Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Another Question Of Search Engine Legality and Infringement

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the what-if-the-judge-is-a-tech-moron dept.

Another question of search engine "legality" is being addressed with a recent court case in the UK over a video search engine. Techdirt's coverage questions the long-standing tradition of how to evaluate contributory infringement claims for sites like search engines based on the highly subjective "I know it when I see it" test. "Take for example, the situation going on in the UK, where Anton Benjamin Vickerman and his wife Kelly-Anne Vickerman decided to do something that makes a lot of sense: create a search engine for videos online, indexing a variety of different sites. This was as a part of their company Scopelight, and the search engine itself was called Surfthechannel. This is certainly a useful product. But, of course, the search engine's algorithm has no way of knowing if that video has been put up by the copyright holder on purpose or if it's unauthorized. Even more tricky, how does it determine fair use? So, it did the reasonable thing: it includes everything. Lots of the videos are legal. Plenty are potentially unauthorized. Apparently that wasn't good enough for a UK-based anti-piracy group UK-FACT, who had Scopelight's premises raided, claiming the site is illegal, since people can find unauthorized content via it. Of course, you can find unauthorized content on Google as well. But you know who's liable for that? Whoever actually put it online. Not the search engine that pointed you to it."

62 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful
    At least for America, this blogger simply holds a different viewpoint of how things should be from the content lawyer lobbyists and the court system they control.

    But you know who's liable for that? Whoever actually put it online. Not the search engine that pointed you to it.

    That's really funny you should say that because recently precedent was set at $80,000 per song for uploading and distributing it. Was the defendant the original uploader? Not even close.

    And you know what? Through both those trials, I am unaware of any action taken to track down the initial uploader of those files. Maybe because doing so is futile. But it might also be that the legal system here (and also in Sweden apparently) views association of diseminating information about pirating as a more problematic and evil crime than the actual act of you pirating it for yourself!

    This is a complex process of getting copyrighted material to you. Someone has to buy it, encode it, upload it, it gets seeded or whatever, you search for it, you download it, you execute it, you re-upload it, ad nauseum. And at any point in that chain, these people are not afraid to prosecute you. And, like some sort of pyramid scheme, you collect all the sins of those in the chain before you. And you pay, oh yes, my brethren, you pay dearly.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint by Freetardo+Jones · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's really funny you should say that because recently precedent was set at $80,000 per song for uploading and distributing it. Was the defendant the original uploader? Not even close.

      Actually Jammie Thomas was the original uploader. She ripped her CDs and then made them available on P2P. Secondly, that wasn't the creation of any precedent, that was just the jury applying current statues when it comes to copyright infringement (and it's not even the statutory maximum). Thirdly, Jammie Thomas is nothing but a guilty liar and her and anyone who supports her are just making it harder for those of us who try to make a legitimate case against the DMCA and current copyright laws. Finally, exactly what does a US trial and US statutes have to do with the UK?

    2. Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The defendant was uploading. You don't have to be the original uploader(distributor) just a distributor. And if you aren't leeching your torrent, then you are distributing content.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint by Freetardo+Jones · · Score: 1

      This of course is not much comfort if you are on the losing end of one these court cases

      Then maybe Jammie should have just have been an adult and admitted her guilt and taken the plea bargain rather than trying to use outrageous defenses (how can someone hack you through a wireless device when you don't even use a wireless device?) and racking up an even higher penalty against yourself.

    4. Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint by !coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I couldn't agree more, and many have said as much before, that Jammie is the worst kind of poster-face for the fight against the RIAA, the DMCA, current copyright laws and the insanity of the business practices of an industry who constantly shows no respect whatsoever to the artists they're supposed to foster and protect and the consumers who still make it possible for them to be a multi-billion dollar player.

      But the fact is, however guilty Jammie may be, that judgement was nothing short of a legal railroading of her financial future (even if she eventually files for bankrupcy, it's not a pretty sight), and a completely disproportionate response/penalty to the offenses commited. I mean, I can certainly see the case for high damages when we're talking about people who not only wilfully infringe (the only way for her to get slapped with more than $30k per song), but more importantly profit from it. When profit is the motivation, then heck, by all means, go for the throat.

      But a civil suit for copyright infringement that stems from a simple "I'm not paying for this", with no other financial motivations behind it, should never be able to reach such high figures. I always hate it whenever a judicial system takes someone and tries to "make an example" out of them, to discourage others from following. It's just too arbitrary, has led to many unsavoury situations in the past and is the opposite of how any judicial system should work -- all equal before the law.

    5. Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint by jonfr · · Score: 1

      The cops need to raid UK-FACT offices. I am sure that they have some shady stuff. Groups like UK-FACT always do.

    6. Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint by Freetardo+Jones · · Score: 1

      Oh I totally agree that the statutory limits are excessive, and have said so in a previous post in the linked thread from the GGP, but supporting someone as ridiculous as Jammie Thomas is going to make people completely shut out anyone attempting to make a legitimate point. Her case is doing nothing but feeding directly into the hands of the RIAA/MPAA and they are probably more then grateful that they got not just one judgment against her but two.

    7. Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint by Penguinoflight · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem with that argument is two-fold. First, once the media has already been made publicly available the status of legal protection for said media could be considered inactive. Copyrighted materials that are not actively protected are not subject to litigation. On the other hand, the original infringer may have removed any copyright notice or distribution limitations that would have flagged the work.

      It is the responsibility of the copyright holding company to inform viewers of the limitations.
      Arguing that a redistributor is infringing seems to shirk the responsibility of the copyright holder.

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
    8. Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint by !coward · · Score: 1

      I hear ya, and, again, I agree.

      I don't see the EFF or other like organizations falling over themselves to come to her aid, do you? ;) I think pretty much everyone realized early on that this one was a losing battle. That she should probably have settled, shouldn't have lied/contradicted herself or otherwise engage in very suspicious behavior (the missing/swapped hard drive comes to mind). Even NYCL's coverage of the thing seemed far more distant than his take on other cases.

      But everyone is entitled to put up a defense, and there were several things that could have gone in her favor (namely, the fact that MediaSentry should have been considered an unreliable source for evidence, which would probably have resulted in a default judgement for her) so I can't really blame her for trying.

      Then there's this latest legal team, doing it pro bono. I suspect they were mostly trying to slay a giant, and the specifics of who it was they were doing it for take second fiddle to the chance at being renowned as the guys who whooped mighty RIAA's legal team's ass.

      But don't fret. I mean, it took some doing but eventually the RIAA would find someone like Jammie and, given the scope of things, I think we're still pretty lucky that they haven't dug up a few more like her. She's one bad apple for this particular issue, but I doubt it'll spoil things.

      If it turns out we can't change the way things are, then it'll be because the legislators simply don't care, have their pockets full or are incapable of grasping how serious this matter is for our collective future, especially in the cultural sense.

      DRM, due to the constant breakdowns, is starting to get a beating even amongst people who don't have a clue, and eventually people will refuse to be treated has perpetual cash-cows.. From there to getting our fair use rights back and sane copyright limits is just a few steps.

    9. Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

      The way I see it, ignoring the DMCA, only someone downloading should be held responsible. The uploader has no idea if you own a legal copy of something. That should be the downloader's responsibility. If you upload, you are helping others make legitimate backups. If someone abuses that and doesn't own a legitimate copy, they are the only one's that should be prosecuted. On the same line of reasoning, even if you are guilty as a downloader, you don't know if anyone you are uploading to owns a license and should only be liable for your infraction; not the infraction of others.

      --
      -SaNo
    10. Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint by serutan · · Score: 1

      In my opinion the whole association between search engines and "contributory infringement" is smoke and mirrors. If the yellow pages gives the address of a pawn shop, do they share the guilt if the shop sells stolen property? No. If Flickr shows a photo of a fruit stand with racks of fruit out in front of the store, do they share the guilt when somebody runs by and snatches fruit off the rack? No. Does Google Maps share the guilt if they show a Ferrari parked out on the street and somebody steals the Ferrari? Hell the Fuck No. Information that can be used to commit crimes is all over the place and always has been. The information has never been the crime and never has been. Contributory infringement isn't a legal principle, it's an extortion tactic.

    11. Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint by Freetardo+Jones · · Score: 1

      No, not the EFF but there are still slashdotters who even in the linked thread are still parroting her idiotic defenses and acting as if she is innocent. It's people like that who continue to hurt any legitimate causes.

    12. Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Odd. You make the point that copyright law is fubar'd. You quite reasonably point out that Jammie Thomas is probably guilty of something. We can agree that much. But, you seem to see little problem with Jammie, and people like her, being prosecuted under law that is fucked up beyond all recognition. Odd.

      My attitude is, if the law is wrong, then no one can be guilty of violating that law.

      If I may draw a parallel between the legal system, and the military?

      A leader never issues an order that he knows will be disobeyed. The recent (two year old?) story about a transport captain who ordered a convoy, knowing full well that the convoy wouldn't follow orders, is more guilty than those individuals who refused the orders. He is an incompetent, and ineffective leader.

      Here, we have an entire body of law that the entire world scoffs at.

      Who is guilty? Jammie? I hardly think so. I say, fix the law, then chase the real criminals.

      Oh. Wait. Many of the real criminals wear suits, and prop their feet up on desks in penthouse offices. That wouldn't work, would it?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    13. Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint by Crazyswedishguy · · Score: 1

      But you know who's liable for that? Whoever actually put it online. Not the search engine that pointed you to it.

      That's really funny you should say that because recently precedent was set at $80,000 per song for uploading and distributing it. Was the defendant the original uploader? Not even close.

      That's really funny you should say that, because your example has nothing to do with TFS.

      The point is that in the case you cited, the defendant actually was (allegedly) an uploader. Whether the original or not doesn't matter, she was making those files available for download, and they were being downloaded from her computer. And she could just as well have been sharing/uploading her own CDs, so whether she was the original uploader or not doesn't matter.

      My understanding of this situation is that the video search engine doesn't actually serve the material, but links you to where you can download/watch it. This case is a lot more like Pirate Bay, where they provide "links" to the copyrighted material.

      --
      This space up for sale.
    14. Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint by westlake · · Score: 1

      When profit is the motivation, then heck, by all means, go for the throat.

      That isn't how the system works.

      Civil law isn't about motive. It is about responsibility.

      The recovery of damages for your wrongful or negligent actions.

      When the damages total up to to $65,000, the jury awards $65,000. The jury never sees your bank account. Your credit rating. Evidence of hardship is simply not admissible. It is not a defense. The jury cannot provide equitable relief. Collection is not their responsibility either.

      But a civil suit for copyright infringement that stems from a simple "I'm not paying for this", with no other financial motivations behind it, should never be able to reach such high figures.


      "I'm not paying for this"       is the argument of a thief.

      The jury hangs Robin Hood.

      This is the one lesson - well, to be truthful, one of the many lessons - about the law the geek never quite takes in.

      Trials are public.

      They are always intended to set an example.

      The role of the jury "testifies" to the openness and legitimacy of what would otherwise be a closed-door proceeding.

      The jury of your peers has accepted a minimum per diem in exchange for long hours and hard work.

      That should tell you something.

      $30K a track is a plausible estimate of the retail value of your unlicensed wholesale distribution or redistribution.

      The problem for the geek who believes in jury nullification is that he also has to believe that the jury doesn't know how P2P really works.

      That they don't understand upload and download ratios. The "cred" to be one by being the first to post a quality rip of The Transformers.

    15. Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint by selven · · Score: 1

      There is no single "first uploader". There are probably around 1000 people who pirated it straight from legitimate media sources and put it up. Then, the stuff spread all over the pirate networks and a few people were still uploading it from wherever they bought it.

    16. Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Groups like UK-FACT are fucking bullies, they deliberately pick on the little fish in the hope they can set some kind of precedent they can use as a weapon against bigger fish.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    17. Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint by Cross-Threaded · · Score: 1

      My attitude is, if the law is wrong, then no one can be guilty of violating that law.

      My attitude is similar, however, we do not have the luxury to apply our attitudes. At least not without risking serious repercussions. Jail, fines, etc. So you want to make sure you pick your battles well.

      The way our country is set up, we don't have a heck of a lot of say, as individuals, of what should be the law, and what should not be the law.

      We, as citizens, are allowed to make suggestions (by lobbying, writing letters, protesting, etc.), but, really that is it. Just suggestions.

      We have to depend on our representatives in the senate, house of representatives, and the president, to make laws that we deem fair.
      (Same for state, and local laws, too.)

      If a law is passed that the general public feels is unfair, we can scream our lungs out, but, we are not guaranteed action to abolish/repeal that law.

      If a person breaks one of those laws we find unfair, we have to depend on the judicial branch to interpret the law in a manner that we find just. This doesn't happen oftentimes.

      Unfortunately, we, either as individuals, or as a mob, have exactly zero influence on this judicial process.

      The judges must interpret the law as written, and signed into law, and in the spirit to the best of their judgment that the law was written. We don't get a say at all.

      The typical reaction to this argument is to vote whomever is the most ardent idiot(s) out of office, typically a party, the president, or individual legislators.

      Unfortunately, it is not easy to do this, and requires pretty much grass-roots effort to get anyone voted out of office.

      And, if the government official that would need to be voted out represents 75% of your views in other areas, well, should you try to get them kicked out of office?

      I'm not sure if I would trade 75% agreement for a single issue that bugged me. The replacement could be worse.

      --
      They call us sheeple, I wonder why?
  2. So, to draw a parallel by kick6 · · Score: 1

    If I show the cops were the bank robbers are stashing the money, I'm guilty of robbing the bank?

    1. Re:So, to draw a parallel by Freetardo+Jones · · Score: 1

      Since this is a false analogy, no.

    2. Re:So, to draw a parallel by EkriirkE · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes.
      In HS I showed out net admin that I could access anyone's private doc folder - across multiple campuses. I wasn't caught, I explicitly showed it to the proper authorities. I got suspended and my computer privileges revoked.

      Apparently you are better off doing wrong than good.

      --
      from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
    3. Re:So, to draw a parallel by Anonymusing · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The proper phrase is, "No good deed goes unpunished."

      --
      Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
    4. Re:So, to draw a parallel by HelloKitty2 · · Score: 1

      If they aren't reporting all the illegal filesharing going on on their site (Such as in your analogy of reporting where the money is), then they are aiding them. You aren't allowed to aid bank robbers in their acts.

    5. Re:So, to draw a parallel by RingDev · · Score: 1

      So if I put up a web site that allows all of the local barterers and pawn brokers to add themselves to the site (or for others to add them), and some of those pawn brokers perform illegal trades with out my knowledge, should I be held accountable for disseminating the information as to their location?

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    6. Re:So, to draw a parallel by ramsejc · · Score: 1

      Or to get more detailed, if you search out and find the weak spot in the bank vault's walls, and then advertise a way to get free money and when someone calls on you, you drive them up to that spot and drop them off. You are not guilty of robbing the bank, but you are an accomplice to be certain. I'm not sure if that would be accessory to burglary, or some other charge, as IANAL. My guess is all they need to prove is that someone viewed copyrighted material through your search engine and you are 'the right way for a smack bottom.' (Yes, I quoted Shrek, so what?)

    7. Re:So, to draw a parallel by 2names · · Score: 1

      Exactly, like posting a question to slashdot.

      I know, I know, it's cheap, but c'mon, I really need some advice here...

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    8. Re:So, to draw a parallel by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      Wow. Way to teach kids how to be honest.

      I wonder what the heck their reasoning was? I suspect they were just personally pissed at you for pointing out their mistake and decided to exact revenge rather than accept that a teenager might be better than them at this.

    9. Re:So, to draw a parallel by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 1

      In HS I showed out net admin that I could access anyone's private doc folder - across multiple campuses. I wasn't caught, I explicitly showed it to the proper authorities. I got suspended and my computer privileges revoked.

      Did you "show" it by doing it, or "show" it by laying out how a hypothetical someone might do it, strictly in theory mind you, if they chose to do so.

      If it was against your school's policy to access another users folder and you did so, then you deserved to be punished. It doesn't matter what your intentions were or who you demonstrated the infraction for. Rules are rules and breaking them to prove how easily they can be broken is still breaking them.

      There is a big difference between telling someone that they left their garage door wide open to thieves it and committing burglary to prove the point (even if you were, like, totally going to return the stuff after they got your informative and well-meaning message). In the former case, they thank you or tell you to buzz off and you both go about your business. In the later case the police get involved.

      A lot of you

    10. Re:So, to draw a parallel by don.g · · Score: 1

      Good old high schools. I showed the teacher who set up our intranet how the password-protection (done via client side JavaScript) could be bypassed. I didn't get in trouble, and they didn't bother improving it; I think the claim was that those pages weren't especially secret and that students who could "break in" were somewhat rare.

      --
      Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
    11. Re:So, to draw a parallel by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Just listing the contents of a folder (without opening the files themselves) is hardly comparable to stealing stuff, and being suspended for that is moronic.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
  3. this is a fundamental flaw in some current law by jacquesm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In many countries it is now illegal to link to infringing content, it will take the likes of google to be sued before we'll get a real precedent because only they have enough money to take it all the way to the highest courts.

    Linking should be ok, no matter what the content, after all, if you link to one of my sites I can replace the contents of that site after the fact by something that is copyrighted, in no way should an action by me make you liable. This will decide the future of the web.

    --
    MP3 Search Engine
    1. Re:this is a fundamental flaw in some current law by T+Murphy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If they cannot stop infringement as long as the internet as we know it exists, then enforcing laws that break the internet sounds like a great way to solve the problem. Maybe they do know what they're doing.

      --
      My webcomic
    2. Re:this is a fundamental flaw in some current law by click2005 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Google is more than happy with the current situation too. It does a good job of killing the competition.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    3. Re:this is a fundamental flaw in some current law by melted+keyboard · · Score: 1

      Where is the +1 disturbing moderation when you need it?

  4. Law enforcement by doas777 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It seems to me that the powers that be have it backward. instead of using technology to enforce the law, they should use it to make the law irrelevant. The internet could have saved us from many laws, but no, they just went and wrote more of them.

  5. Do you blame the road if the car is stolen? by decipher_saint · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A search engine isn't some magic machine that developers plug wishes and rainbows in and tell it not to be naughty (especially in the age of ever-changing legally defined naughtyness).

    A search engine simply leads to data, for that to work it has to store some part of it. The reality is that a search engine is completely ignorant of morals, laws and copyright.

    Data is collected. Data is stored. Data is Data.

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
    1. Re:Do you blame the road if the car is stolen? by Mr.+Droopy+Drawers · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I wonder if anyone has the details on why seeqpod was knocked off the air.

      Seems to be the same issue?

      --

      To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.

    2. Re:Do you blame the road if the car is stolen? by networkconsultant · · Score: 1

      How dare you profit from somone else's privaterring!

    3. Re:Do you blame the road if the car is stolen? by decipher_saint · · Score: 1

      "How dare you profit from somone else's privaterring!"

      I like that analogy quite a bit actually, if you take the search engine and make it the sea. How do you find out if your content is stolen? Search for it! Then chase the pirates down by searching for them.

      --
      crazy dynamite monkey
    4. Re:Do you blame the road if the car is stolen? by ElKry · · Score: 1

      From http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/data :

      "However, there has been a growing tendency to use it as an equivalent to the uncountable noun information, followed by a singular verb. This is now regarded as generally acceptable in American use, and in the context of information technology."

    5. Re:Do you blame the road if the car is stolen? by YouWantFriesWithThat · · Score: 1

      seeqpod was one of my favorite sites. very unhappy about it being killed. it was nice to punch in a band, hear a few tracks and see if you liked it or not.

      depending on the user, it could be pre-sale research which would be a good thing for record companies.

    6. Re:Do you blame the road if the car is stolen? by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

      In other words, data ain't what they used to be.

    7. Re:Do you blame the road if the car is stolen? by 2short · · Score: 2, Funny

      That should be: "Data ain't what it used to are"

    8. Re:Do you blame the road if the car is stolen? by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      Datum is the singular noun in formal British English. The problem is people who don't realise that data != information, and that data are always countable, since it is made up of many individual measurements.

  6. Just tellin folks WHERE to get the illegal goodies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    For a fee for them of course (in the form of ads I'm sure)

    Getting paid to tell people where to go to easily break the law. What a racket.

    If some creepy guy was lurking on a street corner, trying to sell information on where to go to rape some kidnap victims, would that be ok?

    Since he didn't kidnap them, and he can't actually _make_ you rape them, he is a blameless angel, no?

  7. Welcome to Web 0.5 by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Now you can't index the web because somewhere, somehow in all the world wide web someone posted something that in some country could be challenged as illegal. You can't have any kind of input from your users, because some "malicious" (or not with a ring of 3+ international laws degree deep knowledge) could put a link to a place that have content that could be objectionable in some country.
    Or you must watch and approve at hand with a bunch of lawyers on your side anything that you will show in your site, coming from you, coming from other sites, or coming from visitors.

    Why we couldnt just jail all the persons (and their families, of course, peer pressure works) that want that internet in that internet, and keep this actual one for us?

    1. Re:Welcome to Web 0.5 by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 1

      What if the linked site replaces the link target with something "objectionable"?

      You need to constantly check and recheck everything that is not created/uploaded by you!

      --
      We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
  8. Re:Just tellin folks WHERE to get the illegal good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So, we should arrest people who own DNS servers because they point to IP addresses that could host a webserver with illegal content?

  9. one of my fave tools is hounded similarly by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There's a site that uses Google search systems to find music on blogs called chewbone. It's been a great tool for me. I have a few thousand vinyl records I've collected since the early 70s, and a lot of it is really obscure weird shit that never made CD, and I'll be damned if I'm going to piss several thousand hours away digitising it. A few here and there, sure. But not the bulk. So, it's much easier to search and find other people who have done a few and uploaded them. Saves tons of time and effort.

    The problem is, chewbone is regularly slammed by Google for his efforts. Bunch of assholes, IMHO. (chewbone - if you're reading this - hat's off, dude. Thanks!)

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:one of my fave tools is hounded similarly by rickdog · · Score: 1

      Yep, the RIAA and Google has hounded me about http://chewbone.blogspot.com./ I don't have any links to music, all I give is a Google Custom Search engine tuned for mp3 blogs. This is a widget provided by Google itself! One can get any link that my custom search engine directly in Google Blog search, although mine is much more targeted so one doesn't have to wade through pages of so-so links. Why I am violating copywrite laws by using Google technology is beyond me. Almost all of the mp3 blogs that have infringing content are hosted by Google with their blogspot blogging service. The RIAA should go after Google, not the bloggers.

  10. If it wasn't for [REDACTED]-[REDACTED] by Duradin · · Score: 1

    If it wasn't for [REDACTED]-[REDACTED]'s actions I'd have never heard of this [REDACTED] search. So really, [REDACTED]-[REDACTED] just indexed an illegal service for me and should now have their own premises raided.

  11. Re:Just tellin folks WHERE to get the illegal good by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    They don't discriminate in favor of illegal content, you ask them where to find such-and-such and they give you a list of websites that list it as part of their content. This could be used as a tool by those who legitimately hold the copyright to find those who post their content online without their permission, but they would rather just shut it down.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  12. Search Engines Should Be Legit by brit74 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't see the problem with what they (Scopelight) were doing. As long as they are connecting to infringing websites, then authorities can go after the websites themselves (rather than the search engine).

    I'll also add that this is not the same thing as PirateBay, since PirateBay is a torrent tracker - the people uploading/downloading information aren't websites, but they are located at an ever-shifting number of changing IP addresses. Heck, they could be at a coffeeshop's free wifi while filesharing - and who can possibly track them down? Further, the PirateBay goes out of their way to hide filesharers identities.

    1. Re:Search Engines Should Be Legit by icebraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Further, the PirateBay goes out of their way to hide filesharers identities.

      It's sad how people are more and more assuming that privacy is only important to criminals.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
  13. How to shoot yourself in the foot by jc42 · · Score: 1

    You'd think that publishers and other copyright holders would want to encourage search sites. After all, they let you find your own work quickly, so you can easily go after the actual infringers.

    Trying to shut down search sites for copyright infringement is a good example of why the phrase "shooting yourself in the foot" was invented. Why would you want to shut down the sites that are fingering infringers in such a convenient manner? Do you really want to build your own search engine, then buy a flock of machines and pay a support staff who would just be duplicating what the googlebots and other such search tools are already doing for you at no charge?

    This has gotta be one of the dumbest ideas in the whole stupid copyright battle. And that's saying a lot, considering all the other dumb ideas that are being put online.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    1. Re:How to shoot yourself in the foot by Flea+of+Pain · · Score: 1

      I think there reasoning goes something like this... If we shut down the one place where the majority of people go to find our stuff (search engine) then we don't have to go through the legal hassle of tracking down the 50 sites sharing our content. To draw a car analogy, you could shut down a dealership to stop them from producing cars that may or may not be used illegally, or you could spend millions patrolling borders and checking every vehicle from that dealership that crosses the border....oh wait...

      --
      Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
    2. Re:How to shoot yourself in the foot by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Great analogy! ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  14. Re:Just tellin folks WHERE to get the illegal good by Derosian · · Score: 1

    No, your argument isn't sound.

    Because this isn't some creepy dude telling where to rape some kidnap victims. This is more like a machine that tells you when and where the next public illegal viewing of a movie is gonna be, most likely in your home, and then a company sues the creator of the machine for showing everyone where these events are being held. It seems kind of petty to me.

  15. DMCA by burris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    10 years ago the US Congress had the foresight to pass the DMCA which protects search engines, ISP caches, and similar technologies from this kind of nonsense. Too bad other nations haven't followed the USA's lead in this respect.

    1. Re:DMCA by arotenbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      10 years ago the US Congress had the foresight to pass the DMCA which protects search engines, ISP caches, and similar technologies from this kind of nonsense. Too bad other nations haven't followed the USA's lead in this respect.

      Indeed, while lots of people on Slashdot hate the DMCA for its lack of penalties for abusive takedown notices, the protection for search engines and the like is definitely necessary for the internet to continue in the form we know it today.

      --
      Tomato wedge sperm darts that are Republican.
  16. Re:Just tellin folks WHERE to get the illegal good by 2short · · Score: 1

    No, it's like if you ask me if I've seen a guy in a red hat and I tell you. I haven't any idea who the guy in the red hat is. You brother? Your shrink? Should I be arrested because he might be your drug dealer?

  17. Media as we knew it is dead by Demonantis · · Score: 1

    The internet is a interesting and powerful tool. It has changed the way we look at the distribution of information. Laws are being applied to concepts that are to young. There are growing pains. Unfortunately, the government is listening to companies instead of individuals. There are abusive laws that prop these companies up. I think that copyrights are dead since the cost of transference has been reduced to near zero. Artists must say its frustrating to hear this. I don't understand why though.

    How much do they make an album?

    Most of the money from sales goes to the company for distributing the material. I ask you then, why does a song cost 1.99(or whatever it is now). The cost of producing is held by the author who makes like 10 cents(I might be wrong) from the sale. The other 1.79 goes into distributing the song and a tidy 1.50 profit for the company distributing the song(I don't know the actual numbers). This is absurd. Without copyright this industry would not exist. The DMCA is the only thing keeping this industry viable. If the authors went solo they could easily make money off of advertisements and donations.

    What about videos and such?

    That would be the only part of the industry that would survive as it doesn't rely on copyright management. There would be restructuring. Concerts would still happen. There would still be merchandise to be made. These services rely on the limitations that can be imposed without managing copyright(material or space). The extra leg work could easily be accomplished by a manager or the author themselves.