Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

$4 Million In Fines For Linking To Infringing Files

Posted by Soulskill on from the even-the-fringe-infringers dept.

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."

20 of 317 comments (clear)

  1. Copywrong. by Odder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So now any service can be DoS'd by the RIAA and MPAA. You know they will stuff any independent index with their crappy content and so destroy all alternative distribution channels.

    1. Re:Copywrong. by Odder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are stepping around the issue by claiming these companies "actively" indexed content owned by the MPAA. The issue is that any service can be stuffed by the MPAA. If you bother to index it and eliminate duplicates and noise files, you will get burnt. Indexing should be allowed and sharing should be allowed. You can't have those things and give copyright holders the ability to police things. What you are left with is a rather stark choice: freedom or copyright. There may be some middle ground, such a allowing personal copy, but it's hard to imagine a way to enforce copyright that won't sabotage everyone's network freedom, free press and free speech.

  2. Re:Google is likely to sued real soon as well as m by MoonFog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And what if Google were to lose? It's sad when we have to wait and hope for these organizations to sue someone big instead of picking on the little guy to have some hope that they might actually be struck down.

  3. Stardock and Starforce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, does this mean that when Starforce posted a link to a pirated copy of Galactic Civilizations II to try to encourage Stardock to use their copy protection (http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/11/2049230), they opened themselves up to a lawsuit from Stardock?
     
    I'd love to see a company that is part of the problem get snared by the laws that they were pushing for themselves.

  4. Re:Google is likely to sued real soon as well as m by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Interesting

    OK, so they can filter but surely that's as much of a minefield as indexing everything? Imagine the law suits when their filtering algorithms start excluding one company and include their opposition. No, they can't filter without running a much higher risk of being held responsible for the content. Google's "SafeSearch" feature sort of skirts the fine edge of this reasoning, but hasn't been challenged yet (i.e. Google getting sued because someone found kiddie porn being "make available" via their search engine). Their broad filtering of search results in some non-U.S. markets might be "iffy" as well.

    Although not meeting the strict legal definition as such, search engine providers like Google could conceivably angle for the protections afforded common carriers.
    --
    512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
  5. Re:Google is likely to sued real soon as well as m by Da+Fokka · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Of course not. **AA would be crazy to try to take on Google. Their case would be much weaker for two reasons. First of all, Google has the cash to put together a stellar legal team. They would do so, because linking to stuff is pretty much at the center of the business model. Second of all, Google links to all kinds of content, of which infringing content is just one, while ShowStash and Cinematube primarily linked to infringing content.

  6. How can you tell? by Odder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How do you know that these two sites did not intend for people to share their own movies? How can you keep the MPAA from loading up any "legitimate" site with all of their own files they way they have with Media Sentry? The ability to DoS legitimate services mandates a change in copyright law. If cases like these continue to win, there will be no alternate distribution channels or free press on the internet.

  7. digital TV... by 3seas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have a 32" working just fine non digital TV and don't have cable but use an antenna. I have no intention on getting a converter box or new TV. But I'll use the TV for DVD's and VHS, for which I buy inexpensive previewed media.

    Since I'm no longer going to support the broadcast markets, including PBS, its advertisers and won't buy new media, there is one obvious things that is going to happen.

    The MPAA is going to really get spoiled baby scream noisy and make all sorts of claims about piracy destroying their business when this digital only broadcast TV switch happens. From this they will pursue any and all non-authorized outlets, further isolating the property of their scope, away from me.

    But the fact of the matter is, it is the entertainment industry attacking consumers, that is the biggest turn off, where the digital TV switchover will be turning off the set for the consumer, whom will not turn it back on so quickly...

    Out of sight, out of mind.

    1. Re:digital TV... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I haven't watched or owned a television in over 10 years and haven't missed it at all. On the contrary, I find that without the distraction and "in-your-face-hurry-hurry" crap around, I have been more calm and focused. I have more drive to do things that are both fun and productive in my free time at home.

    2. Re:digital TV... by ndege · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But the fact of the matter is, it is the entertainment industry attacking consumers, that is the biggest turn off, where the digital TV switchover will be turning off the set for the consumer, whom will not turn it back on so quickly... I mostly agree. However, you miss the big picture. As was recently mentioned in a post here on /. ... In televison, the people are the PRODUCTS being delivered to the advertisers; the real customers. Let me say that again. The person watching television is merely a product being delivered to an advertiser. It does not matter what television content is produced or broadcast for it is merely the lure and mechanism to attract the most people into watching the advertisements.

      Having not really thought about it much, is there a similar situation occurring with the **AA?
      --
      Sig Return: 204 No Content
  8. oblig by Fallen+Andy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    First they came for the indirect links and I did nothing. Then they came for the doubly indirect links and...

    Think about it. If a site links to a site which links to illegal content?

    This nonsense needs to be stopped real soon now. (OR inject "offending" links into **AA company members websites and let them sue each other to death).

    ... and here is a little thought experiment for all my fellow programmers etc. out there - consider a "torrent" which is supposedly a movie. If you only seed blank frames (but claim you have the whole movie), then you aren't violating anyone's copyright (since every movie has blank frames). So, no one can say it's their movie (you're lying about the actual content but since no money is involved I guess not fraudulent in a legal sense (IANAL).).

    Same principle should work for most programs if done carefully. (consider the code from the C etc. run time library).

    On a large enough scale the resultant false accusations and legal actions from the **AA could get them into serious trouble.

    Andy

  9. Usenet next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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. Probably only a matter of time before the Usenet indexing sites starts getting hit then. Some have recently gotten warnings, which is likely a sign of things to come.
  10. Freedom is more important than profit. by twitter · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Personal and verbatim, non commercial copy should be allowed. The denial of service angle is one of many things most lawyers miss when trying to bend paper based copyright law to electronic publications. In their zeal to preserve the publishing industry as it exists, they overlook the unexplored benefits of electronic publications. Lessig has managed to balance freedom with changing technology but I don't think even he saw the DoS problem. Things are easier when you break it down to moral terms. Is it wrong for me to give you a copy of a paper for research? I don't think so. How about a song or movie? That might bother you because of the expectations current movie makers operate under, but those expectations should not be a barrier to change. If things changed tomorrow, movie makers would know the deal and everyone would be comfortable with that. An industry that has extended copyright several times does not deserve such consideration, but we should not stoop to their level. When you consider the whole problem, the natural right to free speech must trump the created rights of copyright. If we blindly persue industry interests, we will eliminate freedom of press. We must all be allowed to share what we have because only the most draconian measures will preserve copyright in a digital world.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Freedom is more important than profit. by poopdeville · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It might as well be. There have already been two copyright extension acts, and the Supreme Court has decided that there is no upper bound on the number of extensions. Yes, perpetual is the right word.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    2. Re:Freedom is more important than profit. by sweet_petunias_full_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One more thing. To the person who dies before the copyright expires it is certainly perpetual.

      Since copyright extends beyond one lifetime then such perpetuity is guaranteed for the vast majority of works and the vast majority of people. Thus, the original words "for limited times" no longer really apply. That means that in practice, the current law is unconstitutional.

      Everyone (with time to read a 300-page book) needs to read this life-changing book containing the most comprehensive treatment of intellectual property out there: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/imbookfinalall.pdf

      I used to think copyrights were beneficial before I read it. Now it's clear they are obsolete.

      --
      You can't send a takedown notice to an already printed newspaper.
    3. Re:Freedom is more important than profit. by yankpop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Some people might be embarrassed to tell musicians and movie makers that they shouldn't be compensated for the work they do musicians and movie makers have never been compensated for the work they do. musicians have been given few cents over $20 worth single album sales by the distributors, and told to go on unending world tours in order to earn money for themselves. What's worse, the industry siphoning off 99% of their profit, or you stealing 100% of what's left? It seems to me that no-one is valuing the work of the musician here.
  11. Re:Short memories by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That case was the first thing I thought of when I read the article.

    Actually, didn't the 2600 DeCSS case kind of set a precident? I remember Eric saying that he'd keep publishing or coming up with ways to obey the letter of the rulings but still provide access somehow until they either stopped, or until the judge got to the point of ordering him not to think, speak or even HEAR about DeCSS. I think the intention was to push so hard as to expose the insanity of the current direction of IP. At one point, they even started printing TeeShirts with the code on them to see if that would get banned.

    Unfortunately, instead of people waking up to the danger these bad IP laws posed to freedom of speech and expression, the ruling that even a link to infringing material was somehow contributing to distribution stuck, and we end up with absurd stuff like the rulings referenced in the article.

    FTFA:
    "The organization apparently hopes that others will merely feel threatened by the prospect of paying out millions of dollars and shut down voluntarily."

    Some serious "chilling effect" going on here... people worrying about what they link to, and maybe even what they say in case they get swarmed with lawsuits and armies of lawyers they can't possibly hope to afford to defend against. I mean, ok, in these particular cases, the intent is kind of obvious: sharing information on where to find copies of protected intellectual property, but where does it stop? Will it get to the point where you can't tell someone to search for the 'foo bar baz' on Google"? Will it get to the point where you can't even tell someone they can search for movies / songs with the right keywords?

    okay... /preaching-to-choir

    --

    The Digital Sorceress
  12. Surprised it didn't happen sooner. by mindstrm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They didn't "merely" link to these sites. Google "Merely" links to the sites.

    These guys appear to have run sites who's sole de-facto purpose was to make finding infringing material easier. They can't claim they didn't know good and well what was going on.

  13. Google is going down by grilled-cheese · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If this is true, google is going to get sued for trillions.

    If you've never used it, here is a little trick with a google query (just replace Green Day with whomever you wish).

    http://www.google.com/ie?q=%22parent+directory%22+mp3+OR+wma+OR+ogg+OR+wav+Green%20Day+-html+-htm+-download+-links&num=100&filter=0

  14. Fall out by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So when does google get nailed for allowing 'bad links' to occur? They have proven the can remove links on command.

    When does Borders get told to remove books off the shelf as they have 'improper information' in them, and be fined afterwards for having them searchable in their database?

    Libraries.. same thing.. They have a 'card catalog' that links...

    This has so many long term ramifications that it should scare the piss out of you if you value your freedom to speak.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----