For two decades, courts have consistently held that linking or embedding content from another website—be it a photo, music, or an article—does not violate copyright law. The liability for infringement typically rests with the entity controlling the server hosting the copyrighted work, not the user or website merely directing others to it. News publisher **Emmerich Newspapers** challenged this long-standing precedent, arguing before the **Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals** that an aggregator website linking to its copyrighted articles was, in effect, "displaying" them and should be directly liable for infringement. The **Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)**, alongside other public interest organizations, filed an amicus brief urging the court to reject this theory, which could have profoundly negative implications for the internet. ### The Court's Crucial Decision Fortunately, the **Fifth Circuit** sided with the established understanding of online linking. While the court diverged from the traditional "server test"—which places copyright liability on the party serving up the content—it arrived at the same practical conclusion by focusing on who is responsible for *transmitting* content. Applying this refined test, the court determined that directing a user's browser to request and receive a copyright owner's own copy, residing on their servers, does not involve transmitting or communicating the content by the linking site. As the court stated, "Although we take different routes to get there, both the server test and the test we announce end up in a similar place: a website cannot transmit a work that it does not have." ### Protecting Online Expression The **EFF** had warned the court that accepting **Emmerich's** theory would render the common act of embedding links a legally perilous activity. Such a ruling would deter many websites from linking, severely damaging the internet's role as a tool for disseminating ideas and knowledge. This decision is a crucial win for maintaining the open and interconnected nature of the web. ### DMCA Claims Also Rejected **Emmerich** also attempted to argue that linking violated the **Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)**. They claimed that their URLs constituted Copyright Management Information (CMI), and that when the aggregator displayed **Emmerich's** articles under its own URL, it tampered with their CMI, a violation of the **DMCA**. This interpretation could have exposed unsuspecting internet users to ruinous legal risks for simple actions like using a link shortener, with potential statutory penalties reaching up to $25,000 per violation. In its brief, the **EFF** countered that URLs are primarily locational references and do not inherently equate to a copyrighted work or provide sufficient information to be considered CMI. Quoting the **EFF's** brief, the court concluded that while it may be *possible* for a URL to contain CMI, the bar for such a conclusion is high. URLs are first and foremost a navigational tool. Overall, this sensible decision protects ordinary online expression, communication, and access to knowledge, reinforcing the foundational principles of the internet that IT security professionals and privacy-conscious users rely upon daily. This ruling hopefully lays this issue to rest, securing the future of linking and embedding as essential components of the digital landscape.