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."

7 of 274 comments (clear)

  1. Let me get this straight.. by pilot1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now it's illegal to _LINK_ to websites that have content that _MAY_ infringe on someone's copyrights?
    And what law makes that illegal? The DMCA?

    1. Re:Let me get this straight.. by Nailer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Australia's elected government no longer has much interest in maintaining regional trade relationships, instead preferring to set up trade agreements with the US. This includes implementing DMCA style laws crippling fair use. The governments understanding of technology issues is quite minimal - our recent communications Minister has gone on the record equating broadband with pornography, and in parliament labelled senators from the Democrats opposed to internet censorship as paedophiles, and Electronic Frontiers Australia (our equivalent of the EFF) as a pornography group.

      It's likely that US technology law will continue to be adopted through futher trade agreements without question.

  2. Re:I have to agree with this one particular case. by Kris_J · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I RTFA and it appeared to be that an ISP and specific employees are being sued because one customer put up links to some files that might breach copyright. Can't say I agree with the music industry on this one.

  3. Suing ISP Employees?! by Cyno01 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Its been established that they cant sue ISPs, right? But now they're threatening the employees? Theres something very wrong with that. This is like someone not being able to sue the post office for a delivery of something illegal so they sued the individual postal carrier who delivered it. Insanity abounds...(and before anyone flames me, i do understand the difference between transporting illegal materials and civil copyright infringment)

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  4. Links to Tens of 1000s of Legal Music Downloads by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Please read my article Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads. It is under a Creative Commons license - please copy and distribute it. I'm also asking for translations; a Romanian translation will be posted as soon as I'm done converting the translator's word document to XHTML.

    From the introduction:

    You don't need to worry about getting sued by the Recording Industry Assocation of America or arrested by the FBI if you download legal music. Many independent and unsigned musicians offer downloads of their music in hopes of attracting more fans. Here's some music from my friends The Divine Maggees, Oliver Brown and Rick Walker's Loop.pooL.

    If everyone started downloading legal music instead of violating copyright with the file sharing programs, we would make short work of the RIAA, because people would start buying CDs directly from the artists and seeing their shows instead of enriching the major labels by buying CDs from the bands the labels have chosen for us to listen to. The RIAA would also have no cause to complain - these music downloads do not infringe copyright because the artists give you permission to download them.

    The article discusses at some length how you can work to make file sharing legal.

    It has been Google's #1 hit for the query legal music downloads for about three months now, and recently has been on the second page of hits recently for the much more popular query music downloads.

    Traffic to the article has been climbing steadily, especially since the RIAA lawsuits were filed. It's looking like my copy of the article will get about 19,000 page views this month.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
  5. AUTOMOBILE comparison by tintruder · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Is it possible that the auto manufacturers could utilize the same basis for calculating lost sales and then sue the public transportation utilities?

    Certainly, if every copied MP3 or other media is a 1:1 correlation with a lost album sale, and every "shared" MP3 is responsible for hundreds of lost sales, then one city BUS must then be responsible for the loss of the sale of 40-60 automobiles?

    And further, for every car not sold, there is also a loss in license plate fees, gasoline sold. toll road fees and parking fees.

    Seems like that would be a perfect test case as the names of cars are copyrighted, as are certain design details, and of course, the purchaser must hold a "license" to operate it on the road.

    Oh, wait, some bus riders own cars and some car owners ride the bus!

    Maybe there is some truth to the idea that the acquisition of shared downloads has an impact on media sales, but it is obviously not of the magnitude the bastards claim.

  6. Re: ISPs - are you listening? by shostiru · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I run an ISP. We've considered it. It's a horrible idea.

    We are required by law to be able to log sufficient information to associate IPs with customers if informed to do so by authorities. We may well be required (waiting for legal counsel answer) to keep these logs for several years. Not doing so may lead to criminal charges. By the way, incompetence and lack of resources aren't a defense any more than your cheap-ass landlord can get away with "but those smoke detectors are so pricey".

    Not logging customer data is ultimately more expensive to us anyway. When AOL emails us up and says "67.32.1.1 is spamming, drop them or we drop you", a hundred bucks for a RADIUS log drive suddenly looks cheap compared to two fscking weeks of losing customers while I call their incompetent support line to get out of their blacklist.

    The whole usenet thing is problematic, although the issue isn't piracy, it's kiddy porn. Usenet admins have been arguing about whether a common carrier defense would work for as long as I can remember. Fortunately, thus far no Usenet providers (or ISPs for that matter) have been charged that I know of, the authorities seem much more interested in the people who post this filth than in us. They change newsgroups regularly, and tracking readers isn't as trivial as grepping RADIUS logs, we'd basically have to monitor every newsgroup.

    But if advised to do so we'll drop our news server faster than you can blink, and our customers can go to giganews et al where they have deep pockets. I'm not going to prison just so you can read alt.binaries.kinko-the-clown or whatever they're using these days. But beyond that, I don't personally give a rodent's posterior whether you're sharing the entire first season of Gilligan's Island on gnutella and sucking a month's worth of alt.binaries.mp3s.circle-jerks, as long as you don't saturate the DLSAM and we don't get a subpoena.

    Don't like it? Use an anonymizer, find an open wireless access point, run freenet, and/or pull a full newsfeed (oh and have you priced OC3s lately? cuz that's what you'll need for a full feed).

    BTW, you're largely right about the economics of smaller ISPs, although many of them seem to forget that customer service is ultimately the most important part of the business.