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