Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK's RIAA Goes After Google Using the US DMCA

Posted by kdawson on from the if-you-don't-have-your-own-use-theirs dept.

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?

2 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. What is Google HOSTING, exactly? by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  2. They can do this... by GiMP · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!