>On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby rules: >Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001

>On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby rules: >Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to establish whether the fact of posting, on a website, hyperlinks to protected works, which are freely available on another website without the consent of the copyright holder, constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of that provision, it is to be determined whether those links are provided without the pursuit of financial gain by a person who did not know or could not reasonably have known the illegal nature of the publication of those works on that other website or whether, on the contrary, those links are provided for such a purpose, a situation in which that knowledge must be presumed. That last sentence is a bit hard to follow, but it appears to say that linking to freely available third party content constitutes a communication to the public of the freely available third party content only if financial gain was pursued by the linking party when they understood the third party content to be "illegal". It is a seriously bad construation to infer that communication of public names (URLs) is a "communication to the public" of the actual third party content, unless the URL was designed by the third party for said content (however, in such case, the content was already communicated to the public by the third party).