Slashdot Mirror
UK's RIAA Goes After Google Using the US DMCA
An anonymous reader passes along a DMCA takedown notice directed at Google and authored by the British Phonographic Industry, Britain's equivalent of the RIAA. P2pnet identifies the BPI as the outfit that "contributed to the British government's Digital Economy bill, complete with its ACTA Three Strikes and you're Off The Net element, with hardly a murmur from the UK lamescream media." Are there any precedents for a UK trade organization attempting to use an American law to force an American company to take down links to UK-copyrighted material?
I don't get it.
Google does not host material it indexes.
Material it indexes is offered publicly.
People who follow the search results ALSO get authorized copies. It's only if they copy them that they might run afoul.
Google has no more contributed to copyright violation than a shop selling copyright materials advertising its wares.
In Liberty, Rene
Look at all the information is listed on Chilling Effects. We know the owner of the copyright (Sony Music, Universal, and Warner seem to be popular on their takedown list), the song titles, and even what links they want removed. I'm changing my homepage from thepiratebay to chillingeffects.
'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
between the internet and the old rules of old media, that they think can be applied to end consumers in the internet era
copyright will still apply to say: jk rowlings and the hollywood studio that makes her movie: finite identifiable individuals on a closed finite issue
but as applied to the end consumer, in the internet world: sorry, no, unenforceable
copyright law is akin to a gentleman's agreement between captains of industry drinking mojitos in an oak paneled room. copyright law does not, and cannot, be applied to end consumers in the internet world. they call it disruptive technology for a reason
let them try to destroy the internet. the world will simply not let the assholes grandfather themselves into our cultural space. do they really think they can hobble the internet for the sake of their continued unneeded existence? we don't NEED old school distributors anymore. they of course won't die quietly and gracefully, but die they will
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What did look scarey is including a bunch of queries that would evidently produce some/all of the content they object too. It's as if they want to claim that Google's ability to find such stuff makes them liable ... so that they should then work with the UK's RIAA to block searches for those
bits of material ... ugh!!...
Any copyright holder can issue a DMCA takedown for material hosted on a US server. With properties like Youtube, etc., it wouldn't surprise me if this has happened a hundred times. Why is this news?
Obama's the president now, not Bush! Didn't the Brits get the memo?
I'm the above AC, because I was too lazy to log in, and I DRTFA before posting. None of those URLs are Googles, I'm sure they will laugh, and ignore.
I'm a nature photographer.
Aptly named (saves 2 bytes).
I run a site that archives the BBC's Essential Mix radio show. We (my users and I) have been collecting these shows for the past 6 years. We've built a community around it that didn't exist anywhere else. These shows aren't available for purchase or download so we had no choice but to offer them in somewhat of a grey legal area.
June 1st, 2010 I received a Cease and Desist EMAIL from a company called Somthin' Else. They are the producers of the "Essential Mix" show, which then gets licensed to the BBC.
They said they wanted to discuss possible deals in their email but never responded to any of my 5 attempts (from different addresses) to contact them. I'm not sure if there was some other legal path I should have taken but I would think if they can contact me in an email then we should be able to convers further over email, but that is besides the point.
The main point is that this content is not available anywhere else so we had no option but to collect it ourselves. Not to mention all the free publicity it directed towards the DJs and the musicians.
I posted the letter on my site, mixriot.com, and my users barraged this guy with emails. Eventually he responded over TWITTER saying that they weren't the biggest hurdle. I'm assuming that means the BBC is starting to swing its hammer. I don't understand why the BBC would need to be aggressive, they are government funded, not advertising driven.
Below follows the entire email:
stuart.smith@somethinelse.com
Dear Sir / Madam,
It has come to our attention that mixriot.com is serving streamed and download content which includes BBC Radio programmes “The Essential Mix” and “In New DJ’s we trust”.
As the producer and copyright holder of both shows we have not granted rights to any third party at this time. We view any attempt to stream or to offer this content as a download in breach of copyright and therefore instruct mixriot to cease and desist any use of this content immediately.
As mixriot is the recipient of advertiser and subscriber income based on content delivered to date can you please deliver to Somethin’ Else within 30 days a statement of earnings to date and how much of this is due to SE for the above content.
Somethin Else welcomes new business opportunities throughout the world and would be interested in discussing applications and uses of our content with genuine business partners. If you would like to discuss these opportunities then please contact me.
If you do not respond within 7 days then we will pursue other courses of action.
Yours faithfully,
Stuart Smith
Finance Director
Somethin' Else
20-26 Brunswick Place
London
N1 6DZ
UK
Switchboard: +44 (0) 20 7250 5500
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7250 0937
I'm confused. Why do you think there is some strange new thing going on here which needs precedent?
The Berne Convention(and newer treaties, including the WIPO) requires that signatories recognize the copyright of those in other nationalities as they recognize the copyright of their own citizens. The treaties (as amended through the years) basically mean that we grant copyright-holders in other countries the same rights and privileges as our own; we treat foreign copyright-holders the same as our own.
This is a good thing.
Yes, there are some problems with copyright law. There are some nutty points, especially related to some fair use concerns. The DCMA has some issues. But its based on copyright, and copyright is a good thing-- Copyright is what gives the GPL its power.
But all that aside, why all this shock and thinking this is weird or new? We're a Berne Convention signatory, we have agreed to a sort of normalization internationally in relation to our treatment of copyright. This isn't some strange or new thing. The US finally agreed to the treaty in 198[8|9]. Its been awhile since then.
IANAL, but afaik...
International copyright is bound by WTO treaties and other international law. The USA acknowledges international copyrights. The DMCA may have controversial portions, but much of it is good, providing means and method of having infringing data removed from the internet and requires certain compliance by intermediary parties (i.e. hosting companies) of infringing content. Note that by invoking the DMCA, they are clearly using US law, not UK law which would clearly not apply to data or services hosted by a US company on US soil, even if the content was created in the UK.
As for examples, I know of many happening in the other direction, as the US is a bit more "lawsuit happy" than the rest of the world... Allofmp3.com was an interesting example as while Russia was party to WTO treaties, the site was still legal according to Russian law. Ultimately, when pressured, Russia changed their law to be more friendly to their WTO allies and the site was shut down. Had the Russians already had such laws on the books, the RIAA, a US-based organization, would've been able to immediately bring suit against allofmp3.com according to international law.
So essentially... international law means that copyrights are unified within WTO-participating countries, but domestic law applies where-ever the law is broken, the law of the country under which the copyright is registered is NOT applied, afaik.
It is possible that I got some or all of this wrong, because, again, IANAL!
Just out of curiosity -- what would happen if Google preemptively denied the UK access to its services? Maybe just for a month or two? If nobody in the UK could search using google.com? What would happen?
and isps aren't acting as distributor's agents
for legal and business reasons, that doesn't make sense
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
After all, what are all the starving pensioners in the UK, who depend on the 50% of the British stock market's dividends represented soley by BP and Shell going to live off? Their cats?
businesses are powerful, but they are often balanced in power on some questions by other businesses. that is the case here. additionally, there are rules about what they can and cannot do. that is also the case here
i dislike the riaa, mpaa, etc. but we have to be smart in how we fight them. if we give into this sort of hysterical paranoia that you are peddling, then we've already lost
you are acting on spastic fear, not a solid understanding of the issues
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
where our legislators whore themselves out to companies, and we look at canada, uk, australia, europe, etc., where companies are held, sanely, in check by the government
and you're telling me the truth is that these other places have it worse than the usa?
they have rules about this. and if the government doesn't notice, a competitor will promptly sue the hell out of the offending party for playing unfairly
basically, no, it doesn't make sense that your cable provider is colluding with your music/ movie distributor. no, sorry, it doesn't work that way, all hysteria to the contrary
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What? That doesn't seem like something the British Pornographic Industry would support.
The new 4 step business plan of the recording industry:
1:Record legal template
2:Create a signed, limited run of said legal template
3:Distribute it to as many people as possible
4:Expect to get paid
> copyright is a good thing
I agree, but even more agree that in this case it's easy to have too much of a good thing. In fact, we're already there.
None of the information presented in this is relevent. The company/organization involved did exactly what they should have: used the law from the country of the company in question to force an action. What the f(*& should they have done? File suit in Nigeria? Demand restitution from the Knights Templar? Ask for summary judgment from good King Wenislas?
Except that is called a "fixer" and is predicated off the fixer KNOWING that the car is stolen.
In this case, however, the copyrights ARE NOT STOLEN.
They CANNOT BE stolen.
Therefore your car analogy falls down.
BBC is publicly funded and copyright a civil case. Therefore, as the original paymasters of this content created, there is a grey area. As a civil case, then the owners of the copyright are owed only the losses. Since they aren't selling to anyone, these losses are nil.
Note: this is why the UK has no fair use clause, since private copying (until the change in Jan 2001 under US pressure) was strictly civil and based off actual proven damages (nil), the law allowed you to be taken to court for the damages done (nil) which would be easy to pay and cause the court to sue the plaintiff for wasting the courts' time. Therefore fair use wasn't needed. But they changed the law in 2001 to remove this damages-only section but didn't put in fair use clauses, getting the best of both worlds to the international cartels.
Perhaps not as pertinent to discussion of the actual content itself, but I'm fairly sure I've never heard of a Digital Ecomy Bill. Does TFS, perhaps, refer to the recently passed Digital Economy Bill?
The letter lists 38 urls. 38. For, by my count, 18 different tracks. Compared against the number of locations from which those 18 tracks will be available and the number of other tracks owned by the same copyright holders that will be available from various locations, these 18 tracks spread over 38 locations seem such small numbers as to be not worth the administrative effort involved. So why did the BPI bother to spend time and money on obtaining this information and writing to Google?
I am not a lawyer, and this is a discussion, not legal advice. See a competent solicitor/attorney qualified in your jurisdiction if you need one.
Firstly, yes, they can be allowed to take down links or search results under 17 USC 512(d). (c) is for hosting the content, (d) is for linking to it or referring to an online location for it in an index or directory. (If you recall, this is one reason the DMCA was thought of as so draconian; they can not only take down the content, they can take down secondary links.)
Secondly, since Google is subject to US law, the proper jurisdiction is the US state in which Google is located. (There is, however, a school of thought that says that since people in any jurisdiction can access the internet, you can shop around for any jurisdiction that is convenient, say, the one that you are in, to raise an action within: i.e. "people on the internet in New Jersey can access your site" -> "you do business in New Jersey" -> "you are under the jurisdiction of New Jersey". Clearly people have tried that, but with mixed success; it seems to work with states, and friendly jurisdictions where there are equivalent laws, but people in the US trying to raise action against, say, a certain famous site formerly located in Sweden were repeatedly and proudly told to push off. Nevertheless, there has been some success in this area, which is disappointing because the reverse reasoning would seem to allow someone in Thailand or China or Burma issuing takedowns under censorship laws...)
Thirdly, we have the same provisions here in the UK under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, amended via Statutory Instrument as a result of the enactment of the European Union Copyright Directive. The takedown provisions are virtually identical to the US ones; a valid DMCA takedown is valid here, and a valid takedown constructed according to our law contains all the elements of a valid DMCA takedown. (There are, of course, some differences. Under the DMCA a service provider has to keep it down for a certain period of time even after a counter-notification is issued, for example, although in practice they rarely do, as that seems to be regarded as a mistake in the law.)
There's really nothing stopping cross-jurisdictional takedowns from being issued. It's valid where it's been served, and as a bonus it's even valid where it's been sent from.
So yes, Google would have to comply (and do, as a matter of course, in a slightly subversive way that thankfully allows for some oversight - something sorely missing from the takedown regime - by taking the results down, indicating that results have been removed due to a request, uploading the specific request to Chilling Effects, and linking to it).
Business as usual, really.
We know that a website can be shut down for providing links to copyrighted material. So if that can be done to newzbin.com what principle of law makes google.com immune?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Seems to be a big copyright push going on. Consider the earlier slashdot story about removing anonymity from the Internet using child porn as the excuse. The EU Parliament seems to have fallen for the copyright lobbyists latest trick from only a few months back:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/28/music-industry-spoke.html
"Child pornography is great," the speaker at the podium declared enthusiastically. "It is great because politicians understand child pornography. By playing that card, we can get them to act, and start blocking sites. And once they have done that, we can get them to start blocking file sharing sites".
Why would the British Pornographic Industry go after Google? I don't get it.
Clever signature text goes here.
> lamescream media
Stop that. It makes you sound like a god-damned idiot.
Google is in the US (as a company) and the applicable law is the US law. British company is using its legitimate rights to protect its copyrights under US law.
Apart from the fact that the US has silly copyright laws, duration etc, surely there is nothing to see here?
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Now I know what I am saying is offtopic, but why do I always read "British Pornographic Industry" when fast-reading through any website where it is mentioned? :) - but it becomes annoying. You know, stopping dead in your tracks and thinking "Wait, WHAT?".
It's not an intentional act; maybe I'm more used to one word than another
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
But all that aside, why all this shock and thinking this is weird or new?
Maybe because, for once, an American company is on the receiving end of it?
Was there any shock when American companies, using American laws, in American courts, suing foreign people/companies with no presence in America?
Boiled down to basics by replacing a few words, there is nothing wrong, see "Are there any precedents for a copyright owner attempting to use an American law to force an American company to take down links to copyrighted material?"
It is just plain foolish/trollish for the summary to use the term "UK-copyrighted" because in this case, the material is also copyrighted in US.
Oliver.
Both major U.S. political parties support expansion of the scope of copyright. They have to, or they won't gain the support of the Hollywood-controlled TV news outlets.
How is such a license obtained?
You are subject to the law of the land that you are doing what you are doing in and no other. In this particular example yes Google has a UK operation and BPI may have an alternate option in using UK law against that, but had there been no UK operations, the only choice would be for the BPI to use American law. In this case I suspect BPI is going for the parent because firstly that is always preferable (if you get an order against a parent, it is easier to apply it to all the subs then vice-versa) and especially when it is in the jurisdiction of more convenient laws. There will also be numerous examples of a UK company using US law against the US operations of another UK company (and they'll have cherry-picked the state too).
Copyrights are under international treaty which means UK copyrights basically apply in the US as if they were works completed in the US by a US citizen.
If your content is on a US webhost then you can file a complaint with the webhost directly, which is more effective. But filing a complaint with Google works well if the violating content is on a webhost that doesn't care about copyright.
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
Unfortunately, we do not agree with the current repressive laws and we are not willing to have 5000 geeks go on a hunger strike or 30 self-immolate themselves in front of Disney World to make the point.
All we want to do is complain.
This one still works, but fair warning it's a Lady Ga Ga song, so you may want to avoid it for musical reasons. http://www17.zippyshare.com/view.jsp?locale=en&key=33447705
If a simple google search is to be trusted, the other 8 copies of this song on zippyshare are also still present.
copyright is a good thing-- Copyright is what gives the GPL its power
Copyright may or may not be a good thing, but that doesn't prove it either way. The GPL is a way to turn copyright against itself, hence the term copyleft. If there were no copyright, there would be no copyleft and no GPL - because there wouldn't have been a need for them. In a world where anybody can copy and modify any code - a world without copyright - we would already have all the software freedoms that the GPL seeks to retain for us. (Well, there might still have been issues with patents. We might have needed a patentleft.)
Saying that copyright is what gives the GPL its power, and hence copyright is good, is like saying that force is what gives the police their power, and hence force is good. But if no one were using force on anybody else in the first place - no crimes were being committed - then we wouldn't need to have police which use force to enact order.
Sorry chaps, it really just looks as though the UK RIAA is going after Google to see if they can somehow get a settlement out of the deal. Using just the first dozen reported search queries in the takedown notice, you get the same and in some cases, even more results via yahoo and bing. Have either of those reported takedown notices regarding this material?
Their search results got longer results .. they are just jealous at size.
The market has become too small to get big enough results.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
They should simply remove every single public link to any content belonging to any UK BPI member or mentioning any BPI member's label artists, with any attempt to access such content via google going to a page telling people to contact the BPI for information about just why it is that BPI label and artist content has completely disappeared from google.
Tech Public Policy stuff
#whatdebill
But its based on copyright, and copyright is a good thing-- Copyright is what gives the GPL its power.
For the umpteenth time, the GPL only exists as a hack of the copyright system to workaround its stupidity. If we didn't have copyright, we wouldn't need GPL in the first place. Don't try to love the abusive spouse that gives you some sweets now and then when your other option is moving to Candyland.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1687452&cid=32632240
and before that also, same results (Kalriath shot down in flames yet again), here also (along with his fellow "naysayer", named "Your Master" (who was only obviously Kalriath's "alternate registered user logon" no doubt)):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1687452&cid=32589278
APK
P.S.=> "too, Too, TOO EASY" (Man - Just TOO easy!)... apk
If there were no copyright, there would be no copyleft and no GPL - because there wouldn't have been a need for them. In a world where anybody can copy and modify any code - a world without copyright - we would already have all the software freedoms that the GPL seeks to retain for us.
This is simply not true.
First of all, a lack of copyright would make everything copyable. GPL merely makes things that are GPL'd copyable. In this sense there is no difference between the GPL and public domain (or selective lack of copyright). On the other hand, even in a world of no copyright, no one is forced to provide source code as under the GPL, and without copyright the GPL would not exist to force the provision of source code. Therefore, in a world of no copyright, we would still need the GPL but have no way of creating the GPL. In other words, a world of no copyright would be equivalent to a world of everything being in the public domain, not a world of everything being GPL'd.
Without copyright anybody could take your source code which you provided and make binary derivatives without source code and you could do nothing about it.
"And this is relevant, how, fuckwad?" - by Kalriath (849904) on Tuesday June 22, @12:05AM (#32649368)
LMAO - Well, my reply showing your blatant screwups in the 2 url's ( http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1687452&cid=32632240 and http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1687452&cid=32589278 ) used really seems to have "gotten your goat" here!
(That's just judging by your "tantrums & foaming @ the mouth" profanity laden reaction on your part, quoted again above here, which functioned in exposing you as a foul-mouthed petulant little child who screws up on facts in computing, and trolled others to start it up also!)
You like to troll others & "start up" with them here, as you did myself which is shown in the 2 urls above & their prior posts, however, you certainly do NOT possess the technical skills & know-how needed to unbury yourself from your screwups shown in the URL's above again here (which you obviously cannot handle being wrong about & you cannot handle being exposed in your mistakes also, and you know it, per the 2 URLs above)...
Do you like film? See "The Book of Eli", & the scene that begins with "Put that hand on me again & you won't get it back...", because that's exactly what you had happen to YOU, here, & for basically the SAME reasons.
APK
P.S.=> SO - best think twice about trolling others here again, eh? I would were I you: You are VERY EASY to EMBARASS, & rightfully so, as you only bring it upon yourself, everytime, via your technical errors and others' points you CANNOT DISPROVE (as well as the use of a stream of profanities on your part, directed my way as per usual from yourself, which only compounds your errors here further)... apk
"Your whole essay boils down to "I enjoy pissing other people off". It takes a very small man to go out of his way just to troll other people like you do APK" - by Kalriath (849904) on Tuesday June 22, @10:39PM (#32661056)
Really? What was this from YOU, mind you also directed MY WAY from yourself FIRST, then -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1687452&cid=32588342
(Hmmmm?)
You came into that thread, TOTALLY OFF TOPIC, and then you were unable to disprove my points vs. yours & "Your Master's" here -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1687452&cid=32589278 & also a response directly to YOU ONLY, here -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1687452&cid=32632240
(Based on the above, where you came & trolled myself first, and where you fail to disprove what I wrote vs. what YOU wrote? Well... speak for yourself. This was just to show you HOW IT FEELS, and to show that you cannot disprove what I wrote in response to your trolling myself first!)
---
"Seek psychiatric help, seriously." - by Kalriath (849904) on Tuesday June 22, @10:39PM (#32661056)
Well, again: When you show us your PHD in Psychiatry, and a license to practice it & years of professional experience in that area as well, along with a formally administered diagnosis of myself in a professional environs as YOUR EVIDENCES? Well... then, perhaps MAYBE, then, I would listen (or anyone else). Until then?? Well... you know.
APK
P.S.=>
"And I haven't seen that movie actually, is it any good?" - by Kalriath (849904) on Tuesday June 22, @10:39PM (#32661056)
Quite good (IF you like films about a post-apocalyptic dystopian world, ala "The Road Warrior" types of flicks) - I felt that part applies here, as to how I felt about your trolling myself, first... &, "I told you you wouldn't get that back" (The quote from that same flick that ends that entire scene - see it, you'll understand)... apk
"Of course, larger files take longer to load." - by Foredecker (161844) * on Wednesday December 09, @10:34PM (#30384666) Homepage
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30384918
That's the manager of the Microsoft corporations "Windows Performance Client Division" stating that & apparently unlike yourself, he does possess a CSC degree & the above is the "end game" of when he also initially tried to 'cut me down' on my points... & in the end? You see, what you see above, per my subject line.
Which was the main point I made here, & that HOSTS files using 0 are smaller + faster & more efficient than 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1 (especially the latter), so why has Microsoft removed a more efficient IP blocking address in HOSTS files in Windows 7, Windows VISTA, & Windows Server 2008 then?
At least give us a reason, & it had better be a more efficient & smarter standard... because @ least Windows 2000, Windows XP, & Windows Server 2003 can still use 0 as a more efficient smarter method in a HOSTS file.
APK
P.S.=> Funniest part is, Windows 2000 didn't have it in its OEM release to manufacture & the public, it was put in later in a service pack circa 2000 I'd guess, & it stayed that in 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, way (because it's better for all the reasons I noted) up until 12/09/2008 when VISTA onwards could no longer use 0 as a faster, smaller, & more efficient "doing more with less/less is more" method for blocking KNOWN BAD SITES &/or SERVERS in a custom HOSTS file (& it's looking like INTENTIONAL promotion of BLOAT to me @ this time, because they've known about this from myself for longer than 1 yr. now (fairly soon @ least))... apk