Slashdot Mirror
Teen Sued for /Linking/ to MP3s
Alex T-B writes "A 17-year old Swede has been
sued by the IFPI for having links to MP3s from his homepage. The tracks weren't actually located on his system. How does this bode for future suing practices - can anybody get sued for just linking to stuff someone somewhere considers to be 'bad'? Der Artikel ist auf Deutsch - use babelfish. " MP3s or not, lawsuits over links scare me.
The only bullshit here was produced by you.
I study law in Sweden and I say without hesitation that the personal freedom in Sweden is by far greater than the freedom in the US. This is of course a hard matter to decide upon (if you have one right in Sweden which you dont have in the US and opposite, how are you going to compare the value of each?).
Secondly, and more importantly, the entire lawsuit is quite bogus, it's the kind of thing where they flex their muscles and hope that others will read and fear (no matter the outcome). He won't be convicted, period.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Actually (and somewhat surprisingly), it's from a video game(!) Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri -- I like it so much that I've got it committed to memory. I actually use it a lot -- I keep hoping that other people will pick it up. As far as I can tell, it's original to the game. My girlfriend thinks it sounds like Toqueville (you know, the author of Democracy in America), but it's not.
There's one other quote from the game that I like almost as much, on the subject of genome:
To look into the very stuff of life -- to stare into the looking glass and watch a thousand generations march by -- that, friends, is both our greatest curse and our proudest achievement.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
So, who wants to raise a billion from an IPO and use it to set up a real off-shore data haven? Maybe set up in the Cayman Islands or somesuch, run a few fat pipes in, and give the finger to all those in the world who would deny you access to information.
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free access to information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, while the free nation gradually constricting its grip on free discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism.
Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Actually, the God clause is not traditional. The original pledge of allegiance read as following:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The phrase "under god" was added in the McCarthyist 1950s as an attempt to distinguish the United States from "godless Communism," a convenient excuse for the religious conservatives then in power. It is not part of the original Pledge, and hence does not reflect any opinions our founding fathers may or may not have had. It just reflects the opinions of the McCarthyists.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Anyway, I wouldn't mind living there, if it wasn't for the language.... This is one of the difficult parts about moving in Europe. Moving is not the problem, it's when you settle down somewhere, you definitely notice the shortcoming of not being able to speak the country's language on a daily life basis.
To get back in the subject, it was a bad move from music industry... just makes you wonder WHY exactly do artists need pimps, and just rises the hate bar one step further up...
Like the french music industry collaborating with nazis during the war, or american music industries desperately trying to survive... the wrong way.
Kitos! :-)
---
"Hasta la victoria siempre!" El Comandante
The thing I find most objectionable is that people are finding out about the rules by breaking them.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
You got it backwards...
It is not the site he linked to that is suing him... It is the recording industry. This legal battle is over whether providing the location of an opportunity to commit a crime is in itself a crime. Because so many people use analogies to explain these things, here are a few:
1. In one context, this would be telling a terrorist where he can purchase bombs and then telling him what to blow up.
2. Another context would be telling someone where the neighborhood dealer is.
3. Yet another circumstance would be pointing out an unlocked door to a stranger.
In each of these cases, a person is providing a link to an opportunity to do a crime. The first analogy will surely be brought up by the prosecuting attorneys. The last case should be mentioned by the defense attorney. The real question is how dangerous we, as a society, consider information to be. If information is harmless (Sticks and stone will break my bones, but words will never hurt me), then we should consider links to be completely benign as any other form of speech. If information is totally dangerous, then we should ban all three forms of linking. Obviously, neither extreme is correct, and it is left to us to decide what balance must be struck.
Personally, I believe that information is highly dangerous, but that it is best to let people use their own judgement in using it. We shouldn't police thoughts or communications, only actions.
-B
Please don't bite my head off, but I don't see what's wrong here. Someone created a webpage with a link to files that are illegal to distribute.
But it is the responsibility of the person who sets up the files to ensure that they are legal to distribute, not the linker. If I link to mp3.com, where many legal-to-distribute files reside, and it turns out an mp3 there is illegal to distribute, should I be held liable? An mp3 is not illegal by definition. Or what if I link to a story on a news site that turns out was plagiarized? Again, am I liable?
Now, the fundamental difference here may be intent, that this kid knew these files were being distributed illegally. But at the very least this means that the plaintiffs should be required to show that he knew the distribution was illegal, which raises the bar significantly.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
There is a similar case in Denmark. No verdict yet though. The lawyers persuing the case has always send threathening letters to participants on the Danish newsgroups, apparently based solely on keywords in the articles. One person who got the letter was simply responding to an offtopic article offering warez, asking the author to use the "forsale" groups instead.
Oh, and it is the same lawyers who in the C64 dayes would claim that a 14 year old boy who collected game warez had cost the software publishers $30.000 in lost profits (the combined value of all the games).
This is ridiculous, whoever filed this suit should get their asses sued off for malicious prosection. EVEN if you grant the fact that linking to mp3's may be illegal it is clear that this law suit is not filled to set a legal precident or even to stop this kid from linking to mp3's. If either of these were the case they would have sued a *real* site like mp3.lycos.com (as someone already pointed out) or some smaller equivalent in sweden.
But no, they are suing a 17 year old. Isn't it clear that they are not trying to use the lawsuit to win but as a weapon in and of itself. Isn't this illegal (with various penalties) in most civilized countries?
Marriage is the "pseudo-ethics" that cloaks the messy truth of sexuality in the raiment of propriety -- it's "Don't Ask,
Yes, it doesn't look that bad because the only possible use for these mp3's is illegal, however, the precident it generates is terrible. It says the government is free to jail me if "the only consequences of the information I provide are illegal." Effectively this is what is being argued a 17year old has provided certain information (links to mp3's) and is being sued because this information can only be used for illegal purposes.
IT IS A HONEST TO GOODNESS FACT THAT AN MP3 RESIDES AT THE END OF THE LINK.
What if the WSJ was to do a report that pointed out the locations of illegal mp3s? Surely we wouldn't consider this to be illegal so we have put the government in the dangerous position of deciding what information can have a "legal" use and what information is only "illegal"
The bomb making parrelel is wonderful. A book that tells how to make bombs *should* be legal but it is giving information that can only be used for illegal purposes. Now the government has to decide when chemical eductation ends and illegal material starts. What about anarchistic manefestos? Marx? In fact the slipery slope continues until we are prohibeted from displaying material which challenges the current political framework because the necessery consequence of acting on such information is to do things which are currently illegal.
Also this is NOT equivalent to driving the getaway car. This kid is not accused with standing over their shoulder helping type in the URL he merely provided information.
Is warez.com a problem? No, for their is no underlying philosophical reason that someone shuold control all of their productions. In fact in a better world we would not have copyright laws. Copyright laws were adopted entierly pragmatically in order to make sure that new works were continued to be published. Is warz.com stoping microsofts next release? NO! As such it really isn't a problem. Besides even if it was the solution may be worse than the problem
Marriage is the "pseudo-ethics" that cloaks the messy truth of sexuality in the raiment of propriety -- it's "Don't Ask,
Now I don't actually have any knowledge of sweden so I can't comment on that particular instance, however, I would like to point out some differences between the freedoms offered by the united states and that offered by many european countries.
Many european countries have much less puritanical cultures than the united states hence as a matter of fact they end up allowing many more things than the united states. For instance various sorts of drug use, nudity etc..
However, the united states, despite outlawing many things has much greater protections in the system for those who are extremyl at odds with society than many european countries. Sure, the culture may be much more lax there but if you fall outside (preech hate speech in germany, engage in sadomasochistic homosexual play in england etc..) the line or the will of the country changes in its attitude towards freedom you are much more at risk.
While I would much prefer to live in a liberal culture I must argue that the american system is better *as a political system* not necesserily in the niceness of living there. Sure in the short term freedom is nice b/c it lets you do things but this is not the real point of allowing personal liberties.
Free speech stops the flow of ideas in the society from stagnating due to conformity. It keeps society alive by presenting disenting opionions (hence freedoms which let you digress from the mainstream are much more important than freedoms that let you do things). Secondly freedoms serve their main political purpose when the government/society starts to turn bad. Hence the insulation of freedoms from the will of the majority is also an important system.
It is sort of a free beer/free speech issue. One kind of freedom gives you nice things to do and makes you happy. The other protects you against a rainy day and is better for philosophical reasons.
Marriage is the "pseudo-ethics" that cloaks the messy truth of sexuality in the raiment of propriety -- it's "Don't Ask,
If you were to start your own country, would you really be free?
Would you have everything you need to be self sufficient or will you be depending on world trade? Will all your members be judged non-threatening to countries such as the USA? What happens when you decide to create a little military defense or a few members trade weapons as a hobby, such as a certain group did in Waco, TX? Sooner or later, your group is going to get the attention of a restless NSA and CIA and every other three letter acronym of every major capitolistic and communistic country out there. Your little country will get noticed and be subject to much debate, much of it in the "free press."
Can there ever be such a thing as freedom or world peace?
Well what if the mp3s are located in, and were ripped by a citizen of, a country which does not have copyright laws? Is it illegal to tell people to go to a different country to take advantage of different laws?
;)
Wouldn't that mean that I could face jail time if I told people which countries legalized (or at least don't prosecute for use/possession of) certain drugs? This could be good, OTOH, because at least we'd be rid of some lawyers
Depending on where you're at, you can post 'illegal' mp3s, because they're not illegal everywhere.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
People don't get the point of this lawsuit. Pages that offer free downloads are supported by advertising and partnerships with other sites. If someone links directly to the download, it completely bypasses the site's only mechanism of revenue. What this lawsuit is arguing is that MP3 and GIF are essentially no different.
This seem's counter-intuitive, but it's a good point. If a person used the Slashdot logo on their page and they linked directly to the GIF residing on Slashdot's servers, do you think Rob would be very happy? Maybe that would be cool with him, but I doubt it. This is essentially what is happening with a direct link to MP3. The host is being bogged down by extra traffic from people who don't even know where they are. This is the real issue here. Does that justify lawsuits against 17 year old hobbyists? Make your own mind on that, I've already put my Karma in enough risk.
PS - The stuff about this opening Slashdot to suits of the same kind is sheer nonsense. It's not about links, it's about fake content.
LoaderThe difference is that a printed bibliography does not give you access to the material (of course, this is one of the benefits of an electronic bibliography). As an example, suppose "Huckleberry Finn" (or "Origin of Species") is outlawed in your state. Including "Huckleberry Finn" in your bibliography is fine, but including contact information for the underground library is another matter.
But this brings up an interesting thought. If it's illegal to include a hyperlink to (hypothetically) http://joes_music.com/like_a_virgin.mp3, then can you get around this problem by printing the URL as plain text?
Christopher A. Bohn
cb
Oooh! What does this button do!?
A similar ruling happened in the case of Scientology versus Spaink and providers in the Netherlands. See the end of the ruling at:
:)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/verd2eng.html
For instance, it says:
DECLARES it to be the law that by having a link on their computer
systems which when activated brings about a reproduction of the
works that CST has the copyright to on the screen of the user,
without the consent of the plaintiffs, the Service Providers are
acting unlawfully if and insofar that they have been notified of
this, and moreover the correctness of the notification of this fact
cannot be reasonably doubted, and the Service Providers have then
not proceeded to remove this link from their computer system at the
earliest opportunity;
The good news is, Scientology itself appealed the ruling
17-year old Swede sued
A Swedish teenager has to go to court because his website contains links to copyright-protected music. The Swedish recording industry is trying to create a precedent with this suit.
Stockholm - The 17-year old Swede Tommy Olsson is being accused of providing copyright-protected music for free download on his webpage. The suit has been brought by the Swedish branch of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) consisting of 53 record companies. Olssons webpage contained links to the music files. His attorney Per Olof Almer argued that Olsson didn't create, copy or transfer the files himself. "He only spread the information on where to find them".
This is the first case of its kind in Europe said the attorney for the recording industry, Magnus Maartenson. The Swedish IFPI has moved against approximately 1000 websites for copyright violations in the last two years. Tommy Olsson though is the first person who has to appear in court because of his website. The music industry quite obviously is trying to create a legal precedent with this case: "It's not about the whole recording industry pushing on one 17-year old" emphasized Maartensson.
Olsson made only a few hundred dollars from advertisements on his webpage said Maartensson. If found guilty, he will have to pay a fine of 150 to 250 Dollars. This amount will not be enough to deter others said Maartensson. "But if he is found guilty, we can sue him for damages and that will be a much bigger amount." The sentence is expected for next Wednesday.
Will "Der Spiegel" now sue me for copyright infringement ? Things are getting crazy on the web
Forget the legal system for a sec and think about this.
In order for an end user to read a site of mine, their system must establish a link to my system and then data is transfered directly from me to them. If I have a link on the page they've just 'downloaded' that points to an MP3 somewhere, and
that user follows that link, then their system connects directly to the new destination. They don't go via my system to get there, and the MP3 doesn't travel via my system to on route back to them. Once the end user has a copy of my page on their system I'm cut out of the loop completely.
A URL is no more than a sign post, something that provides the browser with a route to a destination. How on earth can anyone be sued for that? It's obviously the work of some semi technically literate lawyer who thinks he's onto a nice little earner.
Macka
Ok, so no one took me to court, sued me, or tried to bring civil charges against me. But my original college hosted web site was unfairly banned because of a link.
I was one of (if not the) first person to have a web page at Ohio University. My page was up before the guy who setup our first web server had his up. So to try and show what was possible I created a site (on OU's first linux box) to host local area artists. I had a few of my photos, a few of my bosses paintings, and a link to a CS student's "body art" page.
On his body art page he had photos of his..."Prince Albert" go look it up if you don't know, all I'll say is ouch! So my homepage linked to my art site which in turn linked to the "Body art" page which linked to its creators photos of his own personal body art.
Well finally my college within the university (Visual Communications) gets with the program and creates their own website including a list of links to student created pages. (A bunch done for a "web design" class that taught to create large imagemaps in photoshop and called them webpages, and a few independly created pages). I asked for months to get listed on the indepent student pages.
Finally after nearly a year I got an answer why. Apparantly the head of VisCom and visited my site and declared that it contained pornography. Amazed I scheduled an appointment with him to find out where he found porn on my site!
He then explained how he found the photos of the "Prince Albert". Needless to say I was amazed. After nearly two hours of arguing he finally agreed to link to my site only because the linux box that hosted the art site was being taken down because the CS department coulden't find anyone in their college to take over as sysadmin once the original sysadmin graduated and went to work for a local ISP.
Ain't college great?
--- Juggle juggle@hitesman.com
Their point is, in some small way, understandable. But the implications are more severe than I think the court will ever realize. Is it, for example, illegal for a newspaper to write about problems with drugdealers in a certain park? The paper is, implicitly, telling their readers where to go to find a drugdealer. That is in my eyes equal to a link to another site that contains mp3:s.
But, and that is quite clear, the IFPI do this not because they think their argumentats are right but because they want to scare people off. They have also sent a letter to every univeristy in Sweden, where they claim that "most illegal software and music is spread through the computers of universities." In the same letter they claim that the university is legally responsible for everything downloaded to it's computers. They are, of course, lying. But if it scares universities into checking their students actions, the IFPI has succeeded. And that scares me.
There are scattered reports in swedish newspapers that the 17-year old did not only have links, but that he had actual files as well, and that those files are the main reason for the IFPI:s actions. I'm not sure if those reports are correct.
On an amusing sidenote, one of the Swedish tabloids described the case with a mild misunderstanding: "The 17-year old is charged for having files in the illegal MP3-format on his homepage." Not only was the music copyrighted, it was in an illegal format as well... :-)
I think that taking the position that this "tea rodent" is being maliciously prosecuted, or that the case is unfair is the wrong thing to do. I think that we should speak out more on the injustice and lack of freedom of other countries when compared to ours. While we continue to see our freedoms erode somewhat, they are still a veritable smorgasbord when compared to other countries. What's happening to this kid is a damn shame...and we ought to be angry about the situation in general...not just this particular case.
=h=
Seriously, what are the limits? If I create a Geocities site and put some "illegal" content on there, and link to it from my site, I think most people would realize that it's part of the same logical site. But what if I link to a site run by someone else?
Remember that in most countries it's illegal to give someone help in breaking the law. If I link to a site where someone can break the law, isn't that the same as helping them break the law?
The real issue here is that the courts don't understand the technology, and as such will make stupid rulings.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
In U.S. intellectual property law there is this notion of "contributory infringement," which means that even if you are not actively and immediately responsible for a copyright infringement, you may share some of the responsibility if you helped it happen.
Contributory infringement is most often applied to, say, publishers who reprint a copyrighted work submitted by a third party with no rights to that work. But I believe that it has also been applied to people who knowingly provided resources (e.g. a postage meter, a CD burner or a Xerox machine) for the purpose of large-scale copyright infringement, even though they never actively took part in the copying.
Depending on the context of the original web site, there may be a strong argument to make that the teenager in this case was a contributory infringer. For example, if the links on his web site said "Here are good places to get free MP3s of the latest N'Sync tunes!" then it's pretty clear that he was directing people to the MP3s with the expectation that they would download the pirated material, i.e. he's deliberately helping the copying happen. But say that his site was a technical exposition of the MP3 standard, with links to technical specs, ripping libraries, compression algorithms, and also happened to include links to sites which happened to include some illegally-ripped songs. In such a case it's much harder to demonstrate infringement.
Last point: I do not much agree with traditional intellectual property theory and do not in general care for the notion of copyright. Within that framework, however, this does not seem like a really outrageous case.
Lets all chip in and buy an Island, then we could start our own country, The last free country in the world!!!
Homer -"I call President!"
Mr. Burns -"Vice President!"
Smithers -"Aww crap..."
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
http ://www.techserver.com/noframes/story/0,2294,91180- 144345-1010275-0,00.html
Look, the 19 links thing was an average, given any two pages on the web. You people didn't even read the article, you just saw "19 clicks away" and jumped to conclusions.
The average means this: given any two pages at random, they will be ON AVERAGE 19 links away. That means that sometimes they will be one link away, and sometimes they will be hundreds of links away, but on average, they will be 19 links away.
Sheesh.
I got more rhymes than Jamaica got Mangoes.
The best remedy to this type of harassment suit has been debated for years, and (IIRC) the current suggestions are:
With an affirmative defense, the suit is dismissed immediately once the defendent objects and claims this defense. You don't like the fact that my personal car is red instead of blue? You even filed a suit against me, claiming it's against the neighborhood covenents? Tough, that's not something the courts will enforce. (They might enforce restrictions on *where* I park the car, especially if it's a business vehicle, but not the details of any personal vehicle.)
This idea isn't without controvery. What happens to a homeowner who files suit over a legitimate grievance, but who simply can't afford to push the case against a multi-million dollar company?
In this case, I am 100% certain that the suit will be quietly dropped within a short time because there is no fscking way they could win. (Their worst nightmare is actually *winning* the case and facing the backlash of their affluent, young market.) However they will consider it a victory since it will put a bit of doubt into the back of the minds of other people who may want to put up links or content.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
As fucked up as this may be, the Swedish legal system is a lot more sane than the american one. We have professional juries, and even if found guilty they are unlikely ask for anything like "punitive damages" or cede to the ridiculous cost estimates of American counterparts.
Hell, most of the time we don't even lock up our violent criminals...
-
Personal freedom isnt dead in Sweden. There hasnt been a verdict yet (he'll be freed, imho), only a report in a german mag. where they probably dont know anything about swedish law.
/. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
Either you don't live here or you are blind. Bar the far east, Sweden has one of the most collective value systems in the world. There has never been individual freedom here, which is why we thrived for a while (50s-60s-70s) and then went right to the shitter today. Same reason places like SIngapore can thrive now, but are heading straight for the shitter tomorrow.
Say what you want about the American regime, but until now America has had better individual freedom then we do - by a long run. American kids may be forced to say the pledge of allegance in the morning, but that is nothing compared to silent indoctrination into the social (-ist) system that goes on from the the very start here.
Since my childhood was split evenly between the two countries, for once I do know what I am talking about.
-
You don't get it do you? Copyright law is an abstract concept that treats ideas as physical objects. Furthermore, it is not natural law, it does not cause bodily damage, lost of life or limb, or any lost freedom.
In other words it is like me lending my McLaren F1 (not like I have one though) to my friend, and getting sued because I *knew* my friend would drive 100mph over the speed limit.
I hope I didn't purposely commit any 3rd degree misdemeanors.
There are no laws that say you cannot provide bibliographic links (or any directions) to information that would break the law. If there was, we would be pretty much living in a police state.
Furthermore, they could of just went and sued the owner of the site where the mp3s are. They didn't. They wanted a monkey act. Now they get bad publicity.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
I'm not sure how they can sue someone for having a link to some resource on the web. Wouldn't it be like suing people for having bibliographies in their book/articles?
I can understand the issues with embedding someone else content in your own frames, or using someone else artwork (gif, mov, etc.)
But just suing for just giving a pointer to it, that doesn't seem realistic. I wonder how what's their rationale.
This isn't the first case of it's kind.
Does anybody else remember this? There was a site that posted a photograph on the net, breaking the owner's copyright. The owner sued, not only the person who posted the picture, but the sites that linked to the picture, and to the sites that linked to the sites that linked to the picture.
The suit on the sites that linked to the copyright violater was eventually dropped, but not after making enough noise to scare the bejesus out of several website owners.
There's are more lawsuits happening over people linking to other sites. Right now, Ticketmaster is fighting tickets.com in court. If you want a ticket, go to tickets.com and in many cases tickets.com will link you to the ticketmaster webpage. Ticketmaster is suing because tickets.com is making it's business off the Ticketmaster web page.
I do NOT see any difference between linking to a site or publishing the URL for a web page to specifically buy tickets. Moreover, you can't be held liable for merely linking to a site that provides illegal content. But my guess is, the courts will see it differently. Especially with the Ticketmaster lawsuit.
It's the end of the World Wide Web as we know it, and I'm going to puke.
*I* think the good thing about the Swedish system is that the loser pays the costs for both parties. That ends most frivolous lawsuits long before they even started.
I actually like the US jury system better than being judged by third rate politicians as in Sweden.
OK, so this is off topic. Sue me...
There are more dividing lines.
1) A non-active textual link vs hypertext link.
2) A link to a page containing illegal material.
3) A link only usable for viewing copyrighted content.
4) A link that starts an illegal content download.
In case 4) you could argue somewhat persuasively that the web author has knowingly created an object whose normal and expected use causes the law to be broken.
I also have to wonder if a company profiting from advertisement on a site with links to illegal content is liable.
The trouble with this is that to obey the law you need a lot of knowledge of a rather difficult and murky field, online copyright law. This is heading towards a world where it will be impossible to publish on the web without a lawyer and a staff of people to do ongoing research on the legality of all links (as they change.)
We will probably spend the next twenty years and who knows how much money defining copyright law for the web in the courts, and then even more money enforcing that law. Worse, the only real benefit will be to the distribution channels, not the content artists or end users.
or could there be another motive in this, such as setting an example for people, since *many* more people link tp mp3s than produce them, and maybe that would reduce mp3 usage even more?
-DAVEO
Slashdot links to alot of web sites, which link to lots of web sites, which link to lots of web sites. In all everyone is only 19 clicks away from any point on the web. Does that mean we are all guilty.
I am sorry but as we would all agree, this is a lame lawsuit.
But, I have to say that I have very little pity for the kid.
How many times have you seen sites where they say "Oh, the files are not here on my servers. I only link to them." Like Lycos and MusicSeek say that they don't have the files there, that they only link to them after you search. You know what? I don't have to leave those sites to download files which are copyrighted, I put in my keyword and search. As far as the user is concerned, the files are downloaded right from those sites. This whole "I'm only linking" bull is no excuse, if you link to the file deliberately or help someone obtain illegal product you are in the wrong and you are an accomplice to the distribution of "stolen" material.
IMHO it's like giving someone the name and address of a fence and letting them use my phone to make the deal and my garage for the purchase. Would the cops give a rats rectum if I was not the one who stole the product? Heeeeeeell know. To me, this is the same type of situation. This kid (and don't get me wrong, I do pity the dude, just not much) was knowingly directing visitors to copyrighted files.
Now, if I link to a site that then links to a site for downloading an illegal file, sure, there is no reason to sue. But none of the sites which my sites link to direct the user to anything illegal, and I check that sort of thing. If a webmaster wants to, hell, be my guest. But if you link to illegal shit and you do it on purpose, and someone sues, busts, or otherwise comes after your butt, you bring the karma on yourself.
Anyhow, rant rant rant, I'll shut up and drink my beer.
Killing spammers is too good for them.
Hmmm. Lots of pages generate links, and many allow links to be added by others. Search engines tend to be in this category... does that mean that they are liable, since they'll spit out pages with links to pirated material? Personal auction/trading sites also tend to be of this category, although sites like E-bay are trying to clamp down on people offering anything they consider contraband or controversial.
If it's restricted to obvious, conscious intent (like specifically describing the content. Were one to link to a free hosted page, ala Geocities, and then that page lapsed and the address got re-used for somebody brazenly and stupidly distributing "w4r3z"... that doesn't seem like it should be prosecuted as long as ignorance is plausible.
Since the person in question was specifically and knowingly pointing to pirated content, however, that's more like a go-between faciltating a transaction between a junkie and a dealer. He might not touch the drugs himself, ever, nor necessarily the money, but he's certainly a willing accomplice, and part of the racket; and I'm pretty sure most places would bust 'im.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
oh no, i guess i'll be getting sued next; i have some friends who have mp3s and i think i have their phone numbers written down somewhere!
jesus.
> exactly where does legal accountability stop?
I think the legal accountability starts when:
a) you recognize that the site you are linking to contains illegal material, and...
b) you intentionally link to it anyways.
Here's a more down-to-earth example: suppose my neighbor has a big ol' house with a beautiful garden. He also happens to be the neighborhood fence.
If I don't know that, and I tell my friends that they should really visit his place to check out his lovely petunias, I've done nothing wrong. However, if I do know the score, and I tell people that I can hook them up with a great deal on a linux laptop (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)... there's a pretty good case for aiding and abetting.
Slashdot is entertaining like pro wrestling is entertaining
Its quite obvious that you dont share political values with most of the people here in sweden. We have this "collective value system" because we want it. It might not be everybodys cup of tea and obviously not yours but the society provides us with a certain security, free education and other stuff at the expense of a little higher taxes, which is why some rich people doesnt like it.
This is just a political thing for you, and doesnt have to do anything with this lawsuit because youre pissed at the path politics is taking here.
The kid will most likely have better chances here than he would have in the US because were not so money-oriented.
all it takes (in most systems) is a few minutes to fill out some forms, and a few dollars for a filing fee. You could sue someone for thinking about MP3's if you feel like it, there's absolutely nothing to stop you.
So the fact that this suit has been filed means nothing at all. The question is what happens to the suit. AFAIK, no one's been successful with this kind of theory yet, but that doesn't mean they never will.
I can understand what the IFPI is trying to do here (I don't agree with it of course), but exactly where does legal accountability stop? If you can be sued for linking to a file, what about to a page containing files, and so on? Why do I get the feeling that this issue is going to spend a long, long time in legal limbo?