$4 Million In Fines For Linking To Infringing Files

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The MPAA won judgments totaling $4M against two sites which merely link to infringing content. They're not arguing that it's an infringement of their distribution right, like the RIAA has with their 'making available' argument. Instead, they got the sites for 'contributory copyright infringement', just like RIAA v. LimeWire. To translate all that legalese into English, search engines which primarily index copyright-infringing material and the people who run them may not be safe in the US. That applies even if the sites in question do not host any infringing materials, participate in, or encourage the infringement done by their users. And, even honoring DMCA notices in order to take advantage of the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions hasn't prevented the **AA from suing."

Comments

Re:If I am reading this correctly

[ijakings]

This will break the internet. "The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -John Gilmore

Re:Copywrong.

[Odder]

Anyone can be shut down with this, not just "thugs". Google's YouTube service has been in the crosshairs for a while now. All the legacy copyright owners have to do is stuff the channel to shut it down. Copyright must be changed to prevent that kind of denial of service. One of PJ's first entries was about P2P and industry's fear of a richer world.

wait for the appeal

[poetmatt]

Just a FYI, the appeal on this would most likely win and find them guilty of nothing. Assuming they're smart enough to do so...which they probably won't, unfortunately.

If there is an appeal, then it will be a bigger deal on this one.

Short memories

[DaHat]

My /. has a short memory... this was exactly what the old 2600 case over DeCSS was about.

Some notable dirty tricks.

[inTheLoo]

If the past is any guide, shutting down alternate channels of distribution is what this is all about. Here are some dirty tricks MediaDefender and their paymasters have pulled in the past:

• HBO "poisons" P2P with noise and DoS against peers. This targeted the show "Rome" but the price of the defense was massive network disruption for everyone. They don't care about harm to innocent bystanders.
• Setting up fake download sites. They then lied and denied everyting. Do we know the two companies punished today were not shells?
• DoS of email leaks. No copyright involved there, just pure shutdown with all the same network effects as "legitimate" blockage.

The MPAA is desperate because it knows it will follow the RIAA's decline soon. They can't match the diversity of free networks and will do what they can to disrupt them. People can and will make music and movies to entertain themselves without copyright protection if they are allowed to share their works.

Re:Google is likely to sued real soon as well as m

[Dragoon412]

Not the same. I said, "UNLAWFUL copies." If a news agency wants to put up their copyrighted photos on a website, then someone browsing their site isn't a copyright infringer. Ditto for a search engine that POINTS to those sites. The index is to a bunch of LAWFUL copies. What you're neglecting to take into consideration, though, is that Google isn't just indexing the copyright-owners' own sites.

Try looking for Transformers on Google. That fan site with the picture of Optimus Prime? That's infringement; it's unlawful. The wiki hosting a sound clip of some exchange between Star Scream and Megatron? That's infringment. The fanfic? Infringement. Google's linking to it all. They're even hosting thumbnails of some of it.

The distinction between linking to lawful and unlawful copyright works is something that can't be sustained in the face of a modern search engine. It would be asinine to tell Google that it couldn't link to anything without first ascertaining that the site has a clear and lawful copyright on the substance. A search engine just couldn't work in such a case. Likewise, saying a search engine is guilty of contributory copyright infringement when it does link to infringing material is no more sustainable, because the internet is a minefield. The liability imposed would be so monstrous as to either destroy the entire industry or create such legal liability that we're left with the last situation: search engines only able to link to things after they verify the owner's valid copyright claims.

For this to be good precedent, there needs to be a distinction made by the courts as to what makes these sites different from Google, Yahoo, and the like, and it can't be based on a post hoc determination of the host site's copyright validity.

Re:Offtopic.

[Macthorpe]

I play this game because others tried to silence me. They modbombed my account so that I can only post once a day at -1. That's not good enough for me or you, so I have used some of the same tactics the trolls do. Who is 'they'? Microsoft, you normally say. You waver between them and a shadowy organisation of 'trolls' who act to silence you. Of course, they don't bother with people like Bruce Perens and Miguel de Icaza, you're the one they're trying to keep down because you're so rational when you talk about Free Software.

When will you open your eyes and realise it was the constant lies, flaming and misrepresentation that got you into the karma hole you're in?

Ben Franklin had conversations with himself in his and other publications and it's a legitimate way to explore an issue Ben Franklin never had those conversations in a public space while pretending to others that he was several different people. What Ben Franklin did was continual, accurate, bipartisan self-assessment. What you do is try to control legitimate discussion by trying to force it into being between people you control, so your ideas seem to be the ones held in high merit in the community. Ben Franklin was after self-improvement. You just want control.

When it's used to game the moderation system, censor users, spam and promote filth like this, it's a problem. Which is exactly what you're doing. How can you bring yourself down to what you consider to be a base level, then pretend you're still somehow better than everyone else?

There's not much dishonest about what I'm doing. You post using at least 9 different accounts and you don't reveal that anywhere in your posts. That is a lie of omission at the very least, and is inherently dishonest by nature.

Of course, AC, you know all of this. You read all of my journal articles, posts and those you think I write. It must be exhausting because you think so many people are me. There's no bigger fan of mine than you. Keep reading, you might learn something even if you are paid not to. I, for one, certainly know which ones are you, because no matter how hard you try you can't keep that arrogant posturing of yours under control. What's even more amusing is, the more often you reply to yourself to make your points stand out, the easier it is to spot.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will pick one account and keep posting from it because we don't have to hide from who we are.

Re:Freedom is more important than profit.

[Rockin'Robert]

Handing public services to privateers is otherwise known as ... FASCISM.
The Founder and 'philosopher' of Fascism was Mussolini's mentor, one Giovanni Gentile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Gentile

Re:Freedom is more important than profit.

[unity100]

you have confused DISTRIBUTION with PRODUCTION.

Re:Freedom is more important than profit.

[Weedlekin]

"Most musicians are not being paid up front"

The vast majority of professional musicians are paid a fixed hourly rate, and have to start looking for work again when a particular job is finished. People tend to use the term "musician" as a synonym for "artist signed to a record company" despite the fact that this is actually a very small proportion of musicians, just as a very small proportion of actors get to charge exorbitant fees for being in a movie.

Re:Freedom is more important than profit.

[Doggabone]

Some people might be embarrassed to tell musicians and movie makers that they shouldn't be compensated for the work they do, but in the blue green world of news for nerds, it's considered a noble crusade.

It's gotta be more embarassing to pretend that copyright laws actually help artists make a living.

I can't speak directly for the movie makers, but for a lot of us musicians (and the film-makers I work with) it's a noble crusade, too. Existing business and royalty models based on today's interpretation of copyright fail for musicians. Giving it away is more profitable than selling it, for more artists than not.

The music industry eats its young - the models haven't been broken for years, they've been broken for decades. The only artists served by the "my copyright or wrong" mindset are the mega-stars who are in themselves walking corporations. The savvy artist is learning different rules and making a living.