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

Re:Why do they even have this much power?

[nurb432]

Why does Warner yield this apparently massive amount of power in the first place? Because they have so much money.

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!

[jc42]

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

Y'know, I've often wondered why people haven't been pointing that out. It would seem that for a copyright holder suing the person that points them to an infringer would be just a case of "shooting themselves in the foot". Why wouldn't they want someone to collect pointers to their copyrighted material, and make it easy to go after the infringer?

Maybe Warner is secretly in favor of copyright infringement, and it trying to shut down the search sites so that infringement can continue untracked. If so, there's some interesting economics going on here.

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:Why do they even have this much power?

[ricebowl]

On what grounds would you refuse them this power? Surely they should have the right to pursue litigation if they feel they, or their property, is being abused. Whether or not that's intellectual or actual property, though I do agree that they should be treated differently.

Just because Warner is suing Seeqpod doesn't mean that they have any over-arching power to do as they will, regardless of the majority/vocal opinion around the internet; but, and bear in mind I'm not American, so I could easily have this ass-backwards, if this goes to court then either the DMCA Safe Harbour will be found, in some way, inappropriate or the case will enforce the perceived strength of the Safe Harbour provision.

While I'd hope for the former (and coming from the UK I'm envious of the American Fair Use doctrine) I'd accept the risk of the latter, despite the obviously-limited effect that'd have on me. Surely to deny someone, corporation or individual, the right to pursue judicial support would be, if not unconstitutional, but unethical.

Yes, I know the patent trolls and various labels and companies have abused that right, but that right should be protected in order that everyone else can be safe in the knowledge that they can go to the courts for help and restitution. Denying one makes it easier to deny the second. Slippery-slopes and all that...

Despite all of that I do believe that Warners are acting like fools pursuing this, but that's their right.

Filters

[Ajehals]

From the summary;

...'deliberately refrains' from adding simple yet ineffective content filters to screen out copyright infringing materials... Unless this is a typo, it seems perfectly sensible, if you are not required to use filters (Assuming that "Safe Harbour" applies) at all, that you would certainly not use ineffective ones. If that is all that is available in terms of content filters, then I guess you could go further and say that there is *no* way of filtering content effectively and so it is absurd to take legal action against someone for not doing so.

I guess the best method would be ORAPC (One RIAA Agent Per Computer), they could sit next to you whilst you browse the web and help you avoid infringing.

Re:Filters

[rhizome]

Unless this is a typo, it seems perfectly sensible,

It's not a typo, it's editorializing on Slashdot's part. Notice where the quotation marks are.

One less movie and one less CD sold to me!

[Jane Q. Public]

I will deliberately avoid paying for Warner Brothers products next time around.

While we have seen lots of nay-sayers, the fact is that voting with your feet works, and the record companies are hurting because of it.

If we customers keep telling them "we don't want this kind of garbage, and our purchases will reflect our stance", they will listen. They have to listen. The reason they are hurting so badly right now is because they did not listen, and they are finally beginning to realize that.

Re:Why do they even have this much power?

[flyneye]

Warner has this kind of power because they are a multi-national communications company.
They're prolly bigger than Microsoft if you put all the subsidiaries together and counted the till.
Unfortunatly for them they specialize in movies and music,two "commodities" whose business model is falling apart due to the evolution and wising up of the human race.We no longer wish to pay to hear the same old stories rehashed ineptly on the same old template.We also no longer wish to pay for music that we are "told" is talent and the best to be had as long as its easy to market for them.
Nope,we have no love for the movie and music industries and it's simply hilarious to watch them thrash and grasp at clumps of grass as they sink deeper into their graves.
          Frankly,from an evolutionary standpoint,we are moving beyond our T.V.,radio and theater addictions,in favor of more homegrown internet entertainment and just blend the industries product into the slurry and pop em all like bon bons indiscriminatly.
          I suppose if those industries want to quit losing money,they should quit spending it.Cut their losses and provide products or services people want to purchase.At the very least they should slap some stockholders till they regain intellegence.It's evolution baby,and Warnercom is just a fossil and doesn't even know it yet.HI-lari-OUS!
          "But what about all the poor people whose livelihoods depend on the world paying far too much for garbage entertainment?"
        To quote Ted Knight in "Caddyshack" "The world needs ditchdiggers too".

Re:Reality check

[ronocdh]

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.

Interesting argument, considering that the labels have caused many of their biggest acts to go indie. It would appear that the labels themselves are screwing the artists out of money in many instances, and the artists, not the labels, who are trying to "find a way to get some or all of [the] profits."

Re:Why do they even have this much power?

[OECD]

Nope,we have no love for the movie and music industries and it's simply hilarious to watch them thrash and grasp at clumps of grass as they sink deeper into their graves.

If by "hilarious" you mean "despairing at our loss of privacy and civil rights due to the perceived need to prop up an outdated, but well-heeled, distribution system" then, yeah. Hi-fraking-larious.

Re:Why do they even have this much power?

[CSMatt]

People may no longer wish to pay for that stuff, but that doesn't mean that the world has suddenly ceased to be inhabited by sheep who will still consume it.

The fact they refuse to filter is the whole point!

[plasmacutter]

If they were to filter they would no longer be classifiable as a neutral intermediary.

I'd be really surprised if the MAFIAA wins this, because the suit essentially says "damnit! stop qualifying for these safe harbors! we want you to deliberately gain knowledge of and act upon whats crossing your servers"

At the same time, I also see them winning this on the utter incompetence of judges who spent their lifetime studying law, and pay geeks to come in when they need an instant messenger installed.

OH, did I mention the current agenda of these disgusting companies is people's republic of china style destruction of the internet?