The Monastery has no "common carrier" protection, nor would fit the safe harboring provisions of the DMCA.

Can you cite a single instance of US caselaw where the operator of a site which merely linked to infringing material has been found liable under the DMCA, except for where the site:

• exists primarily to link to infringing materials,
• links to devices primarily intended to circumvent DRM, or
• links to externally-hosted infringing material in an attempt to circumvent an injunction against hosting infringing material itself?

As an author and copyright holder myself, I find it exceedingly rude to see my copyrights infringed as well, but the idea of issuing takedown notices to places such as PerlMonks for merely linking to infringing work (and that, often, unintentionally) is more unpalatable than the linguistic trick of equating copyright infringement to violent, extranational thievery.