This is what it says, the editor just mangled it a bit. It's missing context. The government is relying on copyright case law, which traditionally distinguishes "in-line" linking from "embedded" linking. This is neither: it's a traditional link, and so their reliance on that is flawed.
- - -
First, republishing the hyperlink did not make the Stratfor file available to others. As explained above, the “hyperlink” was a text string that conveyed a location where the Stratfor file could be found, and nothing more. The conveyance of information regarding the location of data is not a crime under 1028 because unlike “in-line” or embedded links, the hyperlink that Mr. Brown republished did not contain any Stratfor file data. Second, the sharing of location information is not sufficient for criminal liability under Section 1028 because to hold otherwise would stretch interpretation of the statute far beyond the reach that Congress intended.
Indeed, the conduct complained of in LiveNation is known as “inline linking”—where an infringing website acts as a portal or frame for infringed content sourced at another website. In LiveNation, the “inline linking” on the infringer’s site allowed the web-surfer to “display” (or listen to) protected material without having to leave the infringer’s webpage. In copyright cases, courts have distinguished “in-line” linking for purposes of liability. As illustrated above, an “in-line link” refers to the process whereby a webpage can incorporate by reference (and arguably cause to be “displayed”) content stored on another website. By contrast, “traditional” linking (as is alleged in this case) transports the user to the linked-to page without incorporating third-party content via “in-line” linking or framing. This has been held to not constitute direct infringement, in the copyright context, even if the linked-to page is infringing. By contrast, Mr. Brown’s alleged republication of a hyperlink in a chat room cannot be described as “in-line” or “embedded” linking.
