Slashdot Mirror


Domain Registrar Can be Held Liable for Pirate Site, Court Rules (torrentfreak.com)

The Higher Regional Court of Saarbrucken (a city in Germany) concluded Key-Systems, a German-based registrar, can be held secondarily liable for the infringing actions of a customer if it fails to take action if rightsholders point out "obvious" copyright infringing activity online. From a report: This means that, if a site owner is unresponsive to takedown requests, Key-Systems and other registrars can be required to take a domain name offline, even when the infringing activity is limited to a single page. The local music group BVMI is happy with the outcome of the case. They believe it will help copyright holders to take action against infringing activity. "This is a further important clarification in the legal space of the internet, helping it to become clearer and fairer for creatives and their partners," says Rene Houareau, BVMI's Managing Director Legal & Political Affairs. "The [court] affirms, with clearly outlined criteria, the responsibility of so-called registrars and thus gives affected rightsholders an important legal tool to defend themselves against the unlawful use of their content on the internet."

43 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. So who is required to pay... by Bradmont · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So who is required to pay for the employees who will filter and handle the incoming torrent of bogus takedown requests?

    1. Re:So who is required to pay... by sabri · · Score: 4, Funny

      The court that does not understand anything about the matter they're ruling on, of course.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    2. Re:So who is required to pay... by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

      Magic and fairies. Actually the registrar should reply to anyone who sends a takedown request with a bill for the takedown. Start at what, $5000? No no we will comply and take it down, but first we have to verify and to do that we need to hire staff, so here's the bill. If there's infringing material it will be down in a month or so...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re: So who is required to pay... by Shikaku · · Score: 2

      It's a fake troll account. Probably won't ever post again if you flag it.

    4. Re:So who is required to pay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So who is required to pay for the employees who will filter and handle the incoming torrent of bogus takedown requests?

      There is old legalese from the Roman times saying "Iudex non calculat". It translates to "The judge doesn't calculate".
      Some people love the assumption that judges dont know anything about math!
      Guess this applies here ;)

    5. Re:So who is required to pay... by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

      Please make this happen.

    6. Re:So who is required to pay... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      This is an attempt to force one private party to police the actions of another private party.

      Not a viable solution. If government wants it done, let government do it.

      (Not that I think that's any better. It would probably be even worse.)

    7. Re:So who is required to pay... by Tom · · Score: 1

      Nobody. There will be no such employees. Registrars will simply take down any domain that gets a request against it, after the one doing it fills a form that he is really sure that the domain is doing something bad.

      That, exactly, is the problem with these rulings. They ignore how the result will be applied in the real world.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  2. Competitive advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Domain registrars outside of German (EU?) jurisdiction may have just gained a competitive advantage.

    1. Re:Competitive advantage by anegg · · Score: 2

      Having a government "confiscate" a domain name is so much better than making a registrar responsible for responding to a 3rd party request. The registrar is not a government authority and should not be in the position of acting as one, as it will probably give the 3rd parties too much power (the registrar will act out of self-preservation and probably err on the side of caution). Insane.

  3. I hole-hardedly agree... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it's a peach of cake.

    1. Re:I hole-hardedly agree... by CaptQuark · · Score: 1

      Someone just plagiarized most of the list of eggcorns listed at this site: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.e...

      ---

  4. If there was only a way by bobstreo · · Score: 2

    to access web sites without using DNS names. /s

    I mean it's kind of hard to type in AAAA addresses, but you can always bookmark it once you've typed it correctly.

    1. Re:If there was only a way by jaa101 · · Score: 1

      Virtual hosting means that URLs based on IP numbers cannot access many web pages. You can work around the issue by adding entries your you local hosts file. For example, if x.com and y.com are both hosted at 1.2.3.4, then http://1.2.3.4/ can only access at most one of those two domains. Often the pages you get with the numeric address will be different from any of the DNS-based URLs, or brokenness will ensue, like redirect loops.

    2. Re: If there was only a way by alexo · · Score: 1

      It's called "hosts"

      Hush! Or you will invoke... him!

  5. So In Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If a licensed driver kills another motorist on the road, is the government held liable for provisioning the murderer a license?

    I fail to see the logic this court used.

    1. Re:So In Germany by Megol · · Score: 1

      You missed some steps there. Please at least read the blurb before constructing your straw man argument.

    2. Re:So In Germany by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Informative

      First I'd like the point out that the law doesn't work in terms of being defined by vague analogies. If I kill someone, for example, you can't argue from that using a really clever argument that it'd be unjust to convict me of murder because it's just like if I'd driven a car and accidentally squished someone's daffodils which is totally a civil matter so there your honor I rest my case checkmate.

      But to address your specific argument: No, there are multiple differences. It's usually impossible to legally make the government do anything or hold it responsible for anything. Also we're not talking about murder, which is a criminal matter, but civil law, particularly the bits relating to liability and damages and so forth.

      More critically the ruling here isn't that the registrar is at fault merely because the copyright violator bought a domain from them, it's that the registrar failed to act after they were told that their customer was using the service they provided to cause (what the law says is) harm to the plaintiff.

      So if the law was based on vague analogies, your analogy would still fail to sway a judge. You'd have to extend your analogy to a set of circumstances where a private road owner owns a road and continues to allow a lunatic who keeps murderizing other people driving along the same road to drive along it even after it's been pointed out that this is happening and that the person in question is cackling loudly and saying "I'm still going to murder people on this here private road, take that Hilary Rosen and Metallica!", and where it'd literally take merely an email to the right employee of the road owner, who would spend literally only one minute doing whatever is necessary to remove the lunatic because that private road owner bans people all the time.

      And in that analogy, it's probably the case that the courts would rule that the road owner is at least partially responsible, in civil courts, when the families of the victims are suing for damages, for what happened.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:So In Germany by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I fail to see the logic this court used.

      That's because your example is an irrelevant strawman. The logic is actually quite consistent with other cases. Criminal cases in the courts where the government is unable to directly prosecute an individual due to being unresponsive often result in a secondary source of punishment for that person, e.g. seizing assets, freezing accounts, etc.

      And yes you will find that if a motorist runs someone over and then doesn't respond to the police they will find their drivers license revoked.

  6. Why stop there? by johannesg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean, why not just take the entire top-level domain down if there is an infringing page somewhere? Since we are going for the disproportional response, we might as well take it all the way...

    1. Re:Why stop there? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

      I mean, why not just take the entire top-level domain down if there is an infringing page somewhere? Since we are going for the disproportional response, we might as well take it all the way...

      Not quite the whole way.

      Take down the Internet.

      We all know it's just about piracy and free porn, anyhow.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    2. Re:Why stop there? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The same reason that we don't shut the DMV when someone gets their drivers license revoked, and don't close down the Fed when some criminal's account gets frozen and assets seized.

  7. A really bad idea by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    Could it be coming to your country next? Let's hope not.

    You can almost see Hollywood salivating.

  8. Interesting precedent by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Say I use Google Maps to find my local drug dealer; is Google now liable for anything I do whilst drugged out of my mind?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re: Interesting precedent by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Whether or not Google would be liable probably depends on the exact technical details of the law (and of course, how well those technicalities are argued in court). Sometimes websites can be liable for their user's actions in the United States, even when users misuse the website (like the Craigslist personals being used for escorts). In this case, German copyright law is written in a way that let the copyright mafia win. It didn't have to be written that way.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Interesting precedent by thesupraman · · Score: 1

      Oooo look at AC, all talking tough and shit, even at christmas. I'm scayered.

      See what I did there? :)

    3. Re:Interesting precedent by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Say a record label has a contract with a singer to sell his copyrighted music, and the contract expires but the record label keeps selling his music. Using this case as justification, the ISP for the record company can shut down their internet access.

    4. Re:Interesting precedent by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Not only can, but now in Germany must do so if someone complains.

      This can't possibly go wrong.

    5. Re:Interesting precedent by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No but your drug dealer is. You seem to be stuck on a trail of irrelevance. The ruling here is consistent in that it is directly related to the crime. Criminal finance results in assets being seized and accounts frozen at a bank, breaking the road rules and not responding to police results in license suspension.

      These are all direct up the chain of providers, as is the Domain Registrar when the registered domain contains infringing content.

      Now for your example one would need to say the ISP responsible for the personal home line of the person who registered the domain on a 3rd party server somewhere would be liable. That is as ridiculous as your google maps scenario.

    6. Re:Interesting precedent by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Except this isn't just closing the account at the bank -- equivalent to taking the infringing pages offline. It's more akin to shutting down an entire branch because one criminal happened to store their proceeds in that bank.

      And just like that analogy, the criminal will happily move to another bank (/registrar) and continue doing what they're doing while legitimate users get screwed. In fact happier as dns entries are far easier to replace than assets.

  9. Re: Unresponsive to Takedown Requests by edris90 · · Score: 1

    Stupid. Ip tantrums should not be responded to, it only encourages companies to complain rather then focusing on innovation and quality increases to obtain future gains

  10. This will end DNS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter that legal sites will continue to use DNS. A censorship resistant name space will emerge and it will be free, so eventually everybody will use it. Porn drives technology adoption and piracy drives the elimination of single-points-of-failure.

  11. Private DNS or IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Our courts support companies that take taxpayer funded research and lock it behind paywalls, stealing from the country, simply because they're getting paid.

    Private DNS servers and IP addresses.

  12. Re:Unresponsive to Takedown Requests by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    Germany gets to set what "truth" can be published and who can speak, read and comment.

    Think like a German government that has to legally protect "democracy".
    What "democracy" is can be set by any German government after an election.
    Thats the full force of the police and courts to protect "democracy".
    That will allow "history" "art" "politics" "culture" "cartoons" to be removed from the internet.

    Say the person who posted the content is on holiday, at work. That content not approved by a German government stays up for hours and days.
    The next legal attempt for more total control by a German government is to go further "up" the internet.
    The "publication" is by the account owner and further push back legally is not the original publisher.
    Germany goes after the creator but finds the content has still been seen too many times.
    How to stop the internet from working in Germany quickly and directly?
    Germany courts go up a level and demands full internet control.
    Make the internet stop working in Germany until the content is removed.
    Publishing any type of truth in Germany is not free of constant German government supervision.
    Germany has the legal options for people who want to publish truth. Police interviews, fines, jail.
    East and West Germany and later Germany had strong power over on publication, speech, politics, art, who can fund publications from the 1950's to the 1990s.
    From any printing press, to a book shop, the bank account of a book shop, to any political group/person attempting to print/publish.
    The free US internet set German government control on publication and speech back for a while.
    The full power of the German government is now back in courts.
    The German author and publisher has no protections. The bank used by the publisher and author has no protections.
    The tools used to publish in Germany have no protections.
    The building used to publish in German has no ...
    When a German government wants to stop any truth, it can go in a few hops from any attempts at freedom of speech.
    Wealth, buildings, tools, equipment, people, banks are all part of the courts ability to fully stop all further publication in Germany.
    The German government will find new laws to stop the all digital internet. Just like Germany it did for book, publications, magazines, pamphlets, cartoons, music, art.

    The German legal system is back and it has a years of US style freedom to catch up on AC.
    German law is not odd, its about total government control over truth.
    The US has freedom of speech and freedom after speech.
    Germany has interviews, police action, fines and jail when speech is attempted.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  13. Here's the logic by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If a licensed driver kills another motorist on the road, is the government held liable for provisioning the murderer a license?

    I fail to see the logic this court used.

    I know this is going to sound like Europe bashing and it's really not. I've been to Europe a lot. Used to work for a European company. I'm really not anti-Europe. But I'm going to tell you how this kind of thing happens and I'm probably not going to get voted up enough to get noticed, but here goes.

    1) European countries don't have freedom of speech similar to the USA. So this means that while freedom of speech in the USA can cover a variety of legal matters that aren't really "speech" as such, it can't happen in Europe. In fact, you can actually go to jail for years for saying stuff in Europe that they don't like. Not for doing bad things. For saying things they don't like.
    2) EU justice (outside of maybe the departing UK and France) is pretty bogus. Really bad, horrible things that might get you locked up forever in the USA get sentences of say, 10 years, which to a European seems to be an insanely long time to punish someone. Remember that guy in Norway who shot over 70 people? If he lives a normal lifespan he'll probably have 2 more chances in his life to break his own record after getting released because locking up a killer for life is evil according to most of the EU and apparently Norway simply can't keep him locked up more than 25 years for mass murder.
    3) So the fact that the EU doesn't have free speech and they feel sorry for criminals has led to another situation where once you get out of jail for your heinous crimes, you can petition legally for the criminal record to be wiped. It's like you never dd it.

    So yes, a society that doesn't value victims at all and feels sorry for criminals and doesn't respect free speech might just have some really interesting ideas about internet piracy and who is actually liable.

    1. Re:Here's the logic by usu4rio · · Score: 1

      The difference is that in Europe jail is not punitive per se.
      The objective is to reinstate these people into society, hence it makes sense to clear their record once they're a reinstated into society.

      Does it *always* work? Certainly not but IMHO it's a way better system

    2. Re:Here's the logic by jaa101 · · Score: 2

      EU justice (outside of maybe the departing UK and France) is pretty bogus. Really bad, horrible things that might get you locked up forever in the USA get sentences of say, 10 years

      You're comparing Europe to the United States, which has the highest rate of imprisonment in the world, and the largest prison population in the world. Naturally almost every other country appears bogus.

  14. Copyright enforcement is everyone's job! by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    When did Western nations become so rabid about copyright enforcement that they are willing to extend liability so insanely? Individuals liable for millions of dollars of copyright infringements for a handful of songs. Linking to sites is becoming sources of liability, registering a domain is now a source of liability, merely making software that could possibly be used for enforcement is a source of liability, running a file-sharing web site is a source of liability, reverse-engineering and writing research papers are sources of liability... What dystopian author could have imagined that something as mundane as copyright law would become the force of economic damage and oppression?

    We are going backwards. A few years ago we reached some kind of balance, where almost any media I wanted could be purchased or downloaded without DRM for a reasonable price. Now I have to subscribe to 5 different streaming services to get access to it all, and half of those places require me to stream it through that companies' app or device. PLEASE PLEASE start buying DVDs and CDs again, or we will be back in the situation of the around Y2K when you were almost forced to pirate anything to get access to it. Only THIS time, they've closed the analog hole.

    1. Re:Copyright enforcement is everyone's job! by Altrag · · Score: 1

      The streaming services issue has little to do with copyright, neither the law nor even abuses of the law. It's happening purely because Netflix started making a boatload of cash and streaming tech became easy/cheap/commonplace enough for any monkey with even a single popular title under their belt to decide they didn't want to share with Netflix anymore and start their own service.

      Of course as you alluded to, this is not sustainable. Most people aren't going to be willing to pay for more than 2 or 3 services, and you can bet at least one of those will still be Netflix for the foreseeable future. Everyone else will be competing with Disney, HBO, Hulu and Amazon prime -- just to name 4 of the biggest competitors. And once Disney has fully pulled their licenses from Netflix and other services, they will probably be most people's #2 leaving little room in the market for all these dozens of competitors. And once they've all realized that their 3 interesting shows aren't going to generate enough viewership to justify running the platform, we'll see them start merging back together again (though possibly not back to Netflix specifically.)

    2. Re:Copyright enforcement is everyone's job! by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Edit: "used for enforcement" should be "used for circumvention"

  15. Das Internet funktioniert nicht so by Chas · · Score: 1

    Wieder ein Haufen alter Leute, ohne eine Ahnung davon zu haben, WIE etwas funktioniert und versuchen zu bestimmen, wie es funktionieren soll.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  16. No one. There won't be an incoming torrent. by denzacar · · Score: 2

    Germany is a civil law country. As in civil-ized.
    A single court case in a Podunk German town is nothing but a single court case in a Podunk German town.
    Thus, a country doesn't get turned upside down every time a senile judge in Lower Bumfuck forgets his meds.

    https://www.economist.com/the-...

    Although common-law systems make extensive use of statutes, judicial cases are regarded as the most important source of law, which gives judges an active role in developing rules.
    For example, the elements needed to prove the crime of murder are contained in case law rather than defined by statute.
    To ensure consistency, courts abide by precedents set by higher courts examining the same issue.

    In civil-law systems, by contrast, codes and statutes are designed to cover all eventualities and judges have a more limited role of applying the law to the case in hand.
    Past judgments are no more than loose guides.

    When it comes to court cases, judges in civil-law systems tend towards being investigators, while their peers in common-law systems act as arbiters between parties that present their arguments.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  17. Wtf? by easyTree · · Score: 1

    What does "can be required to..." even mean?

    My understanding is that it's verbal or written sleight of hand similar to "you need to..." in other words, to add apparent weight to "I want you to..."