Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australian Man Found Guilty for Hyperlinking

Posted by Zonk on from the dark-day-for-the-rebellion dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Major record labels are celebrating in Sydney, Australia today. It took almost two years but they've finally won a legal battle against a Queensland man and his ISP for alleged music piracy. Amazingly, Stephen Cooper didn't even have to host the alleged pirated files. All he did (allegedly) was to hyperlink to a few sites that had infringing sound recordings. His ISP didn't escape either. Even the ISP's parent company got sued. No jail time but all parties will have to pay costs."

30 of 439 comments (clear)

  1. If he was running windows by farker+haiku · · Score: 5, Funny

    It should be hard to prove he did it... I mean, his machine could have been compromised

    --
    Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
    1. Re:If he was running windows by ObiWanKenblowme · · Score: 5, Funny

      Windows will even warn you if your machine has committed an illegal operation and shut it down for you - that's how good it is.

      --
      Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
    2. Re:If he was running windows by Harangutan0n · · Score: 4, Funny

      When I was 11 or 12, my grandmother picked up a copy of Windows 95 for us the day it came out. She must have read about it in the paper, or something, because to this day, neither she nor my grandfather has even been able to figure out how to play Solitare, much less check email, despite my best efforts to tutor them.

      I had great fun, playing around with this pretty new interface. It was quite a step up from programming LogoWriter on our Apple IIGS (we had that computer for quite a while). But my tomfoolery didn't last too long, because I eventually made the computer do an illegal operation, which shut it down.

      I freaked out, because I thought I had broken the law and someone was going to come arrest me. Oh Windows 95, how you let me down!

      (this is just after I had gotten busted by the Man for burning down a Port-a-Potty (it was an accident, I swear), so I was a bit skittish about such things)

  2. Allegedly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    If he was found guilty, then the charges are proven. They are no longer alleged.

    1. Re:Allegedly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If he was found guilty, then the charges are proven. They are no longer alleged.

      Err... the charges are proven from the court's perspective. The submitter apparently doesn't agree with the court, and so for him/her the charges are still alleged.

    2. Re:Allegedly? by jtpalinmajere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is somewhat a misnomer. Many crimes can be set up in such a way to implicate an innocent person. When this innocent person is convicted because all (or most / the most influential) the evidence points to him, does this still mean that it is "proven" that he did it? In the same instance, what happens when a criminal gets caught red handed doing something, but because of a foulup in following procedures the criminal actually gets off. Does this mean that the criminal has been "proven" to not have committed the crime?

      In all cases, any judgement is based upon the 'evidence' at hand... in some cases not all 'evidence' is actually admitted for one reason or another as well as the occasion where irrelevant / false 'evidence' is actually admitted into the case. At best, a verdict can be considered a very educated hypothesis.

      Proven implies that the judgement is made upon facts that are incontrovertible... like the fact that 1 + 1 = 2, arithmetically speaking. Since the vast majority of 'evidence' submitted to the court rarely fits this criteria, there almost always exists room (even inside the room of "without reasonable doubt") for the verdict to be flawed.

      Therefore, it would still be correct to consider the crimes alleged even when a person if "found guilty" of committing them.

    3. Re:Allegedly? by Munra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lucky for us, at least in this country (US), the # of innocent people being convicted of crimes is remarkably low.

      That seems a fairly ridiculous statement to make, as it's impossible to determine it one way or the other. Even measuring the number of people subsequently found not-guilty (or acquitted) is hardly likely to be accurate.

      Manta

  3. In other news.... by dr_labrat · · Score: 5, Funny

    A man in Queensland was found guilty of pointing at a stolen car in the street....

    --
    The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. (Marx)
    1. Re:In other news.... by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...while wearing a shirt that said "car for sale".

    2. Re:In other news.... by onion2k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know about Australian law, but here in the UK if you were to point at a car and suggest to someone "Hey, steal that one." you'd be up for a conspiracy charge.

      --
      http://twitter.com/onion2k
    3. Re:In other news.... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. There's even been attempts to bring what are really copyright cases under the Stolen Property Act, and they've been shot down in the courts. The exclusive remedies for these actions are those in the Copyright Act.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    4. Re:In other news.... by Intron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are lost in a maze of twisty little analogies, all alike.

      What it is NOT like is the Ticketmaster decision in the US which ruled that a link is not copyright infringement. I don't think this ruling could stand in the US.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
  4. This is retarded... by advocate_one · · Score: 5, Insightful

    to put it politely... just too stupid for words... how, exactly, did he "pirate" the works in question??? Looks like we need to slap some judges upside the head with a cluestick... Google et al, had better watch out... they'll now have to filter out possible copyrighted works in any links produced in searches... this is a very dangerours legal ruling.

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    1. Re:This is retarded... by SlimFastForYou · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I were running a search engine company and this started happening on a semi-regular basis, I'd probably say screw it and put up a special page for Australian IPs telling the people they need to do something about their laws. I'll bet if Australia scares off Google people are going to take notice and put some heat on their representatives. I mean come on, even a company the size of Google can't be expected to filter the entire Internet of any possible copyrighted content that is displayed on public web sites.

    2. Re:This is retarded... by lerxstz · · Score: 4, Informative

      The law has NOT passed. It is an early draft of a *proposed* ammendment to the copyright law. It's in the early review stages, so that these types of implications can be investigated and (hopefully) adjustments can be made. Please check your facts before posting so as not to spread FUD!
      Here's the link to the original article in yesterday's post: link to article in question

      --
      I chose to end my comments, not with a rim shot, but a long decaying F#7sus4
  5. Next in line... by laetus42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google, for linking to illegal music, texts, pictures and videos...

  6. Linking can be taken to several levels by Lockz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How far can this go? If you can be guilty for linking to a site, what about linking to a site that links to a site? And so on ... there needs to be a point where you can't be expected to have control.

    --
    Life is the sport of champions. Those who lose, die.
  7. His crime by TildeMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yeah, maybe we all don't think he pirated, but couldn't this still be aiding / abetting? He was encouraging other people to pirate music, and giving them the means to do so.

  8. Eh? by Corun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This seems a bit broken... I mean, If I tell someone that someone *over there* is a drug dealer, do I get arrested? How can he be held responsible for the content of other sites?

    1. Re:Eh? by tomstdenis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It makes perfect sense. The only reason you can't see it is you think the citizens are more important than the corporations.

      Sad really.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  9. Not surprised really.... by victorhooi · · Score: 4, Interesting
    As an Australian, I'd have to say this isn't entirely unexpected...

    Some of the judges here have been a little slow on the uptake...the Sony mod-chipping debacle is but one example, as is the whole lack of "fair use" right for electronic works...

    Was the man found guilty of linking to a list of pirated mp3s? Or did he link to a site which contained, among a lot of other things, pirated mp3s? In the case of the latter, I don't see how you can argue that he was intending for them to pirate material...

    Seriously, has anybody thought about the ramification of this for free speech? The recent debacle with record companies whining about the BBC releasing those free tracks has some echoes of this...

    cya, Victor

  10. Alleged? by Niello · · Score: 4, Informative
    From TFA:

    "Stephen Cooper, operator of the mp3s4free Web site, was found guilty of copyright infringement by Federal Court Justice Brian Tamberlin."

    It seems to have been proven...

    And what else do you expect to happen when you host a site named "mp3s4free"?

    --
    I give men fish.
    1. Re:Alleged? by p0ppe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, mp3s are all illegal. And what else do you expect to happen when you host a site named "mp3s4free"?

      --


      "Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
  11. Re:See, the DMCA isn't so bad by bedroll · · Score: 5, Informative
    Now in the US, the DMCA would have let the ISP off the hook scott free. Yay for safe harbors!

    Only if the ISP took down the site as of the first notice sent by the RIAA. Their safe harbors are only available if they play by the industries rules. The industry would probably offer such an agreement with ISPs even if it wasn't in the law. They don't want to hurt business unless they think those businesses are encouraging the "piracy". They're more interested in getting individuals to make examples of, like the college students that did little more than make search engines that didn't specifically exclude music files. This guy was an example to the rest of us that if we link to sites committing infringement the industry can and will find a legal loophole to get at us.

  12. The intent is relevant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Frankly, the guy deserved it. mp3s4free.com was created solely to link to unauthorised copyrighted material, and for the purpose of boosting traffic on the ISP. That (summarised by me) was the courts finding.

    The article doesn't make clear whether it boiled down to intent. I hope that the finding was because he intended to link to the material - such a finding would protect those who inadvertantly had dodgy links (such as chat room hosts, etc...). If the finding sets a precedent that anyone hosting hyperlinks to infringing material, without intent, is a criminal, then that is a bad thing.

    Some have said that this is akin to being arrested for pointing to a drug dealer. Rubbish. It's more like running a bulletin board, the sole purpose of which is for dealers to list their contact details, and available drugs.

  13. Teach a man to fish by FidelCatsro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    www.google.com
    Search for "Filetype:torrent example album"
    Now what i have just done is give people the skill to find their own files and commit copyright infringement or of course search for legal downloads.
    What i have just done is far far worse than a guy linking to a few warez sites.
    Show a man a download link and he will download one file , Teach him to use google and he can warez himself for life

    --
    The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
  14. Consult a lawyer before each breath by Phat_Tony · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Never mention to anyone that they sell fake watches on Canal street in New York.

    Never tell anyone that there are drug dealers in the park down the street, even for their own safety.

    You had also better never report a crime to authorities. That is also providing information on how to locate illegal activity.

    Someone should print out the web address of a stolen copyrighted work that's freely available online, go into a court house in Australia, and stick it to a bulletin board. Then they should sue the government for hosting that information, citing this case as precedent.

    --
    Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
  15. What about other sites... by Sierpinski · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've seen sites that have links to pages that show you how to draw and quarter a human body. Now IANAL but I'm pretty sure that cutting up a dead body is illegal. Should those sites get dinged as well?

    What about links to legitimate news sites that happen to run a story on "how easy it is to steal an oldsmobile with a screwdriver" only to see the theft rate of oldsmobiles increaseed sharply in the next 5 days after the article? That happened to my parents some time ago. Now I'd bet a small amount of money that the person who stole their car saw how to do it (in some great detail I might add) on the news. Shouldn't the news station be responsible for that?

    The fact that this happened in Australia comforts me slightly, but only slightly. I'm waiting for some RIAA executive to put a bug in a congressman's ear about the same type of thing here. The part that really scares me is things like that can become law easily by tailing it onto the back of some sure-to-pass appropriations bill or other popular piece of legislature....

    Which leads me to a slightly offtopic but (IMO) a completely legitimate idea:

    Congress should pass a law prohibiting bills from coattail-riding on other unrelated bills. If its important enough to pass a law about, its important enough to deserve its own vote.

    Ok, rant over. *whew*

    --
    And they said zombies weren't real!
  16. It is called: Contributory infringement by sela · · Score: 4, Informative


    The US courts had long ago ruled that contributory infringement applies to copyrights. It is no surprise, therefore, that Oz courts accepted the same legal theory.

    Contributory infringement for copyright is a court-created theory. It was never passed as a law. The law does refer to contributory infringement of patents, and court decided it should be applied to copyright violation as well.

    You may be guilty of contributory infringement if two tests hold:
    1. Specifity: the information you provide must be specific, and detailed enough to enable the reciever of the information to make and infinging copy of a copyrighted work.
    2. Intent: you provide the information with an intent to promote copyright violation.

    Disclaimer: IANAL

  17. Look at his site using the wayback machine by kotku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    http://web.archive.org/web/20031010135440/http://w ww.mp3s4free.net/

    It is pretty obvious he was acting as a filesharing hub pretty much as Napster did. This was not coincidental linking it was linking to copyright infringed material for the express pursuit of aquiring advertising revenue. He knew exactly what he was doing. No sympathy here.

    Again the slashdot moral majority starts having a blabbering fit over thier rights being infringed and all that but this is a pretty simple case. He was actively using his website to encourage a very specifical criminal activity not a few coincidental links in a sea of other detail.

    --
    The bikini - security through obscurity since 1943