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.
By extension, wouldn't the site they came from be illegal also?
t
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?
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.
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...
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
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...
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.
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.
*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?
...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?