Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the lawsuits-are-the-business-of-the-future dept.
Greyfox writes "In yet another twist in the current IP debate surrounding free music downloads, mp3board.com has filed suit against AOL for helping consumers locate and download copyrighted materials by creating gnutella. The story is here on USA Today's site." Ok, I'm officially confused.
Appears to be silliness
by
__aapbgd5977
·
· Score: 5
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but this is not advice. Please consult your own attorney before acting on any information in this posting.
That disclaimer aside, this appears to be a rather dumb trick. The RIAA is suing mp3board.com for providing pirated mp3s for commercial gain (putting aside the whole linking thing in the MPAA v. 2600 case). mp3board basically does do that, right? I don't want to get into the whole piracy/fair use debate here - that's not the point.
In this new action, piracy is just a red herring.
It's my understanding that mp3board.com's method of distributing mp3s is a direct download from a website (or a link to someone's website, yadda, yadda...)
So now mp3board sues AOL for creating Gnutella? WHY? In order to sue in civil court, you must have what's called "standing" to sue. Standing in a nutshell means that you have been injured by the actions of a defendant, and have the right to go into court to seek remedies to that injury.
Where the hell is mp3board injured by the mere existence of Gnutella? The only real effect mp3board might feel is that of competition - Gnuteela being a competing method of delivery. Certainly this isn't a justifiable injury. I think what they have in mind is criminal defense law - they're pointing blame on someone else who is doing something worse than they are, in the hopes that a jury will find them not liable. But that doesn't change their conduct.
Essentially, mp3board.com got caught doing 75 in a 55 mph zone. As the cop is giving them the ticket, AOL/TWX/Gnutella blows by at 100 mph. The events are unrelated - it in no way lessens mp3board.com's punishment, and in no way is mp3board injured by AOL/TWX/Gnutella's conduct. Now whether the cops (picture Ponch and John in tan jumpsuits with RIAA logos on the shoulder) pursue AOL/TWX/Gnutella is a different story.
Oh, and best of luck proving that damages caused by Gnutella are attributable to AOL/TWX. AOL's made it pretty clear that they didn't approve of Gnutella, pinning losses on them is pretty unlikely. ==
This post sponsored by the American Obstetrics Society:
Re:Legal Thuggary against Engineers
by
interiot
·
· Score: 5
How the hell is that insightful?
It's not designed to give coders nightmares. Mp3board was sued for having a web-to-gnutella gateway. If MP3board loses, they want AOL to have to cover some of the costs since AOL created the thing in the first place.
It's simply a childish "but he did it first!" act. They just wanna cover their butt, not make a moral stand against anyone who creates software that goes against their personal idea of right-and-wrong (they seem pro-pirating anyway).
As a sidenote, I don't think this suit will go anywhere. If the law decides that you've done something wrong, and you did it of your own will (not entrapment or mental sickness), then you get punished, regardless of what some other party did.
It's not 'legal thuggery'
by
John+Jorsett
·
· Score: 4
This isn't designed to 'put the fear of God' into anyone. It's an attempt by a defendant in a big-bucks suit to spread the exposure around, particularly to a deep-pockets party (AOL). I predict that they're at least considering adding Napster, Freenet, Gnute, ad nauseum. If they can get a court to buy their theory, the additional parties gives them some additional folks to extract dollars from to reduce their liability. The longer I live, the more I think I should convert my net worth to gold or something and hide it. It's getting reeeal dangerous out there...
Mr. Major Domo for distributing information about illicit activities.
-- - passion
Re:Legal Thuggary against Engineers
by
SvnLyrBrto
·
· Score: 3
Damn, you're so right it's scary.
And what's scarier is thet there is precident, and we all failed to notice it and arrive at your conclusion until now.
Remember the eyntomology of the word "sabotage"?
Back in the 19th century, french factory workers took it upon themselved to force a stop to any kind of automation or technological advance. When they would come across any kind of automatic manufacturing equipment, they would force their wooden shoes, called sabot, into the machinery, destroying it; hence the word "sabotage".
The inventor of the sewing machine, if I recall my history correctly, was run out of several towns by tailors who refused to tolerate any competition; leaving a trail of smashed sewing machines in his wake.
The RIAA/metallica vs Napster, MPAA vs everybody, and now this suit againts AOL are nothing more than the modern equivelent of that same simple, pathetic thuggery. The only difference is the lack of *PHYSICAL* violence.
In all these cases, a geek invents something that threatens to make some other, old technology or business model obsolete or irrelevent; so the now useless people, instead of adapting to the new model, simply lash out at the geek who made them useless, by trying to sue the techies into destitution.
If there is any justice at all in the world, the RIAA/metallica, the MPAA, the DVD-CCA, and the whole bloody lot of them will be smacked down like the life insurance industry was in Robert Heinlein's "Lifeline".
You know, I've been hearing a lot of the 'don't sue the messenger' argument lately. Here's an analogy, though. Illicit drugs are created/grown/manufactured by someone. Dealers make it easier for joe-on-the-street to get hold of them. The dealer didn't make the product, and might not use it, but knows that what's being dealt is mostly illegal. Joe-on-the-street obtains and consumes said products, driving the market.
But in anti-drug policy, isn't the philosophy not to go after the end user, but to nab the dealer? We generally say 'Leave the little guy alone.' Isn't 'sue the user, not the provider' effectively the opposite of this?
The reason end-user drug offenders go to jail is because it's easier to grab them, than to work up the chain. The reason intermediaries are getting sued is because it's easier to sue a company than scads of users.
I'm not challenging drug policy here, and I'm certainly not saying that I agree uncontestedly with it. Nor am I saying that it is appropriate to sue/prosecute intermediaries like mp3.com, napster, et. al. Perhaps, though, we need a better way to challenge unconstitutional laws.
Do we really want to sue/prosecute end users for this type of litigation?
I am TOTALLY not a lawyer (though I have more sense than most), but I think I see a strategy here. What mp3board is doing to AOL is essentially the same thing they feel is happening to them.
If they can manage to sue AOL before their case is finished, and intentionally expose they total insanity of such a case, they hope to set a precedent such that their own case may get thrown out--- or at least ruled on fairly.
Basically, they have no intention or expectation of winning. Once they lose, there's one other case to use as a reference in their own defense: "see, this case was thrown out because it was stupid!"
The hope would be that the judge in their own case might be a bit sensible and rule correctly in their favor rather than the RIAA's.
And no, I don't think stealing mp3s is right, but it's always going to happen and I for one see it as nothing different from recording music off the radio; I still want to buy the album if it's good....
RIAA are idiots, and greedy pirates. They may win a few rounds, but they've already lost the war.
I'm filing suit against Tim Berners-Lee for creating the web which helps people find kiddy porn. I'm filing suit against Vint Cerf for his part in developing TCP/IP. I'm suing Moore for mass production of computers. I'm suing Shockley for developing the transistor. I'm suing Maxwell for his work in E&M which is vital for our understanding of electronics. And finally, God will be hearing from my lawyers for starting this whole mess.
-- Scuttlemonkey is a troll
GNUTella? What about AOL itself?
by
shaunj
·
· Score: 3
If that logic works (indeed the logic that is the basis for the RIAA vs. Napster case), then shouldn't you also be able to blame AOL itself (ie AOL v5.0). It also "helps users find illegal music". That is just one example of how huge this issue is. That logic extends all the way to newspapers and phonebooks and (yes) speech!
Wait a stinking minute.....
by
glitch_
·
· Score: 3
If i create program X....then get hired by company Z, could group Y sue company Z cause I work for them, and I created program X?....that doesn't seem to make very much sense to me....or did I miss something very obvious?
Okay. So the RIAA sues MP3board.com, which sues AOL, which owns Time Warner, which owns Warner Music, which is a member of the RIAA.
Around and round we go...
-- ---------
Beware the dragon, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
The real money is in digital music lawsuits!
by
jms
·
· Score: 3
After reading about mp3.com's $20,000,000 out of court settlement with Sony, it is clear to me that the big money with internet music distribution isn't in actually distributing the music -- the major labels can't seem to do that successfully. The big money these days is in suing people who actually are able to distribute the music. mp3board.com just wants to get in on the action while the getting is good.
- John
I'm not officially confused. ;)
by
zorgon
·
· Score: 4
Why is this confusing? It's obvious to me even though ianal. Counter-suing (or suing a third party) is SOP in these sorts of disputes. If there's anybody even peripherally involved that might have deep pockets they get whacked with a lawsuit. That's why they have full-time legal staff. That's why we pay too much for everything, it's the litigation tax. DoH.
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
--
I am quite civilized, and I should be
brought a beer immediately. -- Bruce Sterling
This is the same web site that..
by
Talonius
·
· Score: 4
This is the same web site that sued the RIAA "before the RIAA could sue them" as an effective countermeasure to being shut down after MP3.com was sued. (Reuters article, don't have a link handy, was posted on Slashdot I believe.)
I have to admit that mp3board.com looks pretty much like it's *just* a search engine, but the various categories that it includes *does* make it look bad. (I. e. "illegal MP3s", etc.) Also, the "Top Ten Downloaded" MP3 list including nothing but big name bands also can't be good.
Still this is funny, unless mp3board is counting on the bad publicity to help drive hits before they get shut down. (Suicide pact?)
IANAL but the basic premise of the lawsuit seems to be hilarious and pretty similar to "I'm going to sue the phone company for servicing phone lines because I'm getting phone threats." Or, take the "Napster is nothing more than a service provider and not liable for content" theories and apply to Gnutella.
BTW, if Gnutella was never officially sanctioned by AOL and AOL pulled the plug on it, can they be held responsible for the open sourcing of it?
And, not to mention, that MP3Board allows searching of "HTTP" and "Gnutella". Ack?
We use your service, let's sue the person that created the original, which was reverse engineered and created clean room, because we don't want to be held responsible for our own actions.
As well as I can tell, since AOL pulled the plug on the program shortly after it was posted (they should be able to prove this) then they should be in the clear. This is just another way for someone to attempt to control the flow of information (granted, gnutella is mainly used to trade music and porn right now, but was it designed for this or for the general sharing of information?). I hope mp3board.com falls flat on their proverbial face here.
Disclaimer: If you take any of this post as any type of legal advice and you get burnt in the buttocks, don't come crying to me. _______ Scott Jones Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
-- FC Closer
Melvil Dewey, that rat bastard!
by
HvidNat
·
· Score: 3
Finally there will be precedent... Soon we can
all file suit against the Library Bureau and
the American Library Association for the damage
caused by their meddling founder, Melvil Dewey, who invented a numerical classification system for
books (and other media) that makes it easy to
catalog and access megatons (literally) of
copyrighted material. Down with card catalogs!
Can you imagine the Library of Congress' reaction
when next year, under the auspices of the WIPO,
they are confronted with a global class-action
lawsuit for maintaining their catalog!? People of
Earth v. US Library of Congress!
Every year thousands of school children all across the US have simple access to pronographic materials like "Catcher in the Rye" and such because of such indexing systems. It's nice to see this madness is finally coming to an end.
...if mp3board.com is doing the suing because of gnutella, they shouldn't have a gnutella search field on their freaking home page!! Am I seriously missing something?
I wonder whats going to happen when Hillary Rosen and her pal good ol' Jack discovers IRC.
" . . . and thats why sharks don't get cancer. In totaly unrelated news, the RIAA has sent threatening letters to several operators of IRC, a totaly new way of trading pirated MP3 files over then Internet. The RIAA has posted losses of $300 bazillion due to this new service."
**Insert sounds of geeks laughing so hard at the reporter's technical illiteracy here**
------
-- Not a typewriter
This lawsuit is smart as hell.
by
Gog_Magog
·
· Score: 3
MP3Board is using AOL to do its defense work for them. AOL/Time-Warner will basicly have to prove that they aren't facilitating piracy. ANY defense AOL uses, will be able to be used by ALL other Napster/Gnutella/MP3Search programs.
Also since AOL/Time-Warner is part of the RIAA, they won't get sued by the RIAA. Basicly this lawsuit devides the RIAA on this issue, because conversely, any argument the RIAA uses to kill Napster/MP3Board, is one that MP3Board can use against AOL.
Anonymous Coward asks "Hi, I'm an executive of a rather large Internet company, and we just had a suit filed against us because of some file-sharing software we created that happened to be used for sharing MP3s. I'd like to ask the community - What do you think we should do as far as a defense goes?" (insert some random, half-sensical comment from Taco here)
Dear my! What are those things coming out of her nose?
Spaceballs!
If MP3Board LOSES this case... then there's a legal precedent set about what's allowed and not allowed as far as the liability of the writer of a piece of software. And it's got a very large company involved in it, which means the company has an interest in making sure other jurisdictions know about it. While it's not a binding precedent nationwide, it WILL become a referenceable case for other suits about the responsibility of a software author for the software they right and how it gets used.
And that... that's where it goes. In New York District Court. Where the DeCSS trial was held. We could see this suit turn around the other one's presumptions. It could lay down completely opposite precedents in the same court district.
IANAL, but I think that's the sort of thing that makes Appellate courts go crazy. It may very well be the thing that makes them toss the DeCSS verdict out.
Unfortunately, if this backfires, it's going to be very, very ugly... ----
... is the mythical snake that bites its own tail...
The RIAA is suing mp3board, who is suing AOL as a responsible third-party, who owns Time-Warner, who is a member of the RIAA...
(desired) Net Result: The RIAA sues itself out of existance, taking the AOL-Time-Warner monster out with it...
Re:AOL Is Big, This is Interesting.
by
wesmills
·
· Score: 3
Nope, not correct.
MP3Board is currently getting sued by the RIAA for copyright infringement by distributing MP3s. MP3Board has turned around and sued AOL because their subsidiary, Nullsoft created Gnutella. MP3Board wants AOL to share some of the liability for music piracy if MP3Board is found guilty. MP3Board's reasoning is that piracy wouldn't be happening as much if AOL's subsidiary hadn't created Gnutella.
---
NEWS: Metallica Sues Descendants of Alan Turing
by
cje
·
· Score: 5
METALLICA SUES DESCENDANTS OF ALAN TURING
".. And Justice For All," Vows Furious Drummer
LOS ANGELES, CA (AP) - In a legal move that is likely to set a precedent for many portions of the entertainment industry, the rock group Metallica today brought suit against the living descendents of Alan Turing, who is widely regarded as the father of modern computing. Claiming that Turing's work spawned the creation of "unabashed piracy machines," Metallica is seeking unspecified millions in damages.
Though Turing had no children of his own, he is survived by a large number of great-nephews and nieces. Spike Turing, the owner of a Starbucks' franchise in El Paso, Texas, told the Associated Press that he recieved a letter from Metallica's legal firm, Dewey, Cheat & Howe. "The letter claims that great Uncle Al is responsible for the destruction of the economies of the Western world," explained Turing. "They're taking us to trial."
"This is bullshit," stated a confused 84-year old Bertha Turing, who is a retired seamstress living in a cozy London suburb. "These Metallica fellers sent letters like this to all of us."
Lars Ulrich, who is Metallica's drummer, has taken the lead in fighting against what he claims is "a coordinated band of pirates hell-bent on obliterating creativity and musical freedom." Ulrich expressed hope that the Turing lawsuit would send a message to the rest of the community. "Um, we want people to understand that file sharing is not to be tolerated," explained Ulrich. "Open source is not to be.. uh.. tolerated. Piracy is not to be tolerated. Britney Spears is not to be.. well, her music is not to be tolerated. And above all, we want to make the relatives of the inventor of all of these fucking devil-boxes pay their dues."
Dr. Dre contributed to this story.
-- We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
First principle of lawsuits
by
dpilot
·
· Score: 4
Sue the party with the deepest pockets. AOL certainly has deeper pockets than Napster or any of the other mp3 (or any other file format) "online exchange clubs."
What's missed is that this may well have a knock-on effect, where legal blame gets transferred to the original author. This is kind of a fallout of the DeCSS case, except there the author was clearly a citizen of another country. Makes you kind of surprised that there isn't some sort of international civil suit against Johansen. (Is there such a thing?)
There could be a chill here regarding writing GPL software "that could be used to do Evil," as defined by some big company. Of course this suit has to succeed. Won't it be odd to see Slashdotters rooting for AOL?
-- The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Don't forget to sue Al Gore for inventing the internet.
kwsNI
Legal Thuggary against Engineers
by
FreeUser
·
· Score: 3
This lawsuit isn't designed to harm AOL.
It is designed to put the fear of [insert deity here] into any software engineer harboring dreams of developing the next generation of file sharing technology.
I don't recall if the original developers of GNUtella still work at AOL or not (if they do, you can bet they're in a whole heap of trouble and their opportunities for advancement just went to zero), but it isn't really relevant.
The message to employers (and independent contractors) is clear: if your employees develop software we don't like, we're going to sue you.
The message to engineers is: we're going to give your employer every incentive to shitcan your career.
The message to everyone is "don't invent technology we don't like or we'll destroy you, and we have more than enough money to do so."
Our message, in response, should be "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" in the form of boycotting their products as well as supporting and embracing the technologies they are trying to suppress.
This isn't an attack against AOL. It is an attack against all of US.
Slashdot Mirror
That disclaimer aside, this appears to be a rather dumb trick. The RIAA is suing mp3board.com for providing pirated mp3s for commercial gain (putting aside the whole linking thing in the MPAA v. 2600 case). mp3board basically does do that, right? I don't want to get into the whole piracy/fair use debate here - that's not the point.
In this new action, piracy is just a red herring.
It's my understanding that mp3board.com's method of distributing mp3s is a direct download from a website (or a link to someone's website, yadda, yadda...)
So now mp3board sues AOL for creating Gnutella? WHY? In order to sue in civil court, you must have what's called "standing" to sue. Standing in a nutshell means that you have been injured by the actions of a defendant, and have the right to go into court to seek remedies to that injury.
Where the hell is mp3board injured by the mere existence of Gnutella? The only real effect mp3board might feel is that of competition - Gnuteela being a competing method of delivery. Certainly this isn't a justifiable injury. I think what they have in mind is criminal defense law - they're pointing blame on someone else who is doing something worse than they are, in the hopes that a jury will find them not liable. But that doesn't change their conduct.
Essentially, mp3board.com got caught doing 75 in a 55 mph zone. As the cop is giving them the ticket, AOL/TWX/Gnutella blows by at 100 mph. The events are unrelated - it in no way lessens mp3board.com's punishment, and in no way is mp3board injured by AOL/TWX/Gnutella's conduct. Now whether the cops (picture Ponch and John in tan jumpsuits with RIAA logos on the shoulder) pursue AOL/TWX/Gnutella is a different story.
Oh, and best of luck proving that damages caused by Gnutella are attributable to AOL/TWX. AOL's made it pretty clear that they didn't approve of Gnutella, pinning losses on them is pretty unlikely.
==
This post sponsored by the American Obstetrics Society:
It's not designed to give coders nightmares. Mp3board was sued for having a web-to-gnutella gateway. If MP3board loses, they want AOL to have to cover some of the costs since AOL created the thing in the first place.
It's simply a childish "but he did it first!" act. They just wanna cover their butt, not make a moral stand against anyone who creates software that goes against their personal idea of right-and-wrong (they seem pro-pirating anyway).
As a sidenote, I don't think this suit will go anywhere. If the law decides that you've done something wrong, and you did it of your own will (not entrapment or mental sickness), then you get punished, regardless of what some other party did.
This isn't designed to 'put the fear of God' into anyone. It's an attempt by a defendant in a big-bucks suit to spread the exposure around, particularly to a deep-pockets party (AOL). I predict that they're at least considering adding Napster, Freenet, Gnute, ad nauseum. If they can get a court to buy their theory, the additional parties gives them some additional folks to extract dollars from to reduce their liability. The longer I live, the more I think I should convert my net worth to gold or something and hide it. It's getting reeeal dangerous out there ...
Mr. Major Domo for distributing information about illicit activities.
- passion
And what's scarier is thet there is precident, and we all failed to notice it and arrive at your conclusion until now.
Remember the eyntomology of the word "sabotage"?
Back in the 19th century, french factory workers took it upon themselved to force a stop to any kind of automation or technological advance. When they would come across any kind of automatic manufacturing equipment, they would force their wooden shoes, called sabot, into the machinery, destroying it; hence the word "sabotage".
The inventor of the sewing machine, if I recall my history correctly, was run out of several towns by tailors who refused to tolerate any competition; leaving a trail of smashed sewing machines in his wake.
The RIAA/metallica vs Napster, MPAA vs everybody, and now this suit againts AOL are nothing more than the modern equivelent of that same simple, pathetic thuggery. The only difference is the lack of *PHYSICAL* violence.
In all these cases, a geek invents something that threatens to make some other, old technology or business model obsolete or irrelevent; so the now useless people, instead of adapting to the new model, simply lash out at the geek who made them useless, by trying to sue the techies into destitution.
If there is any justice at all in the world, the RIAA/metallica, the MPAA, the DVD-CCA, and the whole bloody lot of them will be smacked down like the life insurance industry was in Robert Heinlein's "Lifeline".
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
You know, I've been hearing a lot of the 'don't sue the messenger' argument lately. Here's an analogy, though. Illicit drugs are created/grown/manufactured by someone. Dealers make it easier for joe-on-the-street to get hold of them. The dealer didn't make the product, and might not use it, but knows that what's being dealt is mostly illegal. Joe-on-the-street obtains and consumes said products, driving the market.
But in anti-drug policy, isn't the philosophy not to go after the end user, but to nab the dealer? We generally say 'Leave the little guy alone.' Isn't 'sue the user, not the provider' effectively the opposite of this?
The reason end-user drug offenders go to jail is because it's easier to grab them, than to work up the chain. The reason intermediaries are getting sued is because it's easier to sue a company than scads of users.
I'm not challenging drug policy here, and I'm certainly not saying that I agree uncontestedly with it. Nor am I saying that it is appropriate to sue/prosecute intermediaries like mp3.com, napster, et. al. Perhaps, though, we need a better way to challenge unconstitutional laws.
Do we really want to sue/prosecute end users for this type of litigation?
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
"Life. Don't talk to me about life."
I am TOTALLY not a lawyer (though I have more sense than most), but I think I see a strategy here. What mp3board is doing to AOL is essentially the same thing they feel is happening to them.
If they can manage to sue AOL before their case is finished, and intentionally expose they total insanity of such a case, they hope to set a precedent such that their own case may get thrown out--- or at least ruled on fairly.
Basically, they have no intention or expectation of winning. Once they lose, there's one other case to use as a reference in their own defense: "see, this case was thrown out because it was stupid!"
The hope would be that the judge in their own case might be a bit sensible and rule correctly in their favor rather than the RIAA's.
And no, I don't think stealing mp3s is right, but it's always going to happen and I for one see it as nothing different from recording music off the radio; I still want to buy the album if it's good....
RIAA are idiots, and greedy pirates. They may win a few rounds, but they've already lost the war.
I'm filing suit against Tim Berners-Lee for creating the web which helps people find kiddy porn. I'm filing suit against Vint Cerf for his part in developing TCP/IP. I'm suing Moore for mass production of computers. I'm suing Shockley for developing the transistor. I'm suing Maxwell for his work in E&M which is vital for our understanding of electronics. And finally, God will be hearing from my lawyers for starting this whole mess.
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
If that logic works (indeed the logic that is the basis for the RIAA vs. Napster case), then shouldn't you also be able to blame AOL itself (ie AOL v5.0). It also "helps users find illegal music". That is just one example of how huge this issue is. That logic extends all the way to newspapers and phonebooks and (yes) speech!
If i create program X....then get hired by company Z, could group Y sue company Z cause I work for them, and I created program X?....that doesn't seem to make very much sense to me....or did I miss something very obvious?
Okay. So the RIAA sues MP3board.com, which sues AOL, which owns Time Warner, which owns Warner Music, which is a member of the RIAA.
Around and round we go...
--------- Beware the dragon, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
After reading about mp3.com's $20,000,000 out of court settlement with Sony, it is clear to me that the big money with internet music distribution isn't in actually distributing the music -- the major labels can't seem to do that successfully. The big money these days is in suing people who actually are able to distribute the music. mp3board.com just wants to get in on the action while the getting is good.
- John
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
I am quite civilized, and I should be brought a beer immediately. -- Bruce Sterling
This is the same web site that sued the RIAA "before the RIAA could sue them" as an effective countermeasure to being shut down after MP3.com was sued. (Reuters article, don't have a link handy, was posted on Slashdot I believe.)
I have to admit that mp3board.com looks pretty much like it's *just* a search engine, but the various categories that it includes *does* make it look bad. (I. e. "illegal MP3s", etc.) Also, the "Top Ten Downloaded" MP3 list including nothing but big name bands also can't be good.
Still this is funny, unless mp3board is counting on the bad publicity to help drive hits before they get shut down. (Suicide pact?)
IANAL but the basic premise of the lawsuit seems to be hilarious and pretty similar to "I'm going to sue the phone company for servicing phone lines because I'm getting phone threats." Or, take the "Napster is nothing more than a service provider and not liable for content" theories and apply to Gnutella.
BTW, if Gnutella was never officially sanctioned by AOL and AOL pulled the plug on it, can they be held responsible for the open sourcing of it?
And, not to mention, that MP3Board allows searching of "HTTP" and "Gnutella". Ack?
We use your service, let's sue the person that created the original, which was reverse engineered and created clean room, because we don't want to be held responsible for our own actions.
Wow, this is jumpy.
Talonius
My reality check bounced.
As well as I can tell, since AOL pulled the plug on the program shortly after it was posted (they should be able to prove this) then they should be in the clear. This is just another way for someone to attempt to control the flow of information (granted, gnutella is mainly used to trade music and porn right now, but was it designed for this or for the general sharing of information?). I hope mp3board.com falls flat on their proverbial face here.
Disclaimer: If you take any of this post as any type of legal advice and you get burnt in the buttocks, don't come crying to me.
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
FC Closer
Can you imagine the Library of Congress' reaction when next year, under the auspices of the WIPO, they are confronted with a global class-action lawsuit for maintaining their catalog!? People of Earth v. US Library of Congress!
Every year thousands of school children all across the US have simple access to pronographic materials like "Catcher in the Rye" and such because of such indexing systems. It's nice to see this madness is finally coming to an end.
...if mp3board.com is doing the suing because of gnutella, they shouldn't have a gnutella search field on their freaking home page!! Am I seriously missing something?
--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
I wonder whats going to happen when Hillary Rosen and her pal good ol' Jack discovers IRC.
" . . . and thats why sharks don't get cancer. In totaly unrelated news, the RIAA has sent threatening letters to several operators of IRC, a totaly new way of trading pirated MP3 files over then Internet. The RIAA has posted losses of $300 bazillion due to this new service."
**Insert sounds of geeks laughing so hard at the reporter's technical illiteracy here**
------
Not a typewriter
MP3Board is using AOL to do its defense work for them. AOL/Time-Warner will basicly have to prove that they aren't facilitating piracy. ANY defense AOL uses, will be able to be used by ALL other Napster/Gnutella/MP3Search programs.
Also since AOL/Time-Warner is part of the RIAA, they won't get sued by the RIAA. Basicly this lawsuit devides the RIAA on this issue, because conversely, any argument the RIAA uses to kill Napster/MP3Board, is one that MP3Board can use against AOL.
Ta Da.
Anonymous Coward asks "Hi, I'm an executive of a rather large Internet company, and we just had a suit filed against us because of some file-sharing software we created that happened to be used for sharing MP3s. I'd like to ask the community - What do you think we should do as far as a defense goes?" (insert some random, half-sensical comment from Taco here)
Dear my! What are those things coming out of her nose?
Spaceballs!
No, really. Think about it.
If MP3Board LOSES this case... then there's a legal precedent set about what's allowed and not allowed as far as the liability of the writer of a piece of software. And it's got a very large company involved in it, which means the company has an interest in making sure other jurisdictions know about it. While it's not a binding precedent nationwide, it WILL become a referenceable case for other suits about the responsibility of a software author for the software they right and how it gets used.
And that... that's where it goes. In New York District Court. Where the DeCSS trial was held. We could see this suit turn around the other one's presumptions. It could lay down completely opposite precedents in the same court district.
IANAL, but I think that's the sort of thing that makes Appellate courts go crazy. It may very well be the thing that makes them toss the DeCSS verdict out.
Unfortunately, if this backfires, it's going to be very, very ugly...
----
Brazil has decided you're cute.
... is the mythical snake that bites its own tail...
The RIAA is suing mp3board, who is suing AOL as a responsible third-party, who owns Time-Warner, who is a member of the RIAA...
(desired) Net Result: The RIAA sues itself out of existance, taking the AOL-Time-Warner monster out with it...
MP3Board is currently getting sued by the RIAA for copyright infringement by distributing MP3s. MP3Board has turned around and sued AOL because their subsidiary, Nullsoft created Gnutella. MP3Board wants AOL to share some of the liability for music piracy if MP3Board is found guilty. MP3Board's reasoning is that piracy wouldn't be happening as much if AOL's subsidiary hadn't created Gnutella.
---
METALLICA SUES DESCENDANTS OF ALAN TURING
.. uh .. tolerated. Piracy is not to be tolerated. Britney Spears is not to be .. well, her music is not to be tolerated. And above all, we want to make the relatives of the inventor of all of these fucking devil-boxes pay their dues."
".. And Justice For All," Vows Furious Drummer
LOS ANGELES, CA (AP) - In a legal move that is likely to set a precedent for many portions of the entertainment industry, the rock group Metallica today brought suit against the living descendents of Alan Turing, who is widely regarded as the father of modern computing. Claiming that Turing's work spawned the creation of "unabashed piracy machines," Metallica is seeking unspecified millions in damages.
Though Turing had no children of his own, he is survived by a large number of great-nephews and nieces. Spike Turing, the owner of a Starbucks' franchise in El Paso, Texas, told the Associated Press that he recieved a letter from Metallica's legal firm, Dewey, Cheat & Howe. "The letter claims that great Uncle Al is responsible for the destruction of the economies of the Western world," explained Turing. "They're taking us to trial."
"This is bullshit," stated a confused 84-year old Bertha Turing, who is a retired seamstress living in a cozy London suburb. "These Metallica fellers sent letters like this to all of us."
Lars Ulrich, who is Metallica's drummer, has taken the lead in fighting against what he claims is "a coordinated band of pirates hell-bent on obliterating creativity and musical freedom." Ulrich expressed hope that the Turing lawsuit would send a message to the rest of the community. "Um, we want people to understand that file sharing is not to be tolerated," explained Ulrich. "Open source is not to be
Dr. Dre contributed to this story.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Sue the party with the deepest pockets. AOL certainly has deeper pockets than Napster or any of the other mp3 (or any other file format) "online exchange clubs."
What's missed is that this may well have a knock-on effect, where legal blame gets transferred to the original author. This is kind of a fallout of the DeCSS case, except there the author was clearly a citizen of another country. Makes you kind of surprised that there isn't some sort of international civil suit against Johansen. (Is there such a thing?)
There could be a chill here regarding writing GPL software "that could be used to do Evil," as defined by some big company. Of course this suit has to succeed. Won't it be odd to see Slashdotters rooting for AOL?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Don't forget to sue Al Gore for inventing the internet.
kwsNI
This lawsuit isn't designed to harm AOL.
It is designed to put the fear of [insert deity here] into any software engineer harboring dreams of developing the next generation of file sharing technology.
I don't recall if the original developers of GNUtella still work at AOL or not (if they do, you can bet they're in a whole heap of trouble and their opportunities for advancement just went to zero), but it isn't really relevant.
The message to employers (and independent contractors) is clear: if your employees develop software we don't like, we're going to sue you.
The message to engineers is: we're going to give your employer every incentive to shitcan your career.
The message to everyone is "don't invent technology we don't like or we'll destroy you, and we have more than enough money to do so."
Our message, in response, should be "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" in the form of boycotting their products as well as supporting and embracing the technologies they are trying to suppress.
This isn't an attack against AOL. It is an attack against all of US.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy