Which is very misleading, because they aren't saying you have to share your source.
The author didn't have to repeat that you have to mention the link to the original website because that's already been said twice in the Court's decision which is quoted in the article. See points 25 and 27.
In the circumstances of this case, it must be observed that making available the works concerned by means of a clickable link, such as that in the main proceedings, does not lead to the works in question being communicated to a new public.
In those circumstances, it must be held that, where all the users of another site to whom the works at issue have been communicated by means of a clickable link could access those works directly on the site on which they were initially communicated, without the involvement of the manager of that other site, the users of the site managed by the latter must be deemed to be potential recipients of the initial communication and, therefore, as being part of the public taken into account by the copyright holders when they authorised the initial communication.
I've made a post compiling our short convo on this and also gave an example.
Just because it's online, doesn't mean you can grab it and use it without giving due credit.
That's true. That's illegal and if you do that you're committing fraud if I'm not mistaken. The article didn't imply that though.
As long as you mention the source, you can grab any text, photograph, video, audio, artwork and copy/paste on your website, and even earn money from it. This especially applies to Steemit.
You can post a video of Taylor Swift here on Steemit and earn money from that. By embedding the video in your post you haven't infringed on any copyright.
The author might not have had to tell us everything that was in the ruling, but the way the article was written, especially the first paragraph (the one most people read and maybe skip the rest), does feel very misleading without this piece of extra information. If you read the first paragraphy now, anyone will think they can just grab anything off the web and use it for whatever online (public) purpose they want and nowhere does it say that credit is needed. That's what bugs me about this article.
Mentioning the source is a big part. It's a huge deal actually and the most important one from any artist/writer's point of view. Them hardly mentioning that part is quite a discredit towards artists/writers, because people steal online content enough as it is.
I know my Taylor Swift example wasn't well explained and it's quite hard to think of anyone not knowing it's Taylor Swift. With my example, I meant that if you post it as if you made that song, sang it, were the girl in the video, etc. (yes, unbelievable, but just imagine it for a sec) and then you earn from it, that could get you into trouble. You need to make clear that it's not your video for things to be okay.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure we're on the same page, I just found the article you linked to be very misleading to anyone skimming over it, whether they had to share something or not.