$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

WTF?

[nurb432]

So, information has become illegal. Knowledge is forbidden.

Freedom is screwed.

*Secondarily* Indexing Copyrighted Content?

[Doc Ruby]

search engines which primarily index copyright-infringing material and the people who run them may not be safe in the US

What about search engines that only secondarily index such (possibly - how is the index to determine the copyright compliance without having the content itself?) content? If the engine indexes a lot of other stuff that no one says is coypright infringing, like the rest of the Web, is that OK? IOW, could Google also point to this contentious content, along with its other content?

That is exactly the dance that other controversial media has forced outlets to dance when the crackdown comes down. Like in NYC under Giuliani, when he started shutting down porno video stores in neighborhoods he wanted to force to sell out to real estate speculators. The stores would reopen if their "primary" content was non-porno movies, which was just window dressing since "despite their primary stock", their customers mostly still just bought the porno out of the (now legit, by being ghettoized) back corner with the "Adults Only" signs flashing all over it.

This distinction is an essential point in this whole conflict. If Google's regular "Web" search results (not a separate section like for "News" or "Shopping", etc) also returned results that point at material that the RIAA says violates copyright, is Google safe, because those indexed items are not its primariy function? How does Google know that the content it points to is copyright-legit? How is anyone without a $billion to spend on compliance to set up an Internet search engine? And how does the Constitutional copyright exception to free speech/press justify impeding the entire Internet's navigation just for the already dubious (probably unjustified already) claims that current copyright controls "promote progress in science and the useful arts", its only legal basis, rather than sharply harm that progress?

If Google is safe legally, because of its primary function indexing other content (and not making its primary function paying a lot of lawyers and content examiners), then what about a competitor to Google that also spiders the Web, indexes all content, but doesn't exclude content on the basis of possible copyright infringement? Would such an inclusive search engine be legally OK, free to grow to a huge size, competing with Google by including all the content "too hot for Google to handle"? Would that legit competition in turn push Google into indexing that same content, too?