EFA Claims No Illegal Material On mp3s4free.net

An anonymous reader writes "Electronic Frontiers Australia (www.efa.org.au) claims that the raids organized by the music industry on mp3s4free.net have come up with nothing. Only links to other sites and not copyrighted material have been found. The music industry is now saying that just linking is in itself illegal. This does not appear to be supported by Australian law." Update: 10/29 15:26 GMT by T : This story originally referred to "mp3s4free.com," while it should have said -- and has been corrected to read -- "mp3s4free.net."

Comments

RTFA

[Texas Rose on Lava L]

It's mp3s4free.net, not mp3s4free.com.

Re:Australian raids on link site

[cyril3]

IANAL but as far as I know an Anton Pilar order is primarily designed to allow the applicant to seize property that may be subject to action or may be used as evidence in an action when it is possible that the property might be destroyed or removed from the jurisdiction of the court. (I think the Anto Pilar was a ship that was subject to action as to ownership or was security of some kind)

In that case I suspect the requirements are less onerous than search warrants and they probably only had to show that the property they were looking to seize (Computers, discs and logs etc) would be likely to be or contain evidence that might otherwise be destroyed or removed etc.

2600

[SupeRobot Ninja]

It's hardly fair, but the DMCA already has a positive track record in this area; 2600 was forced to remove a link on their webpage to a separate page which hosted the crack that disabled DVD copy protection.

Re:Linking should and shouldn't be illegal

[advocate_one]

"I seem to recall reading a SciAm article once upon a time that mentioned that, since we've all had to grow filters against advertisements, the single best way for a company to sell products consists of recommendations between friends. So sure, it make perfect sense that the RIAA would sacrifice the single most effective form of advertising - since in this case, it mostly ends up negative."

Haven't the MPAA tried to get mobile phones banned from cinemas because the punters were texting their mates and telling them not to bother seeing the movie cos it sucks??? All that carefully crafted hype was failing cos the public had a means of getting the truth out that bypassed the controlled media... Also weren't they doing their level best to stop indie reviews being posted on websites which contradicted their own carefull hype.

Re:it's about the intent

[fact0r]

Incorrect:

• There are two different ways to breach copyright law in Australia:
  • Directly breaching copyright (copying something which you have not been given the right to copy).
  • Authorising the breach of copyright (the sharing of copyrighted material which others do not have the right to copy could be regarded as this)
• There are no general fair use provisions in Australia. You may use copyrighted material only to the extent that it has been licensed for your use. [There are some specific fair use provisions for software but none for music].
• Putting a photocopier on the street is illegal as soon as anyone has used it to breach someone else's copyright if you have not given the user sufficient warning. [note the Uni of NSW photocopier case which largely defined copyright law in Australia - you will find it on AustLII if you are interested].