Slashdot Mirror
Legality Of Linking To Be Tested In Court?
M-2 sent us a Wired story about (surprise) the RIAA's latest lawsuit. This one is against an MP3 site that links to pirated MP3s: and in some cases, it does so quite blatantly... but they aren't technically serving any copyrighted content themselves. The RIAA wants to shut the site down, but also get a ruling on if linking constitutes copyright infringement. The future of the Web pretty much hangs on the freedom to link, so it'll be interesting to see where this one goes.
"Further, hyperlinking does not itself involve a violation of the Copyright Act (whatever it may do for other claims) since no copying is involved. "
If this is true, then where's the basis for another lawsuit? Is the RIAA planning to take this up to the Supreme Court?
Hi,
Whilst I may be as pissed over this as the next Slashdotter, it's not really surprising is it? The RIAA do not "understand" the internet. To them, it represents something that is different and allows for open communication much more than ever before.
The RIAA (Record Industry Association of America) are all about keeping things closed. They exist because some group of people "artists" thought that they should implement some kind of industry hard boy to monitor what goes on and to crank down on anyone that so much as whistles the latest teeny pop song from Miss Spears without paying her record company a royalty. Not only would she be unlikely to receive any money that I paid in royalties, but she would be lead to believe that the RIAA had her best interests at heart.
So I am trying to establish the point that the RIAA represents everything which is closed and restricted in the record industry.
Now as I said, the internet comes along and all of a sudden the RIAA has a lot of potential "violations" of copyright and they decide to act. They have repeatedly attempted to have any online music initiatives quashed as soon as the started.
I'm not just talking about the illegal activities - don't you wonder why every artist doesn't have full versions of their videos online for streaming? etc.? It's not that the artist is concerned that a few technically minded, or even "script kiddies" would figure out how to store the poorer quality streamed content to watch later, it's that the RIAA and those like them have attempted to convince the artists and their record companies that there is no alternative to "stamping out" these internet users - and clearly every internet user is an obvious pirate (a-hoy there) waiting to happen.
The RIAA is in a somewhat different position than the MPAA as, currently, bandwidth offerings to end users in many developed parts of the world are plain crap. They are not really sufficient for anything like reasonable quality video to be streamed in real time and without latency issues. Hence the MPAA (don't get me started on the MPAA), although it acts like an idiot, doesn't have to worry so much. On the other hand, music can easily be encoded in to an mp3, vorbis, mpeg1-2, aac, , and whilst they may not be of the best quality at the reasonably "low" bit rates commonly offered online (in the 64-196kpbs range) they are perfectly reasonable for every day listening and indeed I am listing to a large playlist at the moment as I type this. Thus the RIAA is concerned about the "illegal" uses of "its" music. What they do not seem to realise is that the number of violators is proportionally very small. If you were to investigate each and every download through napster you would probably find that they represent less than 0.001% of the music purchasing population (or something). Such a small figure is clearly "unacceptable" from the RIAA's point of view, but then I ask you to investigate how much those users already pay to the RIAA and to record companies for the music that they listen to. How many of them (like myself) feel moral implications for downloading music that they have not licensed to listen to? When you take all of these actions in to account, I bet that the picture changes somewhat.
Now let's also think about the cost of purchasing music in this day and age - music is rediculoulsy expensive. I am currently listening to "Toca's Miracle" which came on a collective albulm. This was fairly expensive, but not too bad when one considers the cost of purchasing music singles. On the other hand, I have a copy of "Go Let It Out" from Oasis sitting here on my desk, which cost about £3 for just one song! If I had been able to purchase that song online and then download it to my peecee, I would probably have done so. I could then have avoided paying the costs for packaging and pressing and the CD itself. I haven't touched that CD in months, it is somewhere in my mp3 collection but I've not used the CD since I bought the music. If I could have a choice between bying a CD in the shop for music that I am likely to listen to in a CD player, to take with me in my portable, etc. or downloading and putting in to my collection and paying less, I believe less "piracy" would occur.
So I hope that I have established my points concerning the RIAA as a general organisation. Now let us consider their latest blunder.
Instead of supporting the enabling-technology of the internet, the RIAA has decided that it represents a (very very minor) "threat" to its business and so must therefore die. The RIAA knows full well that online music "piracy" is much smaller than they make it out to be and they also know fully the consequences of their actions.
They aren't just trying to have this one site shut down and to stop "illegal distribution of mp3s", they would like to have a legal precident for the linking to sensitive or illegal information established. The RIAA has no particular vested interest in the internet, their friends at the MPAA certainly do not. The many other groups that the represent and have associations with may use the internet ("because everyone else does"), but they'd happily return to 10 years ago when internet usage was not commonplace in the home (it still isn't relatively speaking) and what usage did occur was mostly educational in nature. Certainly the MPEG group didn't exist and such high compression codecs as we have today were "dreams" on a whiteboard somewhere. Back in the "dark old days", the RIAA had much more control over music distribution. They were able to clamp down far more easily on offenders because some kind of physical transfer was typically required. They are _scared_ of the internet and the tremendous possibilities ahead.
They have no vested interest in particular therefore they do not care if they try to destroy what they have created - as making responsible the linker would certainly do.
--
If you read this far then yes, I am karma whorin.
Jon.
http://www.jonmasters.org/
# Begin Rant I think people have to be a little more realistic about all this stuff going on with MP3z... I mean come on, we all know it' illegal. I certainly beleive that MP3z have a place in the market. It makes awesome promo material. In the eighties people traded bootleg tapes and copied tapes for their friends. Now the same is true for MP3z. Granted it takes place on on a much grander scale because of the easy at which people can trade via the internet, but I think both sides are really missing the point. MP3z and data transfer is here to stay! You can't stuff the toothpaste back in the tube or stop this craze in any way. RIAA should be focusing their resources on how to harness it not hinder it. At the same time however I think we should stop slaggin' people so hard about needing to make a buck. I agree they make too much money, but they still need jobs. Music can't be FREE if a musician wants to give away their music that's their perogative, but they can't have a label and do it. You want free music and to promote MP3z boycott the labels. They're the jerks in this whole stink. I on the other hand support artists like Limp Bizkit (The best band in the world), who embrace MP3z because they are a band for the people and people respect that. I download MP3z of my favorite artists like LB, RHCP and the HIP, but I still buy theur discs cause I wanna support them. Linking is illegal I think we should face that, but I still think the RIAA is wasting their time cause they'll get nothing accomplished if the get a ruling anyway. Are they going to continue to sue the 4 million people that post illegal links? I think not! If you're worried about not making enough money why the hell are you spending so much money in a hopeless legal venture!?!? # End Rant
WURD!!
One should look closely at the free speech implications of in any way restricting linking. A link to copyrighted / objecionable / illegal material is simply a referral, or an expression of knowledge of this material's location. Would one be held accountable for prostitution for pointing out where the red light district is, or for drug dealing by pointing out where the crackhouse on the next block is? What comes next, making it a crime to simply know where this material resides?
I haven't seen the RIAA after these guys yet. Oh wait, maybe they have the resources to fight back. Hmmmm, might not want to go there.
jelousy is such a sin. show me your women then.
--- d'oh
This kind of action is getting out of hand, I really think that the US courts are just pushing web sites away from the US. That the beauty of a global network.
A journey of a thousand miles starts with a brutal anal raping at airport security
A case like this has already been in the supreme court in Sweden ... He was found NOT GUILTY of copyright infringement, although they commented that if he had been tried for _assisting_ to copyright infringment he might've been found guilty ..
it's in my head
There were a lawsuit in Norway about this a few months back, where the judge made it clear that the boys in question had done something illegal. It sounds just like this one...
Three words: Aiding and abetting.
Finally, unless you can offer a suggestion to prevent abuse given you're so inclined to argue against other supposed abuses please don't waste people's time guess-legislating.
Either you're missing punctuation marks, or your sentence structure is bad. Can you say it again?
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
I am a bit confused here.. Doesn't the RIAA have anything better to do other then sue everyone? All the money they spent on laywers, where does it come from? Oh wait, could it be the money they steal from Artists/Bands?
That is a terrible analogy.
Samizdat was a way of distributing forbidden materials back then, things that weren't available anywhere else.
As far as I can tell, buying a CD of a band's music is not forbidden right now. In fact, it's ridiculously easy, unlike trying to get a copy of Gulag Archipelago in Vladivostok in 1974. If you don't want to pay the record industry's inflated prices, just say so. Don't use "freedom" as a justifcation for your greed.
If you feel that the artists' rights infringe upon your own, perhaps you should reconsider the role that their music plays in your life.
k.
--
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people
are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
However, we could extend this attitude for the greater good of all mankind. Just stop any and all cars on the thesis that they might eventually speed and just think how many lives you could save. Unfortunately, they did not extend this logic to the members of the RIAA at birth and drown them before they became murderers.
or even better, the RIAA should realize that people want MP3s, and put up material on the artist's homepage. Then there's not much reason to support the pirate sites with traffic and they would have a captive audience of devoted fans. But, hey, why think rationally when you have billions of dollars and can change the law whenever you need to.
--
+&x
As far as I understand it, this isn't about linking, it's about aiding and abetting a crime. If that's the case, I would think that a text-only "link" is just as illegal, if it were put up for that intent.
Be nice to your friends. If it weren't for them, you'd be a complete stranger.
Any /. geeks in *.jp care to comment?
It's very clear cut for us. When you have angry businesses yelling at judges about it, it gets sticky. That's what I meant. If you've been reading along, a ruling in China decided that deep linking can be illegal in some cases. If that doesn't making linking a little bit sticky, tell that to the Chinese...
Eh...
If it's legal to hyperlink to a remote site surely it must be illegal to blatantly copy the text of a remote web page in the link e.g.
Although impractical, who's to stop someone uuencoding an mp3 and then doing the above?
Ridiculous eh? Common sense suggests that this would not stand up in court. Perhaps this has been tested already?
--Rob
It seems simple: perhaps the ruling could outlaw direct linking of illegal sites, but not indirect linking. And as for outdated links (e.g. the HALO.org example), if such a thing were found, there could simply be a demand for the site to change or remove the link. Solved. Thanks.
jack's bicycle is music to my ears
There are restrictions to make sure you don't tread upon other people's rights. For instance, someone could stand up and start slandering political figures, then try and hide behind "free speech". Whose right is the greater? The slanderer to say whatever he wants, or the slanderee to have his good name protected from false claims?
Besides, you seem to have missed the point of my original post. Linking to an illegal site is synonymous with fencing stolen goods. If you know that what you're distributing is hot, then you're in the bad. And in this instance, the site doing the linking *knows* the MP3s are illegal. This has nothing to do with free speech.
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
For example, there's some web sites that mirror resposts from the a.b.warez newsgroups. Not just a link to the data, but the actual data itself. However, the web page (in some of the cases, at least) gets the data via a script. It could just as easily mirror a post of the Bible as it could part 14/59 of Deus Ex.
If linking to "illegal" sites (assuming that the linker did not know the site had illegal content) is deemed to be legal, can automatic mirroring of illegal data (again, assuming the host does not necessarily know that the content is illegal) be considered to be legal?
--
hymie
Would it be illegal, for instance, for altavista to put a page in their engine, after pepsi has submitted it?
I get nervous when judges come near the internet. Our fears, however, can be a little alleviated in that, supposing that people actually want the internet around, they can't outright stop us from linking to each other, the only issue might be a few trivial lawsuits which would overturn such a foolish decision.
Agreed, emphatically agreed
The only true source of action in situations like this IMHO is for there to be a body which is not related to any government anywhere. Yes, the majority of "the internet" is located in the USA, but what about the portions in ASIA, Australia, and Europe which host websites. Not to rain on anyone's parade, but I have seen tooo many Asian sites that have so much warez. And it is these sites which agencies like RIAA get so worked up about.
Hackers (not crackers) are the one's who have brought the internet into the foreground. Hacker's are the one's who have developed these technologies. Script Kiddies are the Warez Demons that RIAA wants to abolish. Can we >Hackers, Crackers, /.'rs< not do something about this? Are we totally without control?
sometimes these are the things that make you say wait, doesnt that person realize what the internet IS?!?
i think we can handle this IF WE ALL GET MATURE.
times like this that i wish i had listened to what my momma had said
2^3 * 31 * 647
By extension, wouldn't the site they came from be illegal also?
t
That makes no sense. If linking in itself is harmless then how can knowingly linking to an illegal site be any different. If I know of a place that makes moonshine and then tell people about it, does that make me an accessory? What about the people I tell who tell others? This is just plain silly. Next you're gonna tell me merely thinking of linking to a site is a crime. Double-plus good for you!
Three things are certain: Death, taxes, and lost data. Guess which has occurred.
Umm, the MPAA has tried to enjoin 2600 from linking to sites that contain DeCSS. Judge Kaplan will rule on this pretty soon I suspect. (A matter of weeks).
Openlaw filed an amicus brief on the MPAA's motion to enjoin hyperlinks. Some of the issues are common, some won't have the DMCA's draconian features to help them.
If the MPAA loses their motion, the RIAA will almost certainly lose theirs. The contributory claim is weak, and the direct copyright claim is frivioulous.
In Ticketmaster v Tickets.com the Federal District Court wrote:
"Further, hyperlinking does not itself involve a violation of the Copyright Act (whatever it may do for other claims) since no copying is involved. "
The judge also rejected Ticketmasters claims that merely visiting internal pages of a website can constitute creation of a contract.
So what if mp3board.com finds illegal drugs for you? Do they actually make drugs? Does that make my position any clearer?
No, because you goofed up your argument. The correct analogy would have been:>> "So what if mp3board.com finds people who will sell you illegal drugs for you? Do they actually make drugs?"
And the answer is, of course, no, mp3board.com does not make illegal drugs. And again, I don't believe that saying "so-and-so is a drug dealer and he has crack" is by any means illegal.
Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.
Good point. I did forget to mention about intent in that post. However, I did not forget to mention it in one of my other replies.
Moral of the story: If you know what you're doing is bad, don't do it. It's probably illegal, and if isn't it probably will be Very Soon Now. Use common sense.
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
Suppose I don't link to the "objectionable" sites at all. Suppose I just list some URLs in plain text. Like this: www.somewhere.com. Anyone who is not a complete dolt would still be able to copy the text and paste it into his address bar and reach those sites nearly as easily as if I had used real links.
In fact if I type an URL in plain text into an email, and the guy who receives the email uses Outlook Express, it will render the text as a clickable link. If I type in an "objectionable" URL, am I then to be prosecuted? Is the firm who creates and markets Outlook Express (hmmm, a rather large and well-known corporation) to be prosecuted for "aiding and abetting"?
looks like search engines will become illegal then. unless the engines will filter out anything associated with mp3s. hell, why doesn't riaa propose to change all the routers on the internet to start filtering out anything associated with mp3s?
--- d'oh
What we have here are a few lawsuits based on the fundamental right(s) to fair use. Be resonable damnit, there's nothing illegal about a person linking to any information. I have made a conscious decision if I go and download warez or MP3z. I am commiting the illegal act if I don't buy the stuff. (BTW, I would have never re-discovered Jamiriqua if it weren't for MP3s, and YES I HAVE BOUGHT THE CDS, although J will almost surely never see or hear of my thanks for making some jamming music)
If a guy puts up a site with _links_, how is he commiting a crime? That's like saying that Packetstorm or CERT are responsible for every crack that happens to a site. That's like saying that every VCR, cassette tape, CR-R/CD-RW, weapons, drug (legal), paint, etc, etc, etc... manufacturer is responsible whenever his products are used for illegal purposes. When I buy a bottle of shampoo, it says dont take it internally; they've given enough warning not to be liable. Of course, they've only stated the obvious. The thought would never cross the normal-thinking person's mind.
Why can't I buy a DVD and expect it to be viewable in my Linux-based PC? Why can't I download a song by an unsigned artist and decide to pay him/her directly myself? Heaven forbid someone besides the major media-moguls made some money. Whats so bad about me downloading a few mp3's before I go and buy the CD? I tell you what, I was pissed when I bought the Jennifer Lopez CD. Of all the house tracks I'd heard on the radio, I expected to find the CD worth a damn. If only I had downloaded a few songs _before_ shelling the (outrageously over-priced) $17 bucks. Now that's fair use. If the song, program, whatever, is worth a damn (which I can find out in a relatively short amount of time) THEN I'll buy it. To hell with this buy-it, try-it, no-return policy shit.
I know this post has turned into a rant, but I know I'm not the only person who feels this way. What I'm getting at is the site is providing me a service when they point me in the direction (via links) of X,Y,Z. It's _my_ responsibility to Do-The-Right-Thing if those links point to items of questionable legality.
Bob
GIVE ME LINKING, OR GIVE ME DEATH!
Shakespeare:
TO LINK, OR NOT TO LINK! THAT IS THE QUESTION!
???:
LINK FREE OR DIE!
The 1st Amendment (not to be confused with the 1st Post!)
Congress shall pass NO LAW abridging the right of the people to link one Web site to another.
:)
My journal has hot
I didn't know about MP3Board.com either,
until the lawsuits started. So when looking
for an MP3, i now check mp3board as well.
Guess what, i'm not downloading MORE illegal
MP3s, thanks to the lawsuits. Granted, i've
also bought more cds as a result, being able
to sample some of the music, and decide i
like it enough to buy.
Maybe the RIAA knows what this will do, and
they want the publicity any way they cna get it.
Even bad publicity is good publicity?
-Tannin Kal
It still makes very little sense... they're killing their own PR (as if rigor mortis hadn't already set in) so that one site in the US may not link to it. That doesn't mean that people in the US can't get to it, it just means that people in the US can't tell other people where to get it. It's as simple as that. The RIAA will continue to shoot themselves in the foot, until their legal department runs out of money (ha).
--
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
sorry... I screwed that up nicely...
Paine was the "Maximize good, Minimize harm" guy, that Mills based his philosophy on, right?
sigh... all that fricking Jesuit education, and you'd think that I could keep these guys straight...
... hi bingo
But they don't always. I was running an mp3 site at one point (silly me ;) and some mp3 search engines and directories linked to me. I had people on a daily basis congratulating me on the fine search engine I was running. There are lots of people who think anything linked is still the same site. As mp3s and mp3 search engines go more mainstream expect the clueless quotient to increase.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
The links are there because their filters will never be 100% accurate. Some legal MP3's will be trapped in the illegal section, so the links must remain.
It seems that MP3Board.com is actually trying to help the RIAA.
And I thought it was just run by J. Random Scriptkiddie that wanted to post links to his favorite Top 40 MP3's. Now, after hearing about their classification system, I'm impressed: let people know that you suspect these links may point to illegal files so that they can avoid them unless they know them to be legal.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Does Billboard carry a list of the Top 40 Lawsuits?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
And yes, you're right, finding MP3s on the web is so 1999.
If they succeed in their path, the damage that they will have done to humanity will be far greater than the damage they claim to be suffering currently. I hope the judge will assign their greed and stupidity exactly the value it deserves.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The Mpeg Layer 3 format is freely usable by anyone.
No it can't; there's a USD 2.50 royalty per unit on encoders with a USD 15,000 per year minimum. For example, THOMSON multimedia already got BladeEnc to remove encoder binaries. And I heard they're going after LAME next.
On the other hand, Ogg Vorbis is patent-free.Will I retire or break 10K?
That got me thinking, is the RIAA planning to start going after search engines too? If they win the MP3Board case, any judgement handed down could be worded to establish precedent for a case against (search engine name here).
Sidebar: I once had a web page with three MP3s posted. One day I got an email from the ISP admin that was essentially just a note saying "get rid of the files or your account is gone" and a letter from the RIAA quoted below it. The RIAA had noted that I had posted two songs by bands signed to a major label (Sony, I think it was) and that I was distributing them illegally. The third song I had posted was a song released by a minor label based in Kansas or something, but the material was copyrighted nonetheless. The RIAA letter didn't mention it. Hmm.
Isn't the RIAA actually violating the British Telecom patent about hyperlinking???
Not really. In fact, they (the RIAA) probably wouldn't mind if that holds up. They have the money to pay any liscencing fees, and it would futher assist their crusade against distribution of copyrighted material.
Observe, reason, and experiment.
Observe, reason, and experiment.
(if you're too dumb, just pray)
People are going to starting getting sick of the RIAA's whining. Its like the Elian Gonzalez thing, people hear way to much about it, they get sick of it, and they either stop careing or they start hating the source of the problem.
The rich bastards over at the RIAA should stop while they are ahead. Public opinion is going change real quick if we keep watching them sue everyone for anything little thing having to do with mp3's.
The courts could very easily rule against the RIAA because of that logic. The last thing the courts want is to be flooded with cases where people like us get sued for linking to sites which link to sites with "bad" content.
If that site had linked directly to the copyrighted material the case would have merit but if not then the case could be easily dismissed as an Internet version of guilty by association
Jesus, I've never seen so many pop-up windows (I disabled Webwasher on purpose just to test). If I was the RIAA I'd sue them too...
Legal or not, the links do infringe on British Telecom's link patent. They will be sued for patent infrigement. Also, /. will be sued for linking to this story. The RIAA probably has a link somewhere so they will be sued.
Hey up there is a link pointing to your user information. Pay up.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
If linking to "illegal files" becomes illegal, and if British Telecom "owns linking" (Wired: "British Telecom: We Own Linking"), then apparently the RIAA should be suing British Telecom for enabling easy access to information that violates copyright laws, instead of MP3.com. :)
Yes, linking in itself is harmless. Knowingly linking to an illegal site is different. To convict someone of a crime (at maximum penalty), you need to show two things: 1. The person did the crime, and 2. The person knew it was a crime. So knowing that what you are doing is bad is *very* relevant.
If I know of a place that makes moonshine and then tell people about it, does that make me an accessory?
If moonshine is illegal where you live, yes.
Next you're gonna tell me merely thinking of linking to a site is a crime.
Okay, now you're just trying to create a slippery slope. Using a fallacious argument is not proper.
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
I think the main objection is to sites making money off of linking to illegal content. To use everyone's favorite analogy, it's "Here's where to find crack" vs. "If you give me a dollar, I'll tell you where to find crack."
I'm certainly not in a position of power; I'm just a student right now, and I agree that information should not be sanitized or only allowed if it is approved. On the other hand, I want people to realize the consequences of their actions. By linking to these MP3's, they are aiding people in finding them, and if you get music for free and don't reciprocate the artist, you are getting something that for them has value (they put work into producing it), you are receiving the benefits of that work without any return of value or "capital" to the artist.
Now, I'm not sure the courts are the best way to settle this because I'll admit that I occasionally download music, and if I like it I buy the CD. If I don't like it I delete it. I think the best solution would be if people would just sit down and think about the consequences of their actions, and if more artists would speak out against piracy. They realize that something that they worked for is being traded as if it has no value.
The issues of information and information control are not debatable, or necessarily identifiable in many places. The notion of truth in a human sense is typically subjective to the messenger. Notions of objectivity and right and wrong are generally multi-faceted when you consider larger pictures, and the presuppositions that many ppl start with. Not everything and everyone's version of the truth is worth hearing. Like Pandora's box, there are many images and things that I wish I had never seen or known, since I know that with greater information comes greater responsibility.
Now, since we have opened up large channels of information, it seems to me that the best protection for those channels is responsible behaviour. In that right, I do not think that greed and avarice have a place, especially if the insistence of a particular "right" involves the trampling on the rights of others. The power of a positive example is of greater value than an irresponsible revolution -- (don't get me wrong there is a place for revolution, but I think that it has a greater chance of succeeding when it is preceded by responsible actions.)
At long last Mr. Jack Valenti, have you no sense of decency, at long last sir, have you no sense no decency...
(ok... how long before the mistakes in this parody/quote are pointed out? I give it 3.2 seconds...)
... hi bingo
>TO me, there is a huge difference between linking directly to a file and linking to a page. If you link to a web page, the content can
d -because-we-can" tactics has progressed well beyond "sickened".
>change without your knowledge. If you link to a file, it can be assumed you know what is in that file to begin with, and the chances of the
>contents of a file being changed are extremely slim. As long as they keep this lawsuit about linking to files, and not linking to pages, the Internet
>is in no danger.
I disagree. Firstly, you are drawing a distincion that technically does not exist - a page _is_ a file, and the contents of any type of file can (and do) change without the knowledge of the linker (you give pages as an example of this, but it is true of all other types of file, the closest thing to a disctionction that can be drawn is a statistical one - there is usually a higher frequency for html files to have their content changed than other types of files.).
In your analogy, you act as a middleman between Bob and the buyer, when this is not the case in linking - you give exact directions, but you take absolutely no further part in the relationship between the hostsite (bob) and the user(buyer).
The site helps the user (including law enforcement agents) get in contact with the host and _nothing_ more. This is quite different from your analogy.
But as you might have guessed, my opinion stems more from fear of the lawsuit opening the way to massive internet-wide legal abuse by corporations than which side has the moral highground in the linking issue. We could easily see a repeat of the DMCA "if you take it offline as soon as someone complains, you escape liability" disaster. Imagine if this became the case for links to information companies didn't want people to see. That could signle-handedly be almost the end of the internet as a force for good.
And also of course, I'm gunning against the RIAA because my dislike of their "fuck-over-everyone-because-it's-better-for-us-an
We need a "page linked to all others" ... :)
Likewise, I think it's reasonable for a news site (such as Slashdot) to publish links to a site with illegal content, because such links only show up on Slashdot when the other site is newsworthy.
On the other hand, if you have a Web service whose primary business is providing links to illegal MP3s, then you have a much weaker case. (And judging from all their obnoxious banner ads, mp3board.com is trying to make a business out of this service.)
Now, suppose someone wrote a Perl script that scanned the Web for illegal MP3s, and then posted random comments to Slashdot containing links to those MP3s. Most of the comments would get busted to "-1, Offtopic", but if the script put some identifying keywords in the Subject line, it would be easy to search for the links in Slashdot's archives. Would Slashdot have a legal obligation to delete these comments from its servers?
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
The swedish courts have ruled against exactly this kind of lawsuit, so in a worstcase scenario, just move all of the internet to Sweden ;).
right now everyone disregards your post because of your stupidity.
To convict someone of a crime (at maximum penalty), you need to show two things: 1. The person did the crime, and 2. The person knew it was a crime. So knowing that what you are doing is bad is *very* relevant.
Actually, no. You are confusing knowledge with intent. To convict anyone criminally of a crime at ALL(not even just max penalty)(except strict liability crimes(speeding, negligence), both the act and INTENT must be proven. Granted, if you didn't have knowledge that it was a crime...it'd be hard to intend to commit it. But think of this...say I don't know buying a certain drug is illegal. I still intend to buy it...it was an accident, and therefore a criminal act was committed.
I'll relate this to this: I can post/publish/whatever a paper diagraming how to build a homemade bomb, including *where* to get the materials. It does not mean I necessarily intended for you to do it, and even then it'd be nearly impossible to find one criminally liable. And try proving intent. Just try. Someone said banner ads. DING. That's intent to get the person to the site, not LEAVE! if anything they'd post false mp3 links to get traffic. I doubt the post mp3 links to deliberately violate copyright laws.
MP3.com and Napster are "selling" a service (actually, supporting it with ad sales, which ammounts to the same thing), and that service is to help you obtain unauthorized copies of music. Personally I'm all for it, but I'm not going to poke my head in the sand and pretend that they won't get bitchslapped for it in court.
Like it or not, the law takes a very different view between violating copyright for fun (such as taping a CD and giving the tape to a friend), and violating copyright for profit. One crime is far less severe than the other.
As for drug-making instructions, I agree that it is a restriction to free speech to try to stop it, and I am confident that the courts strike down such a law the first time it is challenged... but giving out instructions to cook E and selling "home meth lab" kits are two different things. To restrict one is a violation of the First Amendment, to restrict the other is not unconstitutional, just unreasonable.
(Yea, yea, IANAL.)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Dont worry.
Everything is going to be OK.
Hyperlinking is not going to become illegal.
Yes, the RIAA is being Stupid and Evil,
however, this does not exactly justify huge ass pirate sites spreading around links to mp3s like crazed weasels. These kind of sites are being targeted.
Slashdot needs to calm down on these headlines a bit.... it is getting out of hand.
Yes MP3's are wonderful things, and yes they are violating copyrights, however they are really not as important of an issue as the RIAA is making them out to be. everyone needs to just chill out, listen to some relaxing ambient music and get on with life.
Sure it does. For example, you can copy a CD to tape, but you can't copy a CD to tape and sell it. I think that's the case with any sort of copying, unless the DMCA has come and made both illegal in certain cases.
I think we're standing on the edge of a mountain, and we're doomed to fall off one way or the other. We have the capability to fall the way of freedom and ubiquitous information and uncontrolled media, but the tremendous and growing force of large corporations have the power to push us the other way.
Certainly the internet began free, but now its almost completely dominated by monopolistic corporations. The vast majority of people on the internet only veiw what they are shown by these corporations.
On the other hand, there is a rise in counter-culture producing the gnutellas of the world and freeing the internet again. The next generation of these programs most likely will have tremendous anonymity allowing information along those channels to be free. Perhaps the web is lost to commercialism yet in American history, freedom allways wins...eventually.
Information wants Coq
Also, your analogy doesn't work because you really can't compare "give him the watch" to "link to MP3 file".
My mind works like lightning. One brilliant flash and it is gone.
I believe the DMCA has "hurt" the fair use laws, but not destroyed them.
:)
As for your case, that's true, but was this web site 'selling' mp3s? I mean they had banner ads, but does that count? If so, what if I use junkbuster to block them out, then does that mean I'm stealing from them? And if so, since they would be stealing in the first place, do two wrongs make a right?
My point is, the concepts dealt with in current laws have been blurred by the technical world. We are moving faster than the lawmaker could possibly move and they are struggling to link "old school" concepts to digital ones, and they are failing miserably.
Finkployd
True, but here's a problem: The DMCA provides a way for copyright holders to order copyrighted materials removed without proof of copyright violation!
This has already happened, notibly between the Church of Scientology and ebay. Slashdot article
It's this sort of thing that could bring the 'Net to a crawl if linking to copyrighted material is rules a copyright violation. Imagine nearly every ISP in the country having to remove any pages that links to any copyrighted work: MP3, texts, pictures, other webpages...
But it will likely fail in the courts.
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
these are the links that try mens souls
:)
:)
Hey I like that! Thanks!
I knew it was Patrick Henry, I just wanted to see if you were all paying attention.
My journal has hot
At what point a link is contributory is the real issue that must be settled.
Exactly.
For example, let's take Google. They know that they link to illegal stuff. MP3s, warez, pr0n that is someone else's property, etc. etc. Are they also guily of contributory infringement?
Or, say I link to mp3board.com. Did I just break the law? Did Slashdot? I know that mp3board.com links to illegal content - I just helped you find it.
I think that facilitating a copyright violation needs a re-examination when it comes to the Internet. Maybe people who put those files up there are committing the violation. Maybe the ISP who hosts the site is (it is probably against their terms of service too). But people who link to the material in question?
If you enforce that standard, you are opening up a very dangerous precedent.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
wtf's next? the RIAA sues winamp for giving people the ability to listen to mp3's? ohh dont forget the all the encoders out there..
i wish some judge would put those assholes in there place before the ruin it for everyone.
His analogy may be bad, but try buying a copy of Michael Manring's "Thonk" or the first 3 albums by echolyn. This is seriously good material and is not legally available in any format because the record companies who own the rights (Windham Hill and Sony) will not allow the albums to be published any more.
I'm not going to comment on the issue of pirating this material, but I would gladly buy copies of this stuff, even at a high price, but I cannot. I have made a substantial effort to find any copies that may still be available.
Rick
p.s. And guess how the artists feel about this situation?
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Ed McMahon: "OPEC and the RIAA."
Johnny Carson: (dressed as Carnac the Impossible, holding envelope to forehead) "OPEC and the RIAA."
Ed: "OPEC and the RIAA."
Johnny: (conjuring motions with one hand, frantically rubbing envelope on forehead with other) "OPEC and the RIAA."
Ed: (pensive) "Hmmm..."
Johnny: (sudden understanding) "What are two things that need to be nuked into oblivion?"
Ed: (jubilant) "YES!"
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
They were sued already. Not sure who exactly sued them and I don't know the status of the case, but it was in the news about half a year ago.
Slashdot should have a new regular feature "Lawsuit of the week"
You said it right there Guy. Intent is the key. But to know the intent means you can get into someone's head, which is impossible. You can say I had malicious intent all you want and unless I agree with you you really have no proof because I can just plead the 5th. It's your responsibilty during discovery to find and show facts that can hint at my intent.
The issue that most slashdotters are getting at, whether or not they know it, is "What constitutes Aiding and Abetting?" The RIAA is trying to set precedent such that all file-sharing is made illegal on the premise that file-sharing leads to the illegal distribution of MP3s or The-Next-Big-Thing. There are a lot of companies who will be in trouble if/when these precendents are set; consider M$, Novell, Banyan, (all the) Unix's, etc. They all have the potential to allow someone to pirate music. The only thing is that Napster makes it easier to find music (that I should be able to try before i buy since it costs so damn much). My argument is that the legality of linking should not be in question as the problem is the RIAA and the music industry themselves. Or didn't you read the article that Courtney Love wrote. Oh thats right, my story never got posted.
bob
Ok, here it is. Linking to a site that has illegal content should be illegal. I understand how it shouldn't be illegal to link in some instances(i.e. Search Engines, Links pointing to a page with information on it, but it also contains illegal content, News Stories, etc. But the point they are trying to make is that it's not just illegal to share copyrighted software/music, but it's also illegal to tell someone where to find it(i.e. linking). This should really be a case by case issue, depending on how the person provided the links, decides whether or not they are guilty. Under no circumstances should the RIAA be able to censor a website by harassing the ISP into shutting the site down without hearing the owner's side, but unfortunatly the laws are already in place, and people are already being affected. This is the battle we should be fighting, not whether or not we can blatently link to a known illegal site about. Thank you for your time Justin
I'm not. Nowhere in my original message did I mention MP3s or pirated music. They are not my concern.
My concern is that a small number of powerful individuals and organizations can, through the use of their influence, close channels of communication, simply because they don't like what is being transmitted. That information can be MP3s, texts describing how to build a nuclear weapon, information on disease, anything.
I could not care less whether MP3s are actually pirated music. Theft of that sort is wrong, to be sure, but I have other, more pressing problems--like the gradual erosion of human rights to keep power concentrated in the hands of a few people who will exploit us.
www.alarmist.org
I disagree. Both a "page" a "file" are merely information. Distiguishing between a "page" and a "file" is silly and abritrary, and very likely to cause problems, especially since a "page" is just a particular format of "file". I wouldn't make sense to rule, for example, that linking to HTML pages is always legal, but other file types may be illegal. What if, in the future, "pages" are no longer HTML files, but some other format? Also, even "pages" may have illegal content (e.g. UUEncoding an MP3 and displaying the resulting text as an HTML file).
A web page is a file, but the constitution is also a piece of paper, I can burn a piece of paper, therefore I can burn the constitution. A web page is a specific type of file, that can by interpretted by a browser to convey information or link to other pages. I'm not saying a page couldn't be illegal, anything CAN be illegal in one context or another, what I am saying is that in a generic context, linking to a page would be legal. IF it can be shown you knew that page contained the full text of a copyrighted book, then yes, a "page" would be the same as an illegal MP3 file. I am trying to abstract the idea of linking to a page that links to a page that links to something illegal would be illegal (because that would kill the internet) linking directly to illegal material. Linking directly to illegal material (whether it be an MP3, or a text file, or whatever) is a concious act that in most cases can be avoided (yes, there is that tiny
An interesting analogy, but as with most relating the Internet to Real Life, it doesn't really work. This is because MP3Board is still not involved, even if it provides a direct link to the file. The analogy you describe would be work only if MP3Board had a service where they would temporarily store a file for you, so that you can download it directly from MP3Board at a later time, which is certainly not the case. Also, the analogy fails because the site does not "give" MP3s; in a really basic sense, all that the site is doing is "displaying" a file to a person's browser, and the person who is viewing it is making a local copy for himself.
The whole point behind linking to a file being legal is that they are not storing the file on their computer. YEt, in my analogy, I am not storing the watch. I am passing the watch onto another person, much as a link passes a file to a person (not a good description, but I think you understand). I may not know the watch is stolen, you may not know the file is illegal, but you are held liable for the watch (receiving stolen goods is a crime, even if they are not explitied stated that the goods are stolen), you should be held liable for the file.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
i think we can handle this IF WE ALL GET MATURE.
Not going to happen any time soon. Too many script kiddies out there. They want to be cool and 1337. What dweebs, they dun even know what it means. I know one that I'd like to pop in the mouth just because he bugs me so much.
Eh...
Ok, here it is.
Linking to a site that has illegal content should be illegal. I understand how it shouldn't be illegal to link in some instances(i.e. Search Engines, Links pointing to a page with information on it, but it also contains illegal content, News Stories, etc. But the point they are trying to make is that it's not just illegal to share copyrighted software/music, but it's also illegal to tell someone where to find it(i.e. linking). This should really be a case by case issue, depending on how the person provided the links, decides whether or not they are guilty.
Under no circumstances should the RIAA be able to censor a website by harassing the ISP into shutting the site down without hearing the owner's side, but unfortunatly the laws are already in place, and people are already being affected. This is the battle we should be fighting, not whether or not we can blatently link to a known illegal site about.
Thank you for your time
Justin
Moral imperatives never really seemed correct to me... I prefered more of the Nichomachaen Ethics as a general rule for morality, and St Thomas Aquinas for a basis of philosophy and Theology...
Yes... it figures i went to a Jesuit university first, followed by a Franciscan one...
And let me tell you that I dont particularly like the Franciscan theory on everything... Once he gets into time being a figment of our imagination, i had to start heavily questioning him...
And I agree that Utilitarianism is a pretty crappy moral standard... Yet is the "official" morality of the US government... go figure...
... hi bingo
That's a tough case to prove. Perhaps by "Legal MP3's" they only mean MP3s that they have certified as legal. That's a far cry from stating that the rest of the ocean is illegal. Methinks you read far too much into their labeling scheme.
Mojotoad
1) The RIAA doesn't like links compiled by search engines.
2) They want them reviewed.
3) There's a ton of links one would need to review.
4) Search engines are vital to the internet.
So, basically, they don't like the idea that search-engines, which usually have to be non-discriminatory by nature, do their job. This is like wanting to shut down a bookstore because one of the books sold in it happens to be plagarized. I dread to see this extended to Yahoo, Excite, etc.
I wish I had a more scientific way to say it, but the RIAA is completely clueless. Though I think they'll be struck down, they literally want to challenge the operation and nature of the internet and of major sites.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
I remember reading somewhere about a Japanese case where someone was penalized for having links to pornography on their website. So that might lend some weight to the idea that linking should be accessory to violation.
I remember once several years back that there was a case in Germany where a man was arrested for linking to a neo-nazi site. The site linked to was mentioned by name on the news.
It would be pretty easy to go to the site either by punching it in as an URL or going to a search engine and finding the site with the publicity.
My question is, would simply mentioning a phrase (i.e. "MP3") in a public forum (i.e. television, usenet, etc), become illegal?
Does anybody remember on June 12 when Slashdot posted this? The only difference is, the RIAA was the one being sued - that story was much more fun to read.
--------
Oscarfish.com: tropical fish with attitude. Way t
Three words: Aiding and abetting.
If I tied people up while my friends were stealing their stuff, yes. If I'm the guy who sold them rope, even if I knew what they might do, no.
You cannot legislate "maybes". It's not that it encourages even vaguer legislation, but that it forces third parties who have absolutely no obligation to the RIAA to constantly look over their shoulders. No thank you.
Either you're missing punctuation marks, or your sentence structure is bad. Can you say it again?
You seem so eager to argue against other supposed abuses. Unless you can offer a suggestion to prevent abuse on both sides of the issue, please don't waste people's time guess-legislating.
Your arguments are too one-sided.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Macintosh users would then have to be blocked, because of a piece of software called Apple Data Detectors which permits any text to be opened as a link by right-clicking. (or control-clicking if they're stuck with that fscking hockey-puck #$%*@! 1-button mouse) Surely other OSes have comparable software available...
petard
--
Il vaut mieux avoir l'air sans l'effet que l'effet sans l'air!
.sig: file not found
Didn't you read the article about that?
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I get your pardon, INTENT is what I meant. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
if anything they'd post false mp3 links to get traffic. I doubt the post mp3 links to deliberately violate copyright laws.
From what I read, the site doesn't post false mp3 links to get traffic. They're checking the sites to see if they contain mp3s, then making links to them. They are DELIBERATELY making links to illegal MP3s. There is only one intent to making a link: Having someone follow it.
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
I have been listening to the "Information(music) wants to be free/pirating music is illegal" argument for some time now and both sides have valid points. Most used Free thinker argument: 1. Music cd's are to expensive. 2. Most cd's have one good song and the rest is crap. 3. The only bands arguing against mp3's are the bands that have the most money. 4. If someone buys a cd(or any property for that matter), then it should be that persons right to do what ever he/she wants to do with it. Even make copies for friends. 5. Bands only make about 5% off the cd's while the music indistry makes 95%, so the artist is getting ripped off by the indistry and should be suing them. ...There is more but I haven't got time to put them all down. Pirating is illegal argument: 1. Pirating is illegal 2. Pirating is stealing from the bands. 3. stealing is wrong. No matter what. There is probably some more but most of the arguments I have heard come back to these three. What I find bothersome is that people aren't using their heads to think this threw. If someone wants something bad enough they are going to get it regardless of what any law(or anyone) says. Look how successfull the war on drugs is going(here in the US). We have been at a war on drugs for 30 YEARS and haven't made a dent(its actully on the rise). the police just arrest people(who probably never hurt anyone) and take their money and property claiming its a drug raid. then wonder why that person later in life DOES become a criminal. The same thing will happen with mp3's. The police/polititions will use this as an excuse to take everything you own and say its the law. The main people who will get hurt will not be criminals but people who couldn't afford to buy the cd's of the favorite bands.*sigh*
>>Next you're gonna tell me merely thinking of linking to a site is a crime.
Okay, now you're just trying to create a slippery slope. Using a fallacious argument is not proper.
You mean this kind of slippery slope:
>>If I know of a place that makes moonshine and then tell people about it, does that make me an
accessory?
If moonshine is illegal where you live, yes.
Oh and the rest:
1. The person did the crime, and 2.The person knew it was a crime. So knowing that what you are doing is bad is *very* relevant.
Copyright infringement is illegal. That means outright stealing. Pointing fingers may be impolite but it is clearly not stealing. Nor is linking.
Finally, unless you can offer a suggestion to prevent abuse given you're so inclined to argue against other supposed abuses please don't waste people's time guess-legislating.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
This is BS! This can only tell you what happens to the future of the internet. Has anyone seen or read George Orwell's 1984? Big Internet Brother will be watching you!
Exactly!!!!!
I guess I needed to put a more creative subject line in.
There's NO WAY in hell that the RIAA would go after the NY Times or any other corporate entity that linked to the 2600.com's DeCSS pages.
Oh well *sigh*
[Connection closed by foreign host]
What about posting information about how to pirate mp3s? Or DeCSS? or how the RIAA is attempting to restrict the individual freedoms of the American public in order to get rich? where do we draw the line? All that these sites are doing is showing people where to get media. If the media is illegal, why can't the RIAA just go after the sites that mp3board.com links to?
Information wants Coq
Your last point then raises a myriad of new issues and eventually leads right back to the question of privacy and anonymity on the internet. Especially with movie piracy among the general public and other potential copyright infringements looming on the horizon, it is conceivable that the government will look into monitoring downloads and uploads. When they discover that such a process would be infinitely complex they might attempt to do other stupid things like limiting the internet to text. With just text left people could only pirate books, which the government could end by eliminating the internet altogether, except to serve its own evil purposes ;) mwahaha
of course thats a just bit farfetched, but an interesting potential consequence nevertheless
~kalyndra~
I am so hip I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis. -Zaphod Beetlebrox
I know this isn't quite on the topic, but does it appear to anyone else that RIAA is going on another witch hunt, or a red scare if you will? Pointing their fingers at everyone, saying they're evil (when in general, there are no bad intentions even if it is illegal), and trying to glorify their image at the same time?
Too bad McCarthy (I think that was him..) isn't around to see this...
We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
then secure the server with specific accounts...or block access to pages without local REFERs. If you have a server open...where requesting a page deep inside is doable...then guess what? it's doable. They need to take steps to protect their so-called content. Allowing access to billions and billions of people doesn't seem to be much protection.
Granted, the brouhaha over liability issues with IP as well as the proliferation of knowledge analogous with the Anarchists Cookbook continues to make the headlines in newer and more ubiquitous forms as lawyers start getting technical, and we do have a duty to put in our two cents or lose to the status quo, where I get stuck is the notion of civil disobedience and the ease of it. So, this move is either being done by a bunch of bozo type suits who haven't got a clue, or there is a larger issue at stake that they aren't talking about. Say for instance, BT's patent lawsuit wins and they do get ownership of the IP for hyperlinking, and say for instance, as ISPs become monolithic and backbone providers implement the technology for content monitoring, and lobbying efforts by organizations like RIAA become more effective because voluntary submission to proposed 'standards' is worthwhile for the really big corporations and 'friends of the court' aren't necessarily intelligent or objective, and just say for instance, it shouldn't be Big Brother the government we fear, it's the Industrial complex overtaking us.
Brilliant. Remember punitive lawsuits from the early '90s, when large corporations with massive legal departments would go after someone ie. a whistleblower, for the sheer fun of bankrupting them by the slow death of a thousand pinpricks which are legal fees? I think the $20 or so it would cost to file and serve them could make it worthwhile.
Question:
The piracy occured when a copy was made with the intent to distribute. Selling or distributing illegal goods is illegal. Possesion with intent to sell is also illegal.
So, is Possession with intent to distribute for free also illegal? And is the fine point of making available for review, comment, verification of sound quality, etc. a reasonable purpose? and therefore not distribution, and therefore a loophole?
Although I am not Russian-born, I have an intimacy with the language. Samizdat directly translates to self-published. Isn't that what the web is all about anyway? If they are trying to kill the protocol of publishing by oneself, it is not time to migrate to another?
From their Mp3 Post Page you can read this:
Porn, warez, cracking, phreaking, and hacking content and sites are prohibited. Offenders will be banned.
They clearly state that site that have illegal software will be banned, but illegal mp3 is just fine. I think it shows their a bunch of hypocrites.
I don't think it's the same - if someone knowingly links to a site that carries pirated MP3 files for the purpose of aiding distribution of said files, or as a means of adding "value" to the link in that it provides the means to access said files, this is a lot like aiding and abetting a crime, isn't it?
Okay, we've had all sorts of analogies already, but I think this one is might contain something insightful.
The issue here is whether or not it is legal to link to a website if you know that people are going to do illegal things with your link. In fact, it gets worse, because mp3board.com is trying to make money by showing ads to people wanting to get at these mp3's so they can commit crimes. Is mp3board.com committing a crime?
Consider, for a moment, a document like "The Anarchist Cookbook", or any one of the myriad bomb-making instruction manuals. I will place such a document on the web (assuming it's out of copyright or something - that's not the point) and put advertisements all over the place so maybe I make some money too. Now, I have suitable disclaimers around, but I know that some there will always be stupid people that will commit crimes based on the information which I have posted.
Am I committing a crime? You can get this sort of stuff all by yourself. I'm just trying to make it more convenient for you and show you some stupid ads.
No, the First Amendment tells me that I should not be stopped from this course of action. Okay, maybe the FBI keeps a closer watch on me because they think I might be in on some criminal activity, but that's separate. By the same token, I think that mp3board.com is not committing a crime by publishing information that could lead to people committing crimes (like downloading those evil MP3's), even if they are trying to make a bit of ad money off of it.
Just like telling someone how to make a bomb from common household products (so that they have everything they could possibly need to make a bomb) is protected under the First Amendment, telling someone how to obtain mp3's (so that they have everything they could possibly need to infringe someone's copyright) from the Internet should be protected too.
Donny
(p.s. indeed, I'd much rather have kids downloading mp3's than making bombs anyways)
As I understand it one of the basic ideas supporting the current 1st ammendment doctrine is no prior restraint. IMHO any ruling that requires owners of automated systems to check the legality of links would have enough of a chilling effect to be considered prior restraint.
I notice in the Wired story they talk about the RIAA having gone for the ISP. This is, I think, perhaps more of concern than the linking issue. The idea that just by writing a letter it's possible to silence a web site is very distubing. I suspect (hope) this is one aspect of the DCMA that won't survive the courts. (see also the Ford vs Blue oval case also had a big company shutting down a little guy by going for the ISP (the details are different but the issue is there - the blue oval case is currently on appeal with the ACLU getting involved).
John (who has been sued enough in the past to know it's all a lottery anyway)
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck load of tapes
Napster has ads? Not my copy.
As to the profit vs. non-profit argument its pretty trivial, the only way this type of copyright infringement is going to end is not through censorship, but by going after casual MP3 traders or by a thorough change in the industry that will never happen. Imagine a few high-profile busts in your neighborhood, confiscating computers and all. How many kids would quickly wipe their Mp3's and delete Napster? I'd say a whole bunch.
Exactly what is violating copyright for 'fun' mean? I burn a copy of Bjork's latest and give it to my pal, and he burns a copy of a Radiohead EP and gives it to me. Gasp, I just made a profit of a Radiohead CD. I didn't pay for it.
What you really are trying to get at is, but not admitting, is that everyday copyright violations are so damn trivial its only efficient to go after major illegal disributors because they *might* have a chance of hurting profit. Fine, but do it without Corporate America trampling on my right to link and if the law has a problem with what I'm doing they can go get a warrant, not some blanket civil-rights violating law because big business is paranoid.
I'd rather go to court and defend my MP3 collection (which could be all copies of CDs I own for all you know and may be tranfering to my other PC through Napster) instead of getting a notice from my ISP saying they're forced to close my account because of illegal linking or content. The latter assumes everyone is guilty of some crime, that certainly isn't true.
Please bear in mind that this law only applies to US citizens. But to quote MPAA chief Jack Valenti: "I am not a lawyer."
http://www.blitzbasic.com/
Graphics3D 640, 480
I'm glad how Slashdot is informed and up-to-the hour on these issues, but I feel like moron when all I can do is say yeah, "I agree with you guys!" It would be great if someone gave some leadership with these issues, like tell us who to write to and protest and stuff. I'm too busy and too lazy to sound off without some help, and I'm one of the few jerks who actually cares enough about these issues to read about them...
The worst part of this is that our goverment is doing nothing to stop this. My forefathers fought long and hard and died trying to protect my freedom to have free speech and now some company wants to take it away from me? FUCK THEM. What's next if large corporations are allowed to sue people for their websites? Will the christian coalition be able to sue the owners of a website because it's owned by a muslim/sikh/buddhist/anything else or expresses muslim/sikh/buddhist/anything else beliefs? There are of course thousands of other examples I could make but the concept is the same.
See what happens when grossly stupid and uneducated people get large sums of money and a lawyer(s)?
If you need an example look at lars ulrich.
One who is stupid enough to try and slow technology is a fool, but one who tries to Stop technology is an even greater one.
I suggest finding all the legal ways to fight the riaa and pursuing them. Anarchy is a great thing. Especially on the internet. Deface their website. Grafiti their buildings. Key their mercedes and jags. Let them know that you don't support them.
Go ahead and boycott CD's for all I care. Because god knows cd prices will rise with all the legal costs associated with ingnorant lawsuits.
So sue napster, sue mp3board for "providing a service". Go ahead and do it, the masses will move to freenet. Or whatever comes after freenet.
The analogy that I see suing a service provider for providing a service is like suing the cornerstore for not putting in videocameras to catch theives because you got caught. Because it made it easier to steal, and you got the bad side of it with suspicious clerks and higher prices.
There will be a bad side to all this. Don't make it sound like there won't be a bad side.
If the RIAA can overthrow 1st amendment then I suppose that (insert slimeball company here) can overthrow reasonable search and warrant laws so they can raid your house to make sure they aren't being stolen from. How would you like to have a bunch of metallica goons running into your house with you at gunpoint so they can look at all the MP3's you have and make sure none of them are pirated. The scenario is completely possible with a software company doing the same to make sure none of Their software is being pirated. Or any other company making "sure" that you don't have any ill gotten products of theirs. I may not have any but I nevertheless don't wish them to knock down my door because they think I am not a trustworthy person or because of random checking. Fahrenheit 451 with software instead of books.
Don't let your ignorance be your bliss.
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Freedom of speech is absolute, and anyone who tries to obstruct or knowingly aids any attempt to obstruct it is a fascist pig. Of course, authoritarian governments like that in the US of A dislike freedom of speech and are willing to do anything to obstruct it, and therefore should be eliminated (even if it requires force to do so).
If you just have to remove the links upon legal summons but you are not responsible for damages I dont have a problem with it to tell the truth.
Now, basically, what the RIAA is saying, is that linking to copyrighted material is the same as hosting a copy yourself..
now wait a sec here.. if I write an essay, and make a reference to a book, have I commited a crime?
SSL Certificate
A page is a file...
Thanks for the correction. The point remains the same.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
So the best tactic. "If you cant control the information, control the delivery system."
Some Governments control the media (Paper, TV, Radio, Proxy'ed Internet access)..
Or lately Corporations with Private Newsgroups, Message Forums, Email lists, etc...
This case is not about mp3's, its about control of this new medium, aka the Internet.
If the case was about MP3s, RIAA would just send Cease and Desist letters to all the web sites.
-Brook Harty
The amount of sensationalism associated with slashdot has reached a disturbing level. As others have pointed out the legality of deep linking has already been upheld in court also the RIAA has said that they are not going after the site for linking but for being running a site that indexes illegal material.
True, the slashdot headline is a bit misleading, but so is your quote.. the case about deep linking had to do with being able to link directly to content that another site wishes that you had to go through advertising to get to... That case did not have anything to do with linking to illegal content. It was just about linking past a hundred pages of navigation through ads that the linked site wanted revenue from.
This case is still pretty heavy. They are going after linkers, but they are distinguishing between automated links and intentional links. I would say that if intentional links to copyrighted material is deemed illegal, it will make a lot of copyright litigation much easier for the copyright holder.
I'm truly interested on how merely pointing out where illegal activity is illegal. IANAL so I'm trying to understand the law. If I make a list of places which sell moonshine, my intent is relavent? So, if I make the site denoucing alcohol it's okay, but if I promote the site as a glutonous party site seeking the best way to get wasted it's illegal? (Assuming making moonshine is illegal which it is in the us.) Is that what you are saying? If so, why?
Three things are certain: Death, taxes, and lost data. Guess which has occurred.
I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but I really think it applies in this situation.
:)
If whether linking to a site becomes a matter of a judge's opinion, then it is all for nothing anyways. Anyone small won't be able to afford the legal fees, and would just have to cave in to the RIAA (or whomever else's) demands.
The right thing to do, IMHO, is to have a decision in court that sets the precedent that linking to (possibly) illegal content is not illegal. Force RIAA and everyone else to go after the people actually providing and serving the content in question.
Of course, it is easy to see why RIAA is trying to short-circuit this. The illegal content in these type of cases is typically served from numerous free website hosting services, and is zipped or has an obscure filename in order to make it more difficult to locate. Going after the actual content providers would be much more difficult.
Preserving our rights to link to information on the web has to be more important then making the RIAA's job easier. It really is a slippery slope
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
It IS different than content in a popup window, if the content is housed on your server. There are two kinds of links, links to info hosted on an external site, and links to info hosted on your site. If you are hosting illegal info, then you should be busted. However, I don't believe you should be liable for links to external sites. Go after those external sites, not sites linking to them.
And how do you think you access freenet? All freenet is is a protocol that travels across (wait for it...) THE INTERNET. Were you under the impression that freenet is accessable without an ISP? Thats like saying FTP will replace the internet.
Finkployd
Wasn't linking already taken to court and the decision was made that linking in and of itself is not a copyright violation, even if the material linked to is?
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
Thomas Paine author of "Common Sense," "The Age of Reason" and "Rights of Man" is well-known American patriot and deist.
The two are pretty far apart in all but age.
It's also worth noting that the printing press was invented around 1437, and was hardly revolutionary when either "A Modest Proposal" or "Common Sense" were published.
...but didn't a judge already rule that deep hyperlinking was alright? Isn't this just more of the same then? Perhaps if the site linked to a page containing said music files the RIAA would have *NO* say-so in the matter whatsoever, but as the site just links to the content...
Also, the RIAA doesn't care, but how many times does a site with static links send you to WORKING MP3 downloads? Thought so...
"I'm not even supposed to BE here today!"
Aiding and abedding has to do with helping a known criminal evade detection or capture, often by hiding or obscuring evidence or providing inside information on the investigation. What's happening here falls more under accessory to copyright violations -- they are helping commit the crime, not helping the criminals evade the law.
If I am wrong, I would appreciate a member of the BARR correcting me...
--
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
this is just a good example of why i hate everyone.
again...look at his tobacco pipe example.
think before you post
I'm sure if they dug deep enough they'd find some shop, somewhere, selling bootleg recordings. If the shop was in the Yellow Pages, that would be a link. Therefore, Yellow Pages is promoting piracy.
-- Free Luna!
Then they went to sue everyone linking to the New York Times, right?
Moderators got no clue
hey ! why u allways trying to make things look bigger ? They're just trying to punish someone out of the law...... wether it is related or not to linking or even the Internet !
What about the Lycos MP3 search engine? How is MP3Board different from that... other than the fact that MP3Board tends to return links to mp3s that actually work.
Shouldn't RIAA have filed the lawsuit against Lycos first? The concept is the same, implementation is a bit different. And Lycos had their mp3 search engine installed for a long time... way before Napster.
--
Why should something that would normally be illegal be protected just because it's on the net?
I hate seeing my beautiful technohaven turned into a commercial crap pile as much as the next guy.. but that's just how they want us to think..
we can still do the same things we always have with the net. It just so happens that intentionally directing people to illegal materials is, in fact, illegal.. net or not...
If you introduce those poeple because you know that one of them is looking to purchase cocaine, and the other is selling it, then yes, you *are* breaking the law.. you are aiding and abetting a crime.
Who's talking about linking to sites? we're talking about direct links to copyrighten material.
Direct links to mp3's on other sites.
...maybe I've been looking at the computer too much. When I glanced at the headline, for a minute it looked like the legality of thinking was going to be tested. Then again... who knows.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
the RIAA wants everyone to be constantly monitored to see if they're listening to unauthorized music. sooner or later, we're not even going to be able to borrow a cd from a friend. people-the government won't become Big Brother, but watch out for the RIAA.
Does anyone know if the RIAA has attempted to file a suit against companies that run MP3 sites that are not located in the U.S.? I run AudioPhilez (www.audiophilez.com) which is located on a U.S. server but I am physically located in Australia and am the sole owner of the site. On another note, this is obviously more of the scare tactics the RIAA is famous for. "Make an example of the big MP3 sites, and watch the smaller ones cower in submission". I personally don't believe AudioPhilez appears blatantly about copyright infringement and I've posted a copyright policy and warnings on the site. There are a huge number of MP3's from unsigned bands in the index, and they *are* downloaded often.
I wish they'd help us with our intellectual property issues instead of just spanking us all like the bad children they claim us to be. They could be helping us be good.
----
Both sides are right. Linking in itself, is harmless. But when you *know* you're linking to a pirated MP3, and you check to make sure it really is, you're an accessory to piracy. The site that actually hosts the file should be shut down and punished harshly, while the site that linked to it (knowing that the site it linked to was illegal) should get a slap on the wrist.
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
taken from http://tlug.linux.or.jp/rms.html
"The only good thing about the unauthorized copy is that you avoid giving money to the owner. This is good, because the owner does not deserve a reward for making software proprietary."
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Hmmmmm. THAT is a valid point, but wouldn't RIAA be going after them just the same if they were a non-profit group? For that matter, does the law differentiate between non-profit free speach and profit free speach? I really don't know.
Finkployd
The thought of high-profile neighborhood busts scares the piss out of me. Where would it stop? What would they have to see you doing to get in their crosshairs? How hard would it be to get a warrant to search my drive, cause they'd damn well better have one to search my drive. Kinda makes me wonder about that bit I saw a while ago about encrypted ext2 :-)
If violence isn't solving your problems, you're not using enough of it. - MAJ Misato Katsuragi
The internet tends to be cordoned off into various "sectors." Thus from the RIAA's site, you can link to RIAA-liking links, and then from those, they merely link to more RIAA-liking links, because they are RIAA-liking sites to begin with, and do not want you going to, say, napster.com or mp3.com.
Most "illegal" sites are probably linked to by "illegal" or semi-"illegal" sites. Furthermore, they probably only link to "illegal" or semi-"illegal" sites.
* Note that this does not include, say, going to geoshitties' main page from a geoshitties page that is used to store warez, because that is not a link that is part of the actual content of the page, and was not put there by the author.
But of course!
---
I am the dot in slashdot.org
--If it can be shown that you where helping the local crack dealer by telling
:)
prospective customers how to get to his crack house, is this aiding and
abetting? --
you hit the key word with "prospective", the direction giver would have to be aware of a specific instance of crime for aid/abet and not just the possibility of crime. Is the author of bomb making info guilty of aid/abet the unabomber?
--Only authorised distribution is allowed. Note "distribution" If you have a
perscription from your doctor for valium, you can buy it from the local
pharmacy. They are authorised to sell "illegal" drugs, because they have the
mechanisms in place to help hinder illegal sales. It is STILL illegal for a
street vendor to sell you valium EVEN THOUGH you have a perscription. --
the analogy dosn't quite hold here. The distribution of drugs is regulated by the FDA for reasons of consumer trust (to make sure granny doesn't actually get sugar pills or cyanide instead). This was done because of the popularity of "wonder elixirs" and like stuff. The reasons behind ua sell of drugs and ua sell of cp material are far too different to draw analogies.
-- The usenet server? The admin didn't know there was illegal content there.
He cannot be reasonably expected to sift through the 30 GIG's (or more) of
posts that traverse the "big 8" daily
The poster? YES... but is it worth it to track him down? (in some cases,
yes... in fact, there are divisions of the FBI that do nothing more than track
down people posting kiddie porn to Usenet.)
does any of this make a difference? Not really. There is still plenty of illegal
content on Usenet. There is also plenty of perfectly legal content too. Illegal
acts often get ignored due to the hardships encountered in attempting to
enforce the law. --
I wasn't targeting the service per se, only certain groups that they carry. It was a fine point that I think you missed. It would be like yahoo putting an "Unauthorized, Copyrighted mp3z" category in their directory. The usenet server doesn't need to sift through large amounts of posts to know there's copryright infringement going on, else the people they service would have to also. My point was the fact that the services carry the groups that do this constitutes a "link" as much as a hyperlink on a webpage.
-- The piracy occured when a copy was made with the intent to distribute.
Selling or distributing illegal goods is illegal. Possesion with intent to sell is
also illegal. --
Proof of intent is in the pudding (the dark cloudy kind). You hit upon a key arguement here. Suppose I backup all of my cd's on a webserver? This would be exetremely useful to me, because they will always be there (hopefully), and I can listen to MY music from anywhere in the world without carrying a bunch of cd's. There is no -intent- to distribute. I have no cd player in the car, so while driving I listen to tapes that were recorded from home. Somebody steals the tapes from my car. Oh darn, I have to make more tapes. BTW, this reasoning has already saved a couple of my friends their hard earned money. Does the fact that I left the windows in the car down while I went inside to pay for the gas constitute intent to distribute?
-- On the surface? They can't. This is where protecting copyrights comes into
play. Copyright does not matter unless the entity that owns the copyright
comes forward and asserts its rights. --
Where does the surface end and the meat begin? Is it up to the judge "who knows it when he sees it"? This has a lot to do with the "midi" arguement. Can the lyrics exist without the tune or the tune without the lyrics and still be copyright infringement. Suppose its a copy of a band playing a cover, although it sounds a lot like the "real thing". Suppose the same band were to play in front of the judge.
I appreciate the time you took in answering my questions. Your responses were provocative of thought, for the most part. The parts you didn't quite get are only my failure to express myself accurately the first time. I apologize for that. On the surface some of the questions I raised seem simple with simple, common sense answers, but I'm really trying to dig into the "common sense" itself.
Thanks
I don't understand how the web's future hinges on the so-called 'freedom to link'?
So what if you can only link to things you have permission for? Get permission! I have to log in just about everywhere anyway so I already live in a world of permitted access. So what?
I sure don't want you "freely linking" into my computer any time you wish to take anything you find interesting.
I guess I just don't understand what you think you are saying...
I suggest they just close AltaVista too... ;-)
Just try: +metallica +MP3 +warez
Oops, with this link they could close Slashdot, now
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
you could have not put it in a less modest way.
and no, it wasn't a flamebait. btw, maybe one day you can learn something about an intelligent conversation/debate.
--- d'oh
I believe the legal doctrine that will come out is intention . At what point in the chain of linking is a site trying to propagate illegal content. That is the point in the chain where illegality is going to be found.
And yes, it's BS in the sense that intention is something that's as shapeless as mist and undefinable as ART. But since intention is a generally believed concept that is simple enough to explain to a jury, intention is where the fault for a "crime" will be placed.
It's interesting how the law, in general, quite often does judge people by their supposed intentions more than by their actions. The same physical car accident might be judged "attempted murder," "Reckless Endangerment" or a sad accident depending on the intentions and state of mind of the driver at fault. This is certainly contrary to many intuitive ideas of justice but it is very well established.
Finding the folks "intending" to violate the law is a simplistic doctrine but an effective tactic. It lets the authorities jump on whoever they believe will make the best example.
Indeed, the "normal" operations of the legal system fit more closely into the framework "round up the ring-leaders and that will keep things at bay" more than any "let the punishment fit the crime" system (indeed, this phrase - "let the punishment fit the crime" - has essentially been public relations for the legal system from the start of English Common Law).
--
Here's my mirror
Well, linking can be a sticky issue. Nobody wants to be paying for content, only to have it become the highlight of another, more popular page, such as linking a bunch of porn to your site. Cases such as DEEP LINKING are the real toughies, but it should only be the providers of the content who have the ability to sue, if anybody, not a third party, not if they are not authorized by the providers.
On the other hand, linking is what makes the web what it is. It can't exist without it. A ruling against linking would have to be very careful to state what constitutes illegal linking, and it would have to specify legal uses as well.
Would it be illegal, for instance, for altavista to put a page in their engine, after pepsi has submitted it?
I get nervous when judges come near the internet. Our fears, however, can be a little alleviated in that, supposing that people actually want the internet around, they can't outright stop us from linking to each other, the only issue might be a few trivial lawsuits which would overturn such a foolish decision.
In cases such as this one, RIAA should be suing the actual providers, if anybody. The person hosting the sites might be aiding and abetting, but it is the person hosting the copyrighted material who is committing the crime.
Eh...
Courtney Love does the math
I don't really think the RIAA can expect to ban linking on the web. It's such a stretch in a lawsuit that it makes me wonder what their real purpose is. Do they hope to pass through some law in Congress that outlaws the mp3 format? Even if they did, other countries could do whatever they please. America doesn't own the internet, although we try to convince ourselves we do.
Colin Winters
Think about what you are saying here.. Basically if any corporation were to take offense to some sort of information, they could summons you and you would be compelled to remove the link? Wow.. there goes a good portion of slashdot's stories.
And what is intent if I may ask? How do you prosecute someone based on intent? What is the intent of MP3.com here? Who are you to say who's got what intent?
Intent is NOT the key.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Is it just a US patent, or is the patent valid in europe, asia and africa too? If so, then only everyone in the US who uses LAME is an infringer.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
I THINK you can relax somewhat there... if they were to go after each and every Joe, Angie and Harry out there with lotsamp3 (tm), they'd never get anything done. They'll go after the big fish, nothing more.
:)
Of course, encrypting your partitions is always a good idea
Voting Moo Anyway!
for the other 99.5% of mp3 files that are illegal it makes sense. Do you agree the vast majority of mp3s out there are from copyrighted material? Your isp was right to be suspicious, if there was illegal copyrighted material on their server they could be in deep trouble.
Do you think that 13 year old kid with a cable modem is going to buy the new britney spears cd? nope. He'll download a few songs. Same goes for just about everyone else. To make napster nice and legal they could implement a check program like mp3.com where it checks if you have the original cd and then allows you to download the mp3. Although if you have the original cd its beyond me why you should need to download a mp3 that could be incomplete or be distorted, etc etc.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Yeah, this little snafu might kill the internet, but I'm sure it will get replaced with something else like FreeNet. I'll be glad when I don't have to dial up to these damn moneygrubbing ISPs anyway.
Oh, but you will, dearie... You don't honestly think theMAN will let you have anything for free, do you? People are greedy. Get used to it.
Gimme that, it's MINE! GIMME THAT, IT'S MINE! *End George Carlin Quote*
Voting Moo Anyway!
Well, I'm sure that many /.ers will be up in arms about this latest RIAA lawsuit infringing upon their "freedom" to download pirate music, but this isn't the same as Napster, which has at least tried to make it look like they're a genuine service for minority artists rather than a tool for people who don't like paying for music.
MP3Board.com has an automatic search engine which finds sites with MP3s, verifies that they're active and then posts links to them. Not content with providing this service for budding pirates, they then make it even easier to rip off artists by separating the links to genres such as "Legal MP3s", making it perfectly obiovus to even the dumbest script kiddie where to get pirate music!
The sheer gall of these people is amazing, and there is no way they should be allowed to continue operating a sight that all but advertises itself as a site for pirating music. Whereas Napster has a passive role, MP3Board actively searches for content and categorises it, and as such I have no sympathy at all for them.
For once, I hope the RIAA wins, this doesn't help us at all, and just makes those of us who are after more than the latest MP3 bad.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
Now hold on there, Chester. Before you go putting words in my mouth, listen to what I am trying to say.
The fact of the matter is, that almost all artists have a choice: sell their souls to some faceless megacorp who will only not screw them when it's convenient and profitable, or not pursue their careers.
The system is broken, because too much power is in the hands of corporations that are _perfectly_ within their rights to screw the artists this way.
The Internet is changing all this. First, illicitly through MP3 sharing, but ultimately, a new music distribution system will emerge that puts more control in the hands of the artists and the customers.
The fact of the matter is, that there are recordings that have been made which are no longer available for entirely selfish reasons. if those recordings are available through illicit channels when legitimate channels no longer exist who's going to blame otherwise honest fans for pursuing those channels.
I personally will buy anything I download that I will listen to more than a couple times (i.e., I want to listen to it more). I _want_ to give Windham Hill and Sony my money for these recordings, but I can't! Perhaps, no one is breaking any laws here, but as a customer, I sure ain't happy about the situation.
Rick
p.s. A small clue: If someone else owns the rights to a piece of music you have recorded, then you cannot re-record it without their permission. That's what "owning the rights" means.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I didn't get 7 windows on my desktop, what I DID get, however, is just as big a sin (imo)... I closed the window, and it fucking opened up another window. I mean, HI! I CLOSED YOU! GO AWAY!
Voting Moo Anyway!
After reading this article, it was pretty clear to me that the RIAA didn't exactly have a picture of what should and should not be illegal. The only thing that they were claiming is that since the kid who put up the hyperlinks had the knowledge that some crime was being committed, and the intention that the crime be committed, then there's some crime going on, right? Right?
The RIAA isn't exactly a philosophical organization with a broad view of the future. They're a day-to-day business, and right now, their strategy seems pretty clear to me: they want to see what they can and can't get away with. Does shutting down file-sharing protocols have any legal validity? Their answer: Who knows? We'll never know until we give it a shot. Does shutting down hyperlinking have any legal validity? Their answer? Who knows? Let's... give it a shot.
I cringe at the legal costs they must be incurring, but for a behemoth like the RIAA, that's really just business as usual.
It's easy to point fingers, but I don't think we can blame the RIAA for this - they're doing exactly what any other company whose business was threatened (or perceived to be threatened) would do. Hopefully, the courts will come to their senses and realize that this is just another frivolous attempt to gag free speech in the name of big business. If they don't, we know how to blame.
In conclusion, the only thing we can do is dilute the law by breaking it so often that a policy of salutory neglect must be followed.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
Hahaha, i love that...
The strangest moment of the week came when one RIAA lawyer, in a moment of frustration, asked us how we'd feel if someone took Pan and gave it away to millions of users for free. After the Pan team stopped laughing, the Andover lawyers had to explain why we liked the idea so much.
They simply don't understand how Open Source programs work, do they? I also assume they haven't really seen their webpage, where they're giving it away for free already (this piece of idiocy i must admit does make me snicker myself).
Oh, and food for thought... does this really mean that anything that enables people to distribute Metallica mp3's in any way, shape or form... is illegal? Oh my GOD! Outlook is illegal, it can send MP3's! uuencode and uudecode is illegal, because it's used on the news servers! These people need to go get laid.
This AC I'm replying to should've been moderated up.
Voting Moo Anyway!
Doesn't this proposal go counter to the Safe Harbor notion that ISPs are not liable for what their customers post? I understand it's not an exact application of the law, but the concept is similar. It's not fair for the ISP to be burdened with determining the legality of everything posted through their systems; similarly, I believe it isn't fair for a site owner to be burdened with checking the legality of all the other sites he happens to be linked to.
Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
Why don't they sue Lycos, which undoubtedly has more links than MP3Board. Sounds like selfish greedy bastards trying to bankrupt a poor little web site. Why don't they pick on somebody (near) their own size.
Grr.
Ahem, excuse me. Since when does the word of an RIAA spokesman mean anything?
... "This isn't the RIAA coming out against hyperlinking. This is about the fact that the sources MP3Board.com are linking ... [emphasis mine]
An RIAA representative said this case isn't about hyperlinking at all.
Linking is linking, whether you put a prefix like hyper in front of it or not. This nothing more than dodging the argument, that being that 'we're not against linking'. The fact is that they are!
They even have a genre labeled as 'Legal MP3s.'" [emphasis mine]
Which would seem to imply that somehow all MP3s are illegal, or at least of dubious legality. This is nothing more than the same tired old line spewed endlessly by the RIAA about how a method of compressing audio is illegal. Clearly, it is not.
The bottom line is that this is all about control--or, more accurately, the near complete lack of it that the RIAA currently holds. They want to cling to an abberation that allowed them to have a stranglehold on music for the past umpteen years. They want you and your children to bow to their will and their view of the world and how they believe it should work. Parroting their point of view only serves to further their interests.
The RIAA is an outdated institution that produces nothing, and, as such, will eventually disappear. Unless, of course, they secure the blessings of our Congress and get even more favorable (to them) restrictions legislated...
Except the ammount of damages claimed is vastly different.
If you run a web sight that makes money off somebody else's copyright material, they can make the case that they are entitled to royalties based on the money you made, plus punative damages for trying to cut them out.
If you copy a buddy's CD, the most they could claim is that you are less likely to buy an album that you might have purchaced otherwise.
Hardly the same "punishment" at all. (I put punishment in quotes because we are talking about civil lawsuits here, not criminal court. You have to commit copyright infringement on a pretty grand scale, like a large CD mastering lab, before criminal justice gets involved.)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
And sharing files, say, trough Napster certainly doesn't bring financial gain or commercial advantage, so it cannot be criminal in the US.
--
Here's my mirror
Yesterday they said the future of the web depends on stopping those mp3 file jamming companies. Man, the web is having a tough week!
tcd004
send a Postcard!
By the RIAA's arguments, anything that can facilitate illegal activity should be banned. Cars are used in drive-bys. Ban 'em. Food can be used to poison people, as can air. Looks like we'll have to stop breathing and eating. Uh-oh. Music makes people commit suicide. It should be banned as well :-p.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
To use a (weird) analogy, consider the case of someone looking to buy a stolen watch. It is not illegal for me to say that Bob sells stolen watches down at the corner. This would be the equivalent of linking to a page, basically pointing someone in the right direction. Now, what happens, if this person goes, talks to Bob, and leaves without taking his (stolen) watch with him? Bob then comes to me, asks me to give him the watch, which I do. This is what MP3board is doing. They are handing the MP3s to people. It's not their watch, and they didn't sell it, but they are involved nonetheless.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
As i've posted before, not only is a page a file, but until you click on something, it is impossible to tell which it is. A directory can look like a file very easily.
http://prettypictures.com/mountain_stream.jpg can be replaced with mountain_stream.jpg/ which is an entire directory of illegal mp3s. The problem with requiring a page to be responsible for the type of links, is that without downloading at least part of them, it is impossible to tell what the link is to. If every page out there starts downloading even a porton of it's links on a regular basis, the internet will get slower than it already is.
Linking simply cannot be illegal.
-Tannin Kal
A communications channel that could relay any data nearly anywhere in the world more or less instantaneously.
Naturally, the powers that be want to make sure that only offical, approved information that reflects and protects their interests is disseminated. Many average citizens are content to let this happen, either unable or unwilling to understand the ramifications of this trend.
Others, myself among them, realize that if only approved, sanitized, doesn't-upset-those-in-charge data is to be sent, then the real message will just have to go out anyway--just in a more quiet fashion.
During the heyday of the Soviet Union, when mimeographs were sensitive technology and every document that was printed or copied was examined for ideas that did not conform to the Party line, there were individuals who, through ingenuity and boldness, managed to draft and circulate information that was priceless because it was the truth. Information distributed in this way came to be known as samizdat.
I suggest that we get busy accumulating samizdat. When the time is right (and let us hope, and work to ensure, that it never is), then we must distribute it. Information may not care whether it is free, but people have the right not to be bamboozled and hoodwinked into submission.
www.alarmist.org
>Whatever the precedent is there, the same should apply to linking -- the linker knows something illegal is going to happen as a result
>of his linking, and should be punished appropriately.
I don't think it's that simple. When the Mafiaboys come a lookin' for Bob - and they are fully capible of finding him on their own (they already have a pretty good idea of where he hiding) - some repugnant character figures he can score some brownie points by telling them where to find Bob.
In this example, intense social dislike rather than criminal law is more likely to be applicable.
Besides which, the real problem (as I see it) is how the hell can the judge rule in favour of the RIAA without setting a precedent that is hidiously open to abuse from similarly well-financed bullys?
No matter what restrictions or qualifiers he uses, it would be a powerful blow for might over right.
> links go to prohibited material,
> you should be held accountable.
But, how do I prove that I don't know that those links go to prohibited material? I can't prove I don't know something, except by stating I didn't. That's pretty weak evidence versus a printout of a website linking to a bunch of stuff that I may have thought was legal, but actually wasn't.
"The competent programmer...approaches the programming task in full humility. -- Edsger Dijkstra
MP3.com and Napster are "selling" a service (actually, supporting it with ad sales, which ammounts to the same thing)
well.. I use gnapster to download mp3, and I didn't see any ad. In fact, I never loaded Napster's site at all.
while lots of people do, I don't see why I can't use this service.
The files being transferred are the user's responsibility anyway, so all this is just nonsense.
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
But say Bob makes copies for 50,000 of his closest friends. Then the copyright owner would be able to go after Bob for the loss of 50,000 sales, just as if he had sold the copies. It doesn't matter if he profits from the copying or not, or whether he's into it "commercially" or "casually". Under the law, infringement is infringement.
The real-world effects might be different (there's more to recover from the "pirate") and the politics might be different (the company might not want the PR of pursuing, say, teenagers). But the law is the same.
---
(*) Unless Alice wears an eyepatch and goes around saying "Avast! Aargh!", she is not a pirate. But for the sake of discussion, let us temporarily agree to the cynical and silly extension of the meaning of the word "pirate".
---
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
This brings up an interesting point. I wonder if the lawyers involved in this case understand the implications of giving an inductive definition for "illegal" without establishing a well-defined base case?
Links to pirated material would be controlled under the "contributory infringement" clause. Basically, if you help someone else infringe on a copyright (or copyleft), you are legally liable.
At what point a link is contributory is the real issue that must be settled. I feel that if you know full well that those links go to prohibited material, you should be held accountable. There is a case in Utah concerning the publishing of LDS material on the web in which the defendants pulled the material and substituted links to other sites. These people clearly knew they were still facilitating a copyright violation.
But, clearly, not all links to pages that violate copyright are illegal. For example, in the DeCSS case against 2600 it has not been shown that DeCSS infringes any copyright. Therefore, links should be permitted until such time as the court decides a violation has occurred.
They want to sue everyone in sight to take away or limit our rights on-line because people trade mp3's? I wonder what would happen if we all seperately filed lawsuits against the RIAA? There has to be some legal stance we could all take!! Let's take down their greedy legal department!
It is quite possible to make a parellel between linking (Websites) and introducing people.I can further my parellel be example. I introduce two people who have never meet before, should I now be concerned about what happens between them ? What if there is an altercation, or love affair? are the courts going to hold me responsible for the introduction ? In that context the concept is absurd. The RIAA & the Record Companies need to find a new way to generate funds because MP3's are never going away!
While looking over the site for my favorite
:) end article.
newsreader,PAN,at www.superpimp.org,I saw they were being sued by the RIAA.the text as follows:
June 26, 2000 - RIAA Lawsuit Update
The RIAA has returned to its original demand that we remove the binary decoder from Pan. They believe that since the decoder is a third-party library, our claim that it's unremovable is false. So with our July 24 court date a little less than a month away, we're back to square one.
The strangest moment of the week came when one RIAA lawyer, in a moment of frustration, asked us how we'd feel if someone took Pan and gave it away to millions of users for free. After the Pan team stopped laughing, the Andover lawyers had to explain why we liked the idea so much. There's a Salon article here somewhere.
Well,goes to show you can give PAN away to millions,but I bet you couldnt PAY to have
someone TAKE an RIAA shyster away.
..................................
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
look... the future of the web is going to be just fine...
the RIAA and such (MPAA, Mothers against anything Fun, whatever) represent the mainstreaming of the web.
They want to remain relevant. Right now, the only way to distribute CD's and whatnot is to go through them. Very few record stores have the buying power and independence to buy anything outside of the major record labels. Tower and Border's are notable exceptions.
All of a sudden, this whole internet thing removes the need for their insane distribution. All of a sudden a scarce commodity (CD's, shelf space) has turned into a product where there is NO scarcity, and 0 marginal cost, that is, it costs nothing to produce another MP3.
Being made completely irrelevant is not somethign that people take kindly too... so they are going to fight this every single inch of the way...
ANd they will still lose. Why?
Because they are attacking and accusing and criminalising the very people that they wish to have as their customers. This isnt about "protection" or "artists" its about maintaining the status quo.
When industries, countries, whatever, have more interest in maintaining something that is old, just because it used to be that way, they begin to decline, because they are busy fighting progress instead of making progress.
So what heppens is the world moves on to newer and better ways of distibuting music and media, while the record companies are left holding their traditional, outmoded forms, that people will cease to use.
Dont worry, these people will self destruct in the end... its just a matter of time...
... hi bingo
>people to where they can find drug dealers, and
>make a profit by giving out that information, you
>are crossing the line.
The phone company and the newspapers do it all the time. Not drug dealers actually, but will prostitution do? It's pretty much common knowledge that "escort services", "massage parlors", and "modelling agencies", are thinly veiled fronts for prostitution...
... But open up the PacBell yellow pages to the "E" section... Or check out the back few pages of SF Weekly or the Guardian. I'm pretty sure that all three make a profit.
Or lets go back to drugs...
Not too long ago there was a big flap about a bill in congress called the "Methamphetimine Antiproliferation Act" or somesuch. This bill, if passed, would have made it illegal to link to, or post on the web, information on how to make your own amphetemine; and, rightfully so, there was an outroar about the unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.
To be opposed to the "Methamphetimine Antiproliferation Act"'s restrictions on linking, but be in favor of restricting links to MP3 sites is nonsenceically hipocritical... and just plain silly. It's okay to allow one kind of free speech to be outlawed, but not another???
That's BS. Once you start down the path of giving up your freedoms, where does it stop?
And I hardly see where it is relevant if the site makes a profit or not. The logic of "it's wrong to make a profit" would seem to imply that it's perfectly okat to post all the drug manuefacturing info, warez, copyrighted MP3s, and kiddie porn I want, so long as *I* pay for the hosting myself. But if I set up ONE little banner ad, suddenly I'm an evil, preditory, inhuman monster; commiting crimes against humanity.
I'll set aside, for the moment, that most of the people *I* know who have banner ads on their sites barely bring in enough to pay for their hosting service, if that much.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
As a legal thing, this is probably equal to aiding and abetting a crime. The person linkign to an illegal file may not actually be distributing the file, but they are giving others the means of obtaining it, essentially aiding the crime.
Then again, maybe they should instead be happy about the link pointing them to a site that illegally distributes stuff so that they can shut that site down. *grin*
Here's a list of all the patents Thomson and Fraunhofer are claiming on MP3.
Will I retire or break 10K?
BT should be up in arms. After all, they own the patent on hyperlinking to begin with.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
It seems to me that it's quite poss. that all of these organizations (RIAA, MPAA, etc. etc.) are more interested in using lawsuits as ways to kill off or slow down these issues by the simple fact that they have mountains of cash and piles of lawyers and can afford just to play forever in the courtroom, and all these damned little upstarts that are threatening their cushy way of life are going to have to spend time and resources just to answer the charge. The outcome in court is of secondary importance to them. Having had the opportunity several times to bring civil complaints against people or organizations that very clearly were in the wrong, I just didn't 'cause they had more money than I did, so they could just drag it on, and, on, and on... Even though I knew I was right, everyone said I would win, it's still awfully hard to spend 10's or 100's of thousands of dollars to bring the case to court. It seems to be a similar kind of thing is going on here, except the financial constraint is placed on the defense side of the court. The RIAA et al are just using the court system, and a lot of really poorly thought out "laws", as their intimidation muscle, and they get 80% of the effect they are looking for even if it never gets to court, or even if they lose their case. Plus, if they get a temporary injunction along with the initial filing, then it gives them more time to figure out a way to actually catch up with the rest of the world, and figure out how they can make even more money by doing even less work. How much do you think MP3Board can afford to spend on defending itself? As far as I can tell, they prob. have a bit less cash laying around, and prob. don't have a crack team of entertainment law lawyers sitting around just waiting to put up a good defense. I can't imagine that banner ads are going to be real effective at funding the necessary legal defense fund. First came vinyl. Cost a bundle of money to make an album in production costs and transportation (remember how fragile those things were?), but they were not overly expensive. Around $8 in today's $$$ when they were the "in" format. Then came cassette tapes. Cost quite a bit relatively, due to the time it took to record them, and they actually had a full assembly to deal with to boot (all those moving parts, and the necessary QA that had to go along with them). But a tape only sold for like $8.00-$10.00 in today's $$$. Then came CD's. Amazingly cheap to manufacture. No moving parts, the recording process was very fast, and they were pretty much indestructible compared to the other formats. So, do we get the $$$ saved passed on to us? Hell no! CD's sell for upwards of 2X the price of cassettes! Now that the internet is here, and they can distribute an infinite amount of music for next to nothing in the way of production and distribution costs, I can imagine them coming up with a scheme where an mp3 "album" will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $350... This is all going to end badly for little ol' you and me.
What I don't know I just fake...
the whole *point* of this article is whether linking can be illegal. get a clue.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
Grr. Freedom of speech is not without limits. If you help someone commit a criminal act (piracy), you are guilty of aiding and abetting a criminal act. This has absolutely nothing to do with the "future of the web." It's about intent. If the intent is to break the law, it shouldn't matter that it's just a link -- a link is a mechanism by which information is obtained. Freedom of speech also comes with a certain responsibility; it's certainly not just a blanket excuse to do what you want.
So for the record: RIAA is right to try to punish intent, and not the link itself.
This is ridiculous. I'm not a fan of those who like to get their music for free and then complain when companies try to stop it. I have no problem with metalica going after those that give thier work away for free.
This new law suit is just silly and is obviously a knee jerk reaction to try and stop the mp3 thing anyway they can. I think they'd be better served going after the sites actually distributing the MP3s not jthe ones linking to them..
I mean LYCOS has an mp3 search feature too.
This is to be expected though as people are going a little crazy for the free (beer) mp3s. I think the industry realizes the first step to distributing (selling) music on the web is to stop those that are giving it away for free. Why buy it when it s FREE.
The scale of the piracy is amazing and if people don't watch out and start acting responsibly I think draconian laws criminalizing mp3 trading (MDCA) will continue to be enacted.
I alway though computer people knew that information is value. Of course the RIAA is going to try and protect its place.
/Aram
/Aram
Taking out mp3board alone will cut down on more piracy than taking out any of the individual sites holding the mp3s would, so that's what they're going for.
sig:
See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.
thanx for the help
2^3 * 31 * 647
Oh, let's sue over something that is almost certain to do nothing, rather than sue the person who would actually have the ability to make the problem go away. Of course this way the mp3s will still be there, for anyone to access, but they'll have a harder time finding them!
Duh.
--
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
And what about Slashdot for linking to Wired?
When does the buck stop?
cheers,
Justin.
"My cat's breath smells like cat food." - The Tao of Ralph Wiggum.
Aiding and abetting is a crime both in the the real world and online. But this is not a criminal case, it is a civil case. No one has been charged (yet) with either committing a crime or aiding and abetting one.
The patent was on the algorithm that was developed by the Frauenhoffer (sp?) Institute. LAME developed their own MP3 codec that doesn't use F. Institute's algorithm, and is therefore free from patent encumbrences.
Noone's going after the LAME maintainers. There's no civil recourse against someone who is not violating any patents or copyrights and who can easily prove it (open source since the beginning, after all).
The poster was correct, then. Mpeg layer 3 is freely usable by anyone. At least, by anyone with access to a machine that can run LAME.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
In Finland, it's illegal to link to overseas gambling services. The government has stated that as it's illegal to promote gambling except for the government monopoly, linking to a site that provides gambling facilities is illegal.
I think in that case it's fairly clear, for as long as the linked site clearly provides gambling facilities and the link is in a context that seems to promote gambling.
I think it's illegal to assist in a crime or promote crime about everywhere. The problem is that it's a thin line: eg. Finnish Cannabis Association *IS* legal, and their mission is to make owning and using cannabis legal. Some people believe this means promoting crime (and by publishing related articles, also assisting in crime), while others believe that they're not guilty of any criminal activity, and as their activity is directed to trying to change legislation through providing information, lobbying, etc, their activities are legal.
We can ask the same about many things, including hyperlinking to material that might not be legal. Still, up to date it has seemed that linking to material that is clearly illegal MIGHT constitute the crime of promoting crime or assisting in crime, but for as long as it can't be shown that the material is clearly illegal and that the person or organization linking to the material must clearly have been aware of the illegality of the material they've been linking to, they should be considered innocent but as they have, during the process, been notified of the illegality of the material they're linking to, the moment it has become clear, they should've removed the link.
Well, then, how about giving the mailing addresses of someone willing to sell a "home meth lab"? That, in essence, is what Napster is doing. They're not making to illegal goods. They're not selling the illegal goods. They're just providing pointers to someone selling the illegal goods.
AFAICT, this isn't significantly different than the ads in the back of "High Times" magazine.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Let's think of this as a murder investigation...
I know that you intend to kill a hypothetical erson named Bob. If I tell you where Bob is because I want you to kill him and I know that telling you where he is will make this happen, am I partly responsible for Bob's subsequent death from being stabbed with an unusually sharp umbrella? Whatever the precedent is there, the same should apply to linking -- the linker knows something illegal is going to happen as a result of his linking, and should be punished appropriately.
Besides, why not just use napster?
-S
1. Does the fact that a webpage has links to mp3's on another page actually constitute aiding and/or abetting? It would seem to me that the person responsible for the links would have to know of a specific instance of piracy involving those links, rather than be aware of the possibility or likelyhood of piracy, to be convicted of such an offense.
2. Is there a legitamate purpose for downloading a copyrighted mp3? For example, I have a badly sunburnt tape of , I bought many years ago. This tape won't play anymore, but lo and behold, I find the same material on the net, and make another tape. Is this a legitimate use? My feeling is that it is, as I have already paid the author, label, etc. all they are due from me.
3. What about usenet servers? They are different from yahoo and google in the fact that they actually store, for a limited time, all sorts of stuff. What about sites like Remarq? I have pulled multipart binaries from them before (as of a year ago, it was possible, although exetremely tricky). Does the fact that they even carry an alt.bin.warez.. group imply that they are knowingly aid/abetting piracy? If they get by this by stating that there are legitimate posts in those groups, can mp3board do the same by claiming that they link to some that have both copyrighted and public-domain mp3's?
4. This question follows from #2. If there is actually a legit purpose for dowloading a copyrighted mp3, can mp3board claim they were actually helping restore peoples' trashed media? (if the answer to #2 is no, then this point is moot)
5. If a website has mp3's on it, when does the piracy occur, on the authoring of the site, or the first download? Suppose there is a new computer on demonstration at wal-mart. Suppose I waltz in there with a floppy and save a copy of on it. The computer is on public display, just as a webpage is. Is wal-mart guilty of the same offense as a webpage full of mp3's? The question here is whether foreknowledge that piracy could be committed equate to an act of offense?
6. What happens when a band plays a cover? Do they have to get permission from each band? What if they tape the concert and sell an album? What about midi? What about having an mp3 of a midi under the same name and tune of a song? Can I make a midi to the tune of Old Man River with tempo, beat, and instumentation to match Jim Croce's version, and distribute the midi legally?
7. I think the most fundamental question is what constitutes an actual infringement. By this I mean, how can a person tell that an mp3 is actually copyrighted material? Is there a physical test that has set tolerances (a waveform diff)? Or is it up to the judge who "knows porn when he sees it"? A test for plaigerism or written copyright violations has been easy and straightforward (word for word), music is not quite as tangible.
8. If one file on a site is copyrighted, do they all have to go, or does each one have to be tested?
I understand that some of these questions are a litle meta-physical or seem to be in need of common sense, but I feel the true heart of this matter (other than the money hungry record industry) hasn't been fully examined yet. I believe that one day, the majority of the population will wake up, yawn, and wonder what happened to the things that used to be taken for granted, then some things will change. I'm not too worried about the music industry winning these battles, because they'll only make the chains heavier and more noticeable to the average joe. It's like a really slow game of pong, the ball's in our court but hasn't hit the paddle yet.
Yep, and if the act itself isn't criminal then abetting it isn't abetting a criminal act.
*sigh*
The amount of sensationalism associated with slashdot has reached a disturbing level. As others have pointed out the legality of deep linking has already been upheld in court also the RIAA has said that they are not going after the site for linking but for being running a site that indexes illegal material.
From the article:
An RIAA representative said this case isn't about hyperlinking at all.
"This isn't about automated versus not-automated hyperlinks, this is about what they know and what they don't know," said Steve Fabrizio, the RIAA's senior vice president for legal and business affairs.
"This isn't the RIAA coming out against hyperlinking. This is about the fact that the sources MP3Board.com are linking to are blatantly pirate sites which they are aware of. They link to sites that say 'Super Pirated MP3s.' They even have a genre labeled as 'Legal MP3s.'"
After all aiding and abetting is still a crime in the real world so why shouldn't it be one online?
mp3board opened NO LESS than SEVEN FUCKING WINDOWS on my desktop, one of which was the size of the entire god damned screen!
That should be a fucking capital offense. I want to see people die for javascript BULLSHIT like that.
UGH!
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Who cares if its immoral or not, or how much 'gall' someone has, its not illegal. That's that. End of story. Guilt has nothing to do with how much more balls a guy has than you, it has to do with the law. If its not illegal, then any Joe can do it all he wants.
The only reason that the RIAA is doing anything about this is because they're afraid they'll go poor and have to eat from someone else's hand or something. Also, its much easier to sue someone that has a website or a domain with contact information than it is to sue all the people that download something. And last I heard, its not illegal to have a mp3'd copy of a song off of a CD that you own, so they should only be suing the people that download a song and also don't own a copy of it on CD. Its easy to see why they're going after linking. They're lazy.
Unitedmedia, like the RIAA, was pissed because they were missing out on the ability to serve the content with ads 'n' stuff. It's more than just "links to illegal sites", as the RIAA claims, it's links to the content that they don't get anything from.
I'll bet dimes to dollars that if I were to link straight to an mp3 on sonymusic.com, I'd be contacted by the nice people from their legal department.
Sure, they say that they're against links to illegal sites, but they're really against not being able to add their flavor of piss (whether it be banner ads or pop-ups) to the "illegal" content.
--
hymie
Nor is there any international issue here; both sites were located in America, subject to any and all American laws.
And not only did the linkers know they were linking to illegal content, they were encouraging others to break the law by following those links.
In the Real World, if you know about a crime and don't report it, you can be charged as an accessory. We shouldn't be surprised or pissed that a penalty which is even less harsh can be imposed for doing it on the 'net.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
If this law would be an reality then what will be the next step FTP,usenet and so on...
) against software patents in europe.
This is absolutely absurd where in the link chain should links then be illegal? First link? second link?
F**** RIAA and all other multi $ companies that
only thinks about money.
And now something completely different, sign this petition(http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html
My god. What does it take to convince these people that MP3 files are not illegal. The Mpeg Layer 3 format is freely usable by anyone. Just because something has an MP3 tag does NOT mean it is copyrighted material.
I don't know about anyone else, but I am utterly sick and tired of this mentality. For a while my ISP thought I was pirating music when I had a bunch of MP3 files in my html directory. I had to call them on the telephone and explain they were MP3 recordings of a friend of mine's band Neanderthal Mission, and that they were perfectly legal. Another example would be many of your IRC networks who prohibit MP3 channels, even legal ones because they "might be used for copyright infringment".
The point is that people need to WAKE up, and smell the shit they're throwing. MP3s are not always illegal. And until we can past that, we're just handing the RIAA all the power they want.
Whatever we may think about the RIAA, MP3s and the future of information, it is sensationalist to claim that an injunction against KNOWINGLY linking DIRECTLY to illegal material would shake the foundations of the Web as we know it.
If Yahoo accidently links to pirated information, that's a totally different issue in terms of the law. Intent can matter.
Beware slipperly slope arguments. They have their place but critical thinking can often indicate that the slope is not so slippery.
Heck, why don't they just get it over with and sue everybody, every company, and every organization in the world? It could probably be proven that they are guilty in some way or form. This is getting REAL stupid. If they drop the price of tickets and concerts alnog with selling cheap mp3 cds, they would probably elliminate the problem, but NOOOO that would be to obvious. We REALLY MUST KEEP THE LAWYERS ABILITY TO BY BMWs and JAGs.
Is is too late to start our own world?
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
I agree with the original poster, the anti-copyright zealots on ./ are making so much noise that they are not thinking about what they are saying.
Whether or not you agree, pirating copyrighted music or video games or whatever is illegal. If you disagree, tell it to the judge. If you hold the law in contempt by directing people to violate the law, you are guilty of conspiracy.
If I stood on a street corner, 'linking' customers to where they could by crack, I would be committing a crime. If you encouraged 18 year old not to register for selective service, you would be committing a crime.
The majority of the posters here are in some sort of fantasyland where all information or art is under the GNU Public license. I have read many, many posts in past weeks describing the evils of RIAA, Microsoft, etc and how the concepts of patents and copywrights are flawed.
I agree with most of these points, too. However, the reason why the copyright law has been perverted into a tool of monopolistic corporations is that those companies are the only ones who give a damn.
The vast majority of 18-35 year olds, male and female do not give a shit about the political process, much less vote. The reason why every day the courts and goverment chip away at our rights every day is that nobody notices. Everybody here complains about how their mp3's are being taken away. Guess what? NOBODY who puts judges and politicians in office knows what an mp3 is!
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
If the RIAA doesn't want people to link to certain units of their intellectual property, the solution is absurdly simple. Just GPL those files you want protected. Since you can't link from a non-GPL application to a GPL library, then neither should you be able to link from a non-GPL website to a GPL MP3. Instead of raising a huge legal ruckus of copyright infringement, just mention a possible GPL violation here on slashdot and the perps will be quickly intimidated.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Back to the real topic here: If I put something that I own, say a copyrighted art poster, out in my front yard and you come by and snap it with your digital camera and then run it off on your home printer, I'm guilty? Of what? Providing an 'attractive nuisance'? Think that statute generally applies to things like and unfenced swimming pool after the neighbor kid drowns.
And then if someone puts up a guide to Places Where You Can Snap Photos of Intellectual Property they're contributing to crime? Hell, every privately owned famous building is intellectual property under the law - you can't use it as backdrop in your commercial work without negotiating terms with the owner. So the AIA guide to NYC architecture contributes to crime because a commercial photographer might take it and snap away without negotiating compensation with the owners? Sure thing!
Note that the current Napster defense is that individuals sharing music by, say, lending a record to tape, is de facto legal, so Napster is doing nothing to contribute to crime because there's _no crime_.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Back in April the MPAA tried to ban 2600.com from providing links to any sites that were mirroring DeCSS. Their legal team attempted to push this through court... but I wonder if the fact that the New York Times' linking to the same links page had anything to do with the stopping of this legal bull rush.
[Connection closed by foreign host]
i've posed this question before and nobody replied, maybe this time it will work. If linking to something that is illegal became illegal, what would happen to most search engines? I'm sure i can go to google.com, yahoo.com, search.com etc and find tons and tons of links to illegal material.
I suppose I must add IANAL. Like, duh!
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
...assuming the RIAA wins, and it becomes illegal to put hyperlinks to illegal sites, what about text-which-is-a-url, but not a HREF? i.e.
http://www.piratemuic.com/metallica
vs.
http://www.piratemusic.com/metallica
The second is absolutely no different from putting a URL (or as someone pointed out, the address of a crack house) in a newspaper. Of course, the only difference is that the user has to copy-paste or retype the link in the Address box of their browser to get there, rather than simply clicking on the link, but that could be a signifigant difference to the courts. Something like how selling "tobacco pipes" is legal, but not "bongs."
I imagine that it would be impossible to prevent these sites from publishing non-href URLs like this. Is it a link if it's not clickable?
Free Luna!
Matter of fact, Slashdot had a story about this earlier this year, where a federal judge ruled that deep linking was OK, as long as people knew that they were going to someone else's site. The RIAA had a similar situation with Lycos' MP3 search page, but nothing came about it.
In this case, if MP3Board.com is throwing links to different FTP servers out, but people know that these sites aren't run by MP3Board.com, then doesn't that make it OK?
Thoughts?
--
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
The 'real karma whore' you're looking for no longer has a user info page. Sorry.
-o Who care's how corrupt our leaders are when they're political karma whores? o-
So which is it, RIAA? You want it both ways, but if you can't have it both ways, which will it be?
OTOH, if the RIAA spokesmodel is correct that it still hasn't been served with the suit by MP3Board, that does seem odd, and at least raises the question of whether MP3Board is serious about that one.
Does the RIAA have jurisdiction outside of America? Can I still link to my illegal MP3s in Canada or Europe, or anywhere else?
Name your band something like 'Soundtrack' or 'Instrumental'. Searching for the band 'Live' on Napster usually gives you listings of live performances of other bands. 'Live' (the band), may have had the forsight to see the obscurity their name may have in large databases. - Frontman for '%alica%', the band.
Look, it is like this. If I drive friend to the store to purchase a magazine you could say I linked him to it. Now, say the owner of the store is up to something illegal. Does that make my friend liable for it just because he bought something at that store, even if what he bought from the store was legit? No it doesn't, its that simple. Now if I was a "hook up" for my friend to buy something illegal from the store clerk then yes, my friend would be in trouble.
sig this
However, there are risks: First of all, if the responsibility of content expands to the person who put a banner on her site, adveritising for pr0n-related sites could be threatened, especially if there would be strict local (eg. Utah) content restrictions.
This leads to a more general risk - the necessity to self censor. And that is truly dangerous, since the webmaster cannot in any case know every piece of copyrighted material on Earth..
I know this thread is Deeply OffTopic, but:
wtf r YHBT, YHL, & Hand?
2^3 * 31 * 647
All a link is a piece of data identifying another page -- it's no different than a popup window.
Sure it is, you have direct control over what is in your popup windows. You have no control of what happens on the other end of a link.
Remember that PETA decision from a few days ago. Let's say that you have a link to HALO.org (the Handicapped Animal Lovers Of America) because you support their agenda. They forget to pay their bill to their registrar and someone else snatches it up and then launches a site based upon the Historical Anal LoveLife Of Aristotle. How can you be responsible for that? Can someone sue you because their kid happened to follow your link and get traumatized when he sees explicit pictures of a re-enactment of Aristotle's penchant for, um YOU KNOW?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
So is it illegal to go to your local library and check out a book on how to acquire pirated music or build a bomb? The dissemination of information is legal. Legally, I can tell you how to build a bomb, commit a murder without being caught, put together the perfect fake ID, etc. What you do with that information is up to you. In other words, a site can provide the information, but I don't think they can be held liable for the actions of visitors to their sites. Unless, of course, they blatantly mislead users (for example, by claiming the music is licensed and legal.)
----------
Something cleverTo quote the article again, " The original suit is requesting that the judge clarify the requirements of how MP3Board should monitor its site for illegal content, grant an injunction to block the RIAA's attempts to shut down the company, and award the company monetary damages for the recording industry's interference in its business. " - but does google monitor it's search engine for illegal content? Of course not! This is rediculous.
This is the latest round of legal fighting between the two companies. The original suit is requesting that the judge clarify the requirements of how MP3Board should monitor its site for illegal content, grant an injunction to block the RIAA's attempts to shut down the company, and award the company monetary damages for the recording industry's interference in its business. I hope the judge grants it.
-o Who care's how corrupt our leaders are when they're political karma whores? o-
RIAA's overzealous lawyering is hurting them. They're becoming a joke. Not only that, but it's going to be very difficult for them to drag out the first amendment when they get sued for murders by kids who listen to violent music. They'll have no credibility at all -- and their theories of causation are farther-fetched than the "Kid listens to gangsta rap and kills" theories that they've always pooh-poohed
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
perhaps we should say that the Convention of human rights is a better basis for the internet than the US constitution. It at least has the advantage of being international
... that's trademarks. So it doesn't apply to this case.
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
Well here is a ranting bouncing comment about everything I can think of. Starting with linking. Linking makes the web go round. For example go here for great news for nerds Interestingly enough I Just linked to a page with certain content, and I'm sure there are links to pages with other content, and somewhere in the great content heap there is probably a stolen copy of some song in mp3 format. Uh oh the thought police should round me up and reeducate me into a drone since I am obviosly so imoral as to offer free music. But wait I just sent you to a news site.
Is it not fair to say people should be accountable for their links though?
I say yes(I'm horribly contradictory.) I think there should be differentiation between linking to a pirate web site indirectly, and linking to a specific file. I think if I make a link to a web page that offeres illegal content then so be it, you still have to go there and do the downloading. But if i put a link that connects you from my web page, directly to a file then I am just as guilty of hosting that copywrited file as the server that has it.
But here is where my other problem comes in. Copy writes tend to be a country by country thing. They are rarely (if ever) globaly acknowledged. So why does the US government have any real say over who is guilty of what. For that matter if the site operator was in the states but the site itself was hosted in chili, or lets say the moon had a web hosting server. Where is the crime being commited? In the states? or the moon. SO who's legal jurisdiction is that?
So here is my idea, instead of countries, lets have one great nation united. One set of laws that protect life and society. Global harmony and lets toss in some peace and love for good measure. Lets protect the rights of the artist and the individual, and get away from stupid nagging law suits.
Or maybe if that won't fly (because at this stage in human evolution NUKES would fly faster then peace and love because man isnt ready to give up some grudges.) Lets form a self goverening internet comunity. Once and for all a set of rules and guidelines that all citizans of the net must follow. Punishment and trial comes down to a country's judicial system, but the laws and rights of the person on trial are those of the internet citizan not the countries. Sure it would be confusing, but it would better then letting one country try and rule us all.
Geoffrey Cameron Peart
McMaster Software Engineering
Geoffrey Cameron Peart
McMaster Software Engineering
Monkies? I like Monkies
I'd mod it up if I had the power :-)
It's not funny till someone gets hurt.
Does this have any relation to freedom of speech? I mean, by linking to something, you are effectively just telling people where to find something, aren't you? You don't have the actual file on your server.
Would it be any different if the click didn't actually take you there? If you just provided the URL?
What about sites that have links to 'the terrorist's handbook' and information like that... do they fall into the same category?
What about sites that provide illegal passwords and backdoors into pay porn sites? Surely those poor hard-working porn site developers (and poor college girls just trying to make it through university) are getting nailed as hard (excuse the pun) as the poor musicians?
I can't even imagine the amount of legal BS and semantics that a case like this would involve.
Isn't 1984 a science fiction book?
linux=punk rock
What about a link to a link :-)
I wouldn't say that it was synonymous. There is no handling or manipulation of a product simply by linking. You are talking guilt by association. That is a grey area at best, and, due to the degree of moral-relativism associated with these matters, will probably be handled on a case-by-case basis. Very difficult to establish precedence.
sine puella vita suget
Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.
you have been trolled you have lost have a nice day. hope this helps. tom
Reality does not happen until you analyze the dots. -Don DeLillo (Underworld)
Besides, you seem to have missed the point of my original post. Linking to an illegal site is synonymous with fencing stolen goods. Not really. As others have pointed out, in this instance, intent can be very important. Consider the case of a newspaper reporting that there are lots of prostitutes frequenting a particular neighbourhood in the city. Are they then guilty of pimping? Or does it qualify as investigative reporting?