Norwegian Student Ordered to Pay for Hyperlinks to Music

Stephan writes "The AP reports that Norway's Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a student whose Napster.no homepage (no relation to the U.S. Napster, apparently) had links to free Internet music files must compensate the music industry. The around 170 links to mp3s will cost its creator $15,900. In a summary of its ruling, the supreme court said the music was clearly published in violation of copyright law. An unofficial English translation of the Court of Appeal decision (earlier in the case) provided by the lawyer of the defendant and more information on the case can be found at the Links & Law Website."

Comments

*Bang*

[Bigthecat]

And with a mighty pop, the number 1 excuse behind hosting Torrents fizzles.

In Norway at least.

Re:*Bang*

[wankledot]

Except that the torrent tracking sites don't expressly know that the files represent a copyright infringement. In this case the person was linking to files he knew (and evidently could be proven that he knew) would be illegal to download.

The torrent sites have a very slim chance of pleading ignorance the same way that any community message board or service can plead ignorance to what's being posted. Of course, the **AA will come back and say that they need to make a reasonable effort to make sure copyrighted material isn't posted.

Re:*Bang*

[strider44]

because, of course, there are so many torrent sites hosted in norway.

Anyway it isn't the same thing. They link to a torrent, which is a harmless ~10kb piece of data. What the user does with the torrent is none of the web-site owner's business, and if the data is fed through the right programs the programs can connect to another site which can give links to where it may be downloaded. But the torrent sites aren't linking to the actual files.

Re:*Bang*

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't know the content they are sharing infringes copyright. Right. Bittorrent sites more often than not explicitely contain sections intended for pirated content.

Re:*Bang*

[FuzzyDaddy]

I would argue that the torrent is linking to the files. Just like an html hyperlink, it provides software running on your machine a way to get a given file. I mean, the hyperlink was probably no more than 30 characters long, but functionally "published" the files, according to the court.

Re:*Bang*

[mwlewis]

What about the hyperlink? It's just a few characters worth of harmless text, until you feed it through the right program, and the program connects to another site where the file may be downloaded. If one level of indirection is wrong, why wouldn't two? What's the real difference?

Re:*Bang*

[Bigthecat]

Anyway it isn't the same thing. They link to a torrent, which is a harmless ~10kb piece of data. What the user does with the torrent is none of the web-site owner's business, and if the data is fed through the right programs the programs can connect to another site which can give links to where it may be downloaded. But the torrent sites aren't linking to the actual files.

It's all great that that's the way you think it should be, but the point is that these decisions are occuring now. Somehow I don't think that there are going to be many who would decide that linking is infringement, but then split hairs over whether linking to a torrent that basically links to the file is infringement.

Think like a layperson. The question is: Will clicking on this link get you illegal content?, and wonder if the courts are going to get into semantics over it.

Like that myth that posting that the site is for 'educational purposes' or that no law enforcement officials are allowed to enter is going to stop someone from getting caught hosting a Warez site, so will this for the Torrent community.

Re:*Bang*

[Bigthecat]

Except that the torrent tracking sites don't expressly know that the files represent a copyright infringement. In this case the person was linking to files he knew (and evidently could be proven that he knew) would be illegal to download.

However; when there's infringing content constantly on the front page of the tracking site and asking almost any user why they're going there leads to the obvious answer, I don't know which court isn't going to make the leap of logic.

It's all well and good to cut things down into semantics, but when every man and his dog on the net knows a particular torrent tracking site as 'the source' for infringing content, it's a little hard to believe that the person(s) spending their money, designing and running the site aren't just as aware. Courts are smarter than many seem to think; and little schemes like this may sound great for getting out of legal hassles on the 'net, but when it comes to that silent courtroom where dozens of people are intently listening on every semantic of what is said, I don't think it has much of a hope of holding up.

Re:*Bang*

[tyldis]

He not only knew it, he advertised it. His site sucked, but it sucks more that he must pay $16000 in damages. As a guy in the start of life he's in for tough times. His life isn't totally ruined, but damned close to.

On a side note; this week three guys got a few hours community service for kidnapping a pregnant woman en beating her senseless. They thought she owed them money, but didn't realize it was the wrong woman.

I have no faith in the Norwegian legal system, even though DVD-Jon wasn't convicted.

Re:*Bang*

[Rei]

> They link to a torrent, which is a harmless ~10kb piece of data

Amusing. Do you honestly view it that way? A torrent has one purpose, and one purpose alone: getting the file(s) associated with it. What, are you going to print it out and put it on your wall?

What you said is like claiming "Oh, I just purchased and installed a bulk emailing tool, and bought a list of a million emails, but I had absolutely no intent to send spam... you see, this tool and the email list aren't themselves spam, they're just pieces of data."

Heck, your argument could be applied to digitized music itself. "It's not copyrighted music! It's just a harmless couple megs of block compressed cosine waveforms! Who cares that it *stands for* the music in question, and *allows you* to reproduce the original...."

Re:*Bang*

[Deekin_Scalesinger]

Who's the **AA? The GNAA? I wasn't aware that they had taken up the cause of copyright infrigement...

Re:*Bang*

[Jim_Maryland]

If this were about say drugs instead of music, would a person still be held accountable?

Example...

Lets say a friend asked me where to find some crack and I tell him to check the corner of 4th Avenue and Jefferson Street. How would I be charged in this case? Should I be charged? How about if I have absolutely no ties to the person/area I send the person?

Is telling a person where to obtain something illegal in itself illegal?

Likely this guy knew exactly what he was linking to and if illegal, he should be punished, but I would like to think it wouldn't be nearly as bad as the people actually hosting the illegal content. From what I've seen, the fines this guy faces exceed those mentioned in other settlements to the RIAA (yes, I realize these are settlements not fines).

Re:*Bang*

[Catbeller]

So, what if I said, out loud, in the presence of witnesses, the IP address of a site where one can possibly download a song someone claims is copyrighted. Would that be infringement? What if I wrote it down on a piece of paper and gave it to someone? Put it on a poster and put it on a wall? Wrote it on a wall? What if I published the address in a blog? How about a letter to a friend? How about printing it in a magazine? A newspaper? TV show? Radio program?

If it's infringement for one, it's infringement for all. If so, commercial law triumphs basic freedom to speak. The commerce-based society Poul and Kornbluth's "The Space Merchants" has finally come to pass, where CC -- Commercial Crime --becomes the most heinous, unspeakable thing an individual can commit.

Re:*Bang*

[rjelks]

If you start going down that road, it won't be long before the entire Internet is illegal. How many archieved Slashdot pages contain links to torrent sites? If 2 links deep are bad, what about 3? I understand you're where you're coming from, I just think they should go after the ones hosting the files.

Re:*Bang*

[Rei]

A direct hyperlink to a music file is a lot more than directing them to the general vicinity of a place where you may or may not be able to get it. In your crack analogy, it would be as if you took their money and came back with the crack and handed it to them.

Re:*Bang*

[gowen]

Yes. Nearly all those things are contributory infringement, under US copyright law. Knowingly helping other people to commit crimes is almost always a crime itself.

Re:*Bang*

[Bigthecat]

If this were about say drugs instead of music, would a person still be held accountable? Example...

Hasn't it connected yet? Haven't you guys figured it out? Copyright isn't being considered the same as most other things. Look at the decisions that have been made. Decisions such as this get made, and somebody uses an analogy as to why it shouldn't agree, they get modded, people are merry, but that doesn't change the simple facts: This is the decision for this region, for now it is law, and an analogy won't change that. It is what it is.

If you'd wanted a killer analogy, you should have used the old 'Gee, if I find some links to illegal stuff on Google then they'd get nailed'.

And there's the problem: The Slashdot crowd seems to think that these courts and legislators are not only stupid, but have to be tied to a stupid set of rules. Make an analogy that paints it in a different light and it's all better; but if you think that they have to think in terms of these broad analogies e.g. 'Oh gee, it's only a link, people have links everywhere, therefore this site can't be specifically geared towards directing people to illegal content'. These people know perfectly well 'what is going on' and who to target, and making an analogy that may have some merit for people they aren't targetting isn't going to achieve anything. When making decisions such as these they don't have to reflect on the universe of possibilities of what may happen with ludicrous interpretations of it, because in the end they're simply going after the people categorising and making a service that points to infringing content.

At exactly what stage are you people going to realise that they know what the popular methods are for getting illegal content, and that they're not going to be fooled by a legitimate file here and there that 'some guy on the net' thinks will make a person with a lifetime of experience an utter moron and not realise it?

And the 'anti-copyright rights movement' wonders why decisions keep being made against their cause with laughable arguments that seem based on the idea that every person in the RIAA, MPAA, any court, etc. doesn't know how to turn on a computer. People constantly scream about how 'copying isn't stealing' and these computer and Internet processes are unique and are misunderstood and not realistically covered under conventional laws: Well guess what guys, this is why all of your analogies aren't worth they time spent typing them out, because the other side realises this also, and hence why these decisions for modern-day technologies are different when put in a traditional environment. You're getting something you asked for and something you didn't; and that something you didn't is the understanding that the courts and the legislators aren't as computer illiterate as you once imagined and they are creating decisions that wrap around a new environment for copyright protection.

Re:*Bang*

[alienw]

I don't think you understand the concept of vicarious (contributory) infringement. If you have a reason to know that your site is used to violate copyright law and you gain some sort of benefit from such violations (drawing visitors to your site counts), you can be liable for contributory infringement. Providing direct links or torrents is obvious infringement. Saying something like "You might be able to get xxx if you search on google" probably isn't, but it's a gray area. There are exceptions for ISPs and proxies and such, but a warez site would not count.

This is part of copyright law. Don't compare it to prostitution, drugs, and other illegal activities; they are not copyright law violations.

Re:*Bang*

[Hatta]

And with a mighty pop, the number 1 excuse behind hosting Torrents fizzles.

I thought the number 1 reason for hosting torrents was to share bandwidth.

Re:*Bang*

[russotto]

There's actually nothing in the US statutes about contributory and vicarious infringement (which are separate concepts). They were invented by the courts in order to help out Jack Valenti and company.

But this case was in Norway, so that's not really relevant.

Re:*Bang*

[phyruxus]

>>A torrent has one purpose, and one purpose alone

A cigarette also has only one purpose, which is to be smoked; this introduces known carcinogens to the body (and tobacco smokers have sky high cancer rates compared to non smokers). But tobacco companies are allowed to keep doing business under the "We don't know that, la la la, can't hear you" school of thought.

The point you make is correct, Rei. But I'd like to add that courts are often on the side of money instead of justice.

Disclaimer: I didn't really think about this in depth, I'm just shooting my mouth off. But I previewed!

Re:*Bang*

[rgarcia]

So what about Google and similar engines? Are all of them breaking some law? Are they going to have to (gasp) censor their search results?

Yes, you say "knowingly helping" and the engines are nothing but bots, but Google (the company) did "knowingly" create the engine realizing that it would return results that might link to illegal content, didn't they?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Re:*Bang*

[servognome]

He knew as a direct result that people were going to commit a crime so he is responsible. The person posted links and asked other to post links to .mp3 files. This is active participation in criminal activity.
And don't use the excuse he was just telling people where to find it, he didn't think anybody would actually download the files. Justice is blind, not stupid.

Re:*Bang*

[Fweeky]

Um, this is *linking*, right? Why did you just describe proxying?

Re:*Bang*

[robertjw]

In your crack analogy, it would be as if you took their money and came back with the crack and handed it to them.

Ummm... No. In the US drug POSSESION is a crime. AFAIK if I told somebody that there were drugs in a specific place, even took them to the place and dropped them off, and then they acquired the drugs I don't believe I would be guilty of a crime. That is one of the ways drug dealers (and users) get around the laws. If the product is never in your posession it's hard to indict you for selling it. I can't imagine how having a link to something on the internet, legal or not, could possibly be a criminal offense. Sure, if you are hosting it, but just linking to it????

Re:*Bang*

[Kierthos]

If the person you told were a minor, you would be contributing to the delinquency of a minor. If they're not, it's possibly criminal facilitation of a felony.

IANAL. But I watch Law & Order regularly. :P

Kierthos

Re:*Bang*

[pilgrim23]

I totally agree here. For insight into the legislative process, legal process, a simple law and how it gets warped six ways to Sunday; just follow the last 30 years of arguments in the US over gun control. It really doesn't matter what your personal stance on that issue is. What is interesting is the various arguments, and assertions brought to the table by both sides. Reality does not equate to legality... never has and never will. "Right" is on the side with the most lawyers, greatest honorium budget for the politicans, and the correct media pundits in their pocket. The rational and logical never enter the equation. For other examples, check the Congressional Record for legislation entered each year that would make pi equal to 3.

Re:*Bang*

[plague3106]

But tobacco companies are allowed to keep doing business under the "We don't know that, la la la, can't hear you" school of thought.

No, i think they are allowed to operate under the 'i am allowed to put carcinogens into my body if i choose to.'

Re:*Bang*

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what you mean about may or not be able to score some crack. I can tell you a place in Seattle where to get crack because everytime I have been in a certain block someone has tried to sell me and others crack. This has been at various times, late afternoon, evening and night-time.

Re:*Bang*

[dracocat]

Try this one

You stand all day on the street corner and direct people to different locations for different people and locations depending on the drug or illegal item they want to buy.

At least take the analogy all the way through. In your example it would be as if somebody e-mailed a link to a friend to get the content rather than publishing a list of links all to infringed content.

Re:*Bang*

[Beautyon]

Well guess what guys, this is why all of your analogies aren't worth they time spent typing them out, because the other side realises this also, and hence why these decisions for modern-day technologies are different when put in a traditional environment

Analogies are used to create law and set precedents, so its very much worth everyones time to type them out to try and prevent bad law from passing. Elsewhere in the comments to this story, people are using analogies to demonstrate how this law can now be used to criminalize speech which was previously not criminal. This is perfectly natural and rational.

If as you say these judges are not computer illiterates and are handing down these judgements that are deliberately illogical, then they are in the wrong, and these laws should not be obeyed.

Right and wrong do not change because a buggy whip seller doesnt like the combustion engine. Throwing up your hands and saying "its no use fighting" is also not an option.

Re:*Bang*

[phyruxus]

When the tobacco trials were going on, phillip morris didn't say "our products cause cancer, but you can't try us for that, because people have a right to put carcinogens in their body if they want". They said "I never heard that. I wasn't aware. Cancer? Who knew? I didn't."

If the addictive and carcinogenic properties of tobacco were unimportant, it'd kinda knock the wind out of the anti-medical-marijuana movement.

Hey, little Johnnie, don't smoke that, you'll laugh and get hungry. Here, smoke this instead; it's 10x as addictive, and you'll die young of a hideous disease. But that's better because.. uh... Because I said so! (And because wood-sulfide paper production is more profitable for the powers-that-were than decorticated cannabis)

Re:*Bang*

[robertjw]

Possibly, I was thinking also probably some kind of conspiracy thing, at least if Jack McCoy was on the case. He can always rap it into some kind of consipiracy charge.

Even so, I think it would have to establish intent. Just saying "Hey, there's some heroin on the ground over there" is fairly innocous. If memory serves, I think to be contributing to the delinquency of a minor you have to be actively involved e.g. host a party where their's beer.

Re:*Bang*

[Anonymous Coward]

"In your crack analogy, it would be as if you took their money and came back with the crack and handed it to them."

Why? It was a hyperlink, not a proxy server capable of supplying the content on request. Street-signs are definitely a good analogy.

Re:*Bang*

[Anonymous Coward]

This post should be added to some FAQ or something. Couldn't agree more! Thanks for putting my thoughts into words.

Re:*Bang*

[IgnoramusMaximus]

And the 'anti-copyright rights movement' wonders why decisions keep being made against their cause with laughable arguments that seem based on the idea that every person in the RIAA, MPAA, any court, etc. doesn't know how to turn on a computer

I am not sure what movement you refer to, but the one I consider myself being a part of has completely different motivation. We do believe that there is no such thing as "intellectual property" not on legal grounds but on moral and phillosophical ones. In other words, the "Intellectual Property" "laws" are nothing but a conspiracy by a cabal of crooks and idiots aimed to entrich themselves at the expense of the entire human race. Thus the analogies you mentioned are only used to illustrate utter ridiculousness of the entire idea of "intellectual property", and by extension any "laws" drafted to protect the insane thing. This technique, to demonstrate idiocy masquarading as wisdom by wrapping itself in semi-plausible complexity, is ancient and has even a latin name originating from ancient Rome, it is called "reductio ad absurdum".

People constantly scream about how 'copying isn't stealing' and these computer and Internet processes are unique and are misunderstood and not realistically covered under conventional laws: Well guess what guys, this is why all of your analogies aren't worth they time spent typing them out, because the other side realises this also, and hence why these decisions for modern-day technologies are different when put in a traditional environment.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only we do not claim that Internet is "unique" and "misunderstood" but we claim the exact opposite: that the concepts of "property" and "stealing" are ancient and immutable, being the very foundation of our branch of human civilizations, and thus are not subject of being mutated and transformed at a whim of a current crew of greed-worshippers just because they happen to use new technology to get rich. While we claim that one can only steal physical property, it is they who claim that the concept of stealing is a quaint little old thing and needs to be "updated" to include puffs of electrons and sequences of integer numbers. The fact that these decisions go against us have far more to do with victories of corporate globalization and establishment of permanent strata of corporate masters and overlords, whose "laws" superceed those "obsolete" ideals like freedom of thought and commerce.

Re:*Bang*

[legirons]

"Amusing. Do you honestly view it that way? A torrent has one purpose, and one purpose alone: getting the file(s) associated with it."

OK, so follow up this question with "what was illegally copied by the publisher of the torrent"?

If there's no copy, there's no copyright violation. Habeas corpus.

Re:*Bang*

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. you took an analolgy (that you started) that was a stretch to begin with(How in the HELL you equate providing direct links to pirated work with cigarette smoking I'll never understand), and managed to turn it into some kind of psuedo legalize marijuana rant (which goes well with your psuedo-intellectualism). Which has nothing to do with anything in this story.

Well done. I think that my be worth bonus points (OT and Troll pts)

Re:*Bang*

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, you can go to the library and check out CDs, movies and books. Oh, wait, you could copy them, which would be stealing. Oh, even worse, I have knowledge that doing so would be legal... And I pointed you to the library. I hope I don't get fined too. Maybe since I didn't say library:// I'm ok?

Re:*Bang*

[hostyle]

Analogies are used to create law and set precedents ...

Stop watching Ally McBeal. In the real world analgies are just that - crap vaguely related to the point you're trying to make, but in fact totally unrelated to the matter at hand.

Re:*Bang*

[3terrabyte]

LOL, the lawyers of the world groan just as loudly while watching L&O, as doctors do watching ER.

Re:*Bang*

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost completely ignoring the content of the parent, does anyone else find it amusing when a slashdot reader makes fun of people who read slashdot?

The old "people who do what I do are idiots" line gets me everytime.

Re:*Bang*

[angel'o'sphere]

I dont want to argue that the current way how copy right is handled is correct.

But this:

In other words, the "Intellectual Property" "laws" are nothing but a conspiracy by a cabal of crooks and idiots aimed to entrich themselves at the expense of the entire human race.

is nonsense.

And your further conclusions are nonsense as well.

Material property, what is that? A car, a house, a real estate? So if you own real estate, and you grow crops on it? Who owns the crops? You! Right?
If under the earth on your real estate is ore, or oil, and you dig it out, who owns it? You! Right?
If you take mud from your ground and form a statuett who owns it? You! Right?

And now the quantum leap: if you write a story .... who owns it? At roman times, where you reffer to, no one owned it. Everybody could "use" it and "make it to money". With the result that the "inventor" rarely made any money and barely could make a living.

Intellectual property makes a person who has nothing but his mind equal to any other person who has property, be it money, land or resources. Its NOT AGAINST humanity to have intellectual property laws. Its a basic human right that my ideas are MINE, that my work is MINE. If we had no laws, the people with the money had EVERYTHING. With no money you can't compete with them.

And now come up with a schema which gets rid of the inappropriated parts of current IP laws. But abolishing it just means that the rich reign us .... and that the poor never can get any stance.

angel'o'sphere

Re:*Bang*

[phyruxus]

>>How in the HELL you equate providing direct links to pirated work with cigarette smoking I'll never understand

Let me break it down into itty bitty pieces and spoon feed it to you. Rei responded to stalker44 that a .torrent is functionally close enough to the music file because the .torrent exists only to get the music. still with me? Rei's point was that the court's position on charging the student was appropriate because the only reason he would link that was to help people d/l the music itself, and that there's no other use for it. I responded cigarettes have only one use, being smoked, which harms the consumer, but that in that case the court took the opposite position, that making the item available was ok, and opined that it was because big money was on that side that time. Then you responded that you thought the tobacco ruling was more likely related to people's right to put carcinogens in their body if they want (simultaneously demonstrating that you know zilch about the tobacco case, and showing that you just wanted to shoot your mouth off). I responded pointing out that 1) you are wrong and 2) if you were right it would impact another issue.

Apparently this flustered you so much that you had to post anonymously to express your frustration. I'm surprised you didn't create a hotmail account to get another slashdot account and post with that to make it look like someone in this big wide world actually thought there was an ounce of coherence to anything you said.

>>psuedo legalize marijuana rant (which goes well with your psuedo-intellectualism).

m-e-d-i-c-a-l.

Look, you didn't have a point in the first place. You just took a cheap shot, and you missed. Get over it okay? There's more to life than sniping baselessly at people on slashdot. For example, there's sniping baselessly on IRC, sniping baselessly on blogs, camping on quake, burning bags, heck you can get a box of crayola for less than $4.

But thanks for letting me sign off secure in the knowledge that somewhere, there is someone even even more insecure and idle than myself.

Okay, I love you, bye bye plague3106!

Re:*Bang*

[crabpeople]

that was a pretty nice post.

And i really support file sharing /copyright infringment. They arent going to stop it by arresting people though -- its just too easy. I would never go back to buying cds and dvds. damn the costs. if i were to ever get sued good luck - i have no money and very few assets. if they want my shitty car they can have it. There would also be alot of motiviation for me to finaly go on my inevitable killing spree..

blaze of glory baby

Re:*Bang*

[crabpeople]

"Intellectual property makes a person who has nothing but his mind equal to any other person who has property, be it money, land or resources. Its NOT AGAINST humanity to have intellectual property laws. Its a basic human right that my ideas are MINE, that my work is MINE. If we had no laws, the people with the money had EVERYTHING. With no money you can't compete with them."

yeah thats cool and all but the entities that own most copyrights aren't regular people - they are corporations. Corporate greed and near infinite life guarantees that inventions will not be used by society to benifit all of society at some future time. This is why it is a problem for humanity.

I hate living in a for profit world. especially if one day i can nanocreate anything i need by just having the plans for it. I dont think i should have to buy those plans. this would pretty much free us up to do whatever we wanted with our lives. that is what we are all working toward.

Re:*Bang*

[Rei]

A street sign that says "Crack - this way!"? If I put up a sign that said "crack" and pointed to where you could get crack 24/7, you'd better believe I'd be guilty of aiding and abetting a felony.

Re:*Bang*

[Rei]

Actually... if you are slapped with fines that you can't afford... IANAL, but as far as I'm aware, if you have to declare chapter 7 bankrupcy to pay your fines, many states allow you to keep a certain percentage of equity one vehicle (among a number of other exemptions for things like clothing, a certain amount of equity in a home, etc). If you have a lousy old car, it might well fall under that line.

I think the risk would be that they'd put pressure on you to settle - i.e., risk of jailtime if you don't agree to fines. In such a case, I would think that they could get you to give up anything that they chose as part of the settlement.

But again - IANAL. I just had a friend who was considering bankruptcy once.

Re:*Bang*

[lasindi]

While we claim that one can only steal physical property, it is they who claim that the concept of stealing is a quaint little old thing and needs to be "updated" to include puffs of electrons and sequences of integer numbers.

The idea behind copyright is that these "puffs of electrons and sequences of integer numbers" took time and effort to produce, and that those who do the work to create it should be rewarded by the people who use it. If I counterfeit money, have I actually "stolen" money from someone else? No, but that doesn't mean that it's not immoral. It's the wrong thing to do, because if I can counterfeit money freely, it means that the people who actually work for money are no longer rewarded for their work. Simply seeing intellectual property as "puffs of electrons" is a far too simplistic view, just like calling money nothing more than ink and paper would be; you have to see it as the product of someone's work. If it's good work, the author(s) should be compensated for it.

lasindi

Re:*Bang*

[Anonymous Coward]

...the earth owns you. all these things that sustain our lives comes from the earth. property is stupid, these petty devices are worthless. it serves to set us against eachother while an elite few profit at our expense. our mission should be to protect the earth, which is in a sense, our collective mother. we should be seeking harmony and balance. helping our brothers and sisters as they help us. i am looking forward to the day that this global system collapses. so many people are deluded and have their priorities all wrong.

Re:*Bang*

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, this Norway case is flawed. Publication of the location of things is not the same as the publication of those things. I can tell you where the library is but that doesn't mean I just published the contents of the library. Like I said this ruling is flawed. Norwegians will likely not be adherely to this ruling because it is so flawed.

Not to mention torrents are often to public, free, and open media and data. Which means there is no question of the legality. It is.

Re:*Bang*

[feepness]

Lets say a friend asked me where to find some crack and I tell him to check the corner of 4th Avenue and Jefferson Street. How would I be charged in this case? Should I be charged? How about if I have absolutely no ties to the person/area I send the person?

Yes. Tes you would. People have been put away for decades due to telling someone about a friend who would "know where to get drugs". This is after having your home and property siezed on the suspicion of being a dealer.

Which incidentally, is why I am a Libertarian, even though I stopped using drugs awhile ago.

Re:*Bang*

[IgnoramusMaximus]

is nonsense.

Let's see.

Material property, what is that? A car, a house, a real estate? So if you own real estate, and you grow crops on it? Who owns the crops? You! Right? If under the earth on your real estate is ore, or oil, and you dig it out, who owns it? You! Right? If you take mud from your ground and form a statuett who owns it? You! Right?

Right. All of these are examples of property, since they have the following characteristics: they are physical objects that can occupy only one unique location in space and can be used by a person or group of persons ("the owners") who would lose the use of the said items if someone were to take them to another physical location i.e. "commit theft" (this of course does not apply to land unless you are in possession of a planet moving device).

And now the quantum leap: if you write a story .... who owns it? At roman times, where you reffer to, no one owned it. Everybody could "use" it and "make it to money". With the result that the "inventor" rarely made any money and barely could make a living.

This is a crucial piece of evidence here indicating that you have lost all perspective and are totally in the clutches of greed-worshippers. The actual truth is that the inventors did make fortunes if they were good at making fortunes from their inventions, but more importantly, most of them invented not because they wanted to get rich but because they were people who wanted to invent things from an intrinsic need to discover and improve things. This is the fallacy of the corporatist arguments. A worshipper of greed can only understand people as long as they are motivated exclusively by money. Money is a factor in people's lives but very few of us would go into science or art for the money and still could call themselves "scientists" or "artists". The argument you are making applies only to corporations, whereby the actual inventors who do it for the love for inventing are employees and the owner of the invention is the corporation. Corporations are indeed motivated exclusively by money.

This ludicrous argument of greed is of course is far more acute in the area of arts. I am sure Plato wrote out of greed. Shakespeare did it because he wanted to own a theatre chain. Mozart was composing out of love of gold. Etc. In fact, no artist does it for money. The definition of art is a search of way of expression of internal state of mind of an artist so that he/she can communicate it to other people. Money is a distantly remote factor, only useful as far as granting the artist tools for expression. That is why music and film "industries" aren't. An idea of an art "industry" is a perversion akin to having a "ministry of love". And just like Orwell predicted, terms such as "music industry" and "intellectual property" are made to obscure the truth and tilt the discussion towards the greed mongers by framing the issue in their terms.

Intellectual property makes a person who has nothing but his mind equal to any other person who has property, be it money, land or resources. Its NOT AGAINST humanity to have intellectual property laws. Its a basic human right that my ideas are MINE, that my work is MINE. If we had no laws, the people with the money had EVERYTHING. With no money you can't compete with them.

This is absolutely untrue. If it were so, no progress could have occured. The primodial caveman would demand that the idea of a "wheel" is his and his inhereitants until the end of time. An idea of a language. Alphabet. Numbers. All of these were brought to the world by people who were furthering the human race. If they were anything like you and yelled "Mine! Its all fucking Mine! Yeaa! Gimme! Gimme!" we would still be using stone tools to hunt. Furthermore, none of the ideas we have lives in vacuum. In order to learn we need the language (someone's property according to you), written symbols to read (someones else's property), numbers, formulas, physical discoverie

Re:*Bang*

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you'd wanted a killer analogy, you should have used the old 'Gee, if I find some links to illegal stuff on Google then they'd get nailed'."

Not quite. Give away genuine maps to genuine treasure, stolen and hidden by a genuine (but dead) pirate. (Ya, trust me, the treasure's genuine.)

And yes, I think there's some stupid judges, and also some corrupt judges. Both should be taken behind the courthouse and whipped until they repent, come to their senses, or start shitting pieces of eight.

Re:*Bang*

[Borderlinebass]

The incentive argument for maintaining (or strengthening) copyright is patently and demonstrably false; music and art were being created for a long, long time before copyright "compensated" the creators.

Beethoven wrote some of the greatest music ever without being granted exclusive copyright until his death and, what, 90 years after, and without the benefit of massive distribution cartels.

Looking at music or art as something that benefits from, or even requires, exclusive copyright and monopoly exsistance in the mass market is far too simplistic a view.

Re:*Bang*

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The idea behind copyright is that these "puffs of electrons and sequences of integer numbers" took time and effort to produce, and that those who do the work to create it should be rewarded by the people who use it.

Yes they took an effort to make but then you jumped to conclusion that all effort is to be rewarded by the same mechanism as in buying buns from a bakery. I spent time typing this reply in ... do you owe me money? As you can see, effort alone is insufficient to demand compensation. What happens in a specific case of art, one can expect voluntary reward from the art patrons, otherwise known as "patronage system". In case of science, one expects your salary to be paid by academia. Etc. In any case you are creating out of an intrinsic need to create as an artist, or to discover as a scientist/inventor. Such as I am doing out of my (probably futile) intrinsic need to enlighten you. The trick of the corporatists of course is to try to link that need to money, since all they understand is money.

If I counterfeit money, have I actually "stolen" money from someone else? No, but that doesn't mean that it's not immoral.

False argument. When you counterfeight money and use it as wallpaper, you did nothing wrong. But as soon as you used the money to "buy" something, you stole from the prior owner of the goods since you gave him fake money for real goods. He is now left with nothing. You have the physical goods, he doesnt. Thus you stole them.

Simply seeing intellectual property as "puffs of electrons" is a far too simplistic view, just like calling money nothing more than ink and paper would be; you have to see it as the product of someone's work. If it's good work, the author(s) should be compensated for it.

As I indicated, it not only not "simplistic" but the only logical aproach. Money has value because we attribute value to it equal to that of physical objects, and we exchange it for them. This of course leads to the danger of abuse but the system is merely a shortcut between two parties exchanging the goods. Instead of barter, we use money to act as a convenience conduit, but in the end we do actually barter the physical goods (or labour). As to getting compensation for work, I already explained that arts and science have a different regiment due to their very nature and their financial rewards are also operating in a different maner from those, say, of a baker or a car mechanic.

Re:*Bang*

[mOdQuArK!]

The idea behind copyright is that these "puffs of electrons and sequences of integer numbers" took time and effort to produce,

It takes a lot of effort for me to do sculpture by banging rocks against each other, but I don't hear anyone arguing that I should be paid for it. People should be paid for providing goods & services.

those who do the work to create it should be rewarded by the people who use it.

That's fine - but why should they be paid over and over every time the work is transferred after the initial sale, when they did the effort to create the work only once?

People should be compensated for providing desirable goods or services. There's no reason to force people unrelated to that initial sale to continue compensating the creator (or speculative middlemen who "buy" the ownership of the "intellectual property" from the creator) when no additional value is being created for each additional payment.

"Intellectual property" is really anti-property rights - it allows people who you did not have a financial or legal transaction with to limit what you can do with your own physical property. There had better be some damn compelling societal reason to have laws like that, and I think that modern society is currently proving that such laws hinder rather encourage "innovation".

Re:*Bang*

[civilizedINTENSITY]

" A direct hyperlink to a music file is a lot more than directing them..."

Nope, it is *exactly* the same. The URL is just that, directions. And it isn't like URLs are dependable.

Re:*Bang*

[Anonymous Coward]

It is settled law, Supreme Court precedent, that an individual can publish information on committing illegal acts. You and your ilk's attempt to end free speech First Amendment rights is not going unnoticed. Take your rightful place in infamy with Jack Valenti and Judge Kaplan, Mr Big the cat. Couldn't afford the law school tuition? Is that why you're now prostituting yourself out as a corporate shill?

Re:*Bang*

[Drakkenfyre]

Would you mind posting or sending me a link or two on any cases involving this? I think you've just given me a really good idea for my next article.

Thanks!

Re:*Bang*

[Mr2001]

Material property, what is that? A car, a house, a real estate? So if you own real estate, and you grow crops on it? Who owns the crops? You! Right?
If under the earth on your real estate is ore, or oil, and you dig it out, who owns it? You! Right?
If you take mud from your ground and form a statuett who owns it? You! Right?

And now the quantum leap: if you write a story .... who owns it?

No one.

The story is not a physical object; it can be used by more than one person at the same time. It doesn't need to be owned by anyone.

See, ownership is a concept that only applies to things that are scarce - things that can only be used by one person at a time. If there's only one car, two people can't drive it to two destinations simultaneously. If you make one statue out of mud, it can go in your living room or mine, but not both. The whole concept of ownership is there so that we can all live peacefully while we're surrounded by objects that we can't all use at once... someone has to decide how they're going to be used, and that person is the owner.

On the other hand, the concept of ownership is wholly unnecessary when we're talking about things that can be used by more than one person in different ways at the same time. If you and I discover a CD in the road, and I want to listen to it while you want to send it to your friend, we're gonna have a problem... but if you and I discover an MP3 file on the internet, there is no problem. I can listen to it and you can email it to your buddies, and neither of our actions will disturb the other. Which one of us owns the file, you ask? Why would anyone need to own it?

Re:*Bang*

[AK Marc]

If I counterfeit money, have I actually "stolen" money from someone else? No, but that doesn't mean that it's not immoral. It's the wrong thing to do, because if I can counterfeit money freely, it means that the people who actually work for money are no longer rewarded for their work.

Copy it all you want, and you aren't stealing. But, if you defraud someone by presenting it as legal tender when it is not, then you have "stolen" from them. Copying was irrelevant to the act of lying (even if implicitly) in order to separate someone from their physical goods.

If it's good work, the author(s) should be compensated for it.

Yes, it is a good thing that Socraties, Isaac Newton, Michaelangelo, Euripidies, Shakespeare, and all the others through time were given such tight IP controls over their works. Without the copyright system in place, I'm sure they would have never produced anything.

Re:*Bang*

[AK Marc]

And now the quantum leap: if you write a story .... who owns it? At roman times, where you reffer to, no one owned it.

And, if you write a story now, covered by copyright law, who owns it? Since you don't seem to grasp what copyright is, I'll give you a hint. Hint: no one owns it. Copyright is an exchange. The person why writes it gives it freely away to all people and revokes any ownership rights to it. That is the first step to copyrighting a work (for the copyright we are discussing). If you can't understand the first step, then there is no reason to discuss the following ones.

Re:*Bang*

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent post! I hope that the person who modded you a flamebait gets his moderation rights shredded.

Re:*Bang*

[shark72]

Very well put.

Several years ago I spent quite a bit of time tracking down and mocking chain letter spammers. A common claim by the spreader of chain letters was that if you put something like "please add me to your mailing list" when sending your $5 to the other suckers, you were actually paying for a "service" and thus evading the law. This, of course, is 100% horse shit.

Today I see a similar branch of Slashdot groupthink -- the belief that, as you put it, the people who work the legal system are stupid, easily confounded, and lacking in common sense. The reality is that the courts are armed with the same bullshit detectors that Slashdotters have.

Re:*Bang*

[plague3106]

Wow, you're a twit. You really think I have nothing better to do then try to hide my responses to you?

First off, I don't really care what the tobacco industry used in its court arguments. I presented MY view of why cigerrettes should be allowed to be sold. Eating at McDs alot is probably alot worse then smoking, yet people choose to do so all the time. Since the outcome of the trial, they can't claim they don't know anymore, so saying thats why they are STILL allowed to operate doesn't make any sense. It is MY view that they should have won the lawsuit hands down. But b/c they didn't, you now have the ridicous lawsuits against fast food.

Secondly, I wouldn't have bashed your m-e-d-i-c-a-l marijuana comments either, as not only do I support medical marijuana, I support abolishing the war on drugs.

So, yes, I did have a point, and it was that your anology doesn't really make sense. For the record, I don't think simply telling someone where to download illegal copies of music or where to buy crack or how to pick a lock should be illegal.

So, hope you're thinking that you had found someone more insecure then youself left you with a good feeling..but now its time to come back to reality and realize that, no, there really isn't anyone out there more insecure than yourself. Its truely sad that you need /. to feel better about yourself.

Re:*Bang*

[ACPosterChild]

I've read this post and more down the chain, and I still have the feeling I always get; that people on both sides are missing the point of the other, as if there was a nice black or white answer.

It's not very clean, but here's a few random (devil's advocate?) thoughts on the subject:

Why is it, exactly, that certain people think that protecting your physical property is OK, but protecting a story you thought up is not? Frankly, I really think it boils down to the fact that a story is easier to steal. I think people put a mental value on things based on how hard it is to acquire or have taken. You typically have to do something grusome in order to take land from people, like kill them en masse. To steal a story, you just have to hear/read/copy it and then pass it off as your own. If you think that "information wants to be free", then I'd like to hear why "land doesn't want to be free". It's not as if anyone has any *right* to land, other than at one point somebody forced somebody else off of it with violence.

Money. You need it in order to have a realistic go at a happy life. The question is, just HOW MUCH do you need? It's easy to be on either side of the "it's all mine" / "damn greedy scum" argument, but the truth is in the middle. Let's say that Joe spends a year selling hand-made gizmos and Fred spends a year writing a story. Why aren't they both just giving away their work to whoever walks by? Because they want to be able to eat, and maybe buy some of that ever-precious land, and maybe even have health insurance. So, they HAVE to sell what they produce. Unless you're 1) In the same financial position as an artist; and 2) Giving away all of your productivity for nothing; and 3) not dead in a month from starvation; then you have no right to say that information should be free. Just because some people work in mediums other than wood and stone does not mean that they are not entitled to fair compensation for their work. To posit that "ancient" ideas of property and stealing are somehow still applicable today (even though those laws were written for their particular circumstances; hmm, I must be getting old... am I talking about the Bible or IP here?) without putting forward a workable solution that keeps everyone fed, is a hollow exercise.

Further, why is it that it's other people's ideas of property that need to change? What I see (if you take away the "evil" heavy-handed way in which things are implemented) is one group of people trying to use today's technology and still feed the producer, and one group of people that want something for nothing. I happen to like a good 7-10 year no-compete law for intellectual works. Just because I despise purpetual copyright extentions, it doesn't mean I think somebody should get the shaft when they produce something that lots of people find useful but also find easy to copy.

p.s. Sorry, this post is very disjointed; but I don't have any more time to think about it and clean it up, right now.

Re:*Bang*

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Why is it, exactly, that certain people think that protecting your physical property is OK, but protecting a story you thought up is not? Frankly, I really think it boils down to the fact that a story is easier to steal. I think people put a mental value on things based on how hard it is to acquire or have taken..

Actually no, in my case it because the whole idea of "property" is based on scarcity of physical goods and our animalistic instincts to "posses things". Furthermore, and more critically, as I explained, the idea of "property" is simply not applicable to information, not because it is my political or personal conviction but because information lacks the required attributes for it. Thus it is a question of logic and empirical experience.

Unless you're 1) In the same financial position as an artist; and 2) Giving away all of your productivity for nothing; and 3) not dead in a month from starvation; then you have no right to say that information should be free.

Again a fallacy, you made an assumption (very popular one) that "the artist" has a "right" to renumeration for his work. No such right exists, and furthermore if he is an artist that was not his objective anyhow. The reason the right does not exist is because none of us has the "right" to work. We only have an ability to ask others to renumerate us for our services to them. Also we have a right that once we enter an agreement with someone to perform work for them, they (as well as us) must obide by its terms (with exceptions dealing with lies and misrepresentations etc. but these are beside the point). These two combined form the foundation of all commerce.

To posit that "ancient" ideas of property and stealing are somehow still applicable today (even though those laws were written for their particular circumstances; hmm, I must be getting old... am I talking about the Bible or IP here?) without putting forward a workable solution that keeps everyone fed, is a hollow exercise

Another fallacy. What you are stating is this: "Since you exposed these con-men for what they are, now you are responsible for feeding them while making sure they can continue to practice their 'profession' undisturbed".

Bad news here: the "music industry", "film industry", "software industry" and similiar cons are simply not viable economicaly in non police-state societies. This is what it boils down to. The people "working" in these have two morally consistent choices: find some other work and forget about any of this ... or try to get funded as artists by art lovers and produce their (true then) art for all to enjoy.

Further, why is it that it's other people's ideas of property that need to change?

I was under impression that was me who is insisting that they do not change and that we stick to norms established since written history began...

What I see (if you take away the "evil" heavy-handed way in which things are implemented) is one group of people trying to use today's technology and still feed the producer, and one group of people that want something for nothing. I happen to like a good 7-10 year no-compete law for intellectual works. Just because I despise purpetual copyright extentions, it doesn't mean I think somebody should get the shaft when they produce something that lots of people find useful but also find easy to copy.

It all comes down to your view of what constitutes "getting the shaft". A scientist or an artist will seek discovery or expression and will receive in return recognition and attribution for his/her discoveries and art. Plus money from academia or art foundations or art patrons at a performance etc. What he should not expect is to get is untold billions from all corners of the planet where his performance (which he did only once) is re-played by countless machines owned by other people, powered by energy paid for by those same people etc.

In other words the problem is the culture of insane greed

Re:*Bang*

[phyruxus]

Knowing that your opinion differs from the AC's, I see that I jumped the gun. I apologize contritely for unfairly flaming you. You don't deserve the abuse, and I take what I said about you back. (AC, if you're listening, eat me.)

I stand by my analogy so far as what I originally said. You don't think it makes sense, and I admit it's a fairly weak analogy, although it makes sense to me.

I didn't get abusive until responding to the AC post, and I was in error after that. I'll take a lesson from this.
^---Message to plague3106 ends here

And for anyone who's bothered reading this far, and wasn't involved, yes, I do feel a little silly %) (but not too).

I am very calm and very sleepy. I am under your control. Please deposit 25 cents for an additional three minutes.

(Phone Ringing)
[Man:] "Hello?"
[Operator:] "Yes, a collect call for Mrs. Floyd from Mr. Floyd. Will you accept the charges from the United States"
(Phone is Hung Up)
"He hung up. Is this your residence, sir?"
"I wonder why he hung up..."
"There must be someone else there besides your wife to answer."
(Phone Ringing)
[Man:] "Hello?"
[Operator:] "This is the United States calling. Are we reaching.."
(Phone is Hung Up)
"See he keeps hanging up."
"But it's a man answering."
(Operator cuts connection)

Re:*Bang*

[ACPosterChild]

the whole idea of "property" is based on scarcity of physical goods and our animalistic instincts to "posses things".

Yes, with the most basic essential property being the necessities for life. And, as our technology evolves, we put more and more emphasis and value on recreational activities. Here's the problem with the physical goods argument: No, you're not directly taking a copy out of my hands which will deprive me from selling it to someone else. And, even though you had an interest in copying my work, maybe you personally wouldn't have bought it. But, SOME of the people would have. Since we don't live in Rudy Rucker's world of Freeware with magical make-anything-you-want-at-your-fingertips allas, I still have to make money so that I can eat. So, the people who copied my work instead of paying me for it *are* taking food (or a car repair, or a vacation, or a critical operation) from me. It most certainly *does* deprive the creator of revenue, which directly relates to physical goods.

Again a fallacy, you made an assumption (very popular one) that "the artist" has a "right" to renumeration for his work.

No, I made the assumption that ALL of us have a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I think that's an opinion that has become accepted as fact today, given the general state of the world. Granted, I did almost explore the basic assumption of *anyone* having a right to work, and thus live, but skipped it favor of time and brevity. I completely agree with your paragraph (except for the "fallacy" part, unless we're going to get pedantic).

What you are stating is this: "Since you exposed these con-men for what they are, now you are responsible for feeding them while making sure they can continue to practice their 'profession' undisturbed".

I don't see why an artist is a con man? An artist that plays you a song for a dollar, and delivers as promised, has not conned anyone. If he charges $100 per song, he may be greedy, but, by definition, that's the song's worth if somebody actually ponies up the cash. And if he charges $5 for a recording so that you can re-live the moment any time you want, so what?

What I was really trying to say is that, in your world, only physical laborers exist. Sure, Beethoven might write music, but only in his spare time at night after he spends the majority of his waking hours producing widgits.

Bad news here: the "music industry", "film industry", "software industry" and similiar cons are simply not viable economicaly in non police-state societies.

I know I'm being idealist, but you hit the nail on the head. They won't work in a state where a "Please don't share this with anyone, because I'd like to sell 100K of these nationwide and make $50K to live on" agreement won't work. (Don't go there with the numbers, the numbers are be irrelevant; in the end it's the people putting up the cash who decide if the charge is too much or not) Since people aren't that honest, you have to force that honesty upon them. With physical goods, that honesty is enforced by the conspicuousness of a missing object and an evidence trail. Frankly, it could be argued that the greed of normal everyday people is the real problem here. In the same way that people have no *right* to work, you have no *right* to any software I write or song recording I produce. If I make a deal with Joe to record a song and give him a copy, that deal in no way translates to you. Just because it's easy, or just because you have interest, or just because you think I charge too much to perform, doesn't mean it's right. That's a deal between him and me, and the rest is nunya.

This is what it boils down to. The people "working" in these have two morally consistent choices:

"Working"? Yes, they train, think, and spend lots of time producing something. Most of them do it because they want to eat. I'd call that work.

find some other work and forget about any of this ... or

Re:*Bang*

[IgnoramusMaximus]

So, the people who copied my work instead of paying me for it *are* taking food (or a car repair, or a vacation, or a critical operation) from me. It most certainly *does* deprive the creator of revenue, which directly relates to physical goods.

If you go the "revenue depravation" route all sorts of irreconcilable illogic insues. For example: you "bought" a DVD. You watched it with your girlfriend who also liked it. Bam! A revenue depravation, if you were single she would have bought it too. One sale "lost". You watched it with your pals who came over for a card game ... now you are a serial "thief". How about you watch broadcast TV and you skip over commercials... whammo! You "deprived" the poor TV station of ad revenue. Thus FCC has to introduce "broadcast flag" to stop your PVR from recording the show/skipping the commercials. But lets forget technology orientation for a second as it is a mere distraction: You like a song you heard... and you whistle it in the shower.. is it copyright violation? How about you play the same song loudly in your car with windows open? The whole steet is hearing it... Or how about your team managed to create a new mathematical formula. Is it now your "property" even tho it is quite likely many other mathematicians can come up with it? How about you changed some molecules in a DNA sequence to make red mice? Are the red mice your "property"? If someone were to do the same, your "Red Mouse Inc." would be deprived revenue even tho the sequence could (unlikely but possible) be obtained by random mutation. Etc. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseum.

These consequences which are inevietable as soon as you make that "revenue depravation" leap lead to a situation where as a natural progression (logical and inevietable) the "Right To Read" society arises about which RMS wrote his famous essay. There are also other variations on this theme like for example "Rights Based Economy" whereby as machines become more and more sophistcated a possibility of per-use micro-payments based on "intellectual property" is created. I wont get into all the ghastly implications of this thinking, suffice to say that the outcomes of this simple "revenue depravation" concept are frightening.

The idea of basing this argument on "compensation" is fundamentally flawed. There is not a thing to measure the "revenue" by here. All of these are effects of attempts to achieve an immoral (and in long-term impossible) thing: creating scarcity of information so that it can become "property". As I tried to explain earlier, information, try as you might, is not capable of becoming such not due to what you or I want but due to what it is. Facts have an unfortunate way of getting the upper hand no matter how much bullshit and convoluted obfuscation greedy people produce to hide them.

I think that's an opinion that has become accepted as fact today, given the general state of the world. Granted, I did almost explore the basic assumption of *anyone* having a right to work, and thus live, but skipped it favor of time and brevity.

Life does not equal work unless you happen to be an exteme libertarian in which case you believe that anyone capable but unemployed should starve to death. In an ideal scenario most capable people are employed but this situation is not likely to become a norm, and worse as "productivity" and "efficiency" of corporations increase you are going to find more and more people out of work until the current model of "greed, growth and damn the torpedoes" collapses. But that is another discussion.

Which is exactly what each of us is. When you buy the CD, you are a patron of the arts. When you buy the drug, you are supplying your little piece of the stipend for the scientists that discovered it

Not at all. This is actually a pivotal difference. In the example of academia stipend the sicentist is free to use all the other scientist's ideas to incorporate into his. In thecase of "information" as "product" paid for by "consumers", such a thi

Re:*Bang*

[plague3106]

Thanks. Its nice to see there are still people out there that can admit fault.

At any rate I shouldn't have resorted to name calling either, as it was an honest mistake. So, I'm sorry too.

Re:*Bang*

[ACPosterChild]

I think we're both rooting for the same thing. I'm just trying to look at things from a practical perspective that keeps food on everyone's table. Chief among my views is that any exclusivity granted to "IP" must be for a limited and reasonable time, and that compensation must be fair. Fair compensation is not one that gives the creator 100+ times more wealth than the average person.

That is patently untrue. If it is a mere convenience, I would be entitled to any new media format the performance came on due to progress of technology for a minimal fee of media+shipping.

Exactly, you'd be able to do just that. Don't mistake me for an apologist for people's greed. I'm not being blinded by any industry's lines of, "Think of the powdered cheese product thou art taking from the mounth of the poor artist!" What I seek is a compromise between the ideal and the practical; something more than a pipe dream. The only reason that I think that my view is any more practical than the true ideal is because we used to have a reasonable system, before Disney, et. all, came along. I think that getting the system back to reasonable is a much more worthy fight than telling everyone that "software must be free, so dismantle all software companies and hope that some hobbiest turns out something you want". That is not going to fly whatsoever; not to mention how we'd be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Perhaps I'm remiss in assuming that "rights" somehow include an inherant "fairness". But, I honestly think that the "information is free" argument is missing a legitimate part of the equation, and that is that people deserve (have the right) to be compensated for their work. By simply using software or listening to music, one admits to finding utility in that product. You *know* that it took time (i.e., had to eat, had to have a house, etc.) and effort to create the product you're using, but you feel no compulsion to re-imburse those costs? What's happening is that you're asking somebody to give their resources to you for nothing in return. You want something for nothing, and I recognize no such right. It's not "revenue depravation" I'm so concerned about, it's "remuneration". I don't care that you remember a song, or listen to a CD with a friend. What I care about is fairness. What infinitesimal reproduction costs should result in are very inexpensive software and music, but not outright free software and music. Not, that is, until we have matter replicators and the true cost of living is zero. To believe otherwise is to ignore the realities of the universe, which is simply asinine.

It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game though. A reasonable agreement that gives content producers exclusive distribution for ~5 years after their work is created still gets works into the public domain in a reasonable time frame, benefiting mankind as a whole. But, it does so without undermining the production base.

I need to read Right to Read again, but I don't see that the point of the story is strictly "IP is bad". First, IIRC, its main topic is DRM. Also, in that world, copyright is extended forever. If not explicitly stated, it still must be true. Else, why would a person pay rediculous license fees for a textbook that has no more content than one that just recently came out of its 5 year protection period? Sure, if the textbook had some new, worthy, content, you might decide to pay. But, there would be no way to force people to buy the new version (excluding laws and deals that have nothing to do with IP proper, but instead mandate that users can only choose from a subset of available works for no technically sound reason).

BTW, almost any time I use the word "you" I indend the generic "a person" definition. If I ever mean "you, the person I'm replying to", it should be blatantly obvious. Also, I wish I could think of a better phrase than IP.

It's nice to find an actual debate here on /. :)

Re:*Bang*

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The only reason that I think that my view is any more practical than the true ideal is because we used to have a reasonable system, before Disney, et. all, came along.

I can understand your sentiment but I feel that it is too late for that. The "reasonable" system of the past was able to function only because the information technology of today did not exist to render copyright to be so at odds with common sense and the number of patents was small enough to be manageable. But as we are progressing, an increasing number of new works is in digital form and that form is what causes the problem in conjunction with the old-fashioned approach. In order to be able to "enforce" copyright, one will need to either dispose of open hardware or put tens of thousands in jail on a perpetual basis, ala "War on Drugs". As to patents, their number is increasing exponentially and soon it will be impossible to produce anything without searching through hundreds of thousands of patents, which are extremely difficult to analyse. This crippling effect on all manufacturing is already happening.

In essence you are attempting to fix the system by trying to return it to its previous, semi-acceptable state but it is simply physically impossible.

And I cant even predict the results of trying to apply copyrights to DNA, but some rather disturbing precedents exist already involving Monsanto.

that is that people deserve (have the right) to be compensated for their work.

Such right does not exist and never had. The only right that you have is that once you and someone who hires you agree to a fee, you are entitled to it upon completion of your work. Artists whose patrons do not need physical contact with the originals of the art are in a unique position of not having such agreement with the audience and furthermore, not being able to tell in advance if the work is worth their while since the audience may simply not like it. That is why my suggestion of art foundations does two things, one it allows for experimental art, artists who do not make a hit are still getting food on the table but those who do hit, will also get revenue from performances and direct donations from their fans. This is the only logical way.

By simply using software or listening to music, one admits to finding utility in that product. You *know* that it took time (i.e., had to eat, had to have a house, etc.) and effort to create the product you're using, but you feel no compulsion to re-imburse those costs? What's happening is that you're asking somebody to give their resources to you for nothing in return. You want something for nothing, and I recognize no such right

You are trying to turn the argument on its head. This has nothing to do with one's right to "take for free" but everything with an inability to treat information as "private property" and thus subjecting it to commerce. Also as I already mentioned, artists do not create out of need of money but from an intrinsic desire to express themselves, they are not concerned if someone watches their art for "free", they are glad that someone is enjoying their creation, more the merrier. Art foundations should take care of rewarding the artist financially to make sure that he/she has food on the table. Furthermore you are rewarding the artist with the most sought after currency of art: recognition and praise. Influence and (sooner or later) wealth is bound to follow (based on many many revenue sources such as donations, exhibitions, conventions, interviews, teaching engagements, etc).

First, IIRC, its main topic is DRM. Also, in that world, copyright is extended forever.

My point is that in order to adapt the "Intellectual Property" to new technologies so it has even a smallest chance of survival, total DRM lockout is a logical and inevietable consequence of the structure of the concept of "IP" itself. In other words, the world of "Right To Read" (or similiar) is a result of natural step-by-step progression. Basically general-purpo

Re:*Bang*

[feepness]

Sorry about the delay... I'm not typically a Slashdot hound. I found this:

http://www.libertarianworld.com/Property-Seizure-R ights.html

By doing this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&q=prop erty+seizure+drugs+united+states+%22war+on%22+fail ure&spell=1

Hope this helps!

Re:*Bang*

[angel'o'sphere]

Its interesting that your whole rant is full of hypothesis which you use as counterarguments against me, but that there is no relation beween my hypotesis and yours.

E.g. I wrote: But abolishing it just means that the rich reign us .... and that the poor never can get any stance.


And you answer:
This makes me laugh since the patent and copyright system is a mechanism by rich and powerful to keep the not so bright poor down.

I don't see any relation between my stand and your hypothesis.
Your whole counterwriting is bringing up strawmen arguments against any of my points.

Especially I encauraged you to bring up "a better intellectual properties law". But you did not.

Lets look at that single point above again, you said:

This makes me laugh since the patent and copyright system is a mechanism by rich and powerful to keep the not so bright poor down.
How so? Asuming you are poor and you have an idea which falls under copiright, e.g. you write a novel. How does the rich now have any way in taking that novel and making it to money?
I dont' know how bad situation in USA indeed is regarding copyright and (sarcasm :D ) .... but I would wonder if someone could indeed just take it away from the inventor.

Lets look back to my first example:
I said: So if you own real estate, and you grow crops on it? Who owns the crops? You!
From that I extended my point to: if you write a story .... who owns it? .... You!

Your answer is close to nonsense. You construct the idea that owning the crops is a natural right, but OTOH its a natrual right for the "comunity" to own your ideas, at least I understood you that way.

So let me ask again: why are the crops growing on your real estate owned by you? Why can't I go and feed my dayly hunger with the crops growing on your land? Why are you conviced that it is "right" that I may not take those crops? Why are those crops YOUR crops?

After all 90% of the crops is either water which rained from the sky or is carbon dioxid whcih is metabolized by the plant. So, IMHO I could easily construct the idea that this crop belongs to the general public.

I tell you why I'm not allowed to eat your crop: Someone made some hundred years a go a completely arbitrary law, saying so.
That law is exactly in the same wy arbitrary as IP laws are.

So, if you don't want to have intellectual propertie, I suggest you abolish property on goods also, especially on those goods which could feed the masses.

What I really don't get is why you start ranting about patents and copyright. I did not talk about any of them and I did not say that they are good. I only wanted to point out that things are not that simple as you think they are.

You said:
This is a crucial piece of evidence here indicating that you have lost all perspective and are totally in the clutches of greed-worshippers.
I say: this is an insult. Why do you feel you need to insult me?

Your post would be far better if you had just written your post without trying to mix in citations from my post.

Basically your post is about your ideas why copyright and intellectual property is bad. But its very inappropriated answer to my post. Also a lot of your posts are assumptions. Those assumptions only show ... sorry to say that ... that you have not much learned in school about history. The alphabet was an invention which was gifted to the people. What a lough :D
Certainly in most time of history only a very small privileged upper class was able to write and read. Knowledge allways was a means to excercise power. While those power faded more and more as the general public learned reading and writing ... other means of excercising power got established. Money for instance. Or IP laws even.

Re:*Bang*

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I don't see any relation between my stand and your hypothesis. Your whole counterwriting is bringing up strawmen arguments against any of my points.

Sigh. I know it is not your fault but I really grow tired of repeating the same points to different posters over and over again. In order to understand how rich (particularly large corporate interests) are using the system to abuse the "little guy" you have to first understand how the "intellectual property" scam operates, who are its true benefactors and why there are far better and just systems available. I will be very brief: Intellectual Property is defined by its proponents in a way that it makes it patently obvious that the "(private) property" in question is information. I postulate that "Information cannot be Private Property, because it does not have the required physical attributes to do so". To prove this point, I can demonstrate that information can be subject to operations which render impossible the ability to apply to it the standard transactions of marketplace. Furthermore, I can demonstrate that any "Intellectual Property" can only partially be subject to trade as long as it is tightly coupled and inseparable (by the consumer) from a physical object. Furthermore I can demonstrate that in a true, unencumbered by anti-competitive government interference on behalf on some players, free-market, the ability to innovate is self-rewarding, the reward being proportional to the complexity and originality of the product. In addition, I can demonstrate that art and science are not subject to rules of free-market, are separate from it and their creators have to be instead rewarded by other means, one of which is an established and proven system of arts patronage and academic sponsorship. Form all of the above I can demonstrate the effects of interference with the marketplace and who the benefactors of that interference are, which will bring me to answering the "simple" question you asked.

Especially I encauraged you to bring up "a better intellectual properties law". But you did not.

See above. If you are really interested in this, I can examine all these points with you, one at a time since I don't have days to type in complex replies to a mass of questions. Briefly, the only consistent and sane possibility is abolishment of IP laws wholesale and instead focusing on other means of rewarding arts and science. If you go through the entire exercise of logic induction with me, you will see why.

How so? Asuming you are poor and you have an idea which falls under copiright, e.g. you write a novel. How does the rich now have any way in taking that novel and making it to money?

That is because in order to make money on your novel you will need the following: a publisher who will take lion share of your money and a set of "intellectual property" laws which will give you money for your book but to achieve that they will need at the same time to rob millions of people of their personal freedoms. Furthermore, your small-time book deal is but a noise and smoke screen for far larger fish who use your personal greed as leverage to entrench themselves as "gatekeepers" of all information and thus masters of our society. You of course assumed that "being ripped off" can be only measured in monetary terms. As you are expected to by those who understand better and wish to play your small-time personal greed like a flute.

I dont' know how bad situation in USA indeed is regarding copyright and (sarcasm :D ) .... but I would wonder if someone could indeed just take it away from the inventor.

Back to your first question. In order to "take away" something, one would have to a) "posses it" in the first place and consequently b) the "thing" in question would have to be capable of being "owned" and thus falling under the definition of "Private Property". I can demonstrate quite quickly that information cannot be private property, thus an invention (being information) cannot be "owned

Re:*Bang*

[angel'o'sphere]

I wrote : Having no intellectual property laws at all IMHO puts us back into stone age capitalism.


You wrote:
Says you. As I indicated, I can demonstrate operation of a competitive, industrial, free-market with no concept of "IP".


Your long answer is full with sentences like: "I have no time, or intent to repeat all that stuff all over again to all those posters".

Suggestion: start writing a blog, there are a lot cost free blogs around.

While I now understand some of your stuff better, I finally don't agree neverhteless.

Fact is: for me a world without intelelctual property is unthinkable. Main reason: material property will become in the near future more unimportant as machines will do all the material stuff, crafting distibution etc.

Currently we still don't have entered the information age. We are still in the material age.

You say you have a concept about how to deal with "intellectual stuff" which rewards authors and inventors but removes IP law, or IP.

Fine .... but that's what I said above: fix the law. If you go and give it a different name "autors and inventors compensation law", you don't have abolished IP, just changed the term.

With out a law, that defines how to deal with "ideas" or "intellectual stuff", there is just wilderness or stone age capitalism.

You brought up that "you need a publisher" if you want to live as an author. no you don't need a publisher.

But if you remove IP law, without appropriated replacement, publishers simply would publish as they like, just like 200 years ago, and authors would get nothing.

Result: money rules the world, people with no money can't do anything. At least not anything which allows them to make a living from. They have to sell their bodies as worker or whatsoever.

Yo wrote:
Additionally, the fact that you propose that "intellectual property" and not free-market economics was responsible for all the economic progress of the last century is making me suspect that you ....

I think you mix me up with someone. I did not say that.

lack understanding of the fundamentals of capitalism.

Not at all, definitly not at all. I perfectly well know what capitalism is. The ruling of the capital. Luckyly only a few countries are capitalistic.

E.g. the united states are a capitalistic country. Also they are semi democratic. Basically its a money aristrocaty. Without money you can not get elected. Without money you can not get an education. Without an education you can not really get (big) money.

Back to IP laws: most of them exist only for about 250 years or less. Most progress of the human society, in terms of technology, happend during that period.

Oops, now I said what you accused me off some lines abov e :D

If you are full with good ideas, write a blog ... I also have ideas how to change IP law ... but that would still use the term "patent" :D only application of law and conduction would be different.

angel'o'sphere

He only gave LINKS

[Anonymous Coward]

He only provided the links and didn't host any of the files? What a sad day for freedom on the net. Soon it will be a crime to link to bittorrent or eMule's respective homepages.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Anonymous Coward]

soon it will be a crime to run a story on potential copyright infringement. industry pwns

Re:He only gave LINKS

[SpaceLifeForm]

Maybe. Let's see what Google has to say.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[harlows_monkeys]

He only provided the links and didn't host any of the files? What a sad day for freedom on the net.

What is sad about it? Before the net came along, purposefully going out and helping people do things that were wrong or against the law was considered to be a bad thing to do.

I see this as completely orthogonal to any issues of freedom on the net.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[AKnightCowboy]

He only provided the links and didn't host any of the files? What a sad day for freedom on the net. Soon it will be a crime to link to bittorrent or eMule's respective homepages.

Don't steal copyrighted music, don't get sued into oblivion. When are people going to accept that fact? I stopped downloading pirated music years ago when the RIAA started cracking down on "sharing". Either stop listening to commercial music (there's plenty of free music out there by artists that would love for you to share their work) or buy it like you're expected to. Personally I'd prefer to give a big old "fuck you" to the RIAA and see that nobody ever buys another commercial album, but that'll never happen.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Thud457]

Hey, at least it'll cut down on the dupes...

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Antonymous Flower]

The world wide web is named for its nature of being connected through links. It just doesn't seem quite 'fair' to only prosecute one person in the chain or web for linking. One might argue that you can take down the 'source,' effectively breaking the chain. But by this reasoning, the distributors of the media should be the ones prosecuted; not any linking sites. Search engines such as Yahoo or Google definately become an issue. Napster(the filesharing service) had a search engine..

Re:He only gave LINKS

[DaHat]

At least in the US, the courts have ruled that with this kind of logic in the 2600 case when they were linking to DeCSS source code that was not on their own servers.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[DaveJay]

I have three sincere questions:

1. Is it illegal where you live (and by "you" I mean "anyone reading this") to publish a newspaper with a classified ad section, if some (or even many) of those classified ads are for "massage" services that are thinly-veiled prostitution services? Assuming you live somewhere that prostitution is illegal, of course.

2. Is it illegal where you live to publish a newspaper that exists only to advertise prostitution services?

3. If the answer to the first is no, and the second is yes, is this likely because in the first case the newspaper has substantial non-illegal uses, while in the second the newspaper exists only to promote illegal services, or is it something else?

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Kiryat Malachi]

He didn't.

*Links* to external content.

That's like someone who says "Hey, I hear you can pick up hookers on 8 mile!" being arrested for aiding prostitution.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[GigsVT]

Who stole what from who?

Ignoring that copying is not stealing in any normal sense of the word, he didn't copy anything.

In fact:

There, I just committed a crime on par with the crime in question. I linked to a place that could allow you to obtain infringing material.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, right =)

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Catbeller]

Robbing the state of California of untold billions of dollars, as Enron did, was illegal. I see the White House covering for them, prosecution nearly nonexistent, the governor who opposed Enron ousted from office by the White House and replaced with an Enron supporter selected by the White House.

Point to a song, get nailed. Steal billions, go free, and you get to choose a new governor who's yer best bud.

The law is an ass. Little smurfs get destroyed for disobeying laws bought by rich men, and rich men steal billions without consequence. The trouble with stupid, mean little laws is that people lose respect for the institution after observing such service for the wealthy and torture for the small.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[iamacat]

Don't steal copyrighted music, don't get sued into oblivion.

He didn't steal anything, he just pointed out where other people are infringing copyright. The music industry should get their fine in the form of information on how to get a photocopy of $15,900.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,
I read the story in Norwegian newspapers and it seems that he was not found guily of piracy, that is, the process of linking itself was found to be legitimate. However, he was found guily of aiding the distibution of pirated material, meaning that he was, or should have been, aware that his links pointed to pirated material. The supreme court actually stated specificly that linking is legitimate. Not sure what this distinction well mean in practice, but his lawyer stated that: "They (The music industry) may have won the battle, but not the war" (freelly translated)

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Anonymous Coward]

what a twisted world you must live in where the administration that actually charges and brings down fradulent companies is somehow complacent with criminals while the previous administration who turned a blind eye and instead focused on little Cuban boys and religions Texans is somehow free of blame.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Anonymous Coward]

One in a million chance man. The odds are not ones to worry about.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[CmdrGravy]

Thank you, that sounds like a much more likely scenario than some which will no doubt be proposed here.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[ColdGrits]

That's like someone who says "Hey, I hear you can pick up hookers on 8 mile!" being arrested for aiding prostitution.

No, it's more akin to someone saying "You want a hooker? Here, I know exactly where to get them, just call this number, ask for Debbie (tell 'er Daddy sent ya), and then you can meet her at this address".

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Long-EZ]

I stopped downloading pirated music years ago when the RIAA started cracking down on "sharing".

Do you have no sense of right and wrong? Are you only motivated by the chance of being caught and the severity of the punishment? If so, the entire idea of civil disobedience is probably foreign to you. What would our civilization be like if everyone submitted 100% to whatever authority was in charge from a self serving fear of punishment?

When children first start to realize their actions have consequences, they start to think in terms of getting caught. As their world view is broadened and they grow intellectually, the simplistic analysis based on the chances of being caught and being punished are replaced by more enlightened thoughts centered around more global concepts of right and wrong. The latter deals more with what is good for everyone in society, while the former is concerned with a child's egocentric concern for what is best for the individual.

I wonder if it would be legal to ask a pre-employment question that posed the RIAA scenario. It would be a great way to eliminate people who don't have a fully developed sense of what is right and wrong. These are the sort of people who will do something illegal if they think they won't be caught.

I don't advocate copyright infringement. But my attitudes are based on what is right and wrong. The tactics of the RIAA are based on power and fear, and are so offensive that they represent a different type of wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right, so I'm still not inclined to download copyrighted music, but I am very inclined to speak out against the jackbooted thugs at the RIAA and work to promote their legal overthrow through commercial means. Don't buy RIAA records. Support independent artists. Educate people about the monopolistic policies of the RIAA and their illegal price fixing (as proven in a court of law).

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess he wishes now that the sites he linked would have blocked leechers.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Lodragandraoidh]

You make a good point - what if I do a google search and come up with the same link as the person who was prosecuted for this. Whould google be responsible for compensation to the RIAA? And how in the world are you going to filter out all the 'legal' and 'illegal' content links for literally trillions of urls?

I don't think this will hold up in the long run - because it seems like all these lower court rulings are stupidly attacking the very fabric of the internet itself - instead of focussing on the real culprit (who provides the content, versus who points to it). You should be able to point to any url without fear of prosecution. It is the responsibility of the site that contains the actual content to ensure that it is appropriate for external dissemination.

This is equivalent to me being arrested for giving someone directions to a house - "where is 5555 Green Lane?". It just so happens that the owners are doing something illegal - so I am culpible too? I don't think so.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Pharmboy]

Yet, no one prosecuted The New York Times when they published links to the same material here. (reg. req.) and it was the same information. (except now 2600 took down the links that were showing before)

I guess it shows that its only illegal if you don't have lots of money and lawyers. So no, the US courts have only shown that Money = Justice once again, at least when it comes to free speech.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Frizzle Fry]

Is it illegal where you live (and by "you" I mean "anyone reading this") to publish a newspaper with a classified ad section, if some (or even many) of those classified ads are for "massage" services that are thinly-veiled prostitution services? Assuming you live somewhere that prostitution is illegal, of course.

For US law on this, you should look at the cases of Braun vs Soldier of Fortune and Eimann vs Soldier of Fortune. In both cases SoF magazine ran an ad for a hired killer (as they apparently tend to do) and got sued for it. In the case where the ad was fairly explicit, they lost. In the case where it is better "veiled", they won. So explicitly advertising illegal things is or can be considered illegal in print in the US. As usual, the crowd here who claims that these sorts of things are being unfairly applied only to the internet are off base. If the ad for the prostitute is sufficiently "thinly veild" it will probably do fine in court, but I don't think it's clear cut and could go either way in an actual case.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Pharmboy]

No, it's more akin to someone saying "You want a hooker? Here, I know exactly where to get them, just call this number, ask for Debbie (tell 'er Daddy sent ya), and then you can meet her at this address".

Which is NOT contributing to prostitution if you are not being compensated. Linking to information (like your example) is simply telling others where something is. It is not condoning or claiming the activity is legal.

Google links to lots of illegal stuff, should they have to personally check the legality of everything they link to? Whats the difference?

Oh, Google is a big company with lots of lawyers and this is an individual, so he should be held to a higher standard cause he can't fight back? Just as with my NYT post above, if you got deep pockets, then its not illegal.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[russotto]

Soldier of Fortune won both Braun and Eimann. They lost Eimann at the district level, but won it on appeal.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[duffahtolla]

Is that actually illegal? What is the actual law thats being broken.

You are allowed to tell someone how to make a bomb. You just cant do it for them. Is this not the same thing?

Re:He only gave LINKS

[jaiyen]

So if a simple link to another site puts you in trouble, that effectively mean you can now be liable for material on other people's sites does it no ? All those disclaimers that read "$siteName is not responsible for the content of external sites" would seem to be no longer valid or at least legally questionable, if the external site in question is hosting illegal material. And what if the site wasn't hosting illegal material at the time, but subsequently was ? If widely applied, this could really change the net as we know it.

It'd be a sad day indeed if webmasters had to think long and hard before linking to other sites for fear of lawsuits.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[MooseGuy529]

You know, my first reflex when reading this story was the Slashdot mob mentality: "He was only linking!"

But after reading the replies to this post, I had a change of heart. To steal one of the badly-construdted, not-really-applicable real-life analogies from this story, let's say I was pointing people to a computer store selling illegal MP3's. Telling one person isn't illegal, but realistically neither is giving a friend a link to an MP3 file. Putting up a billboard, or a large website with a search engine, however, is reaching the point of illegality. IANAL, but doing this on a large scale is like being an accomplice.

An equal analogy for why search engines aren't exempt is that if I advertise such a store in the back of a computer magazine, and the magazine doesn't know, it's a problem. Basically, as I see it, if you set up a "trading ground" for P2P and knowingly allow it to distribute copyrighted content without trying to stop it, you're doing something wrong. A simple message like "iTunes is for legal and rightholder-authorized sharing only. Don't steal music." is enough, I think--there's not much more you can do than ask users.

Random idea: if two people separately post two files that, when XOR'ed together, produce copyrighted music, can either be sued?

Re:He only gave LINKS

[ColdGrits]

Is that actually illegal? What is the actual law thats being broken.

In that example? No and none. HOWEVER, change prostitution to supplying hard drugs, supplying stolen goods, or any other illegal acticity, and you should get the idea.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[That's Unpossible!]

I see the White House covering for [Enron]

You do? Where?

prosecution nearly nonexistent

Come again?

the governor who opposed Enron ousted from office by the White House and replaced with an Enron supporter selected by the White House

Do you have proof that this replacement is related to Enron, or is this just causation without correlation?

Steal billions, go free, and you get to choose a new governor who's yer best bud.

Which of those that stole billions are "going free"? They are either already sentences, awaiting sentencing, or awaiting their trial. Trials take time, especially in humongously complex cases like this one.

The law is an ass. Little smurfs get destroyed for disobeying laws bought by rich men, and rich men steal billions without consequence.

I find it humorous that you are comparing US law, which is prosecuting the Enron hustlers you are referring to, with Norway's law, which is doing the "smurf destroying."

Re:He only gave LINKS

[ajs]

The apeal descision is a beautiful piece of legal work, and I recommend that you read it. I've, woefully, only had time to skim it.

The logic is this: the uploaders of the music commited an illegal act. The defendant in this case provided a place specifically for the purpose of adding links to these illegal copies. Because the mode of interaction was a click on his page that resulted in direct access to the file in question (in fact, immediate playback in correctly configured browsers), the site constituted a performance under norwegian law, and therefore was also infringing.

This is a well thought-out and, IMHO, correct assessment.

The judge left tons of loopholes by which any reasonable activity could have slipped past his ruling, but this page was, in fact, a performance of works which the page's author had no right to perform. Had he provided a set of links to web sites known to have such MP3s, he would have escaped the judgement. Had he provided a forum for the sharing of links in general with no particular bias toward music files, he would have escaped the judgement. Had he screened entries for free distributability he would have escaped the judgement. The judge even made allowances for the fact that the site was just collating submissions, and brought into question the role of the contributor of the link vs the runner of the site.

Folks, just because a ruling shuts down an illegal file-swapper doesn't mean it's wrong.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Anonymous Coward]

He clearly had the intent to facilitate the illegal distribution of copyrighted works. Probably to make a buck of ads.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[penguinoid]

What about this: What if I put up a website dedicated to aid in tracking down copyright infringers? People who noticed a site hosting copyright infringing material could write a short report consisting of the host website and a link to the infringing material as proof. Then, they wait for the police to take down the infringing websites. And if other people happen to use my website to download illegal content, would it still be my fault? After all, the website is just there to aid global law enforcement.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Prof.Phreak]

What a sad day for freedom on the net. Soon it will be a crime to link to bittorrent or eMule's respective homepages.

Wait till it's a crime to link to pages that link to illegal files. After all, if it's only 1 depth level that they're worried about, why not use some redirection service to bypass that `law'? tinyurl anyone?

Re:He only gave LINKS

[aardvarkjoe]

Is that actually illegal? What is the actual law thats being broken.

ColdGrits didn't claim that the action he described was illegal; he just pointed out that the original analogy was a bad one. Of course, his analogy wasn't perfect either, but that's how it goes.

I still keep some hope in my heart that sometime in the future, Slashdotters will finally realize that argument via analogy is one of the weakest arguments that they can make.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[nomadic]

Sounds like you're considering entering the publishing world.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Ced_Ex]

Random idea: if two people separately post two files that, when XOR'ed together, produce copyrighted music, can either be sued?

To the best of my knowledge XOR means "exclusive or", meaning when two signals arrive at this gate, only when one value is true does this gate pass true.

Fitting this definition to your random idea, only the person with the "right" file would be sued, since the other would not have that particular file.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[danila]

The best thing about links is that they are small. Very small. And small things can be easily distributed over traffic-hungry 100% anonymous networks. If the repressions continue, we can expect high-performance Freenet-like network where you can get links to all sorts of content and the content can still be distributed over efficient (though not lawsuit-resilient) protocols like BitTorrent or FTP.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Kiryat Malachi]

Prostitution is an illegal activity.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[janoc]

Well, no. I have read the judgement and although I am not a lawyer, the interpretation is something like this:

1) The appelate court cleared the student, saying that linking to the files is not criminal act as such (i.e. not a direct copyright infringement). The court also threw out the 100 000 NOK fine imposed by the lower court.

2) BUT! The appelate court found the activity of the student as deplorable because he knew that the files were posted online illegaly. Therefore the court imposed a lower fine of 15000NOK (actually proposed by the defendant as the upper limit, based on the poor damage proving by the recording industry).

So, hyperlinks are not illegal, however be careful what you are linking to. If you know that the content is not legit, you are acting in bad faith and that counts as well if somebody sues you.

It is sort of King's Solomon decision - let's have both sides have something, because this was the first case of it's kind in Norway and the law is not clear. Similar cases were in Sweden and Danemark, the swedish case cleared the defendant, the danish one was convicted.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, having read the article, it's more like putting up a notice board, titled "add whores details here".

I.e. he did not even post links to MP3 files, he allowed people to post such links.

Not a good precedent.

Shoka

Re:He only gave LINKS

[incabulos]

What is this 'steal copyrighted music' nonsense, and how does it have any relevance to having a link on a website that points to servers outside of your control?

How does one steal music via the internet anyway? Is this guy using a wifi-controlled robot to tear through the wall of a music shop and make off with a bunch of CDs from the comfort of his home PC?

Its pretty damn absurd when the legal system requires you to be culpible over systems that you have no control over in any way. Not only are you responsible for your own actions, you are the fault of everything bad that everyone else does, you damn thieving pirate terrorist you!!

As an aside, if a server being linked to by microsoft.com was compromised and child porn was uploaded to this server, would you be in favour of Bill Gates, Steve Balmer and other microsoft staff being jailed as sexual offenders and purveyors of child porn? Surely if Joe Sixpack is accountable in this way, corporations should be as well? What if the MPAA or RIAA sites were found to be linking to illegal material in the same way? The RIAA website has in the past had Metallica MP3s located on it and linked for download, why is Hilary Rosen not serving time in a federal prison?

Re:He only gave LINKS

[ray-auch]

All hinges on "if you know", which is kind of difficult to disprove, how do you prove you didn't know something ?

Where this falls down is that the content on the end of an external hyperlink is not under your control, and can be changed without you getting any notice. Moreover, it will probably be difficult to prove that content was changed, or when.

There is also the problem of dynamic sites with third-party created content/links, like /. If I run a music site with a forum and create an area (or even someone else creates a thread) titled "put links to your mp3s here", then this seems to make me responsible (if in Norway) if users post links to illegal copies rather than their own recordings.

This is where the notice-and-takedown stuff in DMCA et al. may actually be a good thing - at least there (to my understanding) you have to be notified, so knowledge is easy to prove and the burden on proof is in the right place.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Hatta]

Don't steal copyrighted music, don't get sued into oblivion. When are people going to accept that fact?

Don't smoke pot, don't spend years in a federal PMITA prison. Just because the consequences are clear doesn't mean the law is just.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Vadim Makarov]

Random idea: if two people separately post two files that, when XOR'ed together, produce copyrighted music, can either be sued?

Yup. They are both equally responsible.

Technically, tricks like this are called encryption and obfuscation, which does not change the essence of action: posting the file. Using additional measure to evade prosecution may make things even worse for the perpetrator.

The particular method you are talking about is encrypting the file with one-time pad and posting both the encrypted file AND the key. Curiously, the one-time pad encryption is symmetric in regard to the cleartext and the key (it's just XORing them together) so you can't tell which of the two posted files is the key and which is the ciphertext. Not that it should matter at the court :)

Re:He only gave LINKS

[jc42]

So, hyperlinks are not illegal, however be careful what you are linking to. If you know that the content is not legit, you are acting in bad faith ...

There is an even funnier case of this in American law. It seems that a lot of local (plant) nurseries routinely sell "Asian poppy" plants that are actually opium poppies. It is apparently quite legal to grow these - if you don't know that they're opium poppies. You can't really tell just by looking at them, because there are a lot of very similar poppy species that have insignificant levels of opiates. There have been reports of people who did a check with a botanical manual, verified that the plants in their gardens were opium poppies, publicised the fact, and were arrested. The nursery they bought the plants from weren't prosecuted, of course; they didn't know that they were growing opium poppies. But if you check and find out what species of poppy you are growing, you can instantly become a criminal.

We have some very showy scarlet poppies that come up every year in our yard. I have no intention of checking to see exactly which species they are.

Then there's the funny thing about the hemp seeds that the local pet store sells. Our cockatiels love them, and we buy a few ounces every few months. Supposedly they are pasteurized - to cut down on possible pathogens, of course. But there have been reports of people who sprouted them. The yield was low, but nonzero. The seeds are grown and sold openly, because it's done in a way that's obviously not a drug operation. (And no, our birds don't fly weird or get the munchies when they eat these seeds. ;-)

But the law can be weird at times. Both of these are probably just examples of the law acting in a very reasonable manner. Not at all what you'd expect, but it does happen.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting up a billboard, or a large website with a search engine, however, is reaching the point of illegality. IANAL, but doing this on a large scale is like being an accomplice.

What about promoting rape and cop killing in a rap song? Is that a large enough scale?

Re:He only gave LINKS

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Actually in parts of the US prostitution is leagal. Catch up.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Anonymous Coward]

Kenny Boy

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Anonymous Coward]

Kenny Boy

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Kiryat Malachi]

((Nevada) && (!Las Vegas)) isn't really "parts of the US". In the rest of the country, it remains a crime.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[janoc]

Well, the problem is that the guy was notified but ignored it (or rather told the lawyers to get lost). Therefore, he cannot reasonably claim, that he wasn't aware of illegality of the linked files (and he didn't claim that).

I think that the morale of the story is that dealing in shady stuff is bad for your karma, even if it is not criminal act as such. You never know how it could be twisted and bent to get you in trouble. It finally hinges on the opinion of the court and that may not be in your favor.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Drakkenfyre]

Just to clear things up, prostitution is illegal in Las Vegas. It's legal in many counties in Nevada, but not in counties that have more than 400,000 people, such as Clark County, in which Las Vegas sits. Here's the statute:

Nevada Revised Statute 244.345.

Dancing halls, escort services, entertainment by referral services and gambling games or devices; limitation on licensing of houses of prostitution.

8. In a county whose population is 400,000 or more, the license board shall not grant any license to a petitioner for the purpose of operating a house of ill fame or repute or any other business employing any person for the purpose of prostitution.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[coaxial]

Which of those that stole billions are "going free"? They are either already sentences, awaiting sentencing, or awaiting their trial. Trials take time, especially in humongously complex cases like this one.

Ken Lay. If he does ever go to trial and is convicted, he will get less than 5 years. If he stole a car. He would receive more time.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[MooseGuy529]

What about promoting rape and cop killing in a rap song? Is that a large enough scale?

Personally, I think so, but that's just because I personally think it's stupid to sing (or grunt) about killing people. There's a fine line that we have to draw between creating a fantasy world where crimes are committed and encouraging people to commit crimes in the real world. Like if someone plays a game where they kill people and then goes nuts, it's partially their problem for not being able to separate reality and fantasy. If an "artist" sings a song about killing people, the difference is whether they are creating a fantasy world where they kill people or whether they encourage their listeners to kill people. Given the intelligibility of most rap music, it's a difference that's hard to define.

Okay, this is reaching the edge of where I can reason. I used to play Quake, and had no urges to kill people from it, so I think I should be allowed to play it. If someone else plays Quake and kills people, I think I should still be allowed to play it. On the other hand, I think that if someone creates a song that encourages people to kill each other, it should be banned, or restricted to people with the mental stability to figure out what's a song and what's reality. The theoretical part of my mind says that Quake and murder-themed rap songs are both inappropriate for kids, but the practical side says I like Quake but not rap so ban rap, not Quake... I can't think anymore.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Kiryat Malachi]

It's legal in 10 counties in Nevada, as each county has the right to decide for itself whether or not to allow prostitution within its borders, excepting (as you mentioned) Clark County, due to its population.

Last estimate I know of is that there were around 300 legal prostitutes in Nevada.

Re:He only gave LINKS

[Anonymous Coward]

I would just like to point out that he was not convicted for illegal performance but for contributory infringement. Whether links constitutes performance was not concidered because the ramafications were to great.

uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot just published the url of the page with the links. Thats gonna cost you guys

Google

[Hoagy]

google has links to lots of illegal things too, but they aren't in trouble
heck, i've linked to pirated music before

Re:Google

[Freexe]

Heck I host pirated music!

Re:Google

[Anonymous Coward]

You are, of course, talking about the "yo ho ho!" and "shiver me timbers!" type of pirate music, yes?

Re:Google

[QMO]

I think that the key to this decision was that it seemed clear to the court that his intent was copyright violation.

FTA: 'his actions "were premeditated and worthy of criticism."'

Re:Google

[Freexe]

my mistake, i must have made a typo on the 'd'

Ouch...

[warcormc]

Paying back student loans is going to suck for him even more now.

Re:Ouch...

[BeeRockxs]

IIRC university is free in Norway.

Re:Ouch...

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter. He got that for free from the Danish government anyway.
Those familiar with Norwegian (unwritten) policy would unfortunately not be surprised by this ruling.
THere is a lot of good responces here, I especially like the "watch out Google"

Re:Ouch...

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, but you still need money to pay the rent, not to mention food, which is where the student loans (no interest until you start working) comes in

Re:Ouch...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. Every six months I pay ca NOK 750 to my university to continue studying there. As to student loans, since the few universities in Norway are placed centrally, most people take up a student loan to be able to live in the same city as the university.

Re:Ouch...

[BeeRockxs]

I've never seen something like student loans in Europe.

Re:Ouch...

[VanillaCoke420]

I had to take a government student loan (in addition to the allowance I was granted) to cover for rent, living expense, books, etc. We do have student loans over here.

Re:Ouch...

[Anonymous Coward]

The University is free, but you still have to buy books, transportation, housing, food etc.

Break the law, face the charges.

[pstreck]

I'm all for free information exchange, but if the copyright holder want's compensated for it that's his/her choice. We must learn to work with the artists and record industry, along with the movie industry and others, instead of against them. We have our rights and so do they. So can we stop complaining about this and start coming up with productive solutions to media rights and drm.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[MightyMartian]

Under what system of rights does a guy get clobbered for having a link to material?

Here's the problem as I see it. For the most part we mere citizens have no rights at all as far as copyrighted material goes. Protection schemes are making it impossible for me to exercise my right to make archival copies. Bittorrent services are being brought down, even though they're the best damn way to distribute large files like Linux ISOs. Now you can't even have a link to music? Explain where exctly my rights are at this point?

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[baudilus]

You are correct in that the copyright holder has the right to seek compensation for his/her work, but they don't have a right seek it from people who aren't using their work. Imagine getting sued by the RIAA because you told a few friends where they can find a guy selling bootleg CDs... that's just plain stupid. Go after the bootlegger, by all means, but you can't really go after someone for KNOWING the bootlegger; that is frivolous.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[eln]

Hi,

You would have a valid point if this guy had actually been hosting the content, but he was only LINKING to it. The idea that someone can be held responsible for the contents of pages that he links to can, if adopted by other countries outside of Norway, destroy the very nature of the World Wide Web.

The Web is, at its core, a mesh of interlinked pages. Pages that you control link to pages that you do not control. What if I linked to an innocuous site that was later hijacked and used to host kiddy porn? Should I be arrested? Am I to be held responsible for a site I have no control over changing its content just because I linked to it?

This decision has enormous implications for the future of the Web in Norway, and all of those implications are bad.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[adam31]

Sure... but $16,000 ?!

How about $170? Let's be reasonable here.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Sanity]

I'm all for free information exchange, but if the copyright holder want's compensated for it that's his/her choice.

Can't have it both ways. Copyright relies on preventing the free exchange of information.

In this case the guy didn't even make content available, he just told people where they can find it.

So can we stop complaining about this and start coming up with productive solutions to media rights and drm.

The solution to DRM is not to buy any product that includes it.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[pstreck]

Whether it's a link, or hosting he is still acting as a gateway to the pirated files. I don't think you should be allowed to link to pirated files, why should you? And the reason that a lot of the bit torrent sites are getting torn down is because it has become a haeven for pirated software. I found more torrent trackers with illegal content them on the google than I found legit. The biggest problem with bit torrent is the lack of drm. It's a neccesity now, not an option.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[PMJ2kx]

As reasonable as the RIAA who will try to sue for the maximum of $120,000 per song? I think greed comes before reason in their case...unless someone here can tell me where all that money goes: if it really goes back to the artists or to the RIAA Stockpile for lawsuits.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[pstreck]

Copyright does NOT rely on preventing the free exchange of information. It gives us the OPTION! That's the beautiful thing, I can distribute my copyrighted works and give a free as in speech licsence to it. But if I want I can charge you for it. Thats true FREEDOM!

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[mcc]

We must learn to work with the artists and record industry, along with the movie industry and others, instead of against them.

Why?

Let's say I don't give a shit how much money the RIAA makes, and in fact do not generally support them or their artists because I consider music from independent sources to be superior.

However, I do demand that I have the right to not face legal repercussions for something I type, and I do expect as a customer that if I buy a piece of audio equipment I am not restrained from exercising my fair use rights with it.

I don't see any way to "work with" the RIAA in this situation??

The RIAA has demonstrated they certainly aren't willingly going to compromise in terms of giving up some control over the exact nature of distribution in order to take advantage of new technology; I don't see why I should "compromise" rights I've had since birth so a music cartel whose products I mostly don't like can feel better about themselves. Saying "they have their rights" does not justify that they are using the scapegoat of digital music distribution to lay claim to new and unjust new rights, and you are apologizing for them.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[foobsr]

In Germany, implications are already there (link to German language synopsis) since long.

CC.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, if people choose to violate copyright laws, they should be prosecuted. there is no copyright on the url link name. under such a loose interpretation, search engines are liable.

Also, I have no objection to copyright holders rights being upheld. As long as their monopoly on distribution methods is looked at at the same time.

"I'm all for free information exchange, but if the copyright holder want's compensated for it that's his/her choice. We must learn to work with the artists and record industry, along with the movie industry and others, instead of against them. We have our rights and so do they. So can we stop complaining about this and start coming up with productive solutions to media rights and drm."

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Pig Hogger]

We must learn to work with the artists and record industry, along with the movie industry and others, instead of against them.

So, this means that we should allow them to search our persons, papers and computers without any hindrance, because we're guilty until proven innocent (private entrepreneurs do not have the money to establish their own equitable justice, so they will do it as expeditiously as possible).

We have our rights and so do they.

Let them start respecting OUR fair-use rights; respect is a two-way street.

But so far, they haven't done much to earn that public's respect.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my god, you are so totally wrong about this it's not even funny.

But if I want I can charge you for it.

How do you expect you could charge someone if copyright law isn't there to prevent them from exchanging it freely? Without copyright, you can only charge the first person because up until that point, you are the only person who has a copy. But once you've charged a person and given them their copy it's COPYRIGHT that prevents them from exchanging it freely with whomever they please.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[pstreck]

Let's say I don't give a shit how much money the RIAA makes, and in fact do not generally support them or their artists because I consider music from independent sources to be superior.

Sweet! Keep it up, they can't stop you from doing that.

However, I do demand that I have the right to not face legal repercussions for something I type, and I do expect as a customer that if I buy a piece of audio equipment I am not restrained from exercising my fair use rights with it.

I agree 100%. Linking to a free as in speech music file isn't a problem, but linking to one under a less restrictive liscense can become a problem. As far as your audio equipment, boy do I agree! It's poor drm implementations that are causing fair use problems. If you have a legal liscence to a file free or not, you have rights we must protect those. But the artists have rights to.

The RIAA has demonstrated they certainly aren't willingly going to compromise in terms of giving up some control over the exact nature of distribution in order to take advantage of new technology; I don't see why I should "compromise" rights I've had since birth so a music cartel whose products I mostly don't like can feel better about themselves. Saying "they have their rights" does not justify that they are using the scapegoat of digital music distribution to lay claim to new and unjust new rights, and you are apologizing for them.

Sometimes you have to be the bigger man. you shouldn't compromise your rights, and neither should they. This is why things like the EFF exist. We need to work with them to provide great technology that does everything we want, and they want. The legislature is unfortunately grey, but what we change in the next 15 years will define the next 100. I'm not apologizing, but dreaming. Harmony can exist if we work for it.

The war is over, if you want it. - John Lennon

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google too is acting as a gateway to pirated files...

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Anonymous Coward]

> We have our rights and so do they.

Elaborating a bit further:

"We" have our rights, but "we" don't have the money to buy the laws that back those rights, like "they" do. Heck, consumers don't even have the money to back court defense based on EXISTING consumer rights' protection laws.

> So can we stop complaining about this

So, you think EFF is obsolete?

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[GigsVT]

What the hell are you smoking?

Linking to any file is just telling someone where they can get it. That's like saying to someone, "You know, I hear there are lots of drug dealers on the corner of 3rd and Main"...

Do you think a person in that case should be charged with dealing drugs?

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[nkh]

is the lack of drm. It's a neccesity now, not an option.

I DO NOT and NEVER will buy DRMed stuff, and I sincerely hope people won't buy it either.

The good thing is we can warn our friends into refusing every copy-protection: my mother wanted to buy a new CD and I told her it was copy-protected. She was very angry when I explained her she could not listen to this CD in her car or on any computer.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Qzukk]

The biggest problem with bit torrent is the lack of drm. It's a neccesity now, not an option.

Yeah right. As a user of legal torrents like distribution CD ISOs, how much will I have to pay to have a key to get my ISO? How much will Redhat have to pay to have their ISO verified as legal and obtain a certificate for the DRM just to let their users download it?

DRM only works if EVERYTHING is encrypted and locked down. Otherwise, how long would it take for people to start torrenting "redhat" ISOs full of mp3s?

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[dex22]

No, that's not plain stupid. It's "incitement"...

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Rei]

Yeah, but what were the links like? I mean, intent is pretty darn easy to prove if the links were, say:

Metallica - Enter Sandman (note: not a real link)

Now, if the links were, say:

My friend Jeff's music collection (note: not a real link) ... he might actually have an argument. Now, illegal data on Jeff's machine, especially in the top level directory, was found timestamped from before the linker made the link, "plausible deniability" would be a much harder argument to make. One could try ("Jeff asked me to add the link, so I did... I never actually visited it myself"), but I don't think you'd be believed.

You know, its kind of funny... a lot of people, on threads like this, seem to be of the impression that there should be some magical "get-out-of-trouble-free" card in the legal system that lets you encourage the spread of copyrighted material at will. While I strongly disagree with current copyright law, the notion that the legal system is going to do anything to accomodate you in that goal by providing you with a reliable way that you can do so without consequences is just laughable.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[tOaOMiB]

Yes, linking to the data and not hosting it should still be a crime.

Consider the analagous crime of being the driver for a bank robbery. Sure, you aren't robbing the bank. But enabling others to perpetrate a crime is a crime.
One more example: Let's say you have some friends who happen to sell illegal drugs. You want to help them out, so you go around advertising their wares for them, telling people where to go to pick it up, etc. You are now part of the consortium selling the drugs.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[pstreck]

By providing a link to a pirated file while knowing that it was a pirated file makes you an accessory to the crime. You're assisting someone in breaking the law

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[DaHat]

So... if you don't commit the crime but only assist you are completely innocent? I think not. Is a get away driver not guilty of the same crimes committed by those they are driving? Nope. Courts have ruled on this many times.

It's the same reason in the war on drugs they don't just go after the producers, but also the smugglers, distributors, dealers and end users. Why? Because by going after the entire system they are able to make it less attractive to be associated with (in theory).

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[tyldis]

First off, I'm no supporter of this verdict, but for the love of $HIGHER_POWER, please don't make this the beginning of the end of the world.

The site's sole purpose of the site was linking to infringing material. The site made that perfectly clear. The verdict is saying that if the *intent* of your link is to infringe, then "hey, we don't like it".

Your raving about a site going from disney.com to some kiddieporn nest is totally irrelevant.

This decision has little, if any, impact on "future of the Web in Norway".

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[MoonBuggy]

So you're saying that sites telling you how to grow cannabis should be illegal since doing so is against the law? I thought it was the act that was illegal, isn't information freely available?

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright does NOT rely on preventing the free exchange of information.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[garcia]

What happens when the links are to newspaper articles available on the web? The media outlets determine that any outside linking is stealing their Flash popup ad revenue and sue.

Does that count?

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Tony Hoyle]

So if I give someone exact instructions to break into a bank, and they go and do it... I'm not liable? Like hell... I'll very likely go to jail for it unless I've got a *very* good lawyer.

In the same way if you knowingly point to illegal files you're liable.

This is not a web issue it's something that's been part of the legal system for centuries. Just like with patents, adding 'on the internet' to the description doesn't change anything.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Michael Spencer Jr.]

He would've been guilty in the USA also.

You're thinking of Direct Copyright Infringement. He's not guilty of that.

You're forgetting there also exists Contributory Copyright Infringement and Vicarious Copyright Infringement. He's guilty of at least Vicarious Copyright Infringement, if he knew what content he was linking to and if he was showing ad banners to visitors. (And if he had the right-and-ability-to-control what was on the web page, and I assume he did.)

--Michael Spencer

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[matman]

It's an issue of intent. The court did not rule that it is illegal to link to copyrighted material. It is still legal to link to copyrighted works that are published legally.

The court found that the uploaders of the MP3s were effectively making an unauthorized performance. The guy publishing the links knew that the original upload was illegal. He thought, "it's nice that they are 'performing' via the Internet - I'll try to get them a bigger audience by making more people know about the 'performance'." He was trying to make someone else's copyright violation reach more people and thus cause more damage. You may argue that illegal performance doesn't cause damage, but the court accepts that it does, with precident. It also assumes that the larger the audience the greater the damage, which again you may argue.

Unfortunately, the rights holders did not have to do much to prove damage; that's the problem with IP violation claims - it's really hard to measure damages as it's all about predicting the future.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Tony Hoyle]

In many countries they *are* illegal.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[dinivin]

Given the success of iTunes, I'd say that people have already bought into DRM.

Dinivin

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Tony Hoyle]

That's like saying to someone, "You know, I hear there are lots of drug dealers on the corner of 3rd and Main"...

No it isn't... it's like saying "Want some LSD? If you just go round this corner there's a guy that'll sell it to you"

For which you *would* be charged.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Rei]

Quite true. In fact, you don't necessarily have to work with the RIAA in order to reward artists.

I'd like to see an effective peer to peer system that uses a donation-weighed upload/download ratio. I.e., the ratio of how much data you have to upload to how much data you have to download is set at something like (TheirContribution + X)/(YourContribution + X), where X is an amount designed so that freeloaders can download as well at a reduced rate, to encourage those not even willing to cough up a few bucks not to go off and start their own network. The only centralized component would need to be the contribution server, which is informed how many times a file is downloaded; rewards to copyright owners are paid out on a slightly progressive scale based on completed downloads to different IPs. Files can be user-moderated to determine owner (i.e., everyone gets to vote), and this can be overridden at the central server for anyone who can successfully demonstrate copyright ownership. Should the central server go down, the network should be designed to put everyone on equal footing until it comes back up.

Consequently, the recording industry would have no incentive to take down the centralized server, because it would only hurt them. The network would keep going, but they would cease getting payment. And new artists could get their names out there and get rewarded for it without having to sign over their works to a label. If you have a hard-to-attack, reliable system (such as a spoofed or proxied kademlia network), they'd have little choice but to work with it.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[QMO]

If you give, to anyone who asks, detailed specific instructions where illegal drugs are for sale, who to ask, how much they cost, and how to get them, with the intent of making it easier for sale and distribution of illegal drugs then . . .

Yes, you should be charged.

OTOH, if you merely gossip, (Quote) "You know, I hear there are lots of drug dealers on the corner of 3rd and Main"..., then you probably shouldn't be.

Apparently the guy in the story was more like the first case.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Ahnteis]

Phil, you're trying to put the DRM in the wrong spot.

Now, I don't agree personally with DRM at all because it limits what I can do with my own files. (No, that DRMed file will NOT play on my car stereo or my off-brand digital music player.)

However, that DRM belongs in the content file, not the distribution system. And that's all bittorrent is. A distribution system.

As for "neccesity", television seems alive and well without any DRM. I can just plug in a TV and antenna and BOOM. "Free" content.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[rjelks]

What if you put the instructions in a book? Would you be held liable for every bank robbery that used your techniques?

I could see you being held responsible if you actually conspired to commit the crime...or knew that the person asking you was planning on committing it. Why not go after the person hosting the files? (I didn't RTFA)

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say I don't give a shit how much money the RIAA makes, and in fact do not generally support them or their artists because I consider music from independent sources to be superior

I call bullshit. Let's see some names and links to this superior music.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[DeVilla]

This isn't a case of a guy driving the get-away car. This is a case of saying "That junkie on the corner is selling crack." Everybody (including the police) know it, but because you say it, you're the criminal?

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Nurseman]

"You know, I hear there are lots of drug dealers on the corner of 3rd and Main"...

IANNAL, but I think that is called "aiding and abetting". You assited someone to commit a crime.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[UserGoogol]

Yes, and once you distribute your copyrighted works, you limit people's ability to redistribute it.

Mind you, Copyright is right now an acceptable system, because it promotes the arts and sciences, (although there may be better ways) but still, copyright gives the creators of information the ability to limit the free expression of that idea for some limited amount of time.

You do not have some god-given entitlement to control whatever ideas might happen to spew out of your mouth.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[kfg]

We must learn to work with the artists and record industry, along with the movie industry and others, instead of against them.

And they must, conversely, learn to work with us, something that, on the whole, most of them aren't interested in.

They're interested in your money. They've been known to "steal" it when they thought they could away with it, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

What we really need is fair, third party, representation in the governmental process that regulates such behavior, except that "they" are using "our" money (which we then necessarily lack ourselves) to access said representation.

KFG

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Sunday nights, Grand Central Terminal, inside the subway, by the bottom of the steps that lead to the Shuttle (S line) to Times Square.

Oops.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[IceAgeComing]

Now, illegal data on Jeff's machine, especially in the top level directory, was found timestamped from before the linker made the link, "plausible deniability" would be a much harder argument to make.

That may be true if timestamps weren't so easily manipulated.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Anonymous Coward]

However, I do demand that I have the right to not face legal repercussions for something I type...

Sorry, but if it's copyrighted you don't have that right.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[elpapacito]

Dude, there are rights like freedom of speech that are far far more important to many (including) and others that are far far more important to very few (copyright sale exploitation holders.. big corps usually).I'll never accept the idea that protecting the "right" of somebody to make a profit (the point of making a copy) is the same as protecting freedom of speech right.

Get a clue, quickly before industry brainwashes you into fascism.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[CmdrGravy]

Not quite, it seems to me it's more a case of the guy saying to interested parties

"You want some crack ? OK, I will take you to the crack dealers house and introduce you"

I am sure that in a lot of countries you would be facing charges for facilitating illegal activity.

However I am also pretty sure that in most countries the punishment for this would be 2 hours community service so I'm not sure how come he is having to pay out damages.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Tony Hoyle]

You could definately be held liable for publishing such a book, but since you didn't tell the guy personally how to do it you'd have a better chance of getting away with it. Publishers also have good lawyers on staff. eg. It also depends on the magnitude of the crime - If you detailed instructions of how to build a bio-weapon which then gets used to lay waste to a large town saying 'it was a book!' isn't going to keep your ass out of camp xray (to which you can and will be sent without trial or and right of representation).

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Warskull]

I think this is going to be a legal grey area for a while. While this seems kind of foolish look at the opposite end of the spectrum. What happens if a site deep links to child porn? The site is hosting none of the illegal content itself. However the content displays on the page is made readily available. On the same boat you could deep link to something on my page and for revenge I can replace it with something like child porn. Thus in these cases I think the mental state of the defendant is extremely important.

I agree they would have been better going after the sites themselves. This solves no problems for them and is really more of a harassment lawsuit. However the ability to prosecute for linking may be necessary sometime.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[stryc9]

Yes... if your link says: KIDDIE Pr0n H3r3!!! =========> http://blahblahblah

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Anonymous Coward]

However, I do demand that I have the right to not face legal repercussions for something I type

Write a livejournal entry threatening the President. We'll see how your little illusions hold up then.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Anonymous Coward]

www.cdbaby.com

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[sepluv]

Copyright does NOT rely on preventing the free exchange of information

You are correct. Copyright just prevents the free exchange of information.

It gives us the OPTION!

Well, actually, no (unless you happen to use the royal `we'). You see in the example you give, it gives you (as the copyright holder) "the OPTION!"--no one else gets a say in whether their freedom of speech remains unfettered.

Thats true FREEDOM!

Well actually its not (by most people's standards) as it is biased towards one individual; its actually an exclusive right (i.e.: the freedom for you to restrict others freedom, a monopoly, an autocracy, a dictatorship).

I don't oppose copyright law (as originally conceived) in principle, but your justifications for it are patent nonsense--in fact, /.ers beware: the parent's author probably holds a patent on nonsense production.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[the_partisan]

If you think anyone has a "right" to sue or seek prosecution of someone who posts a mere link to a "pirated" copy of a copyrighted work, then you are mentally ill.

Anyone who sues or prosecutes me for posting this...

http://www.thepiratebay.org/download.php/3274598/N ational.Treasure.TC.CUSTOM.SWESUB.DVDr-TFTDVDR.tor rent

...needs to be killed.

Any judge who allows such a case or suit to go forward needs to be killed. Any judge who forces me to pay any amount of money as a result of such a case or suit needs to be killed.

The members of the Norway Supreme Court who voted in favor of this ruling need to be killed.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't have it both ways. Copyright relies on preventing the free exchange of information.

I'm confused then. My manual page for ls(1) says "Copyright (c) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc."

Am I not allowed to freely exchange this man page? Is Red Hat or Debian allowed to freely exchange this man page? Am I going to jail?

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Richard_at_work]

In this case the guy didn't even make content available, he just told people where they can find it.

Hmmm. Now Im not quite sure about that. He may not have had the files actually on his website, but he DID make them available to people visiting his website. This wasnt a vague 'theres some content over there someplace' (or as most people seem to be likening it to: 'theres a junkie selling drugs on a street corner over there'), it was a definate 'heres your content, right here, click and its delivered to you' (or: 'heres the specific drug in a specific quantity you wanted. Ive set the deal up, now you need to go collect it').

Remember, its all degrees. If he had been less specific then I would agree with you, but from the article he was pretty damn specific when it came to identifying the content and providing the links. Sometimes, just sometimes, you are actually liable and responsible for stuff you say, write or do.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

The people are not forced to visit his webpage.

So they must activily search it out to find the information...

... information are what the web is about.

A similar case was decided in swedish court and the defendant in that case was found not guilty.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Macadamizer]

Sweden != Norway != USA

(only putting that in because it seems like I get nailed everytime I make a similar type of statement!)

"The people are not forced to visit his webpage.

So they must activily search it out to find the information... ... information are what the web is about."

People are not forced to buy drugs either, but when they seek out someone to help them buy drugs, that guy can get in trouble.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[danila]

Well, the idea is that copyright system was designed to prevent large-scale commercial piracy that competed directly with the legitimate publishers. Some people still believe that the legislators and judges may have enough sense to realise that the laws were not intended to stop small-scale non-commercial piracy that is targeted mostly at people who are not willing to pay full prices and would rather waste their time and efforts (i.e. those who can buy a 15$ DVD do it, those who can't - download).

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[pommiekiwifruit]

remix.kwed.org :-) because life stopped when SID died...

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[GigsVT]

If you want to go this way with it:
Here

"mere presence at the crime scene and guilty knowledge of the crime are generally not enough for aiding and abetting."

"The key elements are the defendant's association with the venture, participating in it as in something he wished to bring about, and seeking to make it succeed."

With merely a hyperlink, and no other contact between the linker and the person linked to, there's no participation, there's no seeking to make the crime succeed.

Besides, copyright is a civil matter. I know it's a lot for you guys to understand the difference between a criminal offense and a civil matter like copyright infringement, but please try to keep up.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL the EFF! WTF have they done?

Bnetd temp has gotten their asses handed to the mso far, and by all counts early on, it looked to be the other way around.

bnetd team lost their website, unable to develop a wonderfull product for those behind firewalls, or that find the real bnet overran with problems and idiots. And here is EFF losing what looked to be an easy win.

And Yes, I have been donating to the Eff in hopes to see them fix things like this(linking/speech), bnetd, linux warcraft, and software ELU's.

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[dirk]

But you certainly go after someone who is the go between for the person selling bootleg CDs. If my job is to find people who want bootleg CDs and take them to the guy selling them, then I am most certainly involved and will be prosecuted. If the job of my page is to find people who want bootleg MP3 and take them to the MP3 (not even the page or site the MP3 is on, but the MP3 itself) how am I not involved?

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[jc42]

Actually, the fuss over links to such articles is even more interesting than the case at hand. They are basically claiming that it's a crime to help people avoid downloading copyrighted material. It's easy to understand why they'd do this, but when you express it this way, it does seem a bit demented.

"You have a legal obligation to download my ads; if you don't, I'll sue you."

Re:Break the law, face the charges.

[lachlan76]

Over there I think it's criminal now.

Erm?

[M3rk1n_Muffl3y]

I thought, one was not legally responsible for content linked to and provided by others.

Re:Erm?

[Kenja]

"I thought, one was not legally responsible for content linked to and provided by others."

Your right. However in this case he is providing the links. Just as telling someone where to buy drugs, illigal firewarms, slaves etc will get you in trouble so will telling people where to get warez, MP3s and DiVX rips of DVDs.

Re:Erm?

[drxray]

www.ebay.com

Am I arrested yet?

Re:Erm?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

That's not a link.

Now this http://www.ebay.com/ is a link.

Disclaimer: If you live in Norway, close your eyes and forget you saw this post.

It is a sad day when people can be ordered to pay damages for merely having a link.

Guess it isn't just the USA with unfair laws.

Re:Erm?

[dapyx]

Slashdot should be made legally responsible for making thousand of people watch goatse.cx!!! :-)

Re:Erm?

[dapyx]

Just as telling someone where to buy drugs, illigal firewarms

I once downloaded from DC++ a list of location where drug dealers could be found in my city. It looked like it was made by the police for internal use. I expect that someone from the police shared the "my documents" folder. :-)

Re:Erm?

[Dun Malg]

Just as telling someone where to buy drugs, illigal firewarms, slaves etc will get you in trouble

If I were a writer for a great metropolitan newspaper, I might write an article about lax law enforcement in downtown Metropolis. "Yes", I'd say, "it is indeed possible to walk into just about any basement on 53rd street between Ave F and Ave J, and purchase crack, stolen guns, and even the occasional child prostitute." Would this "get [me] in trouble", as you claim? Not a chance. The premise upon which your entire argument is based is false. Now, if you want to argue that intent determines culpability, go right ahead; but having to prove intent is a far cry from the automatic guilt from merely presenting information you claim.

Re:Erm?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite so.

Libraries are in -big- trouble if this were to be consistently applied.

Re:Erm?

[Anonymous Coward]

NO, as you did not violate any laws nor did you link (or point) to an illegiel item.

Now, if you had instead said you can download the latest ATRISTX album at

www.ilovetosteal.com/latest_albums/artistX/

then you be aiding in copyright voilation adn woudl be fined (probably not arrested)

Did that make sense to you. I am not advocating eitehr side, just trying to give you a workign example of the laws in Norway.

And yes, I know my english spellign sucks.

Re:Erm?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha, good point! :) Will format my posts properly in future... -drxray

Re:Erm?

[Taladar]

So if I tell some CEO that the American Government is corrupt and easily bought by companies I am doing something illegal?

Re:Erm?

[RmanB17499]

Nope, because your freedom of speech, based on the first amendment, protects you from the government. But if you say that CEO of XYZ Corporation is a thug and a crook...you are talking libel, unless it's true. Since you don't have a right to disparage private individuals without it being a truth. The government, on the other hand, is obligated, to enduring your remarks since that's the hallmark of your political freedom.

Re:Erm?

[RmanB17499]

That's true: but first are you a newspaper reporter? Second, providing a generalization (in this neighborhood or "almost any building on this block" )would be okay, but if you provide the exact name and address with cell phone number of a gun runner or pimp or even music/dvd pirate then I think that would prove your intent to aid in the criminal activity. We can surmise intent with your actions, words, intended audience, and the degree of accuracy or self-censorship offered.

Re:Erm?

[Xyrus]

Oh. You must be new here. Here's your tinfoil hat, and remeber not to feed the trolls.

~X~

Re:Erm?

[Dun Malg]

That's true: but first are you a newspaper reporter?

Not relevant, unless you're trying to show intent

Second, providing a generalization (in this neighborhood or "almost any building on this block" )would be okay, but if you provide the exact name and address with cell phone number of a gun runner or pimp or even music/dvd pirate then I think that would prove your intent to aid in the criminal activity

Actually, that would prove no such thing. All it would prove is that I knew where it was happening.

We can surmise intent with your actions, words, intended audience, and the degree of accuracy or self-censorship offered.

Oh, I see, so this all goes towards intent, which is what really matters. Please read my post again, paying particular attention to the end where I say

"Now, if you want to argue that intent determines culpability, go right ahead; but having to prove intent is a far cry from the automatic guilt from merely presenting information you claim."

In other words, you are not supporting the original assertion that "statement of where to get [guns|drugs|etc]" == Automatic Guilt; rather you are inexplicably countering with the very argument I stated was perfectly reasonable. Honestly, I thought I made it fairly clear.

One Expensive Song

[teiresias]

$15,900 fine / 170 songs = $93.52~

That's one expensive song. Almost makes iTunes seem worthwhile.

Re:One Expensive Song

[BlueMonk]

You forgot to divide by 100 downloads per song.

Re:One Expensive Song

[madaxe42]

He's in norway. Do you know how much it costs to hire a carrier pigeon to fly that far?

Re:One Expensive Song

[FatAlb3rt]

why not $7.10 per song? i thought that would be the new standard.

Re:One Expensive Song

[SpongeBobLinuxPants]

An african swallow would be much more cost effective.

Re:One Expensive Song

[tka]

$15,900 fine / 170 songs / probably hundreds of downloads per song (200 for calculation) = $0.5~

Not much payback for music industry. Although I'm not saying that those songs would be bought if not downloaded..

Re:One Expensive Song

[madaxe42]

I take it you mean a laden swallow? And swallows have a much better union than pigeons - they get to spend all of their time off galavanting about in the countryside, rather than having to beg for scraps in cities!

Re:One Expensive Song

[krysith]

In the US, the compulsory license rate for webcasting is $ 0.0014 per listener. That equates to an average of 66800 listeners per song, presuming that Norway has comparable rates.

That's rather high, I'm thinking, but perhaps half of Oslo was downloading from this guy's site. I think it's more likely that there are some penalties added.

I really think that the compulsory license is the best means of "freeing" the music industry - I'd love to see someone make 'internet radio' where you could listen to whatever channel (song) you wanted and pay the same rate that Clear Channel has to pay. I'd be very willing to pay $0.0014 to hear any song I wanted, any time I wanted. Of course, the record industry would try to change the compulsory license rate - and probably succeed - but at least then, their lapdog Big Radio would suffer along with the rest of us.

I'd start up an internet radio thing like this, but I'm a science geek, not an internet geek. I have my own fish to fry.

Re:One Expensive Song

[telemonster]

Radio stations pay 3 cents per play to cover ALL of their listeners. And just because someone downloads it doesn't mean they aren't covered by fair use. I've downloaded songs because I didn't feel like looking for the CD I own. It's out in the changer in the car, etc. Fair use.

Re:One Expensive Song

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess we know how much the refund amount is supposed to be when we take back music because the CD was scratched. That's right, *AA's, you wanna conflate your damages in courts you've bought off, be prepared to actually return that amount when your product is found to be defective or unacceptable.

Re:One Expensive Song

[sol64]

I can do that right now... Of course I have to pay a subscription to Music Match to do it, like 9 bucks a month I think. Its not bad though I can listen to anything in their catalog on demand... By the way Krysith, I still have your galaxies book. You should know who this is. If I could send you a private msg on here to say hello I would. -SOL(MRC)

Re:One Expensive Song

[krysith]

I'm sorry, but I am not sure who this is. I have a bad habit of loaning out books and forgetting about it... Can you give me any clues? Or just send me an email or give me a call.

Re:One Expensive Song

[sol64]

Culver should jog your memory. Don't have your email sorry.

Re:One Expensive Song

[krysith]

Email me at "randomnumerals" at yahoo dot com, please.

Uhoh....

[Cougem]

Will Slashgot get sued linking to a site that link(ed) to MP3's?

And surely search engines do this?

Re:Uhoh....

[warcormc]

Google is next: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=filetype% 3Amp3+inurl%3Amp3/

Re:Uhoh....

[bigberk]

mod parent up insightful. truly, slashdot and millions of other sites are inducing the infringement of copyright by linking, or implicitly linking, to other sites. right? right?

Re:Uhoh....

[northcat]

Slashdot is in USA. DMCA provides safe harbour (or whatever the word is) to automated sites like slashdot and google whose content isn't manually controlled. (No, the mod system doesn't count. It doesn't delete posts, any posts are allowed on slashdot.)

Re:Uhoh....

[northcat]

Whoops, the post wasn't clear. What I mean is, if a site's content is not manually created/edited/controlled by the site operators and everything happens in an automatic process, then the site operators are not liable for any illegal content on that site. So, search engines and forums are protected. So google's robots autmatically index (a part of) the web and on slashdot the comments/links are posted by people who dont work for slashdot and /. doesnt do anything manually to selectively allow the posts. This is enforced in USA through DMCA. I don't know exactly what the law states but the effect is more or less what I said. I think this also exists is many european countries and countries where the Internet is used a lot. BTW, I'm not sure about forums (including /.) but I think I'm right. Does anyone know about this more accurately?

Re:Uhoh....

[m50d]

But this link was in the story, which are checked and approved by the editors. So I don't think they're in the clear on this.

Re:Uhoh....

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when does Slashdot reside in Norway and since when is Slashdot unable to pay a decent lawyer?

Re:Uhoh....

[northcat]

Actually the story doesn't link to the site. And it just mentions it AFTER the site has been (presumably) taken down. Even if it links, it's not directly linking to illegal stuff, it's only linking to a site that contains links. And in this case I don't think the companies will be stupid enough to sue /. and get bad PR.

Re:Uhoh....

[anamin]

This would just help show how asinine some copyright lawsuits can be. I'm all for protecting artists rights, but let's draw a line somewhere please.

To be fair

[Spoonito]

The song he hyperlinked was "bjorgen bjorgen fjorgen djorgen," which everyone knows is the best song on the album and the rest is just filler.

Re:To be fair

[M3rk1n_Muffl3y]

You obviously know nothing about proper music.

um... google

[GregoryD]

Google watch out! You're next!

Re:um... google

[strider44]

no they won't be. They don't explicitly link to files they know are copywrite protected, but it is done automatically. They also have exceptions in the law covering search engines.

Clarification please...

[Zocalo]

When it says "free Internet music files", does that mean:

1. Free as in beer, but not as in speech - ie. some copyright infringement was likely to be occurring?
2. Free as is speech?
3. Free as in speech *and* beer?

The articles *seem* to be implying #1, but there's obviously a big difference and serious implications if it's one of the latter options.

Re:Clarification please...

[pstreck]

I believe the files when were being distributed free as in beer. But they were not authorized by the copyright holder to distribute this files. And since this goes way outside of personal use, i think a fair use claim is pretty far fetched in this case. So the music was neither free as in beer nor free as in speech. But were being distributed as such.

Re:Clarification please...

[Zocalo]

That was my understanding from reading the articles, in which case we have a precedent for Torrent sites that are merely linking to other sites providing the actually .torrent files.

This is really dealing with a similar legal quagmire to that the BSA got involved in some years back. The BSA tried (and largely failed) to use the law to shutdown certain sites linking to serials and keygens, but not providing the actual files themselves. In that case though, there was an extra step required; you still needed to acquire the actual software you are going to be using the serial or keygen with. This really combines the two into one, so while it's still a grey area in my book, it's definitely a darker shade.

Insanity

[reporter]

What the Norwegian did is similar to me driving my Chevrolet Camaro and having my friend sitting in the passenger seat. Then, we pass by a computer store where I know that the owner is selling pirated software. I then tell my friend, "Look at that store. The owner is knowingly selling pirated software". My friend looks at the store.

How have I committed a crime?

Re:Insanity

[Anonymous Coward]

You drove a Camaro

Re:Insanity

[91degrees]

Huh?

An analogy is intended to clarify the situation. What you've done is created a overcomplicated contrived situation as an attempt to prove an assumed argument.

An analogy - in general - can't be used to prove anything because it is by it's nature a metaphor. i.e. a different situation.

He linked to the files knowing they were illegal, and in doing so provided a mechanism for others to download them. He was facilitating copyright infringement. A link is more than just a line of text. It is a functional component of the internet.

Re:Insanity

[pstreck]

It's a little different here because the norwegian is acting as conduit in providing the music files, even if they are not directly being distributed by him... Example: a guy stands on the corner of a school and a street and tells the kids they can get some crack from his friend a block down. Is that a crime? It's grey, but I sure hope he goes to jail.

Re:Insanity

[Ironsides]

Nice analogy, and probably about as close as we can get to the lawsuit. However, in you example I wouldn't mind the guy getting shot/electrocuted/hanged/the needle for the drugs. Mainly cause I had a friend die from ODing.

Re:Insanity

[GPLDAN]

A more common scenario - A junkie tells a fellow junkhead where to score drugs. Should he be charged under minimum sentencing guidelines for selling drugs?

Re:Insanity

[Anonymous Coward]

An accurate analogy would be if you knowinlgy and willingly drove your friend to a bank to rob it. Yes you are liable.

Re:Insanity

[Pig Hogger]

What the Norwegian did is similar to me driving my Chevrolet Camaro and having my friend sitting in the passenger seat. Then, we pass by a computer store where I know that the owner is selling pirated software. I then tell my friend, "Look at that store. The owner is knowingly selling pirated software". My friend looks at the store.
How have I committed a crime?

Er, not a good analogy.

A beter one would be to tell your friend, "go see this guy so you can get some $ILLEGAL_STUFF".

And why a Camaro? Why not a Firebird?

Re:Insanity

[swv3752]

It is more like I walk into a bar and ask the bartender, "Where can I buy a date?"

Now from that question, it is reasonable to assume I am looking for a prostitute, (I could just be looking for a legal escort but...) but has the bartender done anything wrong if he points to Sally in the corner?

Besides if I do a search on Google, have they done anything illegal? Just use the search phrase "norway mp3 file" and see several that are questionable if the site owner has permission to redistribute.

Re:Insanity

[tyldis]

Your example works for email. What if you hung posters eveywhere telling the *public* about it?

Re:Insanity

[GigsVT]

Where the fuck are all you poeple coming from? I've never seen so much ignorance on Slashdot as there is in this story's comments.

Is the high school remedial class off today or something?

Re:Insanity

[myukew]

so non linked text is ok? like http://g3tstuff.net/f1l3z.mp3 ?

Re:Insanity

[91degrees]

Ask a lawyer. But as far as I can see, it still has a functional component. Yes, you need to copy and paste it, but thats kind of trivial with the computer still dong most of the work.

Re:Insanity

[Waffle Iron]

Your analogy fails it.

It's *not* like you drove him to a store. The web server with the link does not transfer a single byte of the illicit information.

Nor does the web server admin actually witness the transfer; he has no knowledge of whether someone viewing the page ever even clicks on one of the links.

Re:Insanity

[Anonymous Coward]

While I realise that addiction can be a problem, and the guy who sold the drugs was clearly taking exploiting your friend's condition, I still feel that your friend bears at least some of the responsibility.

Re:Insanity

[Woy]

Between these "forbidden" links, the dude that got arrested for using lynx and the CowboyNeal's battery-life-extending diarrhea, i think it is clearly time to evacuate the planet. How many more horsemen of the apocalypse do you really need?

Re:Insanity

[CoJoNEs]

no self respecting geek would drive a camaro, what a horrible story

Re:Insanity

[Anonymous Coward]

A hypertext link is by itself not a functional component. It is merely a reference in a specific format. The functional aspect of the link only exists in the user's browser when he clicks on the link.

This distinction is important. Copyright holders want the courts to believe that a link is a functional component, because they know they cannot win a case based only on references.

Re:Insanity

[iGN97]

His analogy, while "overcomplicated" is quite accurate and interesting. If the passenger of the car is inclined to buy pirated software from a store, the sentence "Look at that store. The owner is knowingly selling pirated software" is facilitating copyright infringement the exact same way.

You are supporting his argument. The question is whether facilitating is indeed illegal, to what extent and how it should be enforced.

Re:Insanity

[_bug_]

He linked to the files knowing they were illegal, and in doing so provided a mechanism for others to download them. He was facilitating copyright infringement. A link is more than just a line of text. It is a functional component of the internet.

So if this guy didn't create a hyperlink, but rather, just printed the URL (which would require the user to copy/paste to use it) would you consider him to still be facilitating copyright infringement?

Re:Insanity

[RealBorg]

Why give up our beautiful planet? Just evacuate all those fucking morons calling themselves Managers, Politicians, Judges and Lawyers and make this once again a nice place to live.

Re:Insanity

[Eccles]

However, in you example I wouldn't mind the guy getting shot/electrocuted/hanged/the needle for the drugs. Mainly cause I had a friend die from ODing.

I know someone who, after getting drunk, nearly choked on their own vomit. Neither of us wanted to murder the folks at Bacardi thereafter. Why do you want to do the equivalent?

Re:Insanity

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose I verbally told you the hyperlink? Would that be a functional component?

Re:Insanity

[Woy]

Because the morons are such a huge majority that the planet would lose too much mass and the orbit would destabilize.

Re:Insanity

[Anonymous Coward]

"An analogy - in general - can't be used to prove anything because it is by it's nature a metaphor. i.e. a different situation."

That's not true, of course an analogy can prove something. If properly constructed it can prove if an argument's structure is valid or not by decoupling the validity of the argument structure from the validity of the premises. A valid syllogism is valid for any valid premises so by using different but otherwise valid set of premises that leads to a ludicrous argument then you can expose the argument as employing a fallacy. Not saying if the grandparent did a good job or not, just saying analogies *can* be equivalent analyzing a syllogism, just using more entertaining terms then A, B, and C.

Re:Insanity

[drxenos]

An analogy - in general - can't be used to prove anything because it is by it's nature a metaphor. i.e. a different situation. Yes, it can. It's called a parallel argument. You've never taken any courses in philosophical logic, have you.

Re:Insanity

[Richard_at_work]

Its more like the guy being approached by said kid, and setting up the deal completely, ie the type, quantity and quality of the drug at a certain price, and then telling the kid that they need to go to his friend to pay and collect. Its degrees of specifics, and this person was being pretty specific in the links he had.

Re:Insanity

[globalar]

Making the communication or possession of information *illegal* is dangerous business.

The problems with HTML links are that they are one way references - they are not necessarily interlinked. In other words, it requires no coordinate between two sources to make a link - one only need a reference to the other. Therefore collaboration or illegal intent, technically, can only be determined with other evidence. Links are only indicators, not necessarily locations. In this case (if I understand correctly), the page owner knew the content the links pointed to and intended the distribution of that content.

This line will be blurred in the future.

Re:Insanity

[91degrees]

Dunno. Doubt it. Try it.

Re:Insanity

[91degrees]

It's not accurate. It is a different situation.

In this case, his situation would not be illegal whereas linking to illegal mp3s is. The fact that a vaguely similar situation is not illegal does not change this. Look at the case on its own merits.

Why did he link to mp3s? Was it simply a case of him feeling that it was a fascinating bit of information? No, of course not. He linked to them so that other people could download them. That's the fucking point of linking to files.

Re:Insanity

[Anonymous Coward]

He also created a script to allow others to add links to his site, but he wasn't totally responsible of providing the links himself.

A link may or may not initiate the mp3 download, so it's just a link. Search engines contain billions of links and even cache copyright contents. Why don't you outlaw search engines, photocopiers, and basically computers?

Re:Insanity

[91degrees]

Yes, it can. It's called a parallel argument.

No, a parallel argument would assume that the basic premise is true - i.e. that providing information about the location of illegal material should be a crime. This is not what the case was about. It's about assisting the acquisition

You've never taken any courses in philosophical logic, have you.

Nope. Have you?

Re:Insanity

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, samething happend to a guy in Sweden couple of years back(The other of the two scandinavien countries), he got of the hook because in the eyes of the court and the law, linking to another site was not illegal.

Or rather, the person who did the linking couldn't be hold responsible for something on someone else site.

Of course, the diffrence in this to cases could be that in Sweden, the prosecution faild to prove intent while in Norway they could prove it.

Re:Insanity

[91degrees]

That's a good point. I'll certainly concede that it would be technically possible for his to link to files without actually being aware that the files had changed. Unlikely in this case, but I can see how it's quite feasable that the nature of a site could change.

I guess inention is what's important, and it should be up to the court to prove intent.

Re:Insanity

[91degrees]

No. But I think that's another matter entirely. If he was truly an innocent party who had a totally neutral site that had the links added by another person, then it's not all that reasonable to hold him responsible.

Actually, I can see a number of problems with the whole case, but if we're assuming that distribution of copyrighted material costs the industry a certain amount, and he deliberately assisted, then really he should be stopped.

If you disagree with those assumptions then fair enough, but that's another argument.

Re:Insanity

[drxenos]

Yes, I have and a parallel argument has no such requirement. In any case, that would not make any difference as any argument assumes it premise is true, even a proof by contradiction. All the is required for creating a parallel argument is one that will reduce to an equivalent set of statements in first order predicate calculus.

Re:Insanity

[TorKlingberg]

So if I tell my friend that a local computer store sells pirated software, with the intention of helping my friend obtain that software, am I committing a crime?

Re:Insanity

[Anonymous Coward]

A link is more than just a line of text. It is a functional component of the internet.

I object to your argument, though not to your conclusion.

Hyperlinks aren't functional components: they're as inert as a street address. Rather, they are useful pieces of information that functions can be performed *upon*. And therein lies the culpability in this case.

Hyperlinks aren't functional without the right choice of software. Software doesn't run itself: people choose which software to purchase, which software to run, and how to run it. They must ultimately bear the responsibility for what the software does, because ultimately, their choices govern how the software behaves.

Giving other people information (via hyperlink, telephone, or postal mail) about how to use software in a potentially illegal way is no better, and no worse, than giving them data about how to do any other potentially illegal act.

I expect the Norwegian supreme court would have reacted similarly to a man who compiled a list of houses which left their doors unlocked, and handed it out to people formerly convicted of burglary. It's "just data": but it's data that can be used to facilitate crime.

In a similar vein, handing someone a screwdriver is not usually illegal. Handing a screwdriver to a burgler in the act of breaking into someone else's house often is. Same act, different situation, different consequences.
--
AC

Re:Insanity

[91degrees]

All the is required for creating a parallel argument is one that will reduce to an equivalent set of statements in first order predicate calculus.

Well, what do I know? I've never taken a course in philosophy. But regardless, that analogy failed in this requirement.

Re:Insanity

[Stradenko]

I use Linkification for firefox. I think that the author of this "linkification" software should be put in jail because it just automatically hyperlinked the clear text you wrote, providing a means by which I can subvert intellectual property that I may not have previously had.

Re:Insanity

[91degrees]

Possibly. It depends on the specific merits.

But lets look at it this way - You knew that by telling him this, he would obtain some pirated software. If you dodn't tell him, he would be unable to. You made no attempt to prevent him from doing so. Sounds like you could conceivably have behaved in a more morally upstanding way.

Re:Insanity

[Anonymous Coward]

So if it wasn't a link, and just said here's a song I like at www.anywhere.com/myfavoritesong.mp3 this wouldn't be a crime in your eyes?

Re:Insanity

[RealBorg]

So let's just give them a continent and plenty of weapons.

Re:Insanity

[Woy]

Look where that got us...

Re:Insanity

[Anonymous Coward]

A link is just a line of text, regardless of functional capabilities in someone else's hands. Which is why software programs enjoy copyright.

Let's review: Software is expression. It is speech. Which is why you can copyright it.

Telling someone the location of something, even using software for the communication, is fully protected First Amendment speech.

Re:Insanity

[91degrees]

A link is just a line of text,

It's a line of text with very specific formatting which is designed to be machine readable and operable on in a specific way.

Let's review: Software is expression. It is speech. Which is why you can copyright it.

Indeed it is. Software is also a device. It is a mechanism. The fact that it exists in the form of binary data stored electronically does not make it substantially different from a more tangible machine such as an engine.

Telling someone the location of something, even using software for the communication, is fully protected First Amendment speech.

Perhaps. Providing someone with a mechanism to commit a crime with the intention of facilitating a crime is not protected under the first ammendment.

Re:Insanity

[91degrees]

Don't be an idiot. Linkification does not exist to facilitate copyright infringement. The line of text (assuming it links to an infringing file) does. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Re:Insanity

[91degrees]

Consult a lawyer. It probably would be a crime though. It's still machine readable. You are after all aiding and abetting. As other people have pointed out in this thread, it probably depends on intent.

Re:Insanity

[TorKlingberg]

Sounds like you could conceivably have behaved in a more morally upstanding way.

Perhaps, but is it illegal? Should everything that is not "morally upstanding" be illegal?

Re:Insanity

[91degrees]

Perhaps, but is it illegal?

Probably.

Should everything that is not "morally upstanding" be illegal?

At the moment, I'm thinking yes. At least if affects other people.

Re:Insanity

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that's a poor analogy. It's more like you regularly drive people (anybody, whether you know them or not) to this guy selling pirated software... And that's still a poor analogy, but at least more fitting than your.

Re:Insanity

[AK Marc]

He linked to the files knowing they were illegal, and in doing so provided a mechanism for others to download them. He was facilitating copyright infringement.

Oh crap. The police must be after me. I work for an ISP, and we sell people Internet connections all the time, knowing full well that the evil Internet is used for copyright infringement. We even let our subscribers have USENET access. Since I'm hooking them up with a service I know contains illegal things, and will help them utilize the service in the persuit of illegal things, then I'm obviously facilitating copyright infringement.

Re:Insanity

[91degrees]

If you think my view of the situation and the situation you describe are the same then I'll clarify. Perhaps I wasn't clear. It's helpful for my understanding to make my view on this as clear as possible at any rate.

The whole purpose and intent of creating those links was to make it easier for people to breach copyright.

This is clearly different from your situation, because while you know people are going to do illegal things, you don't know who they are, and can't reasonably assume it will be all of them, or even most of them.

Re:Insanity

[AK Marc]

The whole purpose and intent of creating those links was to make it easier for people to breach copyright.

But only the accused will know their intent, and unless they confess to the crime, everyone will assume they are lying. If someone calls me up (well, they wouldn't call me, as I don't work in customer service in my company, but we'll stretch it a little for the example) and say "I want one of the Internets I heard about. There is a site called illegal.warez.de where I was told I can download anything I want, like Quicken 2005." In that case, would I be legally required to not sell to him, since I know of a specific copyright breach that may happen if I were to facilitate it?

What if I directly host a song on my personal web server that is available for the world to see, but my intent is to allow myself to hear it any time any place and my use is perfectly legal under Fair Use? Would it be illegal because someone else might download it when they shouldn't? It isn't illegal to loan non-digital media, so why should it be to do the same with digital media?

The whole thing is a big gray area where no rational person can figure out what they are allowed to do. In going after the pirate, they have introduced legislation that would make it illegal to even loan a CD or DVD to a friend.

So, back to intent. What was his intent? Do you know? I don't. I suspect that it may have been nefarious, but then, that is a guess based on the fact that much of the traffic out there is illicit. And, even if it were a link with the sole reason to make it easier for others to commit a crime, why should that be a crime? In TX, it is a crime to make a lane change without using a signal. If someone is going to obviously change lanes in front of me, but is not using their signal, should I be committing a crime to back off and let them in? Why is making it easier for them to commit their crime worthy of becoming a crime unto itself?

Now, take that one step further. No one has proven that a crime did take place. There may not have been a crime at all, as it is not always a crime to break the law and violate copyright law. So, it is apparently a crime to allow a non-criminal breach of law when related to copyright, but not a crime to let others break different laws. No, this isn't all about your post, but as you said, it helps to just clarify one's thoughts on the matter.

To summarize:
There was no proof that a crime was committed.
If there was a crime, there is no proof that he aided in it.
In the law I've read, to assist with a crime, you must know what the crime is, and that definition requires some sort of time and place paramaters. Just like you said I'd not be liable for just supplying the Internent connection because I don't know of the specific violations, he couldn't have known who, where, or when someone would commit any crime using his link, so he wasn't facilitating a specific crime (if it was a crime).
And, if he did assist someone else in the commission of a crime, I would offer that there are many crimes out there where it would be expected that people would not be held responsible for allowing others to commit them, so just facilitating a crime is not always a crime itself, so it would need to be shown that it is necessary in this case.

apparantly he doesn't watch...

[jephthah]

...Kim Possible

Last night's episode on The Disney Channel, showed how our hero Kim resisted peer pressure to download music without paying for it.

Kim told her new friend that she "wasn't afraid, she just knew the difference between right and wrong".

Way to go Disney! Being pro-active and teaching our children to repect the RIAA.

Re:apparantly he doesn't watch...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad I'm in France right now and missed that one, even if it means no Rufus.

Re:apparantly he doesn't watch...

[Spoonito]

"Last night's episode on The Disney Channel, showed how our hero Kim resisted peer pressure to download music without paying for it."

I didn't see it. Anyone have a torrent of it?

Re:apparantly he doesn't watch...

[jephthah]

yeah, lemme post a link for you. I have torrents of all the Disn

Re:apparantly he doesn't watch...

[alan_dershowitz]

It IS wrong if you didn't pay for it or already own it though, isn't it?

Re:apparantly he doesn't watch...

[Anonymous Coward]

And anyway, they already did this on The Proud Family.

But Kim *is* hot.

Re:apparantly he doesn't watch...

[Crash Culligan]

Way to go Disney! Being pro-active and teaching our children to repect the RIAA.

You must be new to this "Disney Channel" thing.

Not very coincidentally at all, an episode of "The Proud Family" a while back which actually made the downloading of music a plot point. The upshot of it was, "Downloading music is bad, mmmmmkay?"

Slashdotters and Slashdotettes, they're engaging in meme warfare. First they got the laws of questionable morality made by buying the legislators, and now they're trying to get around the immorality by changing childrens' morals (spokescharacters, showing inflated consequences of breaking their manufactured mores, etc.).

I've heard about propaganda that "kids smell bullshit," but how many geniuses did you know from grade school? Expect some of them to fall for it. And if enough of them do, the rules changes come that much closer to wide acceptance.

Re:apparantly he doesn't watch...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard about propaganda that "kids smell bullshit," but how many geniuses did you know from grade school? Expect some of them to fall for it.

I've made the point a few times that the USA is now engaging in a War on Copyright Infringement in the same way it is engaged in a War on Drugs.

The USA has already progressed past the point of private corporations doing this kind of brainwashing - last year politicians were talking about funding school programmes to teach kids how wrong copyright infringement is.

Assuming that goes ahead... how many people use illegal drugs? How many of them were taught over and over again that illegal drugs are bad? Did it stop them? What makes you think the same tactic will work for copyright infringement.

Re:apparantly he doesn't watch...

[Eccles]

I've heard about propaganda that "kids smell bullshit," but how many geniuses did you know from grade school?

My fifth grade son asked me if I knew that there were more than 100 poisons in alcohol (um, son, there's only *alcohol* in alcohol), and that smoking marijuana caused brain damage.

Yep, they start on 'em young...

Re:apparantly he doesn't watch...

[LuSiDe]

I've made the point a few times that the USA is now engaging in a War on Copyright Infringement in the same way it is engaged in a War on Drugs.

US DOJ: War on Sharing and War on Drugs are Similar

Re:apparantly he doesn't watch...

[jephthah]

what was really interesting to me, was how they characatured (sp?) the "new friend" who wanted Kim to download free music with him.

-- they never showed his full face. it was always an extreme closeup of just the lower half of his face: the nose mouth and chin. like some kind of James Bond Dr. Evil thing or something.

-- he was ugly: he had a prominent gap between his front teeth, and overly large lips and nose.

-- he spoke in an ominous voice: sort of deep, with a hissing-like sound, and a monotonic, hypnotic quality.

-- he used phrases like "I can show you a world you've never seen. Where everything is free, and you can have anything you want. Come with me, Kim."

Kim finally got rid of him by saying "I know the difference between right and wrong, and you're wrong for me. Goodbye."

now, if only Eve would have rebuffed the Serpent with such resolve, all the Wimmin-folk wouldn't have had such a hard time throughout history.

Goooo Kim!

Re:apparantly he doesn't watch...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you'd better get your kid started on that pot and alcohol. Maybe it'll numb his brain enough that the sort of damage the school is inflicting on his brain won't hurt so much...

Re:apparantly he doesn't watch...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It isnt wrong to download music and movies without paying, even if a big nameless corporation owns the copyright.

My neighbor...

[GillBates0]

sings copyrighted music (usually the Brittany Spears classics) in the bathroom during the morning hours.

Can we fine him for copyright infringement or have him put away for a while? Pretty please??

Re:My neighbor...

[cephyn]

no, but now that you've told me where to get pirated music, you could be fined.

If you're in norway.

Re:My neighbor...

[geoffspear]

Well, ASCAP would probably realize they don't have much of a case against him if he's in his own home, even if the public can overhear him, but maybe he'd be willing to reach a settlement under which he pays no penalty but agrees to shut the hell up?

Re:My neighbor...

[Anonymous Coward]

My neighbor sings copyrighted music (usually the Brittany Spears classics) in the bathroom during the morning hours. Can we fine him for copyright infringement or have him put away for a while?

How about disturbing the peace and excessive noise?

Re:My neighbor...

[Ubergrendle]

It depends how many people are in the shower with her.... /half-joking, half-serious

Re:My neighbor...

[pommiekiwifruit]

From memory:

Priscilla Lee
Next door to me
Rehearsing for the stage
takes singing lessons from professor dini.
She yelps all day
and the neighbours say
she should be in a cage
but she thinks she's as good as Petra Dini!

She asked her neighbour if her execution was all right
And he replied "I'd favour it - tonight!"

In the morning when you're dreaming (dreaming)
She will wake you with her screaming (screaming)

Tra la la la la la la la
Up and down the scale she goes
warble warble warble warble
Singing through her nose!

...

Gosh I hope that is out of copyright...

Re:My neighbor...

[Anonymous Coward]

sings copyrighted music (usually the Brittany Spears classics) in the bathroom during the morning hours.

What you should do... is get a halfway descent microphone, and record it at as best quality as can. Then sample, cut up, loop the original songs he is singing, and remix his voice in there. Pay special attention to mix the vocal levels extra loud even if there is extra noise that is annoying, filter/eq it as best you can, run it through compression to balance the loudness...

All to highlight how stupid he sounds. If you get your mix right, I bet you are dying laughing every time you throw it on. and if not, think of it this way, now when you have a guest over and you want them to leave, but also wish to be polite about it. You will have some great music to play for them (oh gosh look at the time, i didn't realize how late it is, gotta run dude)...

On the internet != Free

[jdgeorge]

had links to free Internet music files

Apparently, the music files were not free at all, but simply posted on the Internet, which is completely different from a legal point of view.

Shouldn't they be thanking him?

[GojiraDeMonstah]

I mean, doesn't it make it easier for law enforcement to go get the bad guys when someone points them out?

what about the mp3 providers

[kevinx]

Did they sue the people actually providing/hosting the illegal mp3s or did they just go after this guy because it was an easier target?

Re:what about the mp3 providers

[geoffspear]

According to TFA, the files were hosted on sites outside of Norway. It doesn't say where they're hosted, but I'm guessing the Norwegian branches of the record companies, who brought the charges, don't have control of the distribution rights in whatever country they're hosted in. It's also probable they're hosted somewhere without strong copyright laws that would allow them to go after the host.

An unofficial...

[Tackhead]

> An unofficial English translation of the Court of Appeal decision (earlier in the case) provided by the lawyer of the defendant and more information on the case can be found at the Links & Law Website."

In other news, linksandlaw.com sued by the Clerk of the Norwegian Supreme Court for $1,337,455 dollars in translastion fees and $45,570,534 in court transcription fees following Slashdot effect.

I'd link to that other news, but I can't afford to.

Re:An unofficial...

[Kiryat Malachi]

Is it wrong that the first thing I saw is that the first number is leetspeak for LEETASS and the second one is ASSTOSEA?

Am I reading this right?

[Ironsides]

From the judgment:

According to the Copyright Act Section 54, subsection two, anyone acting in contribution of other persons' copyright infringement like illegal publication, could be liable for punishment. The criminal offence Bruvik has contributed to would be the public performance of the files uploaded by others. In the view of the Court, the actus reus of uploading files was terminated when the music itself was made accessible. The criminal offence, as such, was thereby terminated the moment the music was published on the Internet. The actus reus is not formulated as a static delict. The Court of Appeal cannot see that the uploader, after publication of the music on the Internet, is committing a new criminal offence. The Court finds it hard to say that the music is performed publicly anew each time a transfer is conducted by persons who knew the address or clicked on a link on another site and they initiate the transfer of the files from the site of the uploader and download to their own computers.

When the main action is terminated before Bruvik published his links to the music files, one lacks the necessary causal link between his actions and the main action. The actions of Bruvik cannot be regarded as contribution to such acts.

Bruvik did, however, contribute, by publishing his links, to playing or copying the music files from the uploader's web page to his own computer. But this must be regarded as contribution to the action of the downloader. Such downloads for private use is not illegal, and cannot justify a claim for damages according to the requirements in the Copyright Act Section 55.

Does the say that Downloading of Copyrighted Material is perfectly legal but Uploading is not? Continuing on the case, wouldn't this also make Google liable for linking to sites that host illegal MP3s?

Re:Am I reading this right?

[jxyama]

>Continuing on the case, wouldn't this also make Google liable for linking to sites that host illegal MP3s?

i don't think so. google is a general search - even if sites with illegal mp3s come up, it's not deliberate, with "malicious" intent. by having a linked page for specifically for music, i don't think there's much debate on what the intent of the page was.

a bad analogy, perhaps, but if a guy publishes a list of contacts for pedophiles to identify families with children, i think thats' a crime. general purpose telephone book that could be mined by users to accomplish the same thing isn't liable the same way, no?

Re:Am I reading this right?

[tyldis]

Right on the spot. The intent is everything in this case. And you interpreted the law correctly, it is not an offence to download, but it is an offence to upload.

Re:Am I reading this right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Norwegians are allowed to make copies of just about anything except software for personal use. For the time being, anyway.

Norwegian law

[halftrack]

For those wondering; the following was still true the last time I checked:

- It's legal to aquire publically avaiable copies og music, paintings etc. (IIRC not software) for personal use. This makes downloading music from any site (or network) legal. However this law is probably going to change so that the source must be legal, (as in copyright holder agrees to publication (like radio or TV.))
- It's legal to copy music from family and _close_ friends. Thus uploading to a P2P network is illegal.
- It's also legal to reverse engineer legally aquired software, alter its contents, and learn from your findings.

Some of these things may change (INFOSOC??) and som things may already have change so anyone with any updated information are welcome to correct me.

Re:Norwegian law

[Anonymous Coward]

What continent do you live on? Antartica?

Re:Norwegian law

[l3v1]

You know, there are other places out there besides US and freezing hell.

Re:Norwegian law

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually here in Germany it is not legal to download Music or other copyrighted works from "clearly illegal sources".

We will find out what an "clearly illegal source" is after the first lawsuit.

Re:Norwegian law

[Neofilth]

This was written;

"He linked to the files knowing they were illegal, and in doing so provided a mechanism for others to download them. He was facilitating copyright infringement."

No that is incorrect as a general observation;

He canot be guilty of copyright infringement himself because he did not have control of the intellectual property,(was not himself engaged in distrubution of the work in question) as to distribute it in the public domain.. What he might be guilty of is "CONSPIRACY" to commit copyright infringement.

There are some factors here that need to be established to constitute "conspiracy to commit copyright infringement";

1. His intent did he know the material was copyrighted he was linking to?

2 Public domain vs. private domain "fair use";

obviously he or the sites he was linking to can claim fair use because the very posting of links in a public domain can cause the copyright holder to lose control of marketing and distribution..

However if one had an ftp site that is not advertised, "marketed" and is in the private domain, this can be considered "fair use" to "share with friends for non commercial use. i.e, entertainment, testing, and/or educational use..

Take a look at the so called "warez" private ftp servers that have been raided. Notice the defendants in all cases PLEA BARGAIN.. The Governemts want that because fair use can be challenged in these cases.

I think most people do not understand the difference between fair use and copyright infringment..

In today's world, the copyright exists soley to control how the work is distributed IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.. I.E HOW MONEY WILL BE MADE from the work.

Torrent seeders WHO PUBICALLY ANNOUNCE a copyrighted TORRENT FILE(s) cannot claim fair use because the very fact that they "publically" announce distribution, puts them as such, "public distributors"

However I beleive private non advertised ftp servers, which limit a user base to "known people" falls in the private domain and I encourage so called "top scene guys" who might get busted to actively find an attorney who understands this arguement and can make the proper analogy therof.

Re:Norwegian law

[dapyx]

Some of these things may change (INFOSOC??)

It's spelled INGSOC. ;-)

Re:Norwegian law

[LeneJ]

Although, Hell is actually in Norway. And it freezes over on a regular basis...

Re:Norwegian law

[LeneJ]

- It's legal to copy music from family and _close_ friends. Thus uploading to a P2P network is illegal.

I was mighty surprised when I moved to the UK and discovered that over there, they are not allowed to do this. In fact, they are not allowed to backup any music from a CD. I discovered this after I had burnt a CD to put in my car (no originals, please, they steal like mad).

Wow!

[theVP]

So....are they gonna tackle Google soon, too? I mean, they link to pages that link to files, so why the hell not? Let's just throw common sense right out the window.....

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong tense. It went out the window last November.

How to avoid lawyers with links...

[Bret540]

Russian Websites 1) Claim no responsibility for the link. Point out that you in no way control whatever content is linked to. 2) Claim the link was generated using a search engine, and not hardcoded in anyway so again, (1) you are not responsible for said link. 3) Claim that if anyone knows of any copyright violating links that are appearing on your site, insist they contact you so you can take them down. 4)... 5) Profit!

Time to sue GOOGLE

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet GOOGLE links to a lot of illegal music downloads. If this kid owes $15k for 170 songs, imagine what they could bilk... er, recover from a site which links millions of pages?

Re:Time to sue GOOGLE

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between willful conduct and a general carrier. You can't sue the phone company becuse someone uses a phone to arrange a hit. You (rightfully!) charge the people involved in actually comitting a crime.

Not that I'd expect anyone on slashdot to be rational enough to reaize this though.

Re:Time to sue GOOGLE

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's image search is a willful cache of illegal images. Why haven't they been busted for that either?

Double dipping?

[Anita Coney]

Let's say that the student finds the money and pays off the music industry. What's going to stop the industry from going after the source of those MP3 files?!

On one hand, it would seem odd that the source of the files are off the hook. On the other hand, it would seem unfair that the industry could double dip and get more than it lost.

Re:Double dipping?

[Ironsides]

Google: Treble Damages

Awarding more than has been lost is nothing new. It used in cases for willfull commision of a crime and to discourage others from commiting the offence.

Re:Double dipping?

[Anita Coney]

You're right, certain statutes allow for treble damages against one party. But if treble damages were awarded in this case, they would have been awarded against the student. Since treble damages were not awarded against the student, they are obviously not relevant to this case.

Usually when there is a loss with co-conspirators charged, they all jointly and severally have to pay the damages. My question was what will happen if the student pays it all, then charges are brought against the other perpetrators. Either possibility just doesn't seem fair.

His name and mirror to old site...

[The Hobo]

According to some old mirrors of his site, his name was Frank Bruvik. Also you can try to make out the mirrors, the AP article says:

The Napster.no site provided links to music files in the MP3 format that could be downloaded for free. The site was online between August and November 2001, and provided links to about 170 free music files on servers outside Norway, the ruling said.

He didn't publish

[Anonymous Coward]

In a summary of its ruling, the supreme court said the music was clearly published in violation of copyright law.

But he wasn't the one publishing the music!

I think your base premise is wrong

[nightsweat]

I don't think telling people that the kids waving the cars in on the West side of Chicago near Madison and Ashland are selling crack is illegal.

Re:I think your base premise is wrong

[RmanB17499]

I think that one is a generalization: oh you can buy some LSD near the tracks...at night. but providing a dealer's name, address, and cell phone would be different.

Re:I think your base premise is wrong

[Dun Malg]

I think that one is a generalization: oh you can buy some LSD near the tracks...at night. but providing a dealer's name, address, and cell phone would be different.

I'm curious under what statute you think someone can be prosecuted under for announcing the name, address, and phone of a drug dealer. Even if such a statute were to exist, it would rely heavily upon demonstrated intent. It would not, for example, immediately render someone an "accomplice", or make them guilty of some byzantine interpretation of "aiding and abetting", if they walked into a public place and said "Joe Smith at 123 Main is a filthy drug pusher! call him at 555-1212 and tell him what we good people think of that!" Because there are so many possible intentions behind the passing of such information, there cannot be a law declaring all such utterances illegal. As I've stated elsewhere, feel free to debate how this might show intent, but quit trying to argue the ridiculous notion that there is some level of detail beyond which such speech is always a violation of law.

Link to terror.com?

[CTO1]

Does this mean if I post a link to terror.com on my site the Homeland Security folks will bust through my front door and put me on a one way flight to Cuba?

Re:Link to terror.com?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try it and see!

Be sure to post back here from Levenworth (or Cuba) about the results of the experiment please.

They only catch the dumb ones

[twigles]

Seriously, hosting a page full of links to copyrighted mp3s? Cmon, what did he think was going to happen? The community would hail him as a hero and the RIAA cartel would cower in fear?

Do what you will with your music, and if it's blatantly or borderline illegal then shut up about it. You'll be fine.

Re:They only catch the dumb ones

[Mongo222]

The key word here is "link", he didn't rip the songs, convert them to mp3, or host them. What he didn't isn't, or at leat shouldn't be, illegal. It's the people hosting the riping and hosting that broke the law. This is like saying to someone, "Hay I hear they are selling pot down on First and Lake St." and getting arrested for it. Taking about someone else doing a crime, isn't a crime.

Re:They only catch the dumb ones

[Roguelazer]

But you could get arrested if you said that, at least if you were encouraging the use of said product. I think that's called Facilitating or some whatnot like that. For example, if a police officer was trying to do some sort of a sting operation and asked you where he could buy some good pot, then you told him "go ask the guy down the street", you could get in -very- big trouble.

Not that I agree with it. But it is what it is...

Re:They only catch the dumb ones

[twigles]

But laws and lawyers are thinking on a finer-grained level than that. He didn't just talk about it, he *helped* people break the law. If you, out of the goodness of your heart, told someone about a guy selling pot in the building behind you and proceeded to negotiate the price, quality and other logistics of the deal without touching any drugs or money then you are an accomplice. To say otherwise is to claim that the mafia doesn't exist.

He didn't mention in passing that places had mp3s like, "Hey, they have some music for dl over and acme.com, go check it out". This guy did actual legwork. I don't like what they did, but he *really* had to see this coming.

Re:They only catch the dumb ones

[Scroatzilla]

Speaking only to the Internet/Web portion of this issue, anyone can change anything on the web at any time. So any URL you link to today could change tomorrow into an illegally obtained, copyrighted thing; or even kiddie porn. Imagine a year from now you are all of a sudden brought up on child pornography charges because you thought you were linking to teletubbies or something!

So, this makes it a huge liability to link to ANYTHING ANYWHERE... just when you thought the world was shrinking.

Re:They only catch the dumb ones

[fuzzybunny]

If you want whores, guns, gambling and drugs, go to borough XYZ in New York or Arr. xyz in Paris or whatever. If you want Heroin, go to Amsterdam and look for N. African looking guys to approach you (they will if you stand around long enough.)

Could I be more specific? Probably, if I asked around a bit. Would I be committing a crime? No. I would not. I would be exercising my right to free speech & expression. Period.

If I say "they have some music for dl over at acme.com", I am likewise not committing a crime, I don't care which legal statutes you judge it under. I see your point, but I'm sorry, this simply holds no water. There's no issue of complicity at all; you are not involved in he actual transfer of illegal information, nor are you aiding and abetting an illegal act any more than if you publish a manual on how to build a pipe bomb (Poor Man's James Bond, I forget the publisher.)

Re:They only catch the dumb ones

[Anonymous Coward]

That may happen once, or twice, but a page full of links all changing from truly free to (C) works mere seconds before you got raided? Unlikely in the least.

OTOH if you had a page full of links to truly free, legal downloads and ONE of them was accidentally linked to a (C) work, then it's an easy argument to say that you didn't know about it.

Your argument does have some general merit, links to websites who have their names stolen by squatters or DNS pollution can cause this kind of problem, but it really doesn't apply to this case in anyway. In those cases, it's pretty easy to show that the link was good at one time till it was stolen.

Re:They only catch the dumb ones

[twigles]

Again, it is the legwork portion of the equation that got him in trouble. You are just talking, writing, whatever. You aren't going out of your way to deliberately facilitate an illegal action. Whether or not the action should be illegal is irrelavent.

"If I say "they have some music for dl over at acme.com", I am likewise not committing a crime, I don't care which legal statutes you judge it under."

That's right, in fact it was exactly my point. Not sure what the contention is there.

"this simply holds no water"

Actually if you re-read the title of the article then you might notice that it does. Free speech is not the right to say anything you want anytime you want, we learn this in junior high school. Slow down in your rush to argue and think this all through, and if you have a counter-arguement then fine, I'm all ears. At the very least don't quote my own arguments back to me.

Re:They only catch the dumb ones

[RmanB17499]

What makes you think you can publish information specifically on how to steal someone else' property? That does make you a responsible party since there's two separate tracks and we can reason it out separately. The civil suit side which the RIAA/MPAA care about...You have no legal right to aid in or support the theft of their property. The criminal side -- which didn't occur in this case you could argue a free speech right: since the 1st amendment protects you from the government and hence criminal sanctions. But this freedom doesn't apply to the situation above.

Re:Maybe he should move to China

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news:
- bank robber sued for robbing bank
- Linux not ready for the desktop
- nights are dark
- grass is green

It's getting harder for these thieves to steal our good American music and movies.

If they were links to Norway's Yngwie ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Malmesteen mp3's, then the guy should have been more severely punished (for crimes against humanity).

Re:If they were links to Norway's Yngwie ...

[hfarberg]

But wait.

Yngwie Malmsteen is not from Norway. He is from Sweden (Same peninsula, different country). And besides, he made great music!

Re:If they were links to Norway's Yngwie ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were links to Norway's Yngwie Malmesteen mp3's, then the guy should have been more severely punished (for crimes against humanity).

That wanker is Swedish not Norwegian.

Re:If they were links to Norway's Yngwie ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That wanker is Swedish not Norwegian

Forgive me, I'm an American.

Re:If they were links to Norway's Yngwie ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yngwie Malmsteen is not from Norway. He is from Sweden (Same peninsula, different country).

Oops! Sorry, I used to know that. I think that listening to his "music" in my teens dulled my senses. OK, "Scandinavia's Yngwie Malmsteen".

And besides, he made great music!

I can see that English is not your native tongue. Let me help - what you surely meant to say was "And besides, his music is grating!"

Finally, Shut-up, bloody Viking! ;-)

Re:If they were links to Norway's Yngwie ...

[ScentCone]

All true Scandinavian music, known in the native Laplander dialects as "abba," originates in Sweden. Under later Lutheran influences, combined with the Lutefiskian migration from neighboring Norway during the early Volvo period, the Malmsteenites introduced the foreign custom of De Musikal, presided over by The Dancing Queen.

Re:If they were links to Norway's Yngwie ...

[Anonymous Coward]

America is the capital of Norway isn't it ?

Hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the Copyright Act Section 54, subsection two, anyone acting in contribution of other persons' copyright infringement like illegal publication, could be liable for punishment.

I wonder what things would be like if we applied the same standard of "contribution" to people being "in contribution" of, say, treason, or "terrorism".

Re:Hmm.

[Ironsides]

You mean like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1490663.stm ?

Who Won Now?

[BlueMonk]

Did I RTFA a little too quickly? I got to the end of the translated findings and saw that the court found in favor of Bruvik, the one responsible for posting the links. Was this overturning the original decision to the contrary or what?

Re:Who Won Now?

[BlueMonk]

Oh wait, I think I get it now. The translation (as the summary states) was from an earlier decision in the case -- from the court of appeals. But now the supreme court has overturned the appeals court's decision, agreeing with the initial decision before the appeal... right?

Who defines "close?"

[localroger]

It's legal to copy music from family and _close_ friends.

This is just begging to be abused. How "close" is close enough? Did we have to go to school together? My coworkers? The customer I see once a year? Someone I just met in a bar? The random stranger who also happened to have an IPod in the park?

This is why the American Bill of Rights is a Good Idea. You don't realize just how important it is until something this brain-numbingly stupid reminds you.

Re:Who defines "close?"

[Anonymous Coward]

To answer your query: The courts decide. That's what courts do.

Duh.

Re:Who defines "close?"

[Pofy]

>This is just begging to be abused. How "close" is
>close enough?

That is of course an issue for the courts to decide what is close and what is not (not sure what terminology the law uses exactly in Norway though). In Sweden the law is the same and courts have basically set what is considered ok and what is not, your class mates for example are OK, so is coworkers, someone you just met in the bar is not. Also note, that at least in Sweden (and probably Norway too), in addition to being family or close friends, you can only do "a few" copies. This has been interpreted to be for sure not more than 10, possibly a bit less (I can't recall exactly or if there is such a precise number but the consensus is that it is in that region). So you can't get 50 friends together and give compies to all of them no mater how close friends they are.

Re:Who defines "close?"

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no such limitation in norwegian laws. You're allowed to make copies for personal use, period.

You may not be allowed to publish such material, though, but sharing your stuff with _one_ complete stranger hardly counts as publishing?

Re:Who defines "close?"

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no such limitation in norwegian laws. You're allowed to make copies for personal use, period.
You may not be allowed to publish such material, though, but sharing your stuff with _one_ complete stranger hardly counts as publishing?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

No, you mustn't tell!

[i41Overlord]

I mean, doesn't it make it easier for law enforcement to go get the bad guys when someone points them out?

If merely pointing out where to get warez is illegal, then you must not tell anybody.

I'm sure the cops will want you to tell them, but what if the "cop" isn't really a cop? Then you've broke the law by telling someone where to get warez.

Therefore you must not tell anyone, just to be safe.

Association of Guilt

[Doc Ruby]

Next up: the Norwegian phone company gets fined for publishing ticket scalper phone#s in their Yellow Pages.

Dear Music Industry...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to report suspected pirated music, but would be sued out of existence if I provided you links to where it can be found. My lawyer has advised me to tell only that there might be some on the internet.

[OT] Re:Insanity

[Anonymous Coward]

This is way offtopic, so am posting anonymous, but don't you think that if your friend could have gotten a clean supply of a regulated known dosage, that he might still be alive today? Wouldn't that mean that it is the laws, and not the drugs that killed your friend?

Re:[OT] Re:Insanity

[Anonymous Coward]

Most crack and cocaine users buy a supply of the drugs and "self medicate" their own dossage. So no, even if had gotten a clean supply in a known dossage, he still would have ODd. Saying that seems akin to saying that people will eat less at McDonalds since McDonalds eliminated the Super Size. People instead will just buy twice as much (say two larges/two doses). So no, the laws didn't kill him the drugs did.

To even go along with the legal drugs that are prescribed, I have another friend (I know all sorts of messed up people) who is addicted to Ridalin. All the pills he takes are "clean" and in a "known dossage" (they're on the pill/bottle). But he is still addicted to them and gets them anyway he can. WOuldn't be surprised if he ends up ODing one of these days as well.

Sorry, but there is no way you can convince me after all I have seen that laws declaring these drugs illegal killed him, nor that they are "bad". Personally, I think their only problem is that the punishments are not harsh enough. In their cases, I consider "Life" to light. --Ironsides

Citizen, you are in error!

[Anonymous Coward]

By synopcizing that episode you have violated Diznee's copyright!

Please report immediately to the nearest termination center.

How can "free" cost $15K ???

[Jerry]

If the links ARE to free music downloads then the computation which shows a $15K loss by the music industry is NEW MATH indeed.

Re:How can "free" cost $15K ???

[Anonymous Coward]

They were only free to people that are theives, much like your car is "free" to the person stealing it. Or like the long term airport parking lot is a car dealership for "free" cars, you only need a screwdriver to drive one off the lot.

The songs were in fact (C) works.

Yes, you read it too quickly

[texasfight]

That transcript is from the Appeals Court.

First court ruled for plaintiff

Appeals Court ruled for defendent

Supreme Court ruled for plaintiff

The actual cost of the fee isn't that much

[lune tns]

After doing some quick calculations, the actual amount he's being fined is 100,170,- (NOK).

This is comparable to a typical down payment for a Oslo apartment, which many students actually buy while still in college.

Minimum wage in Norway is equal to about $12.70/hr USD, and goes up by age (among other factors), so a 25-year old would be making a minimum of $19.84/hr USD.

Re:The actual cost of the fee isn't that much

[Anonymous Coward]

A what payment? Buying a sizeable apartment in Oslo is going to cost you at least 1 000 000 NOK.

The fine was 100 000 NOK. The USD amount was obviously rounded off.

Norway has no minimum wage, although you get about 80 000 NOK per year if you have no job.

Re:The actual cost of the fee isn't that much

[kcbrown]

Minimum wage in Norway is equal to about $12.70/hr USD, and goes up by age (among other factors), so a 25-year old would be making a minimum of $19.84/hr USD.

$19.84? Man, if this isn't a backhanded reference to our new Norwegian information-control overlords, I don't know what is. :-)

Re:The actual cost of the fee isn't that much

[CAIMLAS]

Damn, talk about sensible "mininum wage" laws. Paying a 45-year-old that just lost his job $5.25 (as is often the case in the US) for food prep work is uncivilized.

But then, I think most fast food places are fairly uncivilized in general.

Re:The actual cost of the fee isn't that much

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. I've been working 2 years fulltime in Norway. Have bought a car for 50000 cash, but otherwise living very frugally, and have only now been able to save 100000 NOK. Some rich students there.

Re:The actual cost of the fee isn't that much

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, there is no minimum wage in Norway, although the newspapers will from time to time make a huge cry if someone makes less than the amount you mentioned.

Re:The actual cost of the fee isn't that much

[HeghmoH]

Of course, it'll just make him even less competitive than the 16-year-old kid who's trying for the same job, and who needs the money much less in the end.

Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[reallocate]

Not sad, unless you like helping criminals.

He linked to illegally copied files. That means he told people where the illegal files were and enabled them to acquire them.

Except for the technology, this is equivalent to knowing where stolen property is being sold, directing traffic to it, and helping people carry away their new purchases.

The problem isn't the technology or the Internet of the freedom to use it. It is the wilingness of a lot of people to break the law.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[Anonymous Coward]

So how about linking to google's search results to scientology, which happen to include a link to operation clam bake. A site which contains copyrighted materials from the CoS. Am I an evil crook? What if an American web host to a Canadian customer (where I'm told they can share files), is linking to files on a korean host for other canadian users? Is he breaking the law? Well no, this is all a civil issue. If this was black and white it would be a lot easier. The most obvious solution is to just go after the person distibuting the files.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[Anonymous Coward]

More like being equivalent to knowing where the stolen property is and directing traffic to it.

Although the issue of stolen is debatable given that this represents copyright infringement NOT THEFT!

Whether either of these activities is RIGHT or WRONG is yet another issue. Legal != RIGHT. However, Legal is generally associated with MIGHT, so keep that in mind children.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[Saeger]

Thanks again for reminding me why you're on my /. Foe list, you corporate control-freak lawyer-wannabe "property"-ignorant tool. btw, you can buy pot at the park, and bit-for-bit DVDs any ChinaTown near you.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[reallocate]

Making unauthorized copies of copyrighted material is illegal. Hosting that material on a server in order to allow others to make additional illegal copies is illegal. Running a web site with links pointing to illegally copied material is as much of a crime -- civil or criminal, it makes no difference -- as selling maps pointing to counterfeit currency and fake Rolexes.

Of course, thet should go after the people distributing the files, but that includes anyone linking to them, not just the guy running the server that hosts the files.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[reallocate]

>> Legal is generally associated with MIGHT...

Last I knew, people could vote in Scandanavian countries.

But, I assume you're one of the mindless and indoctrinated.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[reallocate]

So, sounds like you think the best way to change laws is to violate them?

Why should those of use who disgree with that allow you to break the law with impunity?

If you want the law to be different, get busy and talk the rest of us into agreeing with you. Start with cogent arguments, not kneejerk insults and unwarranted assumptions.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[a11]

I must say I concur with other replies to this. you are a fucking idiot. people like you don't have an understanding of wrong and right. people like you always have to have the last word - that's why you replied to all child posts - even if you had nothing to say.

as far as your analogy - you go too far. Linking to an illegal file is, like another poster said, ONLY telling people where stolen property is.

Now, if someone asks me for directions to the crackhouse - I can legally give them directions. If someone asks me where to buy stolen goods - I can legally tell them where to buy copies of DVDs. If an old man in a tan trench coat asks me where the girlscouts meet - I can legally tell him. I can even tell an angry man what bus to take to the gun store.

I can, in fact, say whatever the fuck I want. This is called freedom of speech, and it's what everyone here is talking about, you retarded fuck. The post is not talking about helping people carry away stolen goods, you retarded fuck. The post is only talking about freedom of speech. you retarded fuck.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sad, unless you like helping criminals.

The problem isn't the technology or the Internet of the freedom to use it. It is the wilingness of a lot of people to break the law.

If people like you -- and there have been an awful lot of them -- got their way throughout history, women wouldn't have rights and Africans and Chinese would be slaves. Actually maybe they wouldn't be, since America would be a colony of England.

The law is not Absolute Truth. Get it through your thick skull.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[jc42]

He linked to illegally copied files. That means he told people where the illegal files were and enabled them to acquire them.

This is why this case should be classified as a case of the MPAA shooting at their own foot.

Think about it a bit. Someone has provided links to to infringing files. The copyright owner (actually their agent) doesn't go after the site with the copyrighted files; they go after the site that has tipped them off to the infringement.

Lesson: The MPAA doesn't want you to tell them about copyright infringement. If you find such files, you shouldn't put a list of them in a place that the MPAA can easily find. You should just keep quiet. Maybe you can pass the links around to friends in email. But you shouldn't make it easy for the MPAA and their lawyers about the infringement.

Sounds like really foolish policy on the MPAA's part, to me. What sort of idiot would sue someone who tipped them off like this?

Next we'll hear that libraries are being sued by publishers for making their online "card catalogs" available to the public.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[reallocate]

A link isn't speech.

You can say whatever you want. If what you say is an attempt to aid and abet a crime, you've used your right to speak freely to commit a crime.

Even spoiled /. brats like you ought to be able to understand that free speech isn't a defense when the speech is criminal. But, hey, with folks lke you around, at least the right people will win.

Linking to a file is not merely speech. The link does more than identify a file's location, it enables anyone to make an additional illegal copy. Links to files are deliberately created to allow other people to acquire those files.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[reallocate]

Beats me what "Absolute Truth" is. I don't care. If you think your views of "Absolute Truth" is enoigh to get this guy off the hook, why don't you defend him?

The law is the law, and truth is something else.

Women should be able to exercise their right, no one should be held in slavery, and no one should be allowed to steal. This guy helped others steal, as does anyone else who links to an illegally copied file. The fact that you believe you ought to be able to copy whatever you want -- to steal -- is of no interest to me.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[a11]

ooooh, you called me a brat. hey, retarded fuck, ever check out distributed solutions? freenet? exeem? how long has gnutella been around? Brats won the war a long time ago.

your original argument was flawed, as can be seen in my original reply. You now make another flawed argument. Enabling anyone to make a copy? A link is a piece of text with the location of the file on SOMEONE ELSE's server. Yes, telling someone enables them to make a copy. Making a copy is illegal, like eating live babies. Telling someone where they sell live babies and parsley is not. when the speech is criminal Dog, you're a fucking idiot.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[laughingcoyote]

Back under the bridge, troll.

To start with, this guy didn't even -post- the links. What he did was more akin to putting up a bulletin board in a public place, on which anyone could post, and when someone posted something which -might be- illegal (please note that the legality of BitTorrent, edonkey, etc. sites are still very much a grey area, they don't host -content-), he was busted because he put up the board.

Have a look here. Well look at that, I just linked to a site which contains a program which contains illegal content. Am I a criminal for that?

But wait, that's not even the question. Here's what it IS: Are the people who run Slashdot liable for running a public board to which anyone can post, on which someone did post, a link to a site which contains a program which can be used to find copyrighted files?

Just to what degree of ridiculousness do you think this whole thing should be taken? You already refer to copyright infringement as "theft", when the two are not equivalent. Theft involves depriving someone else of real property in order that you might use it yourself-i.e., if I break into and hotwire your car, I have stolen it. Copyright infringement involves making a copy without permission-i.e., if I copy your post on another site, I have infringed your copyright to it. But I'd like to hear you defend that I've "stolen" it.

Come back when you have a cogent argument that copyright is -good- for anyone but the oligopoly that makes sickening amounts of money from it. Copyright used to be defensible under the "incentive to disseminate the work" rationale-and still is, FOR THOSE WORKS FOR WHICH THERE IS A NECESSARY COST of distribution. For others, however, no incentive is needed to disseminate-in fact, people will continue to distribute even given PENALTIES for doing so. Copyright was NEVER intended to guarantee corporate profits.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"directing traffic" is close...but it is more passive than active

"helping people carry it away" is just imaginative fiction; might as well say "help them carry it away, kill the owner, desecrate the remains, then make soup from the carcas", 'cause if you are going to fabricate a strawman, might as well *really* fabricate.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[iminplaya]

Start with cogent arguments...

If that ever wins an election, our problems will be solved.

So, sounds like you think the best way to change laws is to violate them?

Sometimes it's the only way. Bad law needs to be made unenforcable. In case you haven't noticed, too many laws aren't based on cogent arguments. They're simply bought and sold like company stocks. We've all seen entire groups being disenfranchised by the law and by the political system in general, who because they are a minority, they have no hope of ever changing the law with "legal" means. A system that lets 51% of the people tell the other 49% how to live is unsustainable over the long run. Soon it will be impossible to step outside the house without fear of trespassing on someone else's property(a posible intention of ALL property law). The law must change, and if we have to violate it to bring about that change in reasonable time, then that's what must be done.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[iminplaya]

Talking to you about copyright is like talking to a radical zionist or islamist about the Middle East. Can't get a logical response out of either one of you. Talk about the law when you have something to base it on. Demanding absolute obedience without question, without exception is not the way, believe me. To repeat: Unless I steal your personal copy, I have stolen nothing. I have only re-enforced my rights to do with my copy as I see fit.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[reallocate]

Bad law is a matter of opinion. And, in a democracy, 51% is enough to call the shots. If you think your opinion is so wonderful, it shouldn't take much to convince a few of you fellows.

If you have the guts to violate a law you think is wrong, fine. But please stop whining when you get arrested. The rest of us don't agree with you.

In the end, what's mine is mine. Call it property if you will, but it doesn't belong to you.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[reallocate]

Nonsense.

When I make or write something, I own all right inherent in it, including the exclusive right to profit and benefit from copying and distributing that creation.

If you think you otherwise, please explain. Otherwise, it is impossible ofr you to acquire those rights unless they come from me.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[iminplaya]

After all this discussion I've decided that there are no such things as inherent rights at all. ALL rights come out of the end of a gun. It takes a gun to enforce rights and to take them away. If there were any rights, they would be impossible to remove, no matter how powerful the weapon. You cannot talk about inherent rights if they can be taken away by 51% of the voters. Either they're inherent and impossible to take away or they have to be protected with a weapon, which would mean they're not so inherent. Right now the guns support your copyrights. Tomorrow it could all change. Are you going to go with the flow, or are you going to pick up a gun in an attempt to enforce your rights? What are you going to do when that 51% realizes the corruption of IP and decides you have no rights over other people's posessions? It IS possible, though not probable at this time. You do understand that all humans are living under the rule of might makes right(it's the ONLY premise on which anyone can base their rights...and laws), and if the anti-copyright'ers ever become mightier than the pro-copyright'ers, then all your mystical, magical rights disappear, "inherent" or otherwise. That you're presently on the winning side doesn't make you right. It just puts you in agreement with the mighty.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[iminplaya]

In the end, what's mine is mine.

Exactly my point. What you are doing is claiming that what's mine is yours also. It doesn't work that way withour using coercion or force.

Call it property if you will, but it doesn't belong to you.

If I acqire an physical object without force and with the consent of the person I acquired it from, it most certainly DOES belong to me, no matter what the object consists of. Only with a signed contract could it be otherwise. When I acquire something, all strings are cut. I own it. I can do what I want with it. And if need be, I just might pick up a gun to protect my desire to do with MY posessions as I please, seeing as that you are so willing to use a gun(or pay someone else to) to stop me. 51% may call the shots, but it's been shown more than once that the majority can make mistakes. Sometimes the minority needs to remind them of that... with a little "persuasion" if necessary. Don't expect them to just lie down and enjoy it.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[reallocate]

You're not using the language properly.

No one can "remove" or "take away" rights. They can prevent the exercise of rights, by force, fear, etc.. But the rights don't go away. They are still there, inherent in everyone, just as they've always been.

The primary questions I've asked of anti-copyright adherents are these: If I make something, do I not own it? If I own it, do I not own every potential benefit that might be derived from the use, reproduction, etc., of my creation? If you answer "no" to either of these questions, please offer your rationale. I see no other way for ownership and the right to benefit from that ownership to be acquired by anyone else unless I give it to them.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[reallocate]

Possession, of a phyical object or of the right inherent in the ownership of that object, is a simple fact, buttressed by the law when needed. Force and coercion have nothing to do with it. (Don't confuse the police power of a democratic state, used to thwart illegal acquisitions via force or coercion, with simple possession.)

If you buy a copy a book I've marketed via a publisher, you've bought a legal copy of that book. You have not bought the right to make and distribute additional copies of that book. Why? Because I was the original and exclusive holder of that right and I sold (licensed) that right to a publisher. You have no way to legally acquire the right to copy and distribute that book if either I or its publisher don't won't to sell that right to you.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[iminplaya]

You own the copy that you possess, nothing more. Otherwise it's like telling a person he is not allowed to plant, grow, and sell the seeds from the vegetables I may have sold him. He would have to buy from me because I'm the only one that's allowed to distribute the goods I make. He has no right to reproduce the vegetables from my seeds without my explicit consent. If I were part of the VGAA(Vegetable Growers Association of America) I would insure that only members of the group were allowed to distribute vegetables at all. I would demand a seed tax to cover the losses incurred by pirate growers. On another note, you have still completely failed to prove the opposite. Without copyright law or a contract, you absolutely no rights or attachments to anything you don't possess physically. Your cliams are based entirely on copyright law. The rights that you speak of are pure fantasy. Unfornately the consequences of your opinion and resulting actions are not, and the whole world(except the robber barons) is poorer for it.

I see no other way for ownership and the right to benefit from that ownership to be acquired by anyone else...

In your copyright induced fantasy world, you never will.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[iminplaya]

Don't confuse the police power of a democratic state, used to thwart illegal acquisitions via force or coercion, with simple possession

Like with the evil weed? Again you insist on clinging to this bizaare concept of inherent rights. It has everything to do with force, coercion, AND fraud. I suppose you consider any gov't you happen to agree with a "democratic state". Yet another fantasy. There is no such thing. All governments represent the highest bidder or the mightiest warrior. Even the good ol' USA. As it turns out, you're simply repeating your opinion, nothing more. You have yet to show the existance of these rights except through copyright law. Your rights are simply what 51% of the people say they are. That you are inside that majority makes no difference. It just makes your life more convenient.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[reallocate]

You're beyond hope. I would think that our inherent rights would be self-evident. We have our rights ay birth, by virture of that birth. If, as you assert, our rights come from whatever majority happens to exist at a given moment, then how can you explain how those people got their right, or, in fact, the right to confer and deny our rights? Answer: you can't.

As for what constitutues a democratic government, it is one that is created by free and open elections. It is not one in which everyone gets to do exactly as they wish.

If you have serious arguments, present them. Otherwise, stop trolling.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[reallocate]

You're vegetable argument makes sense only if my book develops seeds that develop into new, different, books. Last I knew that doesn't happen.

No one can own, no one has rights, to anything that doesn't exist. If I create something, I won it, and it is impossible for anyone else to own it. IF you disagree, please explain the mechanism by which ownership can be transferred.

Ownership includes all rights inherent in an object. You're arguing that others, with no role in the creation of an object and with no awareness that it exists, have rights to it that its creator does not have. Please explain.

I.e., if I write a book, how do you come to acquire the right to benefit from it, and, therefore, to harm me? Explain.

If you're an ideological open-source zealot who believes in the socialist ownership of everything by everyone, come out of your closet and say so
.
Jow would you explain how you can own something that hasn't existed previously? You can't, because you're simply spouting emotional slogans pandered about by the emotionally juvenile. It's just an attempt to justify theft by a bunch of spoiled, antisocial misfits.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[iminplaya]

...then how can you explain how those people got their right,...

Uuuhhh...they organized?? They collaborated? they cooperated? Many ways to do that. They become stronger(mightier) than those who try to take their rights away. Pretty simple, huh? You can claim anything you want about inherent rights, but when the majority takes them away, how are you going to excerise them? If they take enough rights away, you better keep quiet about it lest you end up in prison. I'm not the one making spurious claims about inherent rights, so I'm not the one that's trolling here. You still have yet to explain how you have any rights to something you made yet don't possess(that wasn't forcibly taken from you). You have shown absolutely no basis for these inherent rights. You simply state that we have these rights without explaining where they come from, why they are so easy to take away, and why we should spend our lives fighting and killing people in order to keep them. If they were inherent, we wouldn't have to fight and kill to keep them. We wouldn't be constantly watching our backs to propect them. Only though superior strength can you protect and excerise your rights. Otherwise they simply don't exist any more than your arm would if it was cut off. Inherent rights mean squat when they are pulling your fingernails off, which seems to be perfectly okay to you if approved by that 51%. You can claim all the rights you want over something you made but no longer possess, and I can counter claim that you don't have any. The guy with the biggest gun is "right". You can continue believing all the stuff about that dog and pony show you call free and open elections if it makes you feel better.

I would think that our inherent rights would be self-evident.

Yes, and my "inherent" right to do with my possessions as I wish should also be self evident, but they aren't to you, so why should I believe what you say about inherent rights?

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[iminplaya]

If I create something, I won it, and it is impossible for anyone else to own it. IF you disagree, please explain the mechanism by which ownership can be transferred.

Redundant(on my part): If you don't possess it you can't own it. You can only claim ownership if you are the sole possessor. You don't possess my copy. You own nothing of mine in any way. It's just too simple for you to understand, evidently. Once the idea(book, song, whatever) is out, it's no longer yours to control in any way. There are no inherent rights if we can't agree on them. For a right to be inherent, it has to be repected absolutely unanimously. An inherent right requires universal recognition. To you, it only requires 51% approval, apparently. I'm very interested to see how you would react if that other 2% turns against you. You'll probably start whining about the tyrany of the majority. To me being first is nothing more than being first. That deserves no special entitlements. I personally look for the best, not the first, but due to IP law, the best might not ever come into existance, so I may have to live with the first, possibly inferior product until the IP rights expire. Then somebody might be able to make necessary improvements to make the product actually usable. There's a long history of exactly that. I get paid only while performing work. The same should apply to you. If you want to get paid to write books, take out a contract with somebody or a group that needs a book. To get paid to play music, get out and perform to an audience. Your copies are nothing more than a resume or a demo, advertisement for your next project. That some are willing to pay for them, does not give you the right to demand payment or deny me my right to copy and share them. That is a government provided "right"(to demand payment). There's nothing inherent about it.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[reallocate]

When I make something, I own it and I own every right inherent in that object. You own nothing. If I want to sell you one of the rights to that object while I retain ownership of the object, I can. If I want to sell you a copy of the object, while I retain the original and all rights to it, I can.

If I sell you a copy and do not also sell you the right to make and distribute additional copies, you do not own that right.

None of this has any dependence on copyright law. it is a simple recognition of reality.

To argue otherwise, as you seem to be attempting to do, is to argue that copyright and IP law, not reality, establish ownership. That implies that every book and work of art created prior to the existence of copyright legislation was not owned by its creator, but was owned, by some mystical process, by someone else. That makes no sense.

You argument also implies that, if copyright and IP legislation were abolished tomorrow, then every author and every musician would lose ownership of their unpublished material. That's also nonsense.

You are arguing that someone other than an object's creator can rightfully possess that object, and all rights inherent in it, without that ownership being transferred to them by the creator, voluntarily or involuntarily. That is simply impossible.

If I make something, a book, or my dinner, how is it possible that you have any rights to it in any fashion whatsover if I do not give you those rights?

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[iminplaya]

You have simply repeated yourself again without providing basis. You are stating you opinion, not any fact with any foundation.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[reallocate]

Wrong. I asked many question. You have answered none. Either cannot answer or you will not answer.

Besides, as I've stated, this is not an issue of fact. It is an issue of belief. If you are looking for the factual basis of rights and ownership, you are looking in vain.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[iminplaya]

Ah, belief. Then you believe in the wrong thing. You're telling me I should beleive in your god, religion, opinion, whatever. You don't need me for that. You have 51% of the voters on your side. You win...for now. You asking me to respond to your beliefs. I have. Your beliefs are mistaken. So there's your answer stated as simply as possible. If you don't need factual basis of rights and ownership to prove your point, why should I need any to prove mine? I have history on my side.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[reallocate]

I'm not telling you what to believe. I don't care what you believe.

I'm asking you questions and you're not answering them. All I see is bombast.

This is not a matter of belief: If I make something I own it and I own all rights inherent in it. That's a simple statement of fact that is based in reality, not legislation.

If you disagree, please explain how you can acquire something that belongs to me unless ownership is transfered to you. That's a basic question you've refused to answer. I can only assume that's because you cannot answer it. Neither can anyone else.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[iminplaya]

This is not a matter of belief: If I make something I own it and I own all rights inherent in it. That's a simple statement of fact that is based in reality, not legislation.

It's based on your interpretation of reality. Not everybody agrees with you. It it were real we would have no choice but to agree with you, but that's simply not the case. That the sky is blue is reality..provable, actual reality, universally accepted by all. So you are merely expressing a belief, not necessarily reality that's obvious to everybody. I'm telling you that my copy does not belong to you at all. That's reality. The gov't provides you the control that you desire over my possessions. If that wasn't so, then reality would prevail, and you would have to arrange a contract to get paid for your work...as it should be. IP law is not any recognition of rights. It's a method of control. If what you say is based on reality then you need to back it up with actual facts that prove it. You have failed that completely. Reality is visible, touchable, verifiable, etc. Your statements are merely abstract concepts. There's nothing necessarily real about them. They are your beliefs.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[reallocate]

More meaningless mumb jumbo. Don't take refuge in rantings about copyright and IP law. I've repeatedly said they are irrelevant to my argument. Or, are you wacky enough to believe that the concept of ownership did not exist prior to the passage of the first copyright law?

As I've said, over and over, what I make is mine, regardless if I make a book, a song, my dinner, or a clay pot.

You've claimed that you own what I make. You havn't explained how that happens.

My previous questions remains on the table, unanswered. If you know whay you are talking about, you'd be able to answer it.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[iminplaya]

You've claimed that you own what I make. You havn't explained how that happens.

You may have sold or given it to me. That's all I need. Your question has been answered...many times. You seem to have reading comprehension problems.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[reallocate]

Answer the question. Stop posturing.

How do you acquire the right to make and distribute copies if I own that right and don't sell or give it to you?

That's the question I've asked over and over again. You need to answer that question or explain how you can acquire that right in some other way.

You've avoided that fundamental point by resort to bombasy, verbiage and insult.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[iminplaya]

I repeat. I have answered your question. YOU DON'T OWN ANY RIGHTS BEYOND WHAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS PRODIDED YOU! What... are you deaf? There is no natural right to property. What you are claiming is a figment of your imagination. You are wrong. There's nothing else to say in this thread on the matter. Or is this one of those trick questions that's unanswerable because this fantasy you maintain doesn't exist?

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[reallocate]

If something does not exist, no one has any rights to it.

When I make something that did not exist before, I own it and all rights inherent in it. It is impossible for anyone else to possess either what I've made or have any rights to it at that point.

If your claim is correct -- that we get our rights from government -- then the government must have had rights in my creation before it existed. Rights cannot come form an entity that does not possess them. The only rights that government has are what the governed allow it. (Governments may restrict the exercise of rights, but that is not equivalent to eliminating those rights. E.g., a fascist government may arrest me for speaking, but I still retain my right to free speech.)

And, for the umpteenth time, the question of inherent in an object is not an issue of property. I can transfer ownership of my property without transfering the right to copy that property. Why? Because physical possession of an object and exclusive ownership of the rights inherent in that object are different things.

Your claim that there is no natural right to anything flies in the face of culture and civilization for the last few thousand years. It seems incumbent on you to justify this kind of specious assertion.

You have not done that because you have not demonstrated -- cannot -- the you can own what bring into existence if I do no transfer ownership to you.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[iminplaya]

I can transfer ownership of my property without transfering the right to copy that property. Why? Because physical possession of an object and exclusive ownership of the rights inherent in that object are different things.

Well, well, well,. You've finally done it. You've made a statement that's so whack, it has left me speechless. There's no way, that I know of, to respond to such complete nonsense. All I can say is, carry on.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[reallocate]

If you can't recognize the difference between owning something and the various rights associated with that object, you're useless.

Of course, it is obvious that you can't, because all you've done is argue that you, not me, own what I make.

Greedy nonsense from someone who seeks only to justify theft.

I have no patience with someone whose only recourse is to deny, rather than explain and demonstrate. If you believe what you've been arguing, you ought to be able to present a justification for your beliefs that amounts to something more than insults and mindless rejection of my arguments. Stomping your feet and shouting "No" may work for children, but it doesn't work here.

Re:Technology Aside, A Crook is a Crook

[iminplaya]

Like...Oh my God! I believe I've actually been fished in by a machine! No human could possilby drone on and on so repetitively while saying absolutely nothing. HEY...programmer...yeah, you there...sitting on the toilet with your Car & Driver magazine, wishing you were the guy driving that 'vette down the autobahn at 195mph...come over here and try to get that machine of yours to say something else. It seems to be stuck in some sort of loop. It's been going on for over a month and a half now. It was entertaining, but now it's just tiresome. As soon as you fix it, let me know. I liked "talking" to it up to this point, and I won't mind continuing. Oh, man...this is so embarrassing. I hope my mom doesn't find out about this. She might start wondering what happened to that money she gave me for singing lessons.

Accomplice and Accessory

[RmanB17499]

If you aid someone materially in breaking a law then you can be held accountable both in criminal proceedings and in civil lawsuits. So, yes, if I know a bootlegger or drug dealer and point you in their direction, then I am guilty of a crime, too. Everyone is responsible for his or her actions.

I have a question

[LS]

So if this guy's site is now illegal, would I also be commiting a crime if I linked to his site???

LS

Re:I have a question

[RmanB17499]

I think it would be more than just putting a link. In these matters intent is very important, wouldn't you think? Not that we can get in his head and figure out his true intent, but we can look at the evidence of what he did and the circumstances. So, if you put a link to his site, I'm not sure if you're trying to inform me or show what not to do? Or are you trying to steer people toward where they can steal?

Re:I have a question

[LS]

I understand what you mean when it comes to intent... that's a real sticky subject. But I don't think it should apply in this case. So if I tell you by word of mouth how to get to a specific illegally distributed mp3 on the web, I am in a certain way linking to this file, correct? And I have the intent. Should I be prosecuted?

Re:I have a question

[RmanB17499]

Well, yes, you could be....should is a different question. And then even if we can figure out if you should...will you be prosecuted? That's up to the US Attorneys' Office for criminal issues and up to the copyright holder for civil damages.

Yes, you're reading it right.

[GQuon]

You're citing the Court of Appeals judgement that was later struck down by the Supreme Court.

So far, downloading illegally uploaded music files is legal in Norway. The appeals court tried to make the argument that the crime of making the files available had been committed and was over after the files were uploaded, thus he could not be an accessory to the crime. I guess they hadn't heard about the term "Accessory after the fact".

FREEDOM! ? Please clarify:

[Anonymous Coward]

The word has so many new dimensions since Bush and the FREEDOM! marketers got hold of it.

Please clarify, do you mean freedom as in:

a) "FREEDOM! missiles"?
b) "jack-booted FREEDOM! is on the march"?
c) "either you're fur us or we're gonna FREEDOM! the hell out of your country"?
d) "the electorate has given us the mandate to FREEDOM! our entire country into bankruptcy?

Re:You've come over from the dark side...

[symbolic]

I wish there were greater mindshare in this respect, but people are too interested in tending to their music habits like bad cases of crack addiction.

I also refuse to buy, steal, download, use, or listen to mainstream music produced and promoted by RIAA companies. What's funny about all this is it truly is empowering to be able to make this kind of choice.

Your analogy is retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more like you drove your friend to the store, asked him if he wanted some pirated software, he said "yes", and went to the store, got it for him, and brought it back. Just as your friend doesn't have to even get out of the car, a surfer at the Norwegian's webpage doesn't have to leave -- he just right clicks and says "thanks".

This is also retarded, but closer.

men ellers er ikke norge så værst

[Anonymous Coward]

men ellers er ikke norge så værst, men noe møkk på leggen har vi nok og masse pinnsvin på skogen ;) vi er forresten verdens rikeste uland.!

Re:men ellers er ikke norge så værst

[Anonymous Coward]

Ni har det iallafall bättre ställt än Nigera, där stjäls ju oljan!

Book tip

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting book about Disney and the present greed that it represents.

Sure.

[k98sven]

If you can convince the judge that it should be considered a 'public performance', then you could. :-)

Okay, I link a site to Al-Quida..

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I set up a site, with links to Al-Quida sites. Does it make me convictable as a terrorist?

Why stop here?

Is my ISP partner in crime? Is my server manufacturer a partner in crime? Is my domain name registrar a partner in crime?

That's totally stupid.

Re:Okay, I link a site to Al-Quida..

[Pharmboy]

Okay, I set up a site, with links to Al-Quida sites. Does it make me convictable as a terrorist?

Actually, since all domains translate into numeric addresses (ie: 255.255.255.255) and we use Arabic numerals, I blame the Arabs for inventing the numbers your website uses to connect to the internet so you can spread information about other terrorist sites (that use Arabic numerals in their resolved domain names...coincidence? I think not!)

Talk about coming around full circle...

Re:Okay, I link a site to Al-Quida..

[jc42]

I blame the Arabs for inventing the numbers your website uses to connect to the internet so you can spread information about other terrorist sites ...

Heh. Very good.

And I might add that there was an interesting article in Scientific American a few years ago, explaining the Mayan numbering system. Among other things, the article pointed out that the Mayan system is much simpler than the Arabic system. Thus, instead of that big multiplication table that you memorized, in the Mayan system you only need to know that 5*5 = 15 (it's a base-20 system). Everything else follows trivially from that, plus the familiar use of a digit's position to indicate a multiple of a power of the base.

So maybe we need to start a campaign to replace the terrorist-oriented Arabic system with the Mayan system. If enough people fall for it, we could end up with a simpler numbering system. Then all that time in grade school spent memorizing tables could be spent learning something else.

We could get a more rational calendar out of it, too.

Think we could pull it off?

So is Google illegal in Norway?

[yo5oy]

Basically, this makes all search engines illegal. Only when there is a completely open and transparent method of sharing information is a (global) society free.

"index of /mp3"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22ind ex+of+% 2Fmp3%22&btnG=Google+Search

I swear some people in power act like they are idiots only to keep people from realizing their collective rights are being trammeled for the profits of a few.

Re:So is Google illegal in Norway?

[RmanB17499]

I'd easily argue that Google's intent and his intent are two very different things. Google runs an automated system that crawls the web and catalogs file. It doenst reguard to the content. Just like Google News. But he actively collected specific links. Intentions where quite different, wouldnt you think?

RIAA can kiss my a&&

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the music industry. If they want to dictate how they're going to offer their music to me, I'm going to tell them to shove it up their ass. I've bought all the music I want. I won't be buying it again. I own over 1000 CDs. I don't listen to music radio. I don't download music, illegally or paid. Fuck them. Fuck they way they want to do business. I can't stand Britney Spears and the rest of the no-talent HACKS that the music industry wants to push on me. That bimbo Simpson that can't sing. All the artificial sugar-coated processed music today SUCKS.

The RIAA can kiss my ass. They don't deserve my money.

RTFL

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo! Did anybody read the brief? This case was overturned upon appeal, and the student only has to pay court costs.

Re:RTFL

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would he have to pay court costs if the suit was ruled to be bogus? They should be paying HIM.

Re:RTFL

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually he didn't have to pay any legal costs. And it wasn't overturned on appeal - they found him guilty of a few minor crimes. But he was cleared of the principal accusation. He was therefore ordered to pay 100.000 in damages to TONO. TONO lost in a sense - still damages were awarded.

The Norwegian Broadcasting Corp says as much:
http://www.nrk.no/musikk/4459308.html

How about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay... I am putting together a massive terrorist attack, from information that is completely aquired from the books of the Library of Congress.

I am caught and convicted. Is the Library of Congress party to the crime?
Is the US Congress party to the crime?
Are Congessmen of the US party in crime?
Is the President of the USA party of crime?

After all, they funded and provided mw with all the "links" I needed to figure it out...

Re:How about this?

[Macadamizer]

Slashdot should change the login "Anonymous Coward" to "Anonymous Strawman Creator" or something...

Free Speech

[rlp]

The right to free speech is part of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution (the 1st Amendment). This ruling is from a court in Norway. Many country's do not have a constitution or a Bill of Rights. Many democratic countries have limits on free speech (so-called 'hate speech' laws, limits on 'defaming' the government, etc.). I would hope that a case like this would get tossed out in the U.S. On the other hand, many U.S. judges are sorely lacking when it comes to technical literacy.

Next step

[coolcold]

News this time next year: hyperlinks are banned because it can be used to link to illegal download of MP3.

Bah, He shouldn't have been taken to court at all.

[meatspray]

Big Mistake

You have a guy that's working hard to provide links to infringing material. (for free no less) If they were smart they would have just been watching this guys page and stamping out the owner of every link he finds. As it sits now, they stopped his linking but the files will remain.

Now it's just a matter of time untill another site does the same thing. This puts them on the offensive paying people to go hunt down more linkers.

Don's sue Google for linking to a page with your copy on it, thank them for helping you find it and shut down the source.... armatures.

RST?

[Anonymous Coward]

So if my homepage has a link to his homepage, does that make me liable also?

Is this a Transitive operation?

me->him->music => me->music

therefore

you->site1->...->me->him->music => you->music

You are all terrorist pirates now! Wtf?

Careful!

[dim5]

Aren't you concerned about linking to an article that describes a lawsuit that names a website that contains links to illegal music sharing?

This is exactly why I don't use my real name when I post.

Internet music?

[trailerparkcassanova]

Not familiar with that genre'.

Inquisition Reloaded

[RealBorg]

You have been found guilty of propagating heretical texts. You can now renounce and life in poverty or die at the voice of Brittany Spears. Intellectual property is only some kind of knowledge and can therefore never be stolen but only be propagated. Church tried to stand in the way of knowledge a long time ago, when they held all of the legislative, executive and judicial powers. They still failed when there came the age of enlightenment. Even if the MAFIA paid the lawmakers to make BLACKMAILING legal, it is still IMMORAL. The same remains true in the other direction regarding copyright legislation.

I think

[paranode]

A more accurate analogy would be that you knowingly drove your friend to a site where an illegal item was sold thus making you an accomplice to the crime. You may not have possessed the illegal item nor actually paid for it yourself, but you are not inculpable having fully known what was going on.

Hosting Connundrum

[mightypenguin]

My question is, why do people host possibly infringing sites in territories that outlaw it? I mean why don't all these bittorrent sites host on little jungle islands in the pacific or other places that have no/fewer/looser international law agreements?

Maybe it's just ignorance.

Re:Hosting Connundrum

[RmanB17499]

Because, those backwater places produce nothing of value to steal. So, in order to get stolen IP to those islands you would have to break the laws of an original exporting country. Also, with so little in population, outbound transmissions would then be directed to places that actually respect the rule of law. So all you do is create a small barrier around only the hosting machine, but all the party's are still guilty of breaking laws. And I would guess one day they might want to leave that island...

Re:Hosting Connundrum

[mightypenguin]

Well what I'm saying is, if people did know it was illegal and didn't care (which is what I'm assuming is the case here) then we're talkinga bout avoiding prosecution. I would think that on a small island with no/few international legal agreements it would be possible to maintain anonymity and thus avoid lawsuits, and since you're paying the dough, your site wouldn't be taken down so you could maintain web presence.

Illegal files?

[thelexx]

The files aren't 'illegal' in and of themselves. If I understand things correctly (except in Norway, apparently), someone who paid for an album can download it legally. This is why the courts ruling is bullshit and needs to be stricken, overturned or whatever.

Re:Illegal files?

[Richard_at_work]

Actually you are mistaken in pretty much every western country. Just because you HAVE a copy of the item, doenst mean you have free reign to get MORE copies from any source that has it available.

Re:Illegal files?

[thelexx]

So I'm only allowed a backup copy of a work I've paid for only if I make it myself? Bizarre.

This is law practice catching up with the 'Net

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just an example of legal systems catching up with the undeveloped land that is the Internet.

This ruling doesn't make linking illegal. As ever, what is being determined by the courts is the intention of the person committing the allegedly criminal act. If the intention is criminal, then you are guilty.

This also shows that there are differences between what is legal, logical, moral, and just. From one point of view, it is illogical that a mechanism (linking) is subject to criminal sanction at some times, and not at others - but it just shows you have to look outside the plain mechanism. In this case, it was not legal to link to these files.

Now there are crimes that are punished despite intent - such as speeding (many people punished don't intend to speed, but have done so - and get punished).

Of course, there are variations on linking that are yet to be tested by the courts. If you link to the public domain .mpg:

http://snowwhiteserver.invalid/innocuous-file.mp g;

then the server administrator replaces that .mpg with a copyrighted one, the link is functionally the same as the proscribed ones in this case, but the intent is committed by somebody else - the server administrator, without your knowledge. It's possible that it could be argued that you are under a duty of care to ensure your links go to where you think they go. That would get interesting, and examine the trust realtionship between you and the sites you link to. All theoretical, of course, and fun for a lawyers moot.

The 'net is growing up. Is is morally correct to aid people committing an offence - such as copyright violation - even if you disagree with the copyright laws? Is it just? Logical? Legal?

IANAL

A Prize

[CmdrGravy]

I offer an unspecified prize for the most fantastic exptrapolation of the posters misunderstanding of what actually happened.

Posts will be marked on the following points:

Paranoia - oh no this means they will be able to 'get' everyone because...

Actually paranoia covers all the other possible categories I could think of so I'll leave it at that.

If they are real heroes....

[John Bokma]

Let them fine google.no next: http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&q=inurl%3A%22o%2 7reilly%22+filetype%3Apdf&btnG=S%C3%B8k&meta=

Damn!

[Locke2005]

Just wait 'til Google gets their bill for posting links to copyrighted content!

Better Punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe a better punishment would be to have them take this "quick route."

http://mappoint.msn.com/(mrhnz1ixqxpjzei3tudrwin r) /directions.aspx?&StartName=Haugesund%2c+Rogaland% 2c+Norway&StartLocation=59.40634%2c5.28529&EndName =Trondheim%2c+S%c3%b8r-Tr%c3%b8ndelag%2c+Norway&En dLocation=63.43092%2c10.39206&DataSetLangID=EUR%2c 409&RouteType=Quickest&RouteUnit=Miles

As reported on news.com
http://news.com.com/MapPoint+users+in+fo r+long+and +winding+road/2100-1012_3-5552305.html?tag=nefd.ac

What is it with Norway?

[Brandybuck]

What is it with Norway? Is it their water or something? First reverse engineering with DeCSS, now hyperlinks with napster.no. Is Norway becoming the new poster boy for Information Unfreedom? I used to think crap like this only happened in liberal Hollywood and conservative Anaheim, but if this keeps up, they'll lose their crown to progressive Norway.

In Norway, information wants to be imprisoned...

Re:What is it with Norway?

[johnjaydk]

Well Norway's economy is pretty much fuel'ed by oil. Now what kind of people does that remind me of ;-)

Re:What is it with Norway?

[Anonymous Coward]

> What is it with Norway?

I don't know either, but all the Norweigians I have known have been very angry people, who seem to have a resentment for things like personal comfort (e.g., no soft furniture or rugs.)

What about not linking?

[Anonymous Coward]

but just putting online the url as plain text? wouldn't that be freedom of speech?

Re:What about not linking?

[Stonehand]

Even in the US, where freedom of speech has a rather prominent place in the law, it's not necessarily 'free speech' just because somebody thinks it is. What you're expressing, if anything at all, does. The Miller test for "is this possibly obscene material protected", for instance, includes both intent (was it prurient?) and artistic merit. Likewise, "free speech" doesn't necessarily cover harassment, or slander, or libel, or public masturbation (no, it's not "performance art"), or the right to force somebody else to listen, and so forth.

You can't really argue that your speech is being suppressed if your page consists primarily of simple factual pointers to other people's content. If you -mentioned- the URL as an important example in an editorial piece along with commentary about the modern legal system and how lawmakers attempt to cope with the Internet society (such as citing this particular case and resolution), you might have better grounds, because it's actually an example that's important to your own article.

Re:Maybe he should move to China

[l3v1]

to steal our good American [...] movies

Joke of the day. Hey, btw, if they stole only "your" "good" movies, lotsa batndwidth could be saved. No, many times'a lotsa.

Norway Library has these copyright books

[Quiberon]

But if you go there, borrow them, and photocopy them, that's between you and the copyright holder. Nothing to do with me. Besides, how was poor napster.no to know whether someone copying the files had an agreement with the rights holder so to do ? Or would be exercising a fair use right of some kind ?

what next, sue google for indexing things?

[tota]

disclaimer: I haven't read the arcticle

Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Remove all links from all web pages.

Wierd Precedence

[CherniyVolk]

Officer, Sir! He ran that way!

Musician, Dude! The track is that way!

Fundamentally, what's the difference?

What about search engines?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't search engines link to content?

Re:He only gave LINKS, Lynx

[perdelucena]

Links, Lynx whatever. Today whatever you do you get sue or thrown into jail

The solution is this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit buying movies, quit buying CD's.

Go to concerts, and buy the shirts. The artist gets a lot more from that than you buying their CD.

I have a self imposed ban on buying CD's. I support XM Radio, and commericial radio. This is good enough for me.

I also almost never go to the movies anymore.

While I have bought movies in the past, this has come to a halt. My kids have to sit through 20 minutes of BULL each time they want to watch Garfield.

I will purchase no more DVD's as a result. Though I do rent them. I put the in the DVD player about an hour prior to watching so I skip all the damned advertising.

$40 to take two kids, myself, and my wife to the movies (ticket price only.) is way too much for me.

$19 for a popular CD? Hell no.

$15 for a DVD is fine with me, but not with all the forced commercials.

So, do what I do, quit buying their products. That is the best solution. They will have to respond more appropriately by lowering costs. I don't care if some no-name is in Star Wars, or if it is $20million Samual Jackson. I do care when I have to pay $40 just because Samual Jackson is in the movie.

Rant over.

What If?

[polyp2000]

One was to create a website which linked to "legal" mp3 files? Many bands and indie record labels offer free mp3 downloads on their sites eg http://www.toopure.com/ .... Once an MP3 file has been released for free how can it be illegal to share it?

Nick ...

Re:What If?

[Stonehand]

Depends on the license.

At least some material has been released for free downloading with the proviso of no unauthorized redistribution. Some software downloads are this way -- if you read the license for a package you may find that the original distributor wants to be the only one permitted to distribute it even if he's not getting paid. Perhaps he's benefiting from bringing users to the site (e.g. for ads and non-free content), perhaps he wants to reduce the risk of somebody releasing bogus/Trojaned versions by casting doubt on anybody else offering the download; other motives are possible, too.

Thus the Bourne convention makes all links illegal

[metoc]

The Bourne Convention automatically copyrights everything that is published.

Therefore everything published/posted on the Internet is copyright by someone.

Therefore all external links are by default links to a site with copyright materials on it.

Therefore every publisher of a web page with external links is quilty of copyright infringement by linking to a copyrighted work.

Therefore every publisher of a web page can sue for copyright infringement unless they have licensed the work to the other party.

The publisher establishes the fee schedule for the licensing of the work.

So who gets rich?

Outlawing hyperlinks

[xswl0931]

When hyperlinks get outlawed, only outlaws will have hyperlinks. I predict that countries that don't protect copyrights will have a booming webhosting business.

I like the fines

[danila]

While I disagree with the ruling (though it's not up to me to write the Norwegian laws), I can only applaud the sane fines. It's not 15000000$, it's just 15000$. Consider that in the USA you would be lucky to settle for that amount (the amount you are sued for would be x100) if you just shared the MP3s in KaZaA.

Dura lex, sad lex. If it's illegal to link to MP3s in Norway, so be it, but at least those Norsk people are happy to have sane judges and no mad bloodthirsty RIAA zombies.

Re:I like the fines

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if these fines presented in the newspapers really are what they risked?

I do not live in US, but I have heard is if you sue someone, you might sue for 100.000.000.000.000.000$ and win, but the judge often sets the fine or what ever to a more reasonble amount.

The problem is that the newspapers doesn't usually think it's a good story to mention this, so they "forget" that last part.

The answer is yes

[DigiShaman]

The answer is yes. Under US law, Google could be considered an accessory to a crime.

Question is not if, but when will the RIAA/MPAA sue?

wow

[GotSanity]

I guess google has to start paying restitution for all of those cracks and mp3's it has pointed me to over the years. What about all of those images I grabbed from the image search. Thats totaly lame.

Oh No

[adeydas]

You can download the latest J Lo single at ...

Oh No, I just broke a law and am going to be slammed with a $15000 fine. Help me!
Give me a break.

Artists?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a business, it has nothing to do with art. Artists don't create things for money - and think about this, when you share art you are simply taking the RIAA's marketing monoply away from them.
If I write a song and give it away for free and a million ppl 'steal' it, I haven't lost a million dollars I have gained presence for free.
Otherwise there would be no market for my t-shirts.

Maybe he was really helping RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe his links were just a service to the recording industry pointing out where someone else was violating their copyrights.

Well, Slashdot linked to HIS site so....

[popo]

Slashdot (in this posting) links to the offending website. And since Slashdot *knows* full well that this kid is linking to copyrighted works -- what then is Slashdot's liability?

Or let's take this better example: Last week the Wall Street Journal Online ran a story on Russian MP3 sites that charge .05 per track. The story's intent was to highlight the problems faced by iTunes, Real and other legitimate online saleschannels for copyrighted audio files. In effect what the story did though, was tell me where to find cheap high-quality music.

What is the liability for the Wall Street Journal under this Norwegian law? Effectively the WSJ *also* linked to illegal music (thousands of files in this case).

Linking to shoutcast streams?

[future assassin]

So would this guy have been charged if he linked to a shoutcast station that was playing music but they didn pay any royalties to RIAA or what ever crime family owned the artists in that area?

The answer is No

[Joe U]

Under the DMCA, Google is protected, as long as they remove the offending data when asked to.

Re:The answer is No

[DigiShaman]

Limitation for Information Location Tools Section 512(d) relates to hyperlinks, online directories, search engines and the like. It limits liability for the acts of referring or linking users to a site that contains infringing material by using such information location tools, if the following conditions are met:

The provider must not have the requisite level of knowledge that the material is infringing. The knowledge standard is the same as under the limitation for information residing on systems or networks.

If the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity, the provider must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the activity.

Upon receiving a notification of claimed infringement, the provider must expeditiously take down or block access to the material.
So according to the DMCA, which provision in bold takes precedence over the other?
"Technically" google could prevent this by not using web-bots and instead just accept manual and verifiable URLS. Obviously this would not be a practical solution for a dynamic search engine. BUT, practicality is not an excuse to circumvent the law. So basically, google would be forced to drop the dynamic search engine and go with static.

Re:The answer is No

[DigiShaman]

I botched that post up. I ment to bold the second bulletin that states...
If the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity, the provider must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the activity.
Keep in mind that Google generates its revenue from advertisement.

Re:The answer is No

[Joe U]

Technically Google wouldn't be Google if it didn't use web-bots. There is no way they could maintain their current system manually and stay in business.

While practicality might not be a good excuse, running Google out of business would be a better one.

Problem...

[Hobadee]

The problem here is that it isn't illegal to download music from the Internet if you have the rights to it. Say I own CD A, but don't have a ripper and want to listen to it on my computer, I can go online and download CD A because I own it, and playing it on my computer is withing the limits of fair use. What is illegal is the actual distrobution of the files. Because of that, a person who has links to online files is OK, as he *may* have been using those links for his own reference, or as a service to others who have rights to the content. This is another major example of the industry crossing the very fine line between legal and illegal.

Re:Problem...

[EmagGeek]

There is also a fine line between due diligence and reckless indifference.

Perfect DRM

[philipacamaniac]

Okay, here's what the RIAA would really appreciate. Until we have this, my bet is that we'll continue to get sued up the rear for trivial and fair usage of something WE HAVE PURCHASED. Imagine a world where everyone owns something like a cross between an XM radio and an iPod. You can play the music from this thing in your home, at work, or in your car. You purchase music and it is added to the device (or perhaps added to your "Account" somewhere via satellite) and your device may listen to that song as many times as you purchased. You can purchase a single listen, a 30-day listening period, or a lifetime listening period (your lifetime). Each has an appropriate price. There is no logical way, save for a fair amount of cracking and hacking, to copy the music to any other account. Thus it is impossible to digitally copy the music, and by this time, consumer analog recording equipment has been retired. It's coming. The iPod (client) technology is already here, but the XM (server) technology needs to be upgraded to handle wireless purchasing and playing. To tell you the truth, I wouldn't be half against this. But I think I'll stick to my compact discs.

Re:Perfect DRM

[ndtechnologies]

Another option would be to support artists and Music Stores that support indie bands/artists. Sites like http://www.ind-music.com/ have no DRM restrictions, and they use the Open Source Ogg Vorbis file format. Plus the musicians actually MAKE money on the music they sell.

Stupid

[t_allardyce]

This ruling is just insane. Suggesting that hyper links can be illegal threatens the inter idea behind the web, it threatens search engines and automated sites and just basic liberty. I know this is just in Norway but judgements and laws have a habit of spreading like cancer. I've said it before and i'll say it again: Bin Laden and every other terrorist on earth doesn't scare me anything like the impending doom of bad legislation, corruption and politicians with hidden agendas.

Please don't use that anology

[Anonymous Coward]

The war on drugs is the most useless thing in the universe. It doesn't work and the increase in the numbers of people using drugs supports this statement. The US has spent billions of dollars and has achieved absolutly nothing.

The RIAA and MPAA in their copyright punishment quest will achieve the same. Give reasonable alternatives and the problem will get better. Try to prevent people from doing something, and they'll find a way to do it anyway. It may not be right but that's human nature.

Changes everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there is one group who is trying to have it both ways and it is not the "anti-copyright rights movement". The RIAA and MPAA constantly talk about needing stronger laws, new laws, broader enforcement, the ability to obtain information without a subpoena, etc. because "digital changes everything" and "networks allow a 14 year old teenager to send a movie around the world at the speed of light". Then they turn around and argue that just because computers are new and basically allow every user to be their own publisher, that nothing has changed and copyright should exist intact.

Please, choose one argument or the other and stick with it.

(I honestly can't stand to respond to the rest of your arguments since you spend so much time setting up straw men. I just don't feel like tearing them all down today. Sorry.)

Scary precedence

[LemonFire]

This is a scary precedence. If you're responsible for what you link to, what happens to people that links to web sites that certain goverments consider to have illegal information or provides support for terrorism? Would it make you a participant?

Sue me!

[serutan]

Okay, I'll go out on a limb here and post a link to Abbie Hoffman's classic anarchist work, Steal This Book , which openly advocates committing various forms of theft and other illegal acts. I'm not advocating doing any of those things, just pointing out some content that does. But maybe here in the New America that's a crime now! Any restaurant owners want to try to blame me for "dine and dash" losses?

The first amendment is US law it does not apply...

[voss]

in Norway.

However in the United States I doubt such a case would win unless the guy making the site was getting money from the links.

Foolishness

[RmanB17499]

I think that most posts on this subject err to differentiate criminal (government) charges versus civil liability issues (private).
You have no free speech right against me a private person. Your first amendment right protects you only against the government. My property, including my intellectual property, is not the government's. So when I try to sue you to protect my property you can't use rights you don't have as a defense!

Let's analyze this in a way that would make the naysayers think twice.

Let's say I compile, using only legal search engines, a list of all your social security numbers, dates of birth, and other information. You know the stuff that any identity thief would love to get his or her hands on : to ruin your financial life.
Now let's go one step further and say that I place convenient links to where people can go and see this. All I did was provide links.
But now look at how I am aiding in the transaction as an information conduit. The information is the valuable piece of the puzzle and that's the problem.
Do I have a free speech right to do this? Perhaps, I can argue that the government can't lock me up because of the way I collected the information. And that I did not break any privacy law since I did not owe any of the people any privacy duty. (Since they are not my customers, employees, or have any status with me their rights are severely limited). Now I have a pretty good argument against a criminal offense case.

BUT

My actions were deliberate and reckless. Also, they did assist in the violation of the law which I should have had reasonable belief would occurr. The damages that my indirect victims become my liability. They can pursue me directly because of the damages they suffered from me doing what I wasn't supposed to do.
So in this case: when this kid published links and helped people break the law he became an agent and conduit just like I could have become with your identities. He was sued and lost because of his actions. Now if the government tries to toss in him in jail, that would be another story. However, there is the possibility that they could....

Re:Foolishness

[RmanB17499]

Not to mention that any prosecutor worth his or her salt will go after me as an accessory / accomplice since I materially participated in identity theft by aiding and abetting the direct participants. So connecting it with criminal copyright violations requiring the attention of the US Attorneys' Office wouldn't be that far-fetched. Just because its not your social security number doesn't mean it's okay to steal...or help steal. another form of intellectual property. But this case in particlar was a civil suit so I left my analysis to that.

it's one reason to configure a hosts file

[Anonymous Coward]

/etc/hosts
127.0.0.1 208.225.90.0 ... ...
127.0.0.1 208.225.90.255

Foolishness

[RmanB17499]

I think that most posts on this subject err to differentiate criminal (government) charges versus civil liability issues (private).

You have no free speech right against me a private person. Your first amendment right protects you only against the government. My property, including my intellectual property, is not the government's. So when I try to sue you to protect my property you can't use rights you don't have as a defense!

Let's analyze this in a way that would make the naysayers think twice.
Let's say I compile, using only legal search engines, a list of all your social security numbers, dates of birth, and other information. You know the stuff that any identity thief would love to get his or her hands on : to ruin your financial life.

Now let's go one step further and say that I place convenient links to where people can go and see this. All I did was provide links.

But now look at how I am aiding in the transaction as an information conduit. The information is the valuable piece of the puzzle and that's the problem.

Do I have a free speech right to do this? Perhaps, I can argue that the government can't lock me up because of the way I collected the information. And that I did not break any privacy law since I did not owe any of the people any privacy duty. (Since they are not my customers, employees, or have any status with me their rights are severely limited). Now I have a pretty good argument against a criminal offense case.

BUT

My actions were deliberate and reckless. Also, they did assist in the violation of the law which I should have had reasonable belief would occurr. The damages that my indirect victims become my liability. They can pursue me directly because of the damages they suffered from me doing what I wasn't supposed to do.

So in this case: when this kid published links and helped people break the law he became an agent and conduit just like I could have become with your identities. He was sued and lost because of his actions. Now if the government tries to toss in him in jail, that would be another story. However, there is the possibility that they could....

Court of Appeal begs to differ

[tenor_clef]

If you read the article on the Links & Law website:

The Court of Appeal came to a different conclusion than the district court, which reads as follows: "[T]he actions committed by Bruvik were not an action relevant to copyright as such. He himself did not use the files, and he did not store or copy the files. His actions [deeplinking] consisted merely of reference to sites where the works already were made accessible. References of this kind cannot be regarded, in the opinion of the Court, as a public performance. The actions of Bruviks must be compared to those of a bulletin board containing addresses to uploaded music works. The linking itself did not involve a performance."

So - common sense prevails, for now.

Re:Court of Appeal begs to differ

[RmanB17499]

But then Norway's Supreme Court reversed the Appeals Court decision according to the AP story...So, actually, the District Court decision was correct and the sensible choice.

If you didn't vote Libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

you ASKED for this!

Copyright infringement

[theolein]

Copyright infringment, the most devastating crime against mankind the universe has ever known, but one which the righteous courts will righteously punish by giving these henious destroyers of civilisation, as we know it, harsher punishments than is given to war criminals accused of genocide.

All hail the almighty dollar and the lords of money.

Free music as in Free Beer or as in Stolen Beer?

[Gnavpot]

Am I the only one who is a little annoyed by the phrasing in the Slashdot summary?

a student whose Napster.no homepage [...] had links to free Internet music files must compensate the music industry

After reading the summary, I really thought this was a case where someone provided links to free music as in "music which can be freely copied with the copyright holder's consent" and still got prosecuted.

Instead, I found a ruling concerning someone who provided links to illegally copied music. I guess you could technically call this "free music", but I would certainly never use that wording.

(I would never use the wording "stolen music" either, but I just couldn't come up with a better Subject line for this posting.)

Copyright shouldn't apply to music

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

This is yet another case that seriously shakes my faith in the entire intellectual property argument. Linking is illegal? Linking to what? What exactly did he link to? Ones and Zeros, that's what! Oh well these ones and zeros represent a song! Big whup!

Copyright should not apply to music. Think about it! What the hell is a song anyway? Words, lyrics, musical notation? Sure copyright can apply to all these things. But the act of someone singing the song itself? Who the hell decided that should be the subject of copyright?!

If Mettalica sing a song, at a concert, and I'm at the concert, or even outside it!, and I record the song on my handy gizmo, am I libel for copyright theft? What the hell did I steal? The changes in pressure in the air? Why the hell is an acoustic waveform the subject of copyright?! The written word yes. The spoken word?

OK Mettalica walk down the street and out loud say XYZ. I take down and print what they have said XYZ in as many ways as I like. I can record them doing so and show it to as many as I like, tabloids do this all he time. Am I liable? Mettalica walk down the street and out loud sing, or hum, ABC(which is one of their songs). I record them doing so and broadcast it? Am I Liable? Yes?! Why! Why their singing is copyrighted of course! Ridiculous.

I take the view that if you keep material in solid definite form, i.e. paper or digital storage, then copyright is still a sane idea. However, if you broadcast it in any way, singing, radio or TV transmission etc, I have essentially copied it an infinite, or more realistically, the maximum number of time it can possibly be copied. By broadcasting music over TV and radio, a copyright owner has already copied their material enough so that in theory everyone on earth sees that copy. At this point, trying to hold onto copyright of any sort is ludacrous. You just gave out as many copys as you possibly can. How can you still claim that you are a reasonable custodian of the material.

Anyway, at this point, I'm driven to come to this conclusion. Copyright cannot be applied to nondefinite, unwritten material. Bad this happen if this is the case.

random thoughts

[kardar]

The website should have taken down the links when they were asked to. That's probably the first thing. They refused to take down the links over and over and over again. Bad idea.

Also, wouldn't it be interesting if the next time you turned up your stereo too loud, and the neighbors got upset, instead of violating a noise ordinance, you were charged with copyright violation? If it must be contained within a private room, then no more of the blaring music out of a car in the summer on the street, no more loud parties where you can hear the music a mile away - all of these could technically constitute copyright infringement? RIAA could make a fortune crawling college campuses handing out tickets for public peformance of copyright-protected works.

Webcasting is cheap in Norway

[rbb]

I was actually interested at one point in running a legal musicstation in Norway and contacted Tono (Norway's Performing Rights Society) for some more information.

They hadn't entirely worked out the technical details yet - not even today, it's only 2005 after all - but when I checked with them in 2003 they assured me I could run a fully legal stream for about $80 a month.

There was no per listener fee.

I'd have to call my livingroom (or wherever the server was located) a "club" and the stream had to be 100% live (no pre-recorded stuff). The downside was that I'd also have to provide Tono with a monthly list of every single song played on the station.

That, in combination with the fact that Tono seemed completely clueless to the whole idea of music on the internet kind of made me lost interest in the whole matter.

Re:Free music as in Free Beer or as in Stolen Beer

[Anonymous Coward]

"Instead, I found a ruling concerning someone who provided links to illegally copied music."

It seems to be more than that, it was an ad-supported, quota based board, apparently. A blatant act, to say the least. He's not been prosecuted for "linking", he's what they call a birddog in the dope dealing biz, complete with his commission.

In other news: EBay shut down for fencing

[melikamp]

A number of people here classified the defendant's actions as accessory to a crime, but I cannot see why it should be so. Their argument is, by providing links to the copyrighted works he assisted others in illegal activities -- namely, hosting and transferring illegal copies of music files.

Guess what, by the same logic we should sue the owners of pawn shops. It is hardly doubtful that pawn shops serve as fences. Shall we now require the owners to research the background of every item? To collect SSNs of sellers? Shall we sue them for each stolen item they have sold?

EBay, anyone? Search for laptops and ask yourself a simple question: why are the serial numbers filed off? Oops. They must be fencing. You must agree, it is highly tempting. Personally, if I ever steal a laptop, you shall see it on EBay. So let us close up EBay too, lest private individuals decide that they have a right to sell stuff in an egalitarian environment.

How is the subj different? Suppose, I run a reference web site; someone comes over to me and notifies me of a music file. Is it my responsibility to check the copyright? Why should it be? I am not the one hosting it! Unless I am notified that the links point to pirated works, why should I assume so? I am just facilitating music trading, and I do not care whence it came from and where it will go. If you shut me down, you will effectively take away a private individual's right to traffic music. Do not delude yourself: I really mean all music, and not just sell, but even to give away for free. If the linker can be sued for a mistake made by a content provider, who is going to link to music? Mmm... RIIA... RIIA's bitches... Nothing else comes to mind.

So, guys, if things like pawn shops, EBay, and promiscuous web-linking create a possibility of individuals engaging in trafficking illegal goods, the best thing, apparently, is to sue those who facilitate the commerce, and leave a little man without a way to trade with anyone except multinational corporations.

As an EBay fan to an EBay fan: Fuck You.

Re:In other news: EBay shut down for fencing

[Anonymous Coward]

>Guess what, by the same logic we should sue the
>owners of pawn shops.

A pawnbroker does face personal criminal liability if he knowlingly sells, trades, or uses for collatteral on a loan, any item which he knows to be stolen, or that is illegal to possess. He can be prosecuted also, if he did not know, but it can be shown that a reasonable person should have known that the item was stolen, etc. Pawn shops have to be very careful. Most states have very strict laws that they must operate under. They tend to also be FFL firearms licensees, in addition to being jewelry stores (generally with very valuable small items in inventory). So, pawnbrokers tend to be very conspicuously compliant with the laws, and very cooperative with the local authorities, and very quick to refuse to do business with you and your stolen merchandise.

Re:In other news: EBay shut down for fencing

[melikamp]

This is an excellent summary. My anarchist tendencies aside, I wish we would have the same kind of balance for indexing on the Internet -- that is, if we are to dance to the copyright tune. I want to see a set of guidelines for an indexing service outlining their responsibilities regarding the indexed content. I do not want them to be very stringent and taxing on the provider, as it would only serve to curb the commerce opportunities for people like us (Ebay fans). Indiscriminately suing people for linking, especially when they are ready to comply with removal requests (like in subj!), is not the way to do it.

And there are problems, not least of which is opt-out copyright model. That certainly has to go. I do not see how reproduction rights can be established if the content owners are not required to register anywhere.

Tracers work both ways; indexing makes it easier to pirate, but it also aids copyright holders in seeking violators. It would seem to me that the best way to deal with the situation is to use indices for persecution of actual pirates, and leave their hosts alone for as long as they cooperate.

I really hope that involved authorities will let the guy off the hook. I do not think that he deserves anything more than a warning.

Link n Learn

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh

I wonder how much Google could be sued for?

He won on appeal. Doesn't anyone here read?

[Anonymous Coward]

Conclusion of Judgement

1. The Court finds in favour of Frank Allan Bruvik.

2. The Court affirms the decision as decided by the County Court, part 2.

3. The Parties will themselves bear legal expenses as accrued before the Court of Appeal.

Re:He won on appeal. Doesn't anyone here read?

[BitterOak]

Perhaps you should read the article. The Supreme Court of Norway ruled against the defendant. If you read the article, it states that the District Court ruled with the plaintiff, the Court of Appeal, as you state, reversed the ruling and found in favor of the defendant. The Supreme Court, however, sided with the District Court and found for the Plaintiff.

copyright law

[sl4shd0rk]

"..piracy won't be accepted and that copyright laws apply even on the Internet."

Unless, of course, you are a large capitalist monoculture with bulging pockets of cash waiting to be thrown in the direction of needy politicians, spokespeople, or special interest groups.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Thus the Bourne convention makes all links ille

[Anonymous Coward]

The disturbing thing is that there are quite a lot of people who seem to actually believe that. Take a look around and see just how many people think copyright somehow extends to links to your site on other people's webpages.

Bittorrent sites

[advocate_one]

are now in danger because of this ruling... it's only one small step from providing links to MP3 files to providing torrent files that contain information about MP3 files being shared via a tracker.

*clap clap clap clap clap clap clap!!!*

[Steeltoe]

Sums it up Beautiful, sharp and down-to-earth.

Well done! You've just let in some light in this world. Thank you for making my heart realize there are other people who sees it.

May I have the permission to qoute you in the future, if I am to setup a webpage with collections of good arguments or something like that?

Re:*clap clap clap clap clap clap clap!!!*

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude. Get a room. Really.

Re:*clap clap clap clap clap clap clap!!!*

[Anonymous Coward]

May I have the permission to quote you in the future?

Well, of course you do! Since there is no such thing as intellectual property, you should just go for it.

Re:*clap clap clap clap clap clap clap!!!*

[IgnoramusMaximus]

May I have the permission to qoute you in the future, if I am to setup a webpage with collections of good arguments or something like that?

Go ahead, although I am afraid there are people who can express these things far better then I could.

Re:*clap clap clap clap clap clap clap!!!*

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Well, of course you do! Since there is no such thing as intellectual property, you should just go for it.

Damn right, but you should also remember that there is another, completely unrelated aspect of this: attribution. Most artists and scientists do not care about making a fortune but the do care about being attributed the authorship of their ideas. That is their "reward" and I have nothing against it.

Clinton was the real culprit, dumb shit

[ccmay]

Your rant is amusing, but laughably wrong. By far the majority of the crimes of Enron (and Global Crossing, and WorldCom, and all of the rest of the recent corporate scandals) actually took place on the watch of the Clinton White House, not the current one.

Bush's Justice Department is prosecuting corporate crooks who committed their crimes under Clinton, yet you use this as an opportunity to slam Bush.

You remind me of a squawking parrot who has been locked in a room with a Michael Moore mockumentary on continuous loop. Your statements are not just unfounded, but the very mirror image of reality. The corporate crooks were, by and large, in bed with Clinton and other prominent Democrats (Rubin, McAuliffe, etc.), and now they are getting prosecuted by Bush, and you think this is a reason to slam the Bush White House?

Much of what you think you know from watching the mainstream media is a lie. Get a grip and quit being blinded to reality by your own irrational hatred, you pathetic ignorant fool.

-ccm

Re:Thus the Bourne convention makes all links ille

[shark72]

"Therefore every publisher of a web page with external links is quilty of copyright infringement by linking to a copyrighted work."

Incorrect; the important thing to understand is that it's the rightsholder who gets to decide how their work is disseminated. If you post your own work (and not, say, somebody else's work for which you don't have permission to copy) to a web site, others may link to it, since you, the rightsholder, have made the choice to make it available on the 'net.

Many years ago, some web content publishers tried to take legal means to prevent others from linking to them; they were rightfully laughed out of court. If you post your own work to your web site, you must expect others to link to it and you have no way of stopping this other than taking the work offline.

In case it wasn't clear, in the instance we are discussing, the content available on the web was posted without the creator's permission. This may seem like a trivial point to some, but it's what makes the difference.

slow news day...

[torrents]

offering pirated music over http is begging to get caught... where's the news?