I think the court has ruled 'correctly' under present law. The fact that the law is an ass and has not kept up to date with new technology is the real problem here!
Any other ruling by the court would have been eassily overturned on appeal, for 'copyright' on web pages and the contents thereof does exist. It is simple question for the court, can a website and website owner take copies or benefits from another website without permission. The answer is obviously 'No'.
The analogy of the arguement used in the article further shows a total lack of understanding of the law. It is not for an 'owner' to defend his property, the 'property' should be defended by commonly accepted behaviour and the laws pertaining to such. If a street trader has his goods displayed to the public in the open air is it permissable, legally or morally, for someone to come along and just take such goods without paying for them or without the permission of the street vendor? Of course it is not. But the arguement put forward in the article is that if the 'goods' were on display without them being guarded then no crime would be committed by the person taking the goods. What about garden ornaments in a garden? If someone comes and takes them because they are not 'protected' then according to the arguement put forth in the article still no crime would have been committed by the 'thieves'!
Now to the main point of this case as I see it. The law has failed to keep up to datre with the rapid evolution of the internet. This has not been helped by such companies as Google, Yahoo, etc., who I can actually see not wanting the law clarrified. It would be a massive blow to their accounts as almost certainly the law would require that such search engines would have to pay royalties to 'all' website owners when they, the comapnies mentioned, benefitted either financially or in kind by linking to websites. Now this is the reason these companies would rather bury their heads in the sand (and their bodies and shadows - for they do not want to be caught up in this at all).
Oh, and by the way, those of you who agree with the arguement put forward in the article, should you get ever get assaulted just remember the law as you want it would mean that if you were not wearing full body armour, surrounded by a phalanx of armed body guards, etc., then your injuries are your fault and not those of the assailent, for you did not protect yourself!
Just something to think about.
