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.
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
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
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...
By extension, wouldn't the site they came from be illegal also?
t
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.
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
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
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
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?
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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"
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
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
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;
Actually, I'm pretty sure Outlook express still needs the http:// if we're going to be picky.
Anyway. While I agree with you, it's always useful to know quite how stupid some people are. I forget the search engine, but one engine's stats a while back revealed that www.hotmail.com was in the top 10 searched for terms...
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
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.
Thanks for the correction. The point remains the same.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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
...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.
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!
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.
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)
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
--
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...
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
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
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."
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.
I have to say that I've never liked the idea of "case by case basis".
Without rigid standards in our law, we're plunged into chaos - any man can find his entire life completely at the mercy of any random judge or seven joe blows - and let me tell you, out here in Nevada, where some of the judges have never been lawyers (they're ranchers--I saw a guy get 40 years for cattle rustling a month after another guy got 20 for first degree murder), that scares me.
And, come on, most of us are computer people. What would computers be like if the answer to the question "What does 'ls' do?" was "Well, that's pretty much on a case-by-case business. In Debian, it lists your files, but in Caldera, it pretty much acts like rm -r."
In conclusion, we need good law on this. Which is why, in a sense, the RIAA's barrage of lawsuits is a good thing - it brings this to the forefront and forces us to hammer out our priorities. I believe in freedom - but not freedom behind the government's back. Freedom should be able to be pretty much sanctioned and out in the open.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
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!
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"
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
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
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.
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...
Here's a list of all the patents Thomson and Fraunhofer are claiming on MP3.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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
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.
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?
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?
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.
*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?"
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
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
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?
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
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.
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
To 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-
let's face it, they couldn't care less about first ammendment rights or any such nonsense, all they want is to preserve their lucrative business model. The cost of paying 20 class action suits anually by school parents where 50 students were butchered by a crazed Britney Spears fan pales to insignificance to the vast revenue gained from control of the music distribution and associated industries. It is quite like the companies who refuse to recall dangerous products because the cost would outweigh the expected legal impact, they just hope no-one realises that they knew in time to stop the deaths.
The time has come for you Americans to start making some serious noise. Bush or Gore, whose favourite corporations would you rather have make the law?
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source