took offense to the fact that infringing copies of their work were being shared in public. While Boing Boing didn\u2019t upload or store the images in question, the publisher filed a lawsuit late last year.<\/p>\n
The blog\u2019s parent company Happy Mutants was accused of various counts of copyright infringement, with Playboy claiming that it exploited their playmates\u2019 images for commercial purposes.<\/p>\n
Boing Boing saw things differently. With help from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) it filed a\u00a0motion to dismiss<\/a>, arguing that hyperlinking is not copyright infringement. If Playboy would\u2019ve had their way, millions of other Internet users could be sued for linking too.<\/p>\n \u201cThis case merely has to survive a motion to dismiss to launch a thousand more expensive lawsuits, chilling a broad variety of lawful expression and reporting that merely adopts the common practice of linking to the material that is the subject of the report,\u201d they wrote.<\/p>\n This effectively means that Playboy\u2019s complaint has been thrown out. However, the company is offered a lifeline and is allowed to submit a new one if they can properly back up their copyright infringement allegations.<\/p>\n \u201cThe court will grant defendant\u2019s Motion and dismiss plaintiff\u2019s First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. In preparing the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff shall carefully evaluate the contentions set forth in defendant\u2019s Motion.<\/p>\n \u201cFor example, the court is skeptical that plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts to support either its inducement or material contribution theories of copyright infringement,\u201d Judge Olguin adds.<\/p>\n According to the order, it is not sufficient to argue that Boing Boing merely \u2018provided the means\u2019 to carry out copyright infringing activity. There also has to be a personal action that \u2018assists\u2019 the infringing activity.<\/p>\n Playboy has until the end of the month to submit a new complaint and if it chooses not to do so, the case will be thrown out.<\/p>\n The order is clearly a win for Boing Boing, which vehemently opposed Playboy\u2019s claims. While the order is clear, it must come as a surprise to the magazine publisher, which won a similar\u00a0\u2018hyperlinking\u2019 lawsuit<\/a>\u00a0in the European Court of Justice last year.<\/p>\n EFF, who defend Boing Boing, is happy with the order and hopes that Playboy will leave it at this.<\/p>\n \u201cFrom the outset of this lawsuit, we have been puzzled as to why Playboy, once a staunch defender of the First Amendment, would attack a small news and commentary website,\u201d EFF comments<\/p>\n \u201cToday\u2019s decision leaves Playboy with a choice: it can try again with a new complaint or it can leave this lawsuit behind. We don\u2019t believe there\u2019s anything Playboy could add to its complaint that would meet the legal standard. We hope that it will choose not to continue with its misguided suit.\u201d<\/p>\n A copy of US District Court Judge Fernando Olguin\u2019s order is available\u00a0here (pdf)<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n Source: \u00a0![\"\"](\"https:\/\/torrentfreak.com\/images\/playboynolink.jpg\")
<\/center>Yesterday US District Court Judge Fernando Olguin ruled on the matter. In a brief order, he concluded that an oral argument is not needed and that based on the arguments from both sides, the case should be dismissed with leave.<\/p>\n![\"TorrentFreak\"](\"http:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/torrentfreak.png\")
<\/a> TorrentFreak.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"