Slashdot Mirror
Teen Freed for Linking to MP3s
7 year old free from charges in swedish mp3-case
The district court of Skövde announces today that the 17-year old who had using links to mp3-files on his homepage, is now acquited. Justification being that the 17-year old had only been directing to, not distributing the actual files. The classification was "crime against the copyright law through digital mp3-technics".
Even though he is now acquited, the court thinks he is guilty of complicity to crime against the copyright law. But since he was never prosecuted for that crime, he is released.
This is the first time in Europe a mp3-case has been brought to court. Its the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) who prosecuted the 17-year ord. The organisation has charged him with fines, but crimes against the copyright law can result in up to two years in prison. IFPI has not yet responded if it will appeal against the judgement.
Dagens Nyheter ("The Daily News", Swedens largest morning paper) has been covering this story quite good in their net edition. It's also been covered in P3 (Public radio channel).
ZZ
What music sites need to do is put their MP3's and other media under the GNU General Public License. That way, if some punk Swedish kid tries to link to them with an tag, he must subsequently make his whole home page GPL as well. But because MP3's are not GPL, anyone in the world can link to them, and possibly even download and play them back on a non-GPL MP3 client.
Seriously though. An URL is just an address of a file. Plain and simple. It's equivalent to a citation in a bibliography or footnote. This is "fair use". There is nothing wrong with making a link to a file, it's allowed for under copyright law (in the US), even though the lawyers and politicos may not think so. If the MP3 owner does not want people linking to it, all they need to do is put it behind a secure server.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
And the bars, which everyone knows is where criminals congregate, or the phone companies because criminals communicate by phone......
I remember reading about this story a while ago in an article in a lengthy article on Regan's 'War on Drugs' policy in a UK paper. This might be duplicate story, but the way I heard it was:
The kid was in fact a girl, about 18 or 21. She was asked by federal police at a party whether they could find any LSD. She said no, but said that her boyfriend had some. She was arrested and charged under conspiracy to supply drugs. She was tried in a federal court under the infamous Regan's `War on Drugs' laws, found guilty and received the mandatory sentence of 10 years imprisonment without parole. The judge who sentenced her described it as a miscarriage of justice, but said he was powerless to give any other judgement.
Scary.
> Vem fan startade den här "Bork bork
> bork!"-grejen?
Den "svenske" kocken på mupparna.
"Otherwise he was certainly providing that information on the basis that it would be used to commit a crime."
/might/ have something, and the "cop" needn't have got any, or he was providing information on the basis that it would be used to /spot/ a crime and bring those involved to justice.
Bullshit.
Otherwise, he was providing information either to a known cop as part of a set-up, which renders the whole thing invalid, or he was only saying that person
I think it considerably more likely that some injustice was done to this chap, and ought to be rectified.
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
According to an interview today, he had been warned twice by IFTI (or whatever). He thought the first warning was a joke by someone, but he took the second warning serious---he moved his site abroad...
He should have just moved, renamed, redesigned his site and not mentioned about it on his original pages.I think he is guilty of being stupid. There is definately a gray zone here, but if you are asked to remove your links because you are doing damage then I think you have an obligation to do so.
Maybe he wanted to see, if the allegations where courtproof or just biased views.Just because the massive potential for movement of information has been unleashed, it doesn't mean that we should let certain facts get lost along the way.
Copyright is not theft, copyright is an assertion that you have created something original and that you want at least recognition of this fact and possibly monetary reward. If you want to use copyleft or something similar to allow free use, go for it, that's great, you're an altruist.
Rippers, encoders, warez sites, k3wl kids and CDs full of MP3s don't cover the fact that there are rules, internationally agreed rules, that dictate what you are and are not allowed to do with copyrighted material in your posession.
Linking to MP3 files that you know to be illegal must be viewed poorly, by linking to that site you are allowing people to exploit their presence and that should be considered abuse.
There's no difference between that and broadcasting the URL on a radio show or publishing it in a newspaper.
Fair use is allowed and copying for yourself is not going to get you into trouble, buy the CD once and listen to it on your laptop, on your MD walkman or on the tape player in your car - go right ahead, the music industry will not touch you. But publishing an MP3 on the web should be jumped on and linking to that MP3 is not dramatically different.
You might not agree with the rules, so try to change them - remember, direct action is a viable means of protest, but there's a good chance that it might also be illegal.
--
"I do not speak for my employers, though they are controlled from my Teddy's huge pulsating brain."
Let me begin by stating my position on the incident in question: I completely agree with you that the act of prosecution was unjust. I was simply trying to present a standpoint from which two different types of 'linking' could be differentiated.
/spot/ a crime and bring those involved to justice.
/might/ have something, and the "cop" needn't have got any), if the teenager thought that the cop intended to commit a crime, and furnished him with the means to do so, this is a crime in most parts of the world. Again, I'm not saying that I agree with this, just that it is so.
I don't think there's any difference between the first and third alternatives you presented:
- he was providing information either to a known cop as part of a set-up
- he was providing information on the basis that it would be used to
In the second case (he was only saying that person
Personally, I think the real injustice lies in the mandatory life sentence - otherwise common sense could have been applied by the judge or jury.
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
I think it's a crock for that judge to say he was powerless.. There's always someone above him he could have dealt with due to the nature of the case.
I agree though. If this truly did take place, then it is a grave injustice. The girl's life is pretty much ruined and if it were me, you better believe I'd be a criminal when I got out. They'd have to watch me 24 hours a day as I'd probably try to burn down the white house or something, with el presidente inside..
safety can be a form of freedom.
Two hundred years ago when there were wolves and marauding bears out in the woods, being inside the stockade made you safe. It also made you free to walk around outside shelters (but within the stockade) after dark. So safety made people free.
Much the same way, if bombs and gunshot are going off all around you, it's not very safe. And you're not particularly free to go for a stroll in the park.
Safety and freedom are not opposing poles.
While I don't know the text of the Berne Convention by heart, I'd say it's only marginally relevant (legally speaking, it's not a law, by the way). The Berne Convention sets some minimum standards for copyright, but its primary purpose is to let foreign authors enjoy the same rights as the nationals of the country where copyright is claimed.
Before the Berne Convention was established in the late 19th century, a Swedish publisher could obtain a book by a British author, possibly translate it, and distribute as many copies he liked within Sweden, without the British author getting a say (or even receiving a penny in compensation)! Even today, copyright legislation is essentially national, with various conventions extending the rights given by national laws also to foreigners.
I don't think the Berne Convention says much about encouraging infringement or similar "side issues". The function of the Berne Convention (or perhaps some other convention) in this particular case was essentially to allow the recording industry to bring charges to the Swedish teenager on behalf of foreign musicians. The rest was up to the Swedish court to decide in accordance with the Swedish Copyright Act and other relevant statutes.
There is another potential twist related to the Berne Convention though: I don't know from what country the actual MP3 files were (and maybe still are) served. In this layman's opinion, charging somebody with assisting infringement by linking to those files will require their distribution to be illegal in the first place. What if they reside on a server in a country which isn't party to the relevant conventions, or where even domestic copyright law is insufficient? Can you be charged with helping someone abroad to commit an act that would be illegal if committed in your own country, but not where it's actually committed?
Note that making a single copy for your own personal use normally isn't illegal in Sweden, so I don't think you'll get anywhere by claiming the teenager was assisting those who downloaded the music to commit "petty theft of intellectual property" or something. The issue here is whether he in effect operated as the advertising agency of an actual pirate (something the court appearantly didn't address, due to sloppy homework on the part of the prosecutor).
It wouldn't be that far-fetched to require them to remove index entries that would come up in response to an MP3 query, if those links are to sites with illegal MP3 items online.
So, at some point, yes, Altavista could be liable as well.
I suspect that its rather like making tapes. That's illegal - its a violation of copyright but there's no department full of policemen about to kick your door in for it.
However, if you set up a clearinghouse to make tapes, and you make thousands of them, and widely distribute them to people all over the world, you could count on a department full of policemen kicking your door in.
I suspect that its rather like making tapes. That's illegal - its a violation of copyright but there's no department full of policemen about to kick your door in for it.
If you set up an enormous site with millions of MP3z^Hs then they'll come after you. If you link to 5 on other sites they won't. If you give away all of the Beatles on a coverdisc on a magazine they'll prosecute and if you lend your mate a CD to copy they won't.
Just keep them moving around so there's too many targets and we'll all get free music. Cool!
"Don't open the gates, who the hell needs a wooden horse that size?"
That's the problem with mandatory minimum sentencing laws. In most cases, the judge is indeed powerless, since legally he is not allowed to give less than a certain sentence. The only other alternative he has is to overturn the conviction, which would be somewhat akin to lying. The person is guilty, but doesn't deserve the sentence, but the judge's sentencing leeway has been done away with by stupid laws, so he's in a no-win situation.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well -- your ISP may have something to say about that, because 10^16 16 digit numbers will take something like 160,000 terabytes (give or take a few bytes for HTML headers). But assuming it's possible, you still aren't doing anything wrong, because, unlike the examples given above, you aren't giving anyone any information that isn't contained in the sentence "B of A credit card numbers are 16 digits long". If a man delivered a solid block of marble to my door, should I turn him in for selling me a fake of the Venus de Milo? After all, it's in there somewhere.
If on the other hand you posted the algorithm for generating valid credit card numbers, you would be a criminal, and I doubt anyone would argue with that. If your best mate set up a site with that algorithm on it, and you set up a site directing people to his site (maybe he lived in a country with no extradition treaty to the USA or something), then you're part of a serious crime.
I think the analogies hold up, but the critique is interesting. Thanks.
jsm
I've been down this route with my band for a demo tape, recording the instruments on my soundcard, using a multitrack app etc., and then the band went into a studio and recorded a 6-track EP; we could just about afford it. The audio quality was reasonable but not great.
The fact is that without access to expensive studio equipment it is extremely difficult to get a master recording at a high enough quality to sell. Getting a record deal makes this a lot easier as the record company pays for the studio (in exchange for most of your profit...) So, unless you're willing to sink pretty much everything you have into equipment and studio time, record companies still have a pretty big part to play for most bands.
yeah.. but how long until "Real Recording" studios don't cost as much as they do now?
Non-linear costs a zillion bucks because the systems are all old (in computer years, where 18 months is an eternity)
"Cheap, high quality" recording studios are _not_ far off. Someone just has to sit down and figure out a good business model, design a easily reproducable studio, and franchise it.
Today's studios have all this huge "big iron" behind the glass.. and i'm sorry, but soon, all those mixing boards and wires and cables and mics will all funnel into a tiny little graphite/white box with 4 handles and an Apple on the side via a firewire cable and will leave the studio thru the ethernet cable.
A backup of the entire recording session will leave on a $30 DVD-RAM so you can remix, re-record, whatever - wherever - whenever.
No, you can't do it all on one computer *now* with "real studio" quality, but you will within 2-8 years i guarandamntee you. Its like StarOffice 5.1.... no, its not as presentable as office 2000, but for the price difference, you shure can't bitch.
Record companies will either adapt, and go digital (production/distribution/sales), or they will die.
There's money to be made - and someone will soon take advantage of the fact that the big labels just don't get it.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
The problem isn't linking in general. The problem is linking to something which breaks the law. Like it or not, posting
(Warning: extreme example coming)
Say you had a friend who you KNEW killed people for a living. Say someone came to you and said, "Hi! I'd like to have
someone killed. Do you know who I can go to?" You say, "Sure! Just go ask my friend."
If I know of someone who is willing to do it, I have the right to inform him of it. On the other hand, if I am aware of his intention, I am obligated to notify the authorities.
I assume since this incident they'll start cracking down on people with links to warez, cracking tools, exploits or pretty much anything they think can be classified illegal
Sure, why not? It sounds good to me.
It probably sounds good to LOTS of people who aren't trafficing in wares, cracking tools, and exploits.
The people 'cracked down on' should have their day in court, and be entitled to a fair hearing, of course. That we should all insist on.
We should also insist that the jail cells be as humane as possible.
Naw, the whole net won't be illegal.
Because all the warez sites will be shut down.
The people who insist on continuing to distribute illegal materials will all eventually be rounded up.
The rest of us will continue to enjoy surfing the net, etc.
Don't make it more complicated than that.
I'm sorry if someone mentioned this earlier, but what about a place like mp3search.lycos.com? Do Lycos execs get hauled to court because they let a person search public FTP sites? What about normal search engines that happen to come upon an MP3 webpage with their automated spiders?
There's a very large amount of psuedo legal wrangling. Does a router that passes along MP3 data that is being copied illegal count as assisting, leading to arrest/prosecution of owner of said router/backbone? This'd certainly harken to the situation in Australia where people are being restricted in their personal freedom.
I'm amazed more people don't realise that freedom to choose == freedom to choose crime, and then try and make it harder to committ crime (by law), when no law will stop a person who wants to.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Intent always comes into play in any court of law.
And the intent becomes less clear with every level of redirection.
7) Do I have to ask permission before I do this: see http://www.usatoday.com ?
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
So, did the guy know he was doing something bad, but thought that the technical facts about the Internet would mean he couldn't be caught for it? If yes, then guilty he is.
According to an interview today, he had been warned twice by IFTI (or whatever). He thought the first warning was a joke by someone, but he took the second warning serious---he moved his site abroad...
I think he is guilty of being stupid. There is definately a gray zone here, but if you are asked to remove your links because you are doing damage then I think you have an obligation to do so.
Reality or nothing.
To answer your question, yes, people are doing this.
At least I am, I can't speak for everyone.
Within the last three or four months I've purchased no less than seven CDs that I would have never considered had a friend not e-mailed me the mp3 and said "Check this out."
Two of these were artists appearing on mp3.com who for some strange reason have no major label deal even though they are infinitely more talented than much of the watered-down garbage I hear on my radio every day.
It strikes me that, by this figuring, scour.net should be in a whole lot of trouble. That is all they do--link to mp3 files.
And I doubt that they have the legal capital that an outfit like lycos does to fight the bad guys (was I correct in reading that it is the pornographic publishers alliance, or something like that, that was pursuing the Swedish fellow? Sheesh.
-awc
This means that as the computer propogation into
our society greatens many "knowledge based"
industries will be made obsolete and thereby will
use their current economic power to find every
possible fashion of stopping and stifeling their
depleating place in the economy. Expect more
witch-hunts. Though there is a way around
this. It's called value added services. Take
Macmillian publishing and their personal
desktop service. Seeing that it was so simple to
copy their material (mainly books) they made them
free and used advertising to sustain the service
meanwhile offering the "ability" to purchase a "hard copy." Unfortunately greedy old companies don't like new business models. In Canada the CRTC has regulated the upstream cap on dialup and other transmission means from the public sector.
Well that's my 2 cents.
That surely does NOT make sense. Since most people have a free will (and there are laws governing the actions of those who don't) we can, in our very self-conscious, lawful way choose not to download copyrighted material (or kill, steal, whatever..) just because we are presented with the opportunity.
I don't buy this.
First things first; this comment is an example of what is usually an admirable principle; that control and prohibition should be kept as close in the causal chain as possible to the "bad act". This keeps the sphere of prohibition as small as possible, which is good.
But there comes a point at which it's just not possible to use the "other people have free will" argument, and when you have to suspect bad faith. Human beings aren't super-rational calculators running algorithms designed by Donald Knuth. They're funny, kludgey systems which react to stimuli in partly autonomous but partly predictable ways. And they're about as manipulable as the slashdot Karma system (no offense). People who behave in ways which influence the behaviour of others are part of the causal chain which leads to someone's rights being violated.
Should I be allowed to put up a site of credit card numbers? Hey, the people who download them have free will, don't blame me for what they do with them! How about if, for a fee, I introduce you to a guy who knows a hit man? How about if I publish the names and addresses of abortionists on the Net, with a red cross over the ones that have been killed? If you lent me your car and I left it out in a bad neighbourhood with the keys in the ignition, would you consider it to be partly my fault when it got stolen?
In a lot of these cases, I'm intending that crimes happen, and helping them to happen. I'm part of (an accessory to) the crime. I can claim that it's not my intention that these bad things happen (if I've got a good story, I might even get away with it). Some examples aren't crimes at all. But there's certainly a case to answer -- it's not the same as owning an automatically spidered search engine (and most search engines do attempt to keep themselves warez-free).
David Hume has a good few words to say about this, if I could only remember them.
jsm
With MP3's, you can create your own CD, promote and sell it on the web
:)
So says the hype. I've been down this route with my band for a demo tape, recording the instruments on my soundcard, using a multitrack app etc., and then the band went into a studio and recorded a 6-track EP; we could just about afford it. The audio quality was reasonable but not great.
The fact is that without access to expensive studio equipment it is extremely difficult to get a master recording at a high enough quality to sell. Getting a record deal makes this a lot easier as the record company pays for the studio (in exchange for most of your profit...) So, unless you're willing to sink pretty much everything you have into equipment and studio time, record companies still have a pretty big part to play for most bands. Plus, of course, it's a chick-magnet being able to say, "oh yeah, well, we got our new record deal last month"
axolotl
Just another tought: I don't think it's legal to copy the article from idg.se, even if it's translated. So ironically Slashdot could be sued for the same crime...
You'd also have to find a mighty big island, probably about the size of Madagascar.
No, that's not the case I was thinking of. The story featured an interview with the kid, and he was definitely not female.
Given the proliferation of mandatory minimum sentence laws being passed as part of our "gallant and noble" (yeah, right) "War on Drugs", I'm sure one would have no trouble finding a multitude of similarly unjust cases.
Also, the case I described took place in Michigan, and the sentence was handed out under their "650 Lifer Law" which mandates life imprisonment without possibility of parole for anyone caught with more that 650 grams (roughly a pound, i believe) of cocaine of heroine.
Apparently, this law has recently been reformed. http://www.ndsn.org/JULAUG98/SENT.html
(Warning: extreme example coming)
Say you had a friend who you KNEW killed people for a living. Say someone came to you and said, "Hi! I'd like to have someone killed. Do you know who I can go to?" You say, "Sure! Just go ask my friend."
(If this is too extreme, think of the neighborhood/dorm drug dealer rather than a hit man.)
I don't see much difference between acting as a reference in meatspace and providing a link on the web. Have you commited a crime by knowingly aiding someone else in commiting a crime? Have you commited a crime by knowing that a crime is happening and not reporting it?
-jon
Remember Amalek.
I thought it said International Federation of the Pornographic Industry
Besides the chilling effect, which I also consider the most plausible explanation, they may want to use their loss in court as a political argument, hoping to "improve" copyright legislation to deal with people telling where to find pirated stuff. I don't think they'll lose any sleep over the millions in damages this teenager wasn't ordered to pay.
With all the free publicity you get from suing teenagers, their presumed ingenuity but limited financial resources, and the desire of the legal system to prosecute juvenile delinquents with priority, teenagers with computers seem to make excellent legal guinea-pigs. Perhaps the babelfish wasn't too far off calling this guy a "tea rodent"...
The biggest empires of this century have been built on copyrights and patents.
In itself, this is not too much of a problem. However, if you look at the initial motivation for copyright protection, you can see that the law was there to protect the weak and the poor, the writers and inventors. How can we reconcile the outcome of one full century of copyright protection, with the fact that the music industry seems to benefit from copyright laws so much more than the artists who were supposed to be the main beneficiaries? Does Bill Gates need protection from us, or is it rather the other way around?
Intent is always a factor in any court case. If the intent is to 'route around' laws, then it becomes obvious that it was no mistake, or coincidence, that the links were in place with malicious intent. Do some of you kids not think this stuff through very well?
Whoa, whoa, whoa... hold on there!
I think it's time to rein in the horses there a bit, buddy!
Now, let's look at what you just said... you assert that, first of all, a person's intent should have no effect on whether or not they are guilty of a crime ("Whether or not he had a guilty mind, however, shouldn't affect the law."). I see an inherent self-contradiction in there, but I'll let it pass, for now.
Second, you claim (or at least, strongly imply) that any variation or permutation on a crime should be taken, de facto, as being the same as the crime ("If it is illegal, then that sign at my local library that points to the Copier Room needs to come down too.").
Now, are you sure you really want to go down this path? Let's follow it a bit. Pretty soon, you come to the take-no-prisoners stance. Zero tolerance. This is the same sort of mentality that leads to little kids being expelled from school for bringing Aspirin to class (well... it's a variation of a drug, and those are dangerous! We have a zero-tolerance policy on drugs! Kick the kid out!). Or howabout the case (no references on-hand, sorry -- maybe someone could provide them?) where the guy was expelled for giving his teacher a bottle of wine as a present? Oops! Can't have that! He didn't intend to drink it? Too bad! No exceptions! Doesn't matter what his intentions were... he's guilty as charged!
Granted, these are somewhat extreme cases, but nevertheless they follow the same principle. And it's not that big a step.
Now is that what you really meant, or did you just not think it entirely through?
Now, before I get too carried away, lemme add that the other extreme is just as bad. While the intentions of the accused should affect the judgement, they shouldn't necessarily become the focal-point. While in theory that would be nice, it leads all too-easily towards the dreaded thoughtcrime and the ultimate invasion of privacy that entails.
Which is why I defend the verdict -- whatever it was in its details. I confess to not having read the original article, although most of what I've said so far relies on it not one bit. I actually trust the courts, as they are, to come up with a judgement that takes into account the intent, criminal or not, of the kid. After all, despite the fact that the judge felt that he should be convicted as an accessory, that's not how (s)he ruled. Not sure of the details; something about it not being the crime he was charged with.
Which is fine with me.
Okay, so call me a conservative.
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
Time for Jon Katz to write an article about how MP3s are revolutioning the criminal justice system.
fish and pipes
Technical my ass! Ain't no difference between /index.html HTTP/1.0 /music.mpg HTTP/1.0
GET
and
GET
Sounds like that lawyer was talking out his ass. (Big surprise there!)
Traditional brick and mortar distribution channels worldwide are in a major panic over Internet e-commerce. IMHO, anything that eliminates the middleman is good for the consummer and the manufacturer. I say, bring it on !!
Two hundred years ago when there were wolves and marauding bears out in the woods, being inside the stockade made you safe. It also made you free to walk around outside shelters (but within the stockade) after dark. So safety made people free.
But you have to exchange the freedom to wander the land for the safety of the compound. Exchanging one for another.
Much the same way, if bombs and gunshot are going off all around you, it's not very safe.
Much the same if I lock you in a box, you are very safe, but where is your freedom?
They may not be opposing poles but there is most definitely an inverse relationship between them.
+&x
Something that, suprisingly no-one seems to have mentioned - apologies if I've missed it - what was the legal status of the mp3s that were linked to?
People have been assuming (it seems to me) that they were illegal bootlegs, but some of the comments imply that they were legal, but not intended for public distribution.
What is the truth?
Ever wonder why warez links on sites like Xoom or Geocities go down usually within a day or two?
I am sure most reasonably big companies *have* people searching the web on daily basis, probably using AltaVista. Or more likely, they subcontract that work to someone else.
I don't think it's correct to say that there is an inverse relationship between freedom and safety. There are times when increased freedom results in increased safety. There are also times when an individual has both their freedom and safety reduced at the same time.
Take for example somebody who is locked into a really bad prison. Their freedom has been taken away, and at the same time the prison may be a very violent and dangerous place. They have lost both freedom and safety. Conversly, when they are later released from prison, they may live in a much safer place and hence have increased both freedom and safety.
Going back to the earlier example of the "safe" compound and the "dangerous" wilderness it is easy to show that freedom has nothing to do with it. If you are in the compound because you choose to be of your own free will, then you enjoy some level of freedom. Just because I choose to live in a safe place instead of a dangerous place doesn't mean that I am less free. It just means that I am prudent.
On the other hand, if I live in the "safe" place because I am a slave and my owner doesn't want to risk his investment by letting me wander around where it's dangerous, I'm not free at all. Or, maybe my owner thinks he can get the most out of his investment by forcing me to fight lions in the colloseum. Either way, my "safety" isn't related to my "freedom".
Yeah, I was going to comment on this little mistake too. If you want to be freed from prison, just link to MP3s.
I'm glad the courts decided to let him go.. I mean, cmon... IMHO, I don't think MP3s are all that bad. There's no way I would have bought some CDs without listening to a couple of the MP3s first... but whatever, no one cares about me anyways.
Although it's good that he got out, there's stiull the issue of linking and the nebulous "assisting copyright crimes".
For example, say I, at school, decided to use a cd burner to record a song? Since it's their eq, would that be "assisting copyright crime"? What if I give someone a MP3->.wav converter? Or for that matter a CD ripper? Have I "assisted copyright crime"? The entire charge is both nebulous and overreaching. If I send an MP3 to someone under the assumption (which may well have been stated on his page, although I honestly don't know) that they already own the CD, and they happen not to, does that qualify?
Sorry about mixed-upness, it's not even 1000...
17 year old freed in Swedish MP3 case
The court in Skövde said that the 17 year old who had links from his homepage to MP3 files is acquitted. The reason is that the 17 year old didn't spread the files, but simply linked to them.
Today the verdict was delivered in the highly publicised case against a 17 year old who linked to MP3 files. The charge was crime against copyright laws using MP3 digital media.
Although he is now free, the court said he was guitly as an accessory to copyright infringements. But because he was not charged, he can go free.
First legal case in Europé
The case deals with the music industry's worries about pirate copying of music and the case is unique - the first time that an MP3 case case been taken up in Europe.
It was the recording insutry's IFPI, International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, who prosecuted the 17 year old. The organisation has pressed for a fine, but copyright violations can carry a sentence of up to two years in prison. The IFPI has not said that it will not appeal the decision.
The court followed the line given by lawyer Per-Olof Almers. He argued that the case was not a crime. The 17 year old only showed interest in other's MP3 files.
(Very quick translation indeed)
A little planning goes a long way...
Wonder what would have eventuated if he got done over... Although in a way it does make sense to prosecute someone for knowingly linking to illegal mp3's
*winces at the thought of getting flamed for screwing up*
The one day some DJ's declared...
"Let this house be progressive!"
IT seems that just being on the internet is going to become an offence soon.
.. what stopping them from setting up a site with warez info and arresting ( try anyway ) everybody that connect to the site on attempt at piracy ( since you connect to the site knowing that it contains warez .. would be the same as being arrested in a club when you are underaged and know you're not allowed there or at somebodies house where drugs are used and they get busted etc etc ..
.. but this is also not good ... but I'm glad we are not so high on the crackdown list as other countries
I assume since this incident they'll start cracking down on people with links to warez, cracking tools, exploits or pretty much anything they think can be classified illegal
once they start arrasting people for linking
In south Africa there are few laws covering internet crime
Sanity is a majority vote.
Bork Bork Bork!
Nope, it seems like this was a criminal proceeding alright.
that if I set up a site to point the finger at copyright abusers and link to their sites, that I'm assisting in the crime?
I thought the fellow was being sued -- that is, a civil proceeding, not a criminal proceeding. Thus reading that he has been "freed" by the court leaves me a little confused. Perhaps this is a translation error?
--JT
(1999-09-15 14:12)
Tingsrätten [approx. "district court"] in Skövde [an administrative region in south-central Sweden] reports that the 17-year-old who had links on his home page to websites with mp3-files has been freed [exonerated?]. The motivation is that the 17-year-old hasn't distributed the mp3-files, but has only pointed them out [linked to them].
Today the decision was handed down in the noted case against a 17-year-old who linked to home pages with MP3-files [sic]. The charges were violation of copyright law via digital MP3 technology.
Even though he is now exonerated[?] of these charges, the court considers him guilty of abetting violations of copyright law. But since he isn't being charged for it, he is allowed to go free.
First case in Europe
This case is about the music industry's concern about pirating musik and the case is unique -- it is the first time in Europe that an MP3-case has been taken up in Europe [sic].
It is the record companies' branch organization IFPI,nternational Federation of the Phonographic Industry, that has brought this case against the 17-year-old. The organization has pushed for daily fines, but violations of copyright law can yield up to two years in jail. IFPI has not yet indicated whether the organization will contest the decision.
The court followed lawyer Per-Olof Almer's line of reasoning. He doesn't view the accused's actions as criminal. The 17-year-old has only pointed out interested parties to others' MP3-files.
--
This is why I don't post much.
What if that person links to something legitimate, but then someone else buys the domain name and puts kiddy porn on it (assuming you get busted before you find out the link is bad)? You didn't originally link to something illegal. Could you sue them for changing the content of a site you linked to? Seems just a reasonable to me. Or, how about printed books? If I write a book, and I list another book as reference, can I be arrested if that book is considered illegal? As my wife says "We need to put all of the stupid people on an island and nuke 'em".
Isn't this like that article ages back about a Dr. that sued Demon Internet for someone posting a deflamative comment against him on usenet?
The idea being that Demon Internet 'hosted' the article thus were in some way guilty for that.
Are you still a 'co-conspirator' if you have a link pointing to the root of ya mates page somewhere, www.blahblah.com/mate and he has a www.blahblah.com/mate/mp3 dir?
So ummm, glad he's free - just seems extremely dumb to me... Hell imagine if every major company employed someone to spend time surfing the web looking for their copyright material...
Maybe it's not that far off (cringe)?
my 2c? nah - just my non-sense...
They might as well sue Department of Transportation for creating and maintaining the highways that criminals drive on to commit their crimes.
.... ummm, *g*
When you assist you make and ass of 'i' and 'st'
The IDG article actually says (translated as careful as I can):
"Even though [the 17-year old] is now acquitted it is possible that he is guilty to the charge of `assisting an offense against the copyright law'. But as he was not tried for this crime he is freed."
Maybe not beautifully translated, but perhaps somewhat clarifying. It seems to me that this underlines that he was not tried for this charge, and therefore we can't really tell wether or not he was guilty.
BTW: An IFPI lawyer claims that "the court has not properly understood the technical details of deep-linking etc." (My free interpretation, just heard this on the radio).
ZZ
I personally have this dream of musicians grouping together not only for the aim of making music but also to distribute their own music for free.
The idea is very similar to the concept of getting free software and paying for the service. From what I hear, musicians don't really make that much money from selling their albums. Any real money is made thru performances. Sites hosting groups of musicians would distribute the MP3s for free, promotional samples if you will of what they will be performing live.
There wouldn't really be much loss since almost all the gains of cutting a CD goes to the Label. And since you're only making a few tracks, the cost of studio time wouldn't be to difficult to manage on your own.
There are a few sites I've stumbled across that sort of do this, but unfortunatley:
a) they didn't really have the talent to back the idea.
b) the site was small and really wasn't able to be a platform for promotion.
c) the bands were caught up in the notion that producing a CD was what it was all about.
My perception of whats happening is that the music industry is financially suffocating both the artists and the fans. It would be nice to see the major artists that do own their own labels take a cue from the internet culture, adopt this stragety, and make it viable. Can it be done?
Hypothetically, anything hypothetical is possible.
How about suing AltaVista then, it has tons of links to mp3 files.
I think it could be argued that the difference lies in whether or not the information has the potential to be used innocuously.
For instance, if you walk into a 'head shop', you'll find a vast array of bongs, pipes, rolling papers, hydroponic systems etc. Ninety-five percent of them are surely taken home and loaded up with pot, but the fact that they can be used to smoke tobacco and other legal substances gives the storeholder the right to sell them.
In the case of the teenager, he might have a defence if he argued that he was somehow aware of the identity of the undercover cop, and was passing on the information to assist in bringing the dealer to justice. Otherwise he was certainly providing that information on the basis that it would be used to commit a crime.
With this approach, it would be straightforward to argue that linking directly to an mp3 file consituted an offence; less obvious that linking to the http://mp3.warez.com homepage was illegal; and very hard to argue that linking to a site which provided links to mp3 files was illegal (unless that site provided no other information).
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
This was on the news here (though pretty deep in the broadcast) tonight, and one of the channels (the youth oriented Mtv clone) had an interview with the a representative from IPIF.
He said he felt the court had misunderstood the technical nature of the Internet (personally I would say he is the one who has missunderstood it) and that they would most probably appeal it. Court cases can always be appealed here.
He did however concede that the topic was a "difficult" one.
Ironically, I have never seen mp3s mentioned on the news here before this case. As an mp3 supporter I think it did us more good than bad here. There is nothing like getting a hand from the enemy.
Oh, and, Kids: Go ahead an pirate all the music that you want, but when you pirate an album, put 1$ in an envelope and send it to the artist. That is more than he would have seen of your 15 for the album.
-
Ok moderators, you know what to do with the above.
More self-righteous babbabababling... The fact is that a copyright violation is at most as bad as a parking violation. It causes minor disturbance to humanity as a whole. It sould be treated as such, we don't need 2 or 5 year prison sentences for warez/mp3 mongers. Some rapists and killers gets a lighter sentence. Just because copyright is so hard to enforce, does not mean that we should increase punishment 'till it has absolutely no correlation with the severity of the crime. Yes, some people might argue that their proprietary work would lose value by the violation, but no-one knows how much he would of lost. Even if he did lose a lot of money, no-one should spend time in the slammer. A fine would be a reasonable deterrent in itself.
This whole trend is just alarming. People sueing people over everything published on the net. While the illegal use of mp3's is not something I applaud. I am concerned that soon the web will be useless because no one will be bale to publish anyhting without fear of reprisal. For instance the whole "gif" issue. I create gifs for my own use on my own website using the gimp. Next things I know unisys or whoever wants to make me pay them $5000 for publishing something I didn;t make a penny on.
If I stop posting will you be happy
something wicked this way comes...
thank god I'm not american :P, I should be grateful I have reason to be naive :)
FWIW There is a difference between the cases I mentioned - in the first one it's a set-up, in the second the kid is aware it's a cop and is providing the information to *assist* the cop (a probably-good thing) rather than to forward trade towards the baddie (a Bad Thing).
I'd agree though, the mandatoriness of the life sentence is crap too though.
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
The judge might be powerless. In the UK, and the US (and possibly other places) The jury has the power not to apply a bad law. I would guess that a mandatory minimum sentence far outweighing the crime would count as a bad law !
A quick search on altavista revealed this link for those interested in more information
www.buildfreedom.com/tl/ffp04.shtml
Stephen
Mp3's is the only thing that can save music from itself at this point. Having worked in the music buisness ( Before my transforamtion into an uber-geek ) I can assure you every major record company is scared out of their pant's. The biggest worry they have is not really copyright issues. It's the fact that music act's don't really need record companies anymore. With MP3's, you can create your own CD, promote and sell it on the web. Look to Public Enemy for an example,
"When I look down I miss all the good stuff, When I look up I trip over things..."-Ani DiFranco
So what if I linked to somewhere that linked to illegal sites?? could I get sued then?? also, why haven't music companies sued all the search engines ?? Shouldn't it be part of their responsibiltiies to filter out illegal links ?? If this suing isn't restricted to the source, the internet will become like america and everyone will need a good lawyer .. :(
Likewise encoding huge chunks of your CD collection onto one CD using MP3 compression would also be covered under fair use as long as you don't give the CD away, sell it or otherwise distribute the files on it. You can use it for your own use so you don't have to stop and change CD's every 72 minutes.
You're getting into some hazy areas with linking. IANAL, but I'll take a stab at it. Linking is just telling someone where to find something else. If you say I can be prosecuted for copyright violations for linking, you'd damn well be ready to go down that road.
1) If I call you on the telephone and tell you where to find MP3 files, can I be prosecuted for copyright violations?
2) If I say on a radio show where to find MP3 files, can I be prosecuted for copyright violations?
3) If the MP3's are legit, obviously I can't be prosecuted for copyright violations.
4) Can you prove I knew the MP3's weren't legit? Should you have to?
5) If I link to a site that has displays one image that violates copyright laws, can I be prosecuted for copyright violations?
6) Do I have to ask permission before I do this?
You'd better be willing to answer "yes" to most of these questions if you want to go down that road. Apparently the RIAA is willing to answer yes to most of these questions. Are we?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If at all possible, I would be interested in reading this article, I am well aware of the ludicrous nature of western law, but at the same time, I cannot believe that this kid could have been so egregiously violated...do you think you could remember a detail that would assist me in the search?
"There are only two things men want more than money, power, and sex; praise and recognition."
It may be a bad thing that you can be arrested for helping others break copyright laws, but it's certainly a very good thing that *linking itself is not a violation of copyright*, which is implied by the judge's decision.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Not that it really matters, but they claimed that the web was 19 clicks wide.
What you're talking about isn't any different from any other small startup. You've got some people together with nothing but an idea and some talent (one hopes) to realize it. What you don't have is the money to make it happen. You want an audience; the audience wants quality (among other things). Quality costs money.
Maybe, if your band is good enough, you can attract financial backing. Startup capital. Sell shares of your future earnings for what you need to get going now. If you have commercial promise, why wouldn't investors go for this?
Of course, most bands suck, just like 90% of everything sucks. Investors need to spread the risk around, so maybe a group of them will wind up backing 100 bands, and a couple make it and make up for the rest. Everyone's happy, everyone gets paid, the bands get to do their thing, except for those who couldn't even make the initial cut (keep the day job..) Investors will get together and form some company that supports bands with at least some promise in the that some, even a tiny few, will pop. And since there are so, so many bands, the people with the money would have enormous leverage in any deal. Bands need them much more than they need any single band. It's venture capital plain and simple.
Of course that's the music industry. Why would - or should - it be any different than, say, tech?
The report on the major and respected newspaper Svenska Dagbladet's web site (www.svd.se) contradicts what has been reported here somewhat.
"The prosecutor never charged the 17-year old with assisting a crime. Therefore the court does not take any stand on that issue."
Now that I've remembered that story, I'd like to read the article, too. :)
Unfortunately, I didn't read it, I saw it on some news program on television. Other than the information I posted above, the only other detail that might be useful is that I seem to recall the state that this took place in being Michigan. I could be wrong on that, though.
I'll do a little checking around. If I find any relevant details, I'll post them here.
The judge also implied that the teenager would have been found guilty of being an accessory to infringement of copyright, had the relevant charges been drawn. So it's not much comfort that linking is not a direct violation of copyright, because the intent is in many cases more seriously viewed than the crime (for example in our country, I think it is true to say that talking about causing grevious bodily harm with another person (i.e., conspiring) carries a greater penalty than causing actual bodily harm itself.
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Sure he may be guilty of assisting in the crime. But how can they appeal the judgement of the case if the court says that wasn't the crime he was being accused of. There appeal will IMO be a waste of money. If they want to sue someone tell them to sue themselves for utter stupidity
Good is never enough, when you dream of being great!
This kid recieved two warnings about the content of his site before legal action was taken. Not that I think it was right to have charges pressed against him but he should have seen it comming after the first warning.
I have a Visa credit card. I am sure quite a lot of the people in America have one too (considering how easy they are to get). Mine is through Bank of America - so I am going to limit it to that.
Tommorow, I've decided to put up a page showing every possible combination (it would be a BIG page!) of 16 digits for a BofA Visa credit card. I will put on it a big title that says "Some of these numbers are actual accounts! Use them as you like!".
Would this be illegal?
Should it?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
It's just nice to know what a big deal was made about the guy who linked the files. But what about the actual mp3s? If they resided on a server outside the country someone was linking to... well, sounds like an "international crime" to me! But if they didn't, doesn't it make more sense to deal with the source and not the links? Who knows how many other links to the same files there could be... and perhaps its better that way.
This case vaguely reminds me of another case I heard about a couple years ago. I'm a littly sketchy on the details, gut the gist of it was:
An undercover cop walks into a party. Asks a teenager if he had any drugs for sale. The kid says "No, but that guy over there might." The cop proceeds to buy a large amount of, if I recall correctly, cocaine from the person the kid pointed out.
The kid is prosecuted for his "active participation" in this drug deal, and since the amount purchased crossed over some legal limit in that state, he received a mandatory life sentence with no possibility for parole.
So this is not just an Internet issue. In both cases a fairly innocent teenager was prosecuted for nothing more than passing along information.
It seems to me that the prosecution of someone who merely points out where something is available is simply one more way our society has devised of removing responsibility from where it truly belongs: with the person actually committing a crime.
What's next? Do I get a speeding ticket for telling someone "If you push that pedal on the right further down, your car will go faster."
According to the executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) piracy is not the key issue facing the music industry. She feels that by locking down internet music distribution people might be encouraged even more to 'steal' [music].
This was said in front of a lot of music industry suits at the recent Digital Distribution and the Music industry '99 conference.
I've seen a lot of arguments for the free electronic distribution of music via the internet. One that usually surfaces is that people will be encouraged to buy the original after having easy&free access to it.
My question is: will people or are people currently doing this? I have to admit that the most of the MP3's on my workstation != the CD's in my car!
something wicked this way comes...