The analysis of the DMCA Safe Harbor status in this article is incorrect. Subsection (a) -- "Transitory Digital Network Communications" -- is just one of four distinct ways in which a service provider can qualify for Safe Harbor status. (The author is correct only in that it doesn't apply to Pinterest.) Of the three others, the most relevant for Pinterest is subsection (c), "Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users".
In any case, links are not copyrightable works, so the fact that Pinterest is modifying them to alter or remove affiliate tags is most likely irrelevant.
A link doesn't need to be a copyrightable work for the "material" posted by a user to be considered altered. What matters is how a court defines "material" and whether or not the court would define that "material" as modified by the service provider or not.
For some reason, it seems likely to me that they are doing this so that they can eventually add their own partner/affiliate tracking. It could be the only real viable model for them.
Pinterest would be a even greater risk if they were to apply their own affiliate links to other people's copyrighted content. By putting a monetization model on other people's content, they would instantly lose any possibility of making a fair use claim.
I would suspect that a judge would be eminently willing to hear an argument that such a modification isn't really substantial and need not indicate the sort of editorial control that the law is considering when talking about who qualifies for various protections. It's far from clear that s/&refererId=.*//g exposes them to additional liability.
[+] [-] duskwuff|14 years ago|reply
In any case, links are not copyrightable works, so the fact that Pinterest is modifying them to alter or remove affiliate tags is most likely irrelevant.
Read the whole thing for details: https://images.chillingeffects.org/512.html
[+] [-] jakeludington|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codexon|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] apgwoz|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] draggnar|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jakeludington|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jakeludington|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fennecfoxen|14 years ago|reply