$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

Copywrong.

[Odder]

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.

Re:Copywrong.

[Odder]

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.

Stardock and Starforce

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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

[palegray.net]

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.

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

[Da Fokka]

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.

digital TV...

[3seas]

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.

oblig

[Fallen Andy]

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