Slashdot Mirror
AOL Germany Found Guilty of Piracy
LordArathres writes "It seems that an German appeals court has ruled that America Online is responsible if its users trade copyrighted music online. The story does not go into much detail of what ramifications this might/will have on other courts around the world. The (short) article can be found on Yahoo!" When the story was written, not much detail was known - this will be an interesting case to follow.
This treaty is called the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters.
The Hague Convention involves some 47+ member nations, including the U.S., EU and China. The object of the convention is twofold:
1. To make foreign judgements recognizable,
and 2. To make foreign judgements enforceable.
This is extremely significant to the techie community, and anyone concerned with the application of law over the internet. Remember the Godfrey v. Dolenga and related cases, where a British physicist sued foreign nationals under the UK's draconian libel laws (where the burden of proof is, paradoxically, on the defendent to prove his innocence)? Godfrey obtained several favorable verdicts against citizens in the US and Canada, but was (at the time) unable to have those verdicts enforced.
Under the Hague Convention, Godfrey might have been able to not only secure favorable verdicts in the UK, but able to enforce those verdicts on others not ordinarily subject to UK libel law.
That's just one example. The Hague Convention does have one loophole (a fundamental public policy exemption) that nations could use to escape the enforcement of onerous verdicts. Libel cases may be an extreme example.
However, factor in Intellectual Property -- such as the precendence laid down in Germany concerning ISPs and Copyright. The Hague Convention would make it much, much easier to corporations to take advantage of disparities between the intellectual property regimes of different nations, secure favorable verdicts by picking and choosing courts to their advantage, and then enforcing such verdicts in other nations.
Imagine what will happen if the Hague Convention is passed (it's in draft-stage negotiations now) and free-software developers in EU countries which don't currently recognize software/business method patents are suddenly liable for patent infringement due to crappy US-PTO issued patents.
I think it is time that the geek community sat up and started paying attention to international legal developments such as the Hague Convention -- the corporations and industry associations (RIAA, MPAA) sure are. If you want to see what they have to say, check these comments recently submitted to the USPTO about the intellectual property aspects of the Hague Convention.
Sincerely,
Vergil
Vergil Bushnell
Insects and Grafitti Photos
Or 'Sie sind in der Scheiße, Pirat schweinhund'
It has been ruled that the German Transportation Department is liable for drivers who trade drugs by driving on buplic roads.
Go Germany.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Never mind that he was acquited a couple years later by a higher court. Huge damage was done alredy.
However, this was no match for the greatest damage that happened to Compuserve users. That was the buyout by AOL...
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
If I were a judge, and someone filed a claim against God, I'd just say "Case dismissed", and record the reason as "Act of God".
--
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
I think a better analogy would be to hold the federal government responsible for all drugs shipped via interstate highways.
The illegal material was transferred along a pathway owned and operated by that entity, therefore that entity should be held responsible (according to the German court).
Doug
Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
While you're analogy to cigarettes has some validity, its important to remember the following:
.357 revolvers loaded with a single round so you can take a few minutes off work and get some "refreshment." via Russian roulette.
- Cigarette companies claimed that their products had no ill effects, and were not addictive. They advertised this and many people believed it for a very long time. Cigarette companies knew their products were dangerous, and thousands (millions?) of people died or had their lives shortened as a result.
- Cigarette companies targeted advertising at minors who would buy cigarettes illegally. How many people do you know who didn't start smoking until they were eighteen? I know the cigarette companies couldn't stop kids from smoking now if they used ever dollar of profit to do it, but it is undeniable that they contributed to minors smoking.
In contrast, Smith and Wesson makes a product that is intended to be very dangerous, albeit not to the operator. The point here is that while cigarettes and guns are both designed for killing people, the gun companies aren't making any claims otherwise and don't sell
---
This is a graphic example of how we have too damn many laws in pretty much all western countries (I can't speak for eastern, but most of them probably do too.)
Imagine what happens now if a US user trades files via email with a German user.
AOL is breaking the law in Germany if they don't snoop on the email, and committing a felony in the US if they do.
-
This raises philosophical questions. Should a community be held to the norms or ethos of its members? If you subscribe to a service controlled under a legal jurisdictions are you unknowingly binding yourself to an external cultural norm? This is like asking if I used the US dollar I am following the American dream (corporate capitalism), the Euro's gentleman's agreement (state capitalism) or the Australian FairGo (social capitalism - though at the moment the only direction it is going is south).
If you think you are immune from group-think then I congratulate you on your strength of mind. Psychologists have discovered than people in general try to "fit-in" wherever possible. Recall the famous experiments (link anyone?) where they monitored strangers entering an elevator but all the other occupants were instructed to face the back, then the lone holdout also faced the back irrespective of whether there was a rational reason to. Thus if AOL knowingly (by turning a blind eye), and had the power to control the practice but did not forbid music exchanges which they know is illegal, is it an (not quite accessory??) to a crime? Note that economic crims (as self-defined by being against the interests of the incumbants :-( ) are not the really the same as personal criminal acts or even civil violations. If computer companies start competing in other spheres, should they not be bound by similar product safety or service conduct rules?
The law may be an ass in many countries but at least the process is (relatively) open and (given enough pockets) available (unlike proprietary code) within democratic societies. Fundamentally corporations should not be immune from the provisions that govern individuals. This should be separated from the commercial issue of whether music distribution as property right has been violated through deliberate inaction or oversight.
Unfortunately in the long run I think things may hinder the smaller companies as the risk of negative knowledge becomes so great that only MNCs can survive. Eiterh that or MNCs become so overbearing in their zeal to avoid anti-trust provisions that users voluntarily join an independent outfit even if it is located in the South Pole .... (specualtive thought ... if someone set up an ISP on the moon, ignoring latency issues, would it be governed by any earth based legal commercial code?). Since AOL wants to do business in Germany, it has to obey the law no matter how stupid it is. If the law sucks and companies refuse to operate or provide their goods or services, then it is up to the citizens to change the law. Much like you don't want independent militaries operating in your backyard (OK so the feds want a monopoly on controlled violence), I think people much prefer having corporations under at least some form of restriction even though it may create some anomalies in the short term.
LL
Give Internet Explorer a little bit of Everything...
--
--
E2 IN2 IE?
If AOL in Germany is the only branch that can be linked to this activity...hmmm...AOL==AOL/Time Warner == Warner Records == major record company going after napster. I see a double standard forming...
How Jaded Are You?
Yes, but isn't it amusing that in it's almost manic efforts to supress anything which smacks of Nazisim of fascisim, the German gov't acts begins to act in a fascist manner? Revisionist history, censorship, draconian laws....
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
"You've got lawsuit!"
Actually, this won't, or shouldn't at least, have any effect on courts "around the world," because most countries legal systems only accept precedents set by their courts under their laws.
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
So, any word yet on the impending legal battle against 3M? It turns out they've been manufacturing (for years!) a medium which has been used for its entire lifespan (and still is) to pirate software, music, and all sorts of other illegal data.
This is a self-referential sig
It makes sense. AOL is enabling their users to trade copyrighted works. If AOL wasn't there to all this to happen, then the music and such wouldn't be traded.
AOL should just pull out of Germany. Send letters to their customers saying, "Sorry, but your government has rules our business model to be illegal. We have no choice but to discontinue our service in your nation." All other ISP's should follow suit. Then when the entire country is left without internet access, maybe the court will see how stupid its ruling was.
Of course, this is unrealistic. But I can't imagine what else will work. I mean, they might as well have ruled that Microsoft is responsible if users of Windows use xcopy32.exe to "pirate" music.
MoNsTeR
...will never make it into law. As soon as someone points out the old standard, that you can't hold a company responsible for what the end users do, it will drop. It's just like blaming the phone company because people do drug deals over the phone. Hell, we might as well extend it out to INSANE levels, and say that since the FBI can and does perform wiretaps, they should be sued any time the phone is used for a crime, as they COULD have prevented it.
-Mad Dreamer
Is it just me, or does everyone have a little side of them rooting for the record industry this time?
I doubt that this will spread to the U.S., even if it stands. Is one end of the keiretsu going to go after the other?
I registered my hate for Jon Katz
since he's the one ultimately responsible in the end anyway. Yes, it only makes sense to take him to court as well. If he hadn't created man, these people would not have been able to copy music illegally. Those of you that don't believe in a supreme being, you can just sue the first carbon atoms on earth or something.
what the?
great comedy company.
I think this raises an interesting point. If you're going to make people responsible for their action online, the enforcement mechanism will almost certainly need to work through the isp. Once isp's are relieved of this responsibility, it will be much harder to catch people committing online crimes. This is because isp's willl have no incentive to check the identity of their customers, which they would otherwise need to do so that if the isp were sued, it could in turn sue the customer for breaching their agreement.
You may argue that it is good if responsibility online cannot be enforced since you disagree with some the laws that are in place. However, this is an indefensible position. If the law should be changed, it should be changed using the democratic mechanisms that exist for this purpose. Supporting any other way would be revealing an unhealthy disrespect for democracy and setting a dangerous precedent.
As the article doesn't give that much information you might look here. This (German) article does offer some more information about the case. (If you don't speak German ask Babelfish. ;))
The most important thing to note, however, is that the case is _not_ about the Internet. The protected MIDI (!) files (no, no MP3s involved) were offered by AOL members in an AOL forum.
But, yes, you're right if you think that German courts often make stupid decisions when the Net is involved: About five years ago the German CompuServe CEO was accused of distributing child pornography, because CompuServe operated a news server for their customers which offered some news groups in which child pornography was made available. That was one of the reasons why the so called "Teledienstegesetz" was created: It should protect the ISPs, so that they were no longer responsible for the crimes their users commit. But this ruling against AOL stated, that copyright is more important than the "Teledienstegesetz" - as the reasons for this decision aren't available yet we have to keep wondering what the "Teledienstegesetz" is for if not for protecting ISPs.
Actually, it's German law that forbids display of Nazi era symbols like swastikas etc. The goverment (and whoever else is responsible for executing it, like the people who evaluate games) is just following it. Not sure if those laws make sense (that has been discussed before, over and over again), if they restrict freedom of speech too much, but they're not unique to Germany. The French have similar laws, as an example.
Oh I don't know, they've sent me lots of free coasters!
You're using her as bait, Master!
(AOL/TimeWarner is the parent of Warner records)
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
SIG: HUP
There's no way AOL could monitor everything. If Germany wants to make it so that the cost of monitoring is more than the benefit of providing an online service, the online services will shut down. Then Germany can sit around and fall behind while the rest of the Internet-connected world laughs at them (or forgets that they exist).
;)
Well, as AOL is the only online service in Germany that is offering and advertising their own closed content and services, that won't be that much of a problem. (And the ruling is about that closed content, and not about the Internet.) And if that really should happen I have to repeat what was already said above: Germany (and the rest of the world) would be far better off without AOL.
That is a very good point...(well your first one anyway - CDR's are already subject to a 'copyright tax' in Germany).
Sorry, someone had to write it. Might as well have been me.
You have to wonder about German courts, finding an online service owned by the biggest media distributor in the world guilty of copyright violations. On the other hand, you have to wonder about AOL/Time-Warner lawyers, too.
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
Dealing with the German government has always been a royal pain in the ass. It was their fault I couldn't find Wolfenstein 3D on Compuspend a few years back, too. And I think everyone would agree that the German people (And in fact all the people all around the world) would be better off without AOL...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?