Slashdot Mirror
What the Pirate Bay Verdict Could Mean For Google
explosivejared writes "Forbes is running a story discussing the verdict in the Pirate Bay case and its implications on file sharing, specifically with regard to Google. The article points out what most people on Slashdot already realize: Google provides essentially the same service that the Pirate Bay does. The Pirate Bay case may be far from over, accounting for appeals, but the Pirate Bay's assumption of being unchallengeable was shattered. The article raises the question of whether or not Google is untouchable in the matter. The story is quick to point out how the situation resembles a futile game of cat-and-mouse, but given how the Pirate Bay's confidence was ultimately broken, is Google beyond reproach?"
Accually the verdict talks loosely about the tracker and more about how the torrent-files are the "tool" of the criminal in this case and since the torrent-files are saved on the harddrives of TPB (as compared to just temporarly going through, like in the router and proxy case) they are not granted immunity according to directive 2000/31/EG. The tracker is harder to categorize since it does not save any files, it just routes client connections pretty much.
Thank you, exactly. .torrent files through google and it seems people think that is all you need. .torrent file is worthless without one or more well-visited trackers.
You can find
A
Google does not provide well-seeded .torrent files. TPB does/did.
Secondary, Google itself does not prefilter on that kind of content, thus remaining neutral. And they react on take-down notices for links, so nothing will happen to them.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Also, even though the torrent files are illegal, TPB could have avoided liability by removing them on request.
They could also have avoided liability by not admitting to piracy being their business idea. Hosting infringing content is OK. Not removing infringing content is OK, as long as you can claim to not be purposefully aiding the infringement. For example, by contacting the uploader and then going back to the complainer saying "look guys, you say this is your stuff, but the uploader, Svenne Banan, says it is his stuff. Can you guys settle this, because we'll be in breach of our Service Level Agreement with Mr. Banan if we just delete the torrent."
TPB refused to remove the files and stated that their goal was piracy. This made them liable according to paragraph 18 and 19 of the Law of Electronic Commerce, based on directive 2000/31/EG. (In Swedish: Lag (2002:562) om elektronisk handel och andra informationssamhällets tjänster.)
The verdict explicitly addresses this point and states that due to TPB running the tracker and thus being intimately involved in the sharing of copyrighted material any comparison with Google is false. They were not convicted because TPB is hosting a bunch of torrent files, they were convicted because they were running a tracker.
Moreover, while TPB site itself contains the Torrent files, Google only has links to such files.
And again, the "colour" of the bits is what matters, as already said before TPB site itself was not the issue in the trial, it was that the guys conspired to help people commit copyright infringement.
Not that I am in favour of that shit... :(
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Get real. TPB was found guilty according to Swedish law and Swedish law only.
The fact that some things that are illegal in the US are also illegal in Sweden does not mean it's the big bad imperial USA stomping all over the independence of another country.
The difference is that google would have cooperated with authorities and media companies. Take a look at what they've done with youtube and Video ID. They will actively try to prevent copyright infringement. Pirate bay didn't and wasn't willing to do that.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Googles search engine tracks web content, TPB tracks bittorrent content.
Can you really not see a similarity, do you think a court of Law understands technology better than slashdot ?
My cat understands technology better than slashdot.
And it's not like it's a particularly bright cat.
Because TPB is in breach of the law? If they were going after the downloader you'd be arguing that they should be suing TPB. But fear not, with IPRED, they'll be going after the downloader, too!
Actually, if they were going after downloaders I'd say they were exploiting the court system with their money and lawyers... I'd be saying that in this case too if they hadn't been so shockingly incompetent.
TPB being in breach of the law is the current court decision, they still argue that they aren't and I find their argument convincing. It's yet to be seen whether an appeal court will agree. There's also nothing to say that a court wouldn't find Google to be in breach of the law if anyone were to sue them
Google complies with takedown notices, which grants them freedom from liability according to Swedish law (18 para 2002:562). TPB... oh wait.
Well, fair point that TPB don't comply with takedown notices, but most of the requests they get are appealing to US laws like the DMCA and hence deserve a heaping of scorn. There is also the fact that they don't host anything that's under copyright, so they have nothing to takedown except what is effectively a link to the infringing content... and I think I'm right in saying that linking is legal under Swedish law
Google complies with takedown notices, which grants them freedom from liability according to Swedish law (18 para 2002:562). TPB... oh wait.
Well, fair point that TPB don't comply with takedown notices, but most of the requests they get are appealing to US laws like the DMCA and hence deserve a heaping of scorn.
According to Swedish law, the notification need not have any special format, nor contain any references to Swedish law. The law only talks about "awareness of obvious copyright infringement". This can be abused, but the service provider has another line of defence: They must be found to purposefully aid in the infringement.
For TPB, since they knew what DMCA was about, they can't really claim to not understand that they are not aware of obvious copyright infringement. If the note had been in Hungarian or hieroglyphs they could have claimed that the note was incomprehensible. If the movies were not big blockbusters they could have claimed that the notices were for material that weren't obviously infringing. (And be safe according to 18 para).
Finally, they have gone on record to say that the purpose of TPB was to infringe copyright. This means they are not protected under paragraph 19 either.
There is also the fact that they don't host anything that's under copyright, so they have nothing to takedown except what is effectively a link to the infringing content... and I think I'm right in saying that linking is legal under Swedish law
The court found that since the torrent file, after having been uploaded and stored on TPB, is an accessory of the crime of illegal copying, TPB must take down the torrent file.
So to summarize, and I am not a Swedish lawyer, linking is cool. Linking to infringing material is ok, as long as you cooperate with rights holders. Linking to material that isn't "obviously" infringing is completely ok.
And by "obvious" we mean that you'd have to be pretty willfully thick-headed to not connect the dots.
If you link to a YouTube video of a shaky camcorder movie of a Balkan wedding, you can reasonably claim that you had no idea that this was the greatest summer hit of 1933 in Kazakhstan, and just wanted to show what a Balkan wedding looked like. But if you link to "X-Men Origins: Wolverine", with the text "hey d00dz, get it before it's in the cinemas here!" you can't claim that you had no idea what it was.
Common carriers are protected under paragraphs 16 and 17. Para 16 states that if you are just transferring the information, you're not liable, as long as you don't initiate or alter the information. (There's more but that's the gist of it.) That's the "common carrier" paragraph.
Para 17 says that if you just facilitate a transmission without altering the data, you're not liable. Specifically, your copies of the information must be deleted as soon as the transmission ends, and you may not store it in a permanent way. The information must be transient, in particular, it must be deleted as soon as the originator deletes their copy or makes their copy inaccessible. This is also "common carrier"-ish; more specifically, it is the "caching proxy" paragraph.
But TPB hosts the torrent files, meaning that they are not a "carrier", nor a "facilitator", as they do not merely transfer information, nor just facilitate the transfer in a transient way. This puts them under paragraph 18: a provider that accepts information from one user, stores it in a permanent way, and distributes it to others. For example, I can create a torrent file, upload it to TPB, and then delete my copy of the file without it disappearing automatically from TPB.
And under paragraph 18, you must remove material that is infringing as soon as you have an awareness of obviously infringing material. Which the torrent files were, and TPB didn't.
Then there's paragraph 19: You must have intent to commit infringement. TPB certainly did - they have gone on record saying that so many times that there's no point in protesting.
Yes - try searching for x-men wolverine origins torrent.
But if you link to "X-Men Origins: Wolverine", with the text "hey d00dz, get it before it's in the cinemas here!" you can't claim that you had no idea what it was.
Sure you can. How many things are listed in Pirate Bay? Millions? I doubt that anyone who works their actually knows more than a small percentage of the site, its just an automated database. Its like saying that Google "knows" that when I search for "X-Men Wolverine torrents" that its serving up copyrighted material.
Well, a more or less directions for you the user to do something illegal and not the actual content itself...
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey