Warner Sues Search Engine, Tests DMCA Safe Harbor

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Warner Bros. Records is suing SeeqPod, the music search engine, in an attempt to test the limits of the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions with a theory of contributory, vicarious and inducement liability. While other services like Last.fm have cut deals with the labels, SeeqPod relied on the DMCA Safe Harbor alone to protect it. According to the complaint [PDF] SeeqPod 'deliberately refrains' from adding simple yet ineffective content filters to screen out copyright infringing materials, presumably by not buying those filters from label-affiliated companies. Of course, this lawsuit is merely part of a recent trend seeking to move the responsibility for policing copyrights away from the copyright holders and on to third parties."

Comments

Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof!

[garcia]

This lawsuit is merely part of a recent trend seeking to move the responsibility for policing copyrights away from the copyright holders and on to third parties.

No, this lawsuit is just testing the waters to see if they can overturn pieces of the DMCA that do not work in their favor. If they can turn this provision over then they can fuck Google over too and tap into that endless revenue stream for allowing services like g2p to exist out there.

If anything, they should be using these sites to take down the offenders' pages and not the sites themselves.

Re:Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof!

[Half-pint HAL]

No, this lawsuit is just testing the waters to see if they can overturn pieces of the DMCA that do not work in their favor.

No, they're seeking to either (A) Overturn bits of the DMCA that are over-broad or (B) challenge over-interpretations of the DCMA. I do not know the DCMA very well. IANAL. IANfromtheUSA.

BUT

To understand Safe Harbor and its intentions, consider the paper publishing industry. If I write a defamatory newspaper article, who can be sued for it? I can -- I wrote it; the editor probably can too -- he gave it the green light and so effectively put his name against it; but the publishing company is the most likely target. They approved it, they make money based on sales, they're ultimately responsible -- and they have the money to pay the settlement, while neither me nor my editor is likely to be good for the cash.

Who is not sued? The printer. The printer is paid by the page. If it doesn't sell, he doesn't lose out. He has no control or interest in the content of his work -- he is content neutral.

The first rightful beneficiary of Safe Harbor legislation is Bob's Server Shack. Your average host is content neutral and has no editorial control over your site. You pay a flat fee to him directly -- Bob has no real stake in the "saleability" of your site. Bob is the same as the printer.

I don't think Safe Harbor should apply to YouTube, for example. YouTube does not receive a flat fee from the content producers, instead making its money on click-through ads. This means that YouTube's profit is intrinsically linked to the popularity of its content (and, incidentally, the most popular material often infringes copyright). To my mind, this makes YouTube a publisher, not a printer, hence a valid target for law suits. They have chosen not to employ editors. Would a newspaper company be able to publish an edition without an editor and disavow all responsibility for the content? I think not! Why should YouTube get different treatment?

Search starts to get a bit tricky though, but I think we should apply the same content neutrality argument. Most major search engines are largely content neutral. OK, PageRank may have some bias in it, but most potential hits translate to actual hits. You can search for anything you want, and Google/Yahoo/Ask/Altavista will return it. These sites don't exist purely to find illegal material.

SeeqPod is different. SeeqPod is a music search engine, and the only music people search for is illegal stuff. Sure, you may be able to search for legal stuff, but who would bother? Legal MP3s just aren't redistributed much -- if you want them, you go to the band's homepage and download them, and you don't need a music search engine for that.

In my opinion, if the Safe Harbor defence works, then the Safe Harbor law needs to be rewritten.

HAL.

Re:Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof!

[Rudolf]

g2p?
My work filter flags it as a social engineering site and denies access...
never heard of it before.


Never heard of it, either.

Here's what it says:

What does G2P do?
-G2P (Google to Person) uses some crafty Google searches to help locate open directories or otherwise shared files. These searches are nothing secret (In fact, take a look at the results, so you can see how it is done. However, it is much easier to remember g2p.org than these complex searches. Really I put this site together to make it easier on me, and then shared it with you.

Why use G2P instead of P2P or BT?
-P2P/BT is being monitored -- Using Google we can download a lot more safely. We are simply just following a link -- curious how it leads directly to the file we are looking for. =)

Re:Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof!

[An Ominous Cow Erred]

The first rightful beneficiary of Safe Harbor legislation is Bob's Server Shack. Your average host is content neutral and has no editorial control over your site. You pay a flat fee to him directly -- Bob has no real stake in the "saleability" of your site. Bob is the same as the printer.

Not true.

Bob's Server Shack gets to charge you extra when your usage goes through the roof due to the popularity of your content -- thus giving them more profit. They actually DO have an interest in having customers who have popular data, just like the printer has a vested interest in newspapers selling well, because the printer gets more profit when the newspaper has wider circulation and thus prints more copies.

Reality check

[ContractualObligatio]

Seems pretty simple to me - set up a business (e.g. SeeqPod) that explicitly aims to make money out of online content, and you'll either pay fees or get sued by the owners of that content.

No doubt there will be many and various cunning arguments in this thread as to why this is wrong e.g. if I can't get it for free, I'll take my money elsewhere; I've already got the CD so why should a service that also caters to people without the CD have to pay anything; technology may be a wonderful thing but strangely I also believe it is incapable of ever doing something I don't approve of; etc. While all of these points do actually have merit in various aspects of the whole brave new digital world discussion (please ignore my paraphrasing), they neglect a fundamental law of human nature:

When you seek to make money based upon other people's efforts or property, those other people will find a way to get some or all of your profits.

Corollary: When money is involved, you will never win an argument by stating that the property doesn't actually exist i.e. smart arse comments about "Imaginary Property" won't cut it.

SeeqPod is a lot more useful than many people know

[Anonymous Coward]

And how many will learn about the mobile version (that lets you directly access the files rather than locking you into a Flash jail) from this very comment? That sure is an easier way to get mp3s than entering a long special search into Google. Use it while you can, that's my advice.