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*

[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*

[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*

[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*

[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*

[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*

[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*

[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*

[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*

[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*

[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*

[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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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?

One Expensive Song

[teiresias]

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

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

Uhoh....

[Cougem]

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

And surely search engines do this?

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.

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

[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

[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

[myukew]

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

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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

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: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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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

[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

[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.

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".

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.

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?

The answer is No

[Joe U]

Under the DMCA, Google is protected, as long as they remove the offending data when asked to.

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.)