Slashdot Mirror
Google and Microsoft Sued By Mini Music Label
carre4 writes "Blue Destiny Records has sued both Google and Microsoft for allegedly 'facilitating and enabling' distribution of copyrighted songs illegally. The suit alleges that RapidShare runs 'a distribution center for unlawful copies of copyrighted works.' RapidShare is helped by Google and Microsoft, which benefit from the ad relationships, according to the suit. Blue Destiny has attempted to link to pages with RapidShare links to their music via DMCA takedown notices, and Google has, apparently, not complied, while Microsoft's Bing site has removed the links. RapidShare, for its part, is based outside of the US and does not accept DMCA notices."
Although it could (potentially, I suppose) be argued that their software (MS Windows) does have significant non-infringing uses, I think it's fairly obvious that 90%+ of all illegal file-sharing takes place on systems that utilize Microsoft software technologies. RIAA meet Bill.
In God we trust,
everyone else we firewall!!
Blue Destiny's lawyer doesn't have any ethics?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
So if someone finds an address in the White Pages and robs their house the homeowner should sue the White Pages?
They know, absolutely, that they're going to lose. So what reason could they have for suing? Well, they're about as unknown on the Internet as possible. No Wikipedia entry, and their website seems to be hidden, unless they call themselves "Blues Destiny Records" when not filing frivolous lawsuits. Maybe they just want some attention? Which raises the question: Is a lawsuit against the two biggest companies in technology cheaper than buying some ads?
Actually, they DO get it.
Why do you think ACTA is getting pushed?
If someone kills by stabbing them in the head with a knife it's the same charge as if they used a gun, everything else being equal.
Actually, in most of the US, using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime is a slightly different charge set containing an automatic sentence extension, usually of five or ten years. Killing someone by stabbing them in the head with a knife would carry the same charge as caving in the head with a hammer, though.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
99.999% of the time a lawyer's ethic is entirely "If I'm being paid by the client it is ethical to act in his self described best interests".
Only a lawyer would claim that.
Anyone else would point out that in the real world, clients defer to the advice of lawyers when deciding what is in their best interest, and lawyers ensure that whatever the client *thinks* is in their best interest, is in fact the course of action that yields the highest number of billable hours.
I hate printers.
What could go wrong?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Bottom line is google harvests, formats and makes available this data, which makes them directly liable.
Wow. You read like an RIAA playbook. Google makes no data available, they just link to it. That's what a search engine does. Google doesn't host any copyrighted music, and I'm sure you know that.
You're making excuses for google.
No more than you or anyone else makes for your ISP, when the media conglomerates try to turn them into a private police organization with enforcement powers. Google may "facilitate" infringement (which is the same weak argument that the RIAA has used over and over) but that doesn't mean that what Google does is or should be automatically actionable. Furthermore, copyright is not just about absolute powers granted to rightsholders (although that is their interpretation of copyright's function in society): it's supposed to be about a balance of rights, with We the People intended to be the ultimate beneficiaries.
... don't publish it in the first place.
... nobody has any right to complain that a major search engine is indexing their works without authorization. So, what you're ultimately saying is that Google should be held responsible for other people publishing information on the Web without the rightsholders permission. Let the copyright holders go after those people, since they are the ones who are illegally distributing copyrighted works. What? There's hundreds of thousands of them and we can't afford to go after them all? Well ... that's just too goddamn bad. These people think they see a cheap way out by suing the search engine (in the same way the MPAA has gone after Torrent indexers.) The difference here is that a. major search engines offer a lot more than just links to copyrighted material and b. tend to have billions of dollars in the bank.
... well, that's not really the case. Smaller music businesses (ones that see modern telecommunications technology as a competitive edge and not a liability) are doing quite well. Even musicians who have bypassed the conventional route to getting their music out have found t
Google and similar organizations offer society tremendous benefits: should those be tossed by the wayside in order to preserve a legal fiction that serves to benefit wealthy corporations that only wish one thing: to become even more wealthy? At our expense? I don't think so. Personally, I think Google and all search engines should be completely immunized from any lawsuits resulting from their Web-crawling and indexing activities. Put it like this: if you don't want something to get noticed by a search engine
Google (and all the other big boys) respect the Robot Exclusion Protocol anyway, so nothing will get indexed directly from your site if you don't wish it to be. That's been the case for a long, long time
The world has moved on: the music business is not what it used to be and in fact will never be the same again. If you're a traditional music publisher, take note: attempting to turn back the clock will only hurt lots of people, and won't save you anyway. You need to accept a few facts, and then replace your upper management with people who can think and operate rationally in a radically changed business environment.
Keep in mind that the bloodsuckers who have run our publishing businesses for the past hundred years or so would cheerfully run Google, Yahoo, Bing, Apple and any other major technology corporation out of business if they could, if they perceive even the slightest threat from said companies. That's because they operate criminal organizations who only see their own needs as being of any concern, who wish to continue exploiting their captive creative minds while simultaneously extracting our wallets.
And before you come back and point out that if the big copyright cartels are allowed suffer from infringement, then the little ones will too
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I concur, except I see this as a great way to rid us of this issue. With all the $$ that Google & M$ have, and all the sway they get with their lobbying, it will be interesting to see who wins in this battle. If the record company wins, then the RIAAssholes step in and start fucking shit over. If G & M$ win, then you see more sites linking. Either way we get a clearer definition of what we will be allowed to do.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
From TFA:
And even that is false! The Google results for “Roy Powers Firing Line” are:
Roy Powers Firing Line rapidshare file downloads ... ...
Roy Powers Firing Line megaupload file downloads
Roy Powers - Firing Line (2009) rapidshare
Roy Powers Music Firing Line Out Now!
Roy Powers on MySpace Music - Free Streaming MP3s, Pictures
Blues Destiny Records
Google and Microsoft sued for links to filesharing sites
Ronny Sessum Funk'n Blues Man Album Out
Vans Triple Crown of Surfing
None of those URLs point to a RapidShare server!
Even the ones that look like they’d have RapidShare links are merely search engines or forums where the RapidShare links are found.
This is so false that it’s laughable. Also, can anyone say Streisand effect?
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I actually had the misfortune to have to send google a takedown notice after our neighborhood's property manager put some of our newsletters online at a public place (they were already available on a different website via password). I got the idiot property manager to take them down (but only after threatening him with going to the state board of realtors for violating his fiduciary duty), but google was actually a *lot* harder. In the end, I was never sure whether they responded to my takedown notice, or whether the newsletters just rolled off the cache. (FWIW, Microsoft Live!, at the time, took them down almost immediately.)
In any case, forcing google to take the takedown process more seriously and deal with it more expeditiously can only be a good thing, IMHO.
There are multiple parts to the DMCA, which is an update to copyright law. Google and wikipedia are your friends here, but basically, without the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA, any ISP or search engine would be at major risk.
Take a look here, this will land you most albums
http://www.searchshared.com/
and it's using google.
Exception Duck - may or may not contain chicken.