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.

Comments

International Legal Precedent

[vergil]

Actually, there has been an extremely important initiative underway to "harmonize" international civil and commercial (not criminal) law, especially involving trans-border litigation arising from the Internet.

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

Is AOL a community or an ISP?

[LL]

ISPs serve a specific role, to provide local access to internet via local access points. IANAL but as such they would be considered under the provisions of common carriers and regulated as such. On the other hand, how many people think AOL-Time-Warner congomerate could be considered a "mere" ISP. The larger you are, the more of a social/politcal/business entity you are considered and as such more/different/wierd rules (cough*MPAA*cough vs private DJ mixer) apply. To say that a corporation having market cap greater than the GNP of many small countries should not be held to the social standards of specific jurisdictions frames an interesting debate.

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

I wonder...

[B00yah]

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...

New .WAV for next AOL release

[jmcneill]

"You've got lawsuit!"

This doesn't really set a precedent

[electricmonk]

The story does not go into much detail of what ramifications this might/will have on other courts around the world.

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.

vote with your feet

[MoNsTeR]

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

Re:vote with your feet

[Christianfreak]

Hey maybe if users use xcopy32.exe to make illegal copies of Microsoft software then Microsoft should sue themselves! :)

"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

Re:vote with your feet

[Surak]

I mean, they might as well have ruled that Microsoft is responsible if users of Windows use xcopy32.exe to "pirate" music.

Or that General Motors is responsible if someone uses a Chevy to commit a bank robbery.

Or that Smith & Wesson are responsible if someone uses one of their shotguns to kill someone.

...

[Segfault 11]

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?

Let's sue God too....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.