Slashdot Mirror
$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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
That case was the first thing I thought of when I read the article.
/preaching-to-choir
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...
The Digital Sorceress
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.
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.
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
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 ----
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.