Slashdot Mirror


3 New Defendants Named In MP3s4free.net Case

As reported in The Australian, three new respondents have been named in the mp3s4free.net link site case, including an employee of the ISP which is said to have hosted the site. The music industry says that ISP employees will be targeted in the future, but given an amnesty if they "inform the music industry."

12 of 274 comments (clear)

  1. In related News by nfras · · Score: 2, Informative

    ARIA have issued several Mark "Chopper" Reid orders (similar to threats). In a prepared statement they said that "full cooperation is expected. I mean, it's very hard to host a website with no fingers."
    Electronic Frontiers Australia said "strewth, blimey, look at that little beauty!" before calming themselves down with a Fosters and throwing several prawns on the barby.

    --
    You call me a pedant? I prefer the term "correct"
  2. Relevant section of copyright act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's reasonably clear that it's not illegal, to quote the COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT (DIGITAL AGENDA) ACT 2000 - SCHEDULE 1--Amendment
    of the Copyright Act 1968:

    "A person (including a carrier or carriage service provider) who provides facilities for making, or facilitating the making of, a communication is not taken to have authorised any infringement of copyright in a work merely because another person uses the facilities so provided to do something the right to do which is included in the copyright"

    1. Re:Relevant section of copyright act by mattjb0010 · · Score: 2, Informative

      But this is in Austrailia, correct? What does the law there say?

      That was the Australian legislation

      Also, doesn't this state that a ISP isn't liable or responsible for the filesharing that its clients do? So why do they have to bow to subpeonas from the music industry?

      Take down first, ask questions later?

  3. Protesting the Artists? by unix+guy · · Score: 2, Informative

    RIAA and it's ilk are as busy screwing the artists as they their customers. Here's a posting by Janis Ian about her experiences as a "represented artist" and why she supports p2p file exchanges.

    --
    "Straddling the sword of technology..."
  4. Re:I have to agree with this one particular case. by mvpll · · Score: 3, Informative

    I haven't RTFA, but I read something about this last week.

    It basically boils down to the fact that a number of the ISPs employees are directly involved in the website.

    These people have become defendants not because they work at the hosting ISP, but because they are involved in the hosted site.

    Move along people, nothing to see here.

  5. Legal Ramifications of the Case by spin2cool · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are two potentially disasterous legal precedents that coud be set by this case:

    They are both found in this quote from the second article:

    "The Federal Court action seeks declarations that both Mr Cooper and his ISP have infringed the copyrights of the music labels by making and/or distributing copies of copyrighted music, and seeks permanent injunctions and damages against them both."

    It's going be be impossible to prove that he made copies of the music, because he didn't. They're relying on nailing him on distribution charges. So the key element in this case is the definition that the court adopts for "distribution". In my opinion, distribution is the act of actually transmitting the file.

    However, if the creation of a link is acknowledged as being considered distribution (and thus copyright infringement), the results for search engines like Google could be disasterous.

    The other major point is that they're trying to hold ISP's responsible for the actions of people they host. This, also, could have far-reaching ramifications for the internet community.

  6. Re:Criminal bystanding? by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Informative

    "If you see someone get mugged, are you legally bound to report it to the police?"

    No. There are very few crimes which a citizen is compelled to report, and the only one I know for certain is child abuse. This is true even if a police officer asks. You can't lie directly, but you aren't under any obligation to speak. 18 USC 1001.

    Now, if someone knows you witnessed a crime, then you can be compelled to testify. This is where a good understanding of the 5th Amendment and witness rights and responsibilities in your jurisdiction is important.

    If you find yourself in the position of a witness giving testimony, you want to understand the concept of misprision. Generally, that is only an issue if you are an accomplice or otherwise materially involved in the crime.

    It's possible that actively and intentionally concealing knowledge of a felony can make you an accomplice to the felony, but 5th amendment protections are pretty strong. When it comes down to it, it's actually going to be a direct yes-or-know question where the person asking the question already has a pretty good idea of the answer:

    "Did you see Joe strike John on the face with his open hand, at 12:30 am on October 17th, 2003? Please answer yes or no."

    "I must have missed that, I'm sorry. I must have been looking the other way." (Assuming you haven't said anything to the contrary to anyone else on the matter, ever.)

    You had also better hope there is no evidence that you did witness the crime and have accepted compensation in return for not reporting it.

    If you actually do find yourself in any situation like that, (ANY time a Federal law enforcement agent is asking you questions about ANYTHING), remember these magic words:

    "I would like to talk to my attorney prior to any discussions with you."

    Repeat this for any and every question you are asked, until you are either arrested or the questions stop.

    It doesn't matter that I Am Not A Lawyer. This is Good Advice.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  7. Re:Is it just me, or is it extortion? by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Informative
    EXTORTION - The use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to person, reputation, or property as a means to obtain property from someone else with his consent. USC 18

    The Hobbs Act defines "extortion" as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 18 U.S.C. S 1951(b)(2).
    While Webster might not stand up in court, I think the US Code will.
  8. Re:Let me get this straight.. by Bigthecat · · Score: 3, Informative

    However, Australia does have the Digital Agenda Act - which is basically our version of the DMCA.

  9. Re:Lame! by Froggy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Is Washington even aware of this?

    I don't know. I'd like to think we in Australia still retain a modicum of self-government, but our Prime Minister does have an embarrassing tendency to roll over wagging his tail and widdling uncontrollably whenever your President says "here, boy!" so American involvement is not out of the question.

    You were aware this was an Australian case, weren't you?

    What large organizations are opposing the RIAA and the MPAA?

    We have the EFA over here, which is like the EFF with one of those cute Crocodile Hunter accents we all seem to have.

    --
    It is a woman's prerogative to change other people's minds.
  10. Re:Is it just me, or is it extortion? by Boiling_point_ · · Score: 2, Informative
    While Webster might not stand up in court, I think the US Code will.
    The US legal code isn't law in Australia yet, but while Dubya keeps dangling the Free Trade Agreement carrot in front of us, it's only a matter of time before the US Congress re-writes our copyright laws for us, despite the on-paper affirmations to the contrary :(
    --
    "If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
  11. Tell ARIA what you think. by thirdofnine · · Score: 2, Informative
    We need to tell them just how much we detest this behaviour that ARIA, RIAA and similar orginasations have been displaying at the moment.

    The only contact they list on their website is an e-mail address (aria@aria.com.au), which I bet they do not even read.

    But the Australian White Pages lists them. I stongly urge all Australians to call ARIA (+612 8569 1144) and let them know what they think. Alternatively you can post them with snail mail, I suggest sending all of your junk mail to them. Their snail mail address is 19 Harris St Sydney Australia 2000.

    I am almost to the point where I will no longer purchase music, unless bought directly from the artist at one of their gigs, cause I do not believe that this monolpistic organisation deserves a cent of my money, so that they can use it to pursue me for ripping the CD's that I legally purchased, so that I can listen to it on my car MP3 player.

    I will be leaving multiple calls with them tomorrow, and urge all fellow Australians (and anyone else if you want) to call ARIA, and tell them where to go.

    Third of Nine

    --
    Well, um, yes.