Another Question Of Search Engine Legality and Infringement

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."

Comments

Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint

[eldavojohn]

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.

Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint

[Freetardo Jones]

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?

Re:Simply an Opposite Veiwpoint

[!coward]

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.

this is a fundamental flaw in some current law

[jacquesm]

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.

Re:this is a fundamental flaw in some current law

[T Murphy]

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.

Do you blame the road if the car is stolen?

[decipher_saint]

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.

Re:So, to draw a parallel

[EkriirkE]

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.

Re:So, to draw a parallel

[Anonymusing]

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

Re:DMCA

[arotenbe]

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.