backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 74 comment(s) - last by DASQ.. on Jan 30 at 11:52 AM
Warner Bros. Records files suit against music search engine, SeeqPod for infringement of copyrighted material

Warner Bros. Records announced on Friday that it has filed suit against music streaming search engine, SeeqPod.  According to Ars Technica, the media giant claims that the search engine, though it does not host any of its available files, infringes on the copyrighted works of intellectual property owners.  

SeeqPod defends itself, using the DMCA’s “safe harbor” provision to protect it from lawsuits.

Under the provision, companies that only link intellectual property, and not host them, are protected from lawsuits.  The provision was meant to defend search engines that link to illegal websites, so long as the web service does not hand select certain material that can be linked.  Only as long as the service automatically links without specifically selecting the recipients of the material or the material itself, is it protected under the provision.

This lawsuit is very similar to other such as the suit against torrent website, The Pirate Bay, as well as lawsuits filed against Google.  The ongoing battle is truly one of definitions.  Is linking to copyrighted material as severe as hosting them.  The one side claims no, and the other claims that giving a vehicle to users to easily find copyrighted material is the same as hosting the material.

Under the DMCA’s “safe harbor” provision, and company that links to copyrighted material must be notified by the owner of said material and the material must either blocked or removed.  The provision only allows this measure to be taken for qualified companies rather than a lawsuit, or any monetary compensation.

SeeqPod is currently facing penalties of up to $150,000 per song for charges under both direct and secondary infringement.

In whichever way the argument turns, repeated lawsuits will begin narrowing the guidelines of the “safe harbor” provision and at least give us a more clear definition of the protection.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
not a valid argument
By headbox on 1/26/2008 1:14:37 PM , Rating: 5
Suing a site for linking to another is not a good argument. That would be like arresting someone for saying "I know where you can steal a car" or "here's how to rob a bank."




RE: not a valid argument
By ArenaNinja on 1/26/2008 1:45:41 PM , Rating: 5
This reminds me of that case in Texas (I believe) where there was an inmate in death row because he drove his friend to the guy that was getting killed, even though he was never aware that he intended to kill somebody much less in that day and at that spot.

I believe he received a pardon.


RE: not a valid argument
By ebakke on 1/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: not a valid argument
By munkle on 1/26/2008 8:28:54 PM , Rating: 2
A guy was on deathrow because he drove his friend to another guy. His friend killed this other guy. The guy on deathrow did not know that his friend was going to kill the other guy.


RE: not a valid argument
By soydeedo on 1/26/2008 9:06:31 PM , Rating: 5
The legal sentence, not the grammatical one. =P

Unless you were trying to be funny in which case I'm just thick. Probably just thick.


RE: not a valid argument
By feraltoad on 1/26/2008 9:34:48 PM , Rating: 5
He had to have the other guy drive to use the carpool lane to get there faster.


RE: not a valid argument
By othercents on 1/28/2008 11:28:29 AM , Rating: 2
I guess he didn't see that shotgun his friend was carrying.


RE: not a valid argument
By BruceLeet on 1/27/2008 11:24:22 AM , Rating: 2
Reminds me of when my Father, and Brother were sued by the drunk guy my dad offered to give a lift, well the guy asks to be dropped off at the corner, he walks to another four-way and gets hit by my brother who was driving his truck, well the guy loses his leg and manages to sue both because my Father let him out, and my brother FORTUNATELY hit him.

True story btw.


RE: not a valid argument
By StevoLincolnite on 1/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: not a valid argument
By JustTom on 1/27/2008 8:07:35 PM , Rating: 5
About the only truth in your post is that the United States has 5% of the world’s population, that is a pretty good ballpark figure.

quote:
The U.S. has seventy percent of the world’s lawyers but only five percent of the world’s population,


Wrong, there are approximately 1,000,000 lawyers in the US , 777,922 lawyers in the EU ( see http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/11/too_many... ) and 110,000 in China (see http://www.china.org.cn/english/2000/Nov/4185.htm ).

quote:
There are more lawyers than doctors


Also wrong, there is one doctor for every 182 Americans or roughly 1.6 million quite a bit more than the million lawyers. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761573010/Unit...

quote:
and there are about as many lawyers as there is public toilets in America


I have no idea whether this tidbit is correct but I am willing to concede your expertise on public toilets.


RE: not a valid argument
By StevoLincolnite on 1/27/2008 11:10:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well there is about 800,000 Medical Physicians.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doc...

(PDF) - Interesting read actually, might put some hair on you're chest.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doc...

For more information on my Statistics on doctors head to:
http://www.graham-center.org/PreBuilt/physician_wo...
and
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/14908.htm...

So it seems as though as I was correct!

And onto the Lawyers - Ball Park figure of about 1 mil at this source.
http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/are_there_too_ma...

Also:
US: Lawyers: 1,143,358 Pop: 303MM P/L:265
Spain Lawyers:114,143 Pop: 45MM P/L:395
Italy Lawyers:121,380 Pop: 59MM P/L:488
UK Lawyers:151,043 Pop: 61MM P/L401
Germany Lawyers:138,679 Pop: 82MM P/L: 593
France Lawyers:45,686 Pop: 64MM P/L: 1,403

http://wiki.answers.com/wiki.phtml?title=What_coun...


RE: not a valid argument
By Kyanzes on 1/29/2008 9:54:49 AM , Rating: 2
Your answer is certainly clever, but what the heck do you mean by "777,922 lawyers in the EU" ??? The EU is not a country like the US.


RE: not a valid argument
By theapparition on 1/28/2008 2:01:12 AM , Rating: 3
Did you ever see "The Devils Advocate" (Al Pacino, Keanu Reeves). The most frightening part of the movie wasn't the whole Satan controling you stuff. It was Al's characters one sentence......."There are more people in law school right now than there are lawyers on the planet".

That thought still gives me the willies. I hope it isn't true, or were all doomed.


RE: not a valid argument
By joemoedee on 1/28/2008 11:54:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This reminds me of that case in Texas (I believe) where there was an inmate in death row because he drove his friend to the guy that was getting killed, even though he was never aware that he intended to kill somebody much less in that day and at that spot.


Another example...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/us/04felony.html...

Guilty due to loaning his car out to the murderer. Guy didn't drive them, nor was he in the car when the crimes were committed.


RE: not a valid argument
By Oregonian2 on 1/28/2008 2:44:39 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine if they rented the car from Hertz or Avis. I wonder if their CEO's would have gotten the life sentence inasmuch they're responsible for their companies. Or would their corporate president get the duty instead?


RE: not a valid argument
By Oregonian2 on 1/28/2008 2:46:50 PM , Rating: 2
... or how about the gas station on the way? No gas, no murder -- so the gas station is responsible! Again, does the oil company CEO get the life sentence or does a local station employee get the life sentence instead?


RE: not a valid argument
By mmntech on 1/26/2008 2:05:15 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with this in a way. There are limits but I like to view free speech as being inalienable, and that the decision to commit a crime is ultimately the perp's choice.
There's a very fine line. I believe it's leading to censorship of the internet. The DMCA is an utter failure and needs to be repealed. The act is very unpopular outside the industry. To my understanding, the original intent of copyright was to prevent plagiarism but it's been expanded so far beyond that to the point of absurdity. The industry has turned it into a weapon to fight their own customers; both legitimate and illegitimate. The government's job is to protect consumers first. That's where the DMCA fails.


RE: not a valid argument
By walk2k on 1/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: not a valid argument
By Darkefire on 1/26/2008 2:48:23 PM , Rating: 5
No, they wouldn't shut him down. They would, however, use his phone book to find all the crack dealers within. That's really what all these media companies should be doing, using the search system for their own benefit.


RE: not a valid argument
By RogueLegend on 1/26/2008 4:42:53 PM , Rating: 3
Go to Craigslist.com and look in their "erotic services" section.

Now explain to me why they haven't been shut down?


RE: not a valid argument
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2008 4:54:45 PM , Rating: 4
> "Now explain to me why they haven't been shut down? "

Two reasons- one legal, and one practical. The legal reason is contained in the fact that Craigslist obviously meets the Safe Harbor provision (see my other post on this).

The practical reason is even more compelling. Prostitution isn't a federal crime. Any individual state trying to shut down Craigslist would therefore run into jurisdictional issues, and most states would likely have fiscal issues with trying to tackle it as well. But give Elliot Spitzer time, and it'll probably happen anyway.


RE: not a valid argument
By SilthDraeth on 1/27/2008 12:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
"Prostitution isn't a federal crime."

Exactly. Nevada has legalized prostitution. Just some city ordnances ban it. Hell if I know why its banned in a ton of states, where if they made it legal in most states you could tax it.


RE: not a valid argument
By greylica on 1/26/2008 6:25:35 PM , Rating: 2
They could possibly sue their own body shadows, cause it´s infringing their copyrighted measures.

Sooner or later, they will loose, as the little studios rise again. It´s my dream, little studios gaining money, and increasing creativity while they are loosing ground with their repeated crap with the same artists ever...

Tired of this, claim in the streets for a revision of the crap DMCA is, With Riaa, cria and possibly WGA spyware (huashasu) detonated too.


RE: not a valid argument
By AlexWade on 1/27/2008 8:23:29 AM , Rating: 3
The government's job is supposedly to protect consumers first. But in reality, that is the further thing from the truth. Unfortunately, our representatives are bribed by special interests. It is those with the money who are favored, and nobody has more money than a huge business. However, there are exceptions. If public outcry is loud enough, the politicians will act in the consumer's interest. But since 75% or more of Americans have no idea with the DMCA is, there will never be enough public outcry to get it repealed. Special interests win.


RE: not a valid argument
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2008 2:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
> "Suing a site for linking to another is not a good argument"

For a search engine or other site which only "incidently" links to criminal activity, that's certainly true. But a site whose raison d'etre is illegal acts is a different matter.

Consider someone who runs a business putting fences (sellers of illegal goods) in touch with burglers. He'd certainly be tried and convicted in a heartbeat, though he never broke into a house or held any stolen goods.


RE: not a valid argument
By Alexstarfire on 1/26/2008 3:23:38 PM , Rating: 1
If you're talking about how you can be arrested for buying goods that you know were stolen, then I completely disagree. While it may appear on the surface that they are one and the same, you're overlooking one thing..... MONEY. It's all about money. Neither the search engine or the pirates are getting money out of it. The search engine may however get indirect money, through ads that the generated traffic clicks on, but that's not the same either.


RE: not a valid argument
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2008 3:30:10 PM , Rating: 1
Wrong on two counts. First of all, you don't need to profit from illegal activity to be convicted of it. If you assist someone even indirectly (say, by allowing a friend to use your car for known criminal purposes, aiding a fugitive in escaping, or even just telling someone where they can find a prostitute), you've still broken the law.

Second of all, these sites can and do make money off these illegal links. The fact that money is "indirect" makes no difference in the eyes of the law.


RE: not a valid argument
By RogueLegend on 1/26/2008 4:39:37 PM , Rating: 1
Apparrently you're wrong on at least one count.

The DMCA has exceptions built in for search engines- which is what SeeqPod is.

So, if a search engine does link to what is considered a copyrighted material, and someone decides to take that copy righted material, they technically did aid and abet. But, according to the Fair Use provision of the DMCA, they have NOT broken the law.

All of the scenarios you are bringing assume one critical component- intent. It's not about money, or even necessarily the act of providing a means of escape, or a vehicle with which to break the law, but intent. You have not necessarily broken the law by telling someone where they can find a prostitute. Otherwise, Craigslist would have been shut down a long time ago.


RE: not a valid argument
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2008 4:52:04 PM , Rating: 2
> "Apparrently you're wrong on at least one count. The DMCA has exceptions built in for search engines"

I guess you didn't read my first post, where I pointed why SeeqPod doesn't qualify for the Safe Harbor (not "fair use") provision.

Specifically, it fails on several counts. Under Title 17, Chap 5, Sec 512.a.2, ,Sec 512.c.1a, 1b, and 1c. and possibly even 512.b.2a as well.

Here's a link to the actual provision:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html


RE: not a valid argument
By RogueLegend on 1/26/2008 6:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
Then who, in your opinion, does qualify. Because if SeeqPod doesn't qualify, then Google and Yahoo are out too. SeeqPod actually promotes users to abide by the DMCA.

They pass the test of 512.a.2- they don't select the material.

They pass 512.c.1.a, unless you can prove that they select the material and consciously know it's infringing. 512.c.1.a.iii might be debateable, but I haven't seen evidence that Warner has asked them to take down links and they didn't act expeditiously.

It's not been proven that they recieve revenue off of CRed material in accordance with 512.c.1.b- again, they just provide a crawler service.

512.c.1.c- again, have they had requests to take down links?

You're assuming


RE: not a valid argument
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2008 6:41:00 PM , Rating: 1
> "SeeqPod actually promotes users to abide by the DMCA."

Considering I just visited Seeqpod and was instantly prevented with links to download a half-dozen infringing items-- I don't think so. And a judge isn't going to buy it either.

> "They pass the test of 512.a.2- they don't select the material."

They're filtering out all but certain types of content. That's a de facto selection basis, with plenty of legal precedent to support it.


RE: not a valid argument
By RogueLegend on 1/26/2008 6:55:40 PM , Rating: 5
If you did not initiate a search, then you probably were looking at the links discovered by a crawler. Based on your assertion, I can only guess you don't have a very good idea of how a search engine works. Plus, you don't definitively know if it was infringing. You have no idea if the source is abiding by CR law or not. It's just more assumptions on your part.

So the fact that their crawler looks for audio files (not music, but audio, I can run a search for sound bites, and clips from cartoons) means that their selection basis is infringes? Sorry, the legal basis you're looking for is only if the content infringes, and the search provider knowingly selects infringing content.

This was fun, but if you're going to play the "they're guilty because I think they look guilty" game then I'm going to find something better to do.


RE: not a valid argument
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2008 9:37:40 PM , Rating: 1
> "Plus, you don't definitively know if it was infringing...It's just more assumptions on your part"

You're engaging in wishful thinking. Visit the site and-- without even engaging in a search -- you're immediately bombarded with copyrighted music. Here's what it showed me:

Madonna -- Like a Virgin
Metallica -- Enter Sandman
Green Day -- Good Riddance
Rolling Stones -- Sympathy For The Devil
Fleetwood Mac -- Gypsy
Pearl Jam -- Faithful

That's the first six only...followed by hundreds more. All clearly infringing.

Of course, the real test of the law isn't what you or I think, but what the judge decides. And I'll lay you any size wager you wish that he'll rule against Seeqpod in this case.


RE: not a valid argument
By mars777 on 1/27/2008 10:12:03 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Madonna -- Like a Virgin
...
bla bla bla
...


These are probably a few random songs that get a lot of downloads. How the hell is a search engine able to filter out what of these are copyrighted and what not?

It simply a random of the most downloaded...

Blame people on these link not the search engine. People's clicking got those songs there. I simply cannot see any hand picking by the search engine provider...

The guy that spoke with you about handpicking is right, you're just assuming.


RE: not a valid argument
By masher2 (blog) on 1/27/2008 10:57:06 AM , Rating: 2
> "It simply a random of the most downloaded..."

Yes. But you're still missing the point. Selecting those most popular items is a selection process. If the de jure selection method of "the most downloaded" results in a set that's almost entirely of copywritten material, then it's a de facto selection of such.

I'm sure Seeqpod will attempt such a defense. Their attorney will stand before a judge and say, in effect, it's all just a coincidence that the items they present are all copywritten. I'm equally sure the Judge will chuckle quietly, and hand down a decision against them.


RE: not a valid argument
By JoshuaBuss on 1/27/2008 10:54:09 PM , Rating: 1
I don't know why all your posts are getting rated down masher, you're right.

At some point everyone needs to wake up and realize people aren't that dumb. Sites like seeqpod are primarily used for illegal purposes. Period.

I think the tougher question is what to do about a search engine like google. It's not 'primarily' used for anything, but with a little bit of knowledge it's every bit as effective as seeqpod at finding copyright-infringing material. Ever searched for:

"index of" <song name> .mp3

? It works remarkably well. should google be attacked for this? IMO this is a MUCH tougher question.


RE: not a valid argument
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/28/2008 10:29:37 AM , Rating: 2
Just because you are right, doesn't mean you won't get modded down. Readers vote as they see fit, and typically a stance people dislike will get modded down. Modding is little more than a popularity contest.


RE: not a valid argument
By bodar on 1/28/2008 7:32:17 PM , Rating: 2
Technically, Google's crawler also makes decisions about what goes on the first page of its results:
quote:
The query processor, which compares your search query to the index and recommends the documents that it considers most relevant.

http://www.googleguide.com/google_works.html

What then is the difference between Seeqpod displaying its most downloaded tracks and Google "deciding" to display a torrent site near the top of its results? After all, both are decided by a script or bot.


RE: not a valid argument
By RogueLegend on 1/26/2008 6:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, my post seemed to have gotten cut off.

You're assuming they're guilty because of this idea that "they're a music search engine, they MUST know that their searches are going to contain CRed material." And you're assuming that Warner has asked them to take the offending materials down and they haven't acted expeditiously (which is open for interpretation). You're basically assuming intent.

However, this veers away from my original point, which is that it is possible to aid and abet without breaking any laws. And I believe CL is hosted in a city (San Francisco) which prior to 2004, didn't have any laws (to my knowledge) that held prostitution legal. CL practically aided and abetted since the mid-late 90's.


RE: not a valid argument
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2008 6:54:53 PM , Rating: 3
> "You're assuming they're guilty because of this idea that "they're a music search engine"

No. I'm simply pointing out they don't meet Safe Harbor requirements of DMCA. That means that, if a user *does* download copyrighted content, they can potentially be held liable.

> "You're basically assuming intent."

Once again, intent isn't required in this case.

> "my original point, which is that it is possible to aid and abet without breaking any laws. And I believe CL is..."

You're still missing the point. There's a different between CL and sites specifically oriented to prostitution. There was a case in Las Vegas, for instance, in which not only a prostitution website operator but the person who setup the computer equipment were convicted of pandering. A felony conviction too, I might add.

Furthermore, some less liberal municipalities than SF have already been discussing action against Craigslist. If prostitution was a federal crime, I imagine some sort of action would have already been taken.


RE: not a valid argument
By RogueLegend on 1/26/2008 6:59:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
No. I'm simply pointing out they don't meet Safe Harbor requirements of DMCA. That means that, if a user *does* download copyrighted content, they can potentially be held liable.


No, you're pointing out that you don't think they do, you nor anyone else has proven it.


RE: not a valid argument
By borowki on 1/27/2008 8:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
Well, MGM sort of proved it in its case against Grokster. Based on the previous cases, the court seems to use the substantial-non-infringement test to determine who is and who isn't protected under the safe harbor provision. As SeeqPod has exactly zero utility other than the downloading of copyrighted songs, I think it's going to be an open-and-shut case.


RE: not a valid argument
By Alexstarfire on 1/26/2008 6:19:47 PM , Rating: 2
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. By your account if someone stole a car, then went on a toll road and paid a toll the government would have to go arrest itself, or at least the person that took the toll. How they get money makes a big difference.


RE: not a valid argument
By borowki on 1/28/2008 1:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
Your comment proves that arguing by analogy is the stupidest intellectual activity on earth.

Let your imagination run wild all you want and come all sorts of remotely analogous scenarios. The fact of the matter is, the web site in question facilitates infringement on copyrighted materials. It will get shut down. Common sense does prevail in court.


RE: not a valid argument
By headbox on 1/26/2008 4:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
That's different- putting burglars in contact with fences is different than publishing a list of fences, or a list of burglars.

By saying that linking to copyright material is an offense, then every site that shows blueprints for a weapon is responsible for their manufacture. Dating sites will be responsible for adultery. Online banking will be responsible for fraud. The list goes on and on...

Providing information and committing the act are two very different things.


RE: not a valid argument
By i4mt3hwin on 1/26/2008 4:18:14 PM , Rating: 2
But that's what masher said, a site like google that links plenty of torrent sites and stuff like that isn't to blame.

But if i go too www.downloadmoviesforfree.com and it says specifically "click here to download "chuck S01E12"" and thats the intent of the site -- then by all means it's illegal. In my opinion anyway.


RE: not a valid argument
By Gondorff on 1/28/2008 11:46:26 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
then by all means it's illegal. In my opinion anyway.


And since when did your opinion make something illegal?


RE: not a valid argument
By Christopher1 on 1/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: not a valid argument
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2008 6:37:35 PM , Rating: 3
> "Sorry, but no, he wouldn't. They tried convicting someone for that, as 'conspiracy to *' - * being some crime or other - and they couldn't get it past a state court"

I'm not sure who you mean by "they", but conspiracy convictions are often handed down, in many different circumstances. Gang members, for instance, who knew others would be committing a crime. In drug cases, its also very common, where "conspiracy to possess or sell" is often handed down to people who never touched the drugs, and only indirectly received some sort of benefit from the sale.

Or how about State vs. Jones, where a young man was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery, simply because he held open a door for the robber, though he himself received no benefit whatsoever from the crime?

Or the thousands of people convicted every year on pandering, many of which receive no direct money from the prostitution itself? Or the senior executives convicted for conspiracy to commit fraud, simply for receiving a fat paycheck from the corporation which itself benefitted?

In any case, your entire argument is moot, becaues a conspiracy charge isn't even needed. The DMCA provides directly for penalties for facilitating copyright infringement.


RE: not a valid argument
By ezacharyk on 1/26/2008 6:36:26 PM , Rating: 2
I would say that this is more like the city bus department getting charged with accessory to a crime because the criminal rode the bus to the crime scene and then rode the bus away from the scene.


RE: not a valid argument
By VahnTitrio on 1/28/2008 10:50:16 AM , Rating: 2
Not that this is a new case. Blizzard Entertainment strongarmed a website I frequent and mod for linking to other sites that had WoW emulated server information. Basically we lost the original URL and had to delete a large number of posts. Our WoW forum now reads:

" WoW Bots, Programs and Exploits
Repository of WoW bots, programs and exploits. ** NO ** server emulation talk!"

I think you can see why Blizzard had it out for us though. The EFF actually volunteered to help with a legal case but the site owner didn't have the time or resources to take it to court.


Does...
By Azsen on 1/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: Does...
By porkpie on 1/27/2008 5:52:19 PM , Rating: 1
Does selling a beer to a drunk person make a bar liable if that person kills someone driving home?

Yes.

Does selling a gun to a convicted felon make a store liable if that person kills someone with it?

Yes.

Is a site that exists just to make stealing music easier liable for its acts?

You Betcha.


RE: Does...
By punko on 1/28/2008 11:55:33 AM , Rating: 2
Lets be carefull.

selling beer to a drunk person is illegal, hence the liability if he kills driving home

selling a gun to a convicted felon is illegal, hence the liability

the existance of a site to make stealing music easier liable?
1) no one is stealing music; however, I believe you are referring to the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted data
2) Perhaps you meant are they making unauthorized distribution of copyrighted data easier?

they do not transmit copyrighted data, they transmit a link which may lead to the location where such files are stored by others by taking the search request by an anonymous user and generating a list of links.

This, of course, is completely different from question about whether the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted data is illegal. Remeber kiddies, downloading and possession of copyrighted data is not illegal, now activly distributing the material is.

This site aids a user by listing places where files are available for downloading. Downloading is not illegal.

therefore the analgies presented above break down, as the activity assisted by the site is in itself not illegal.


RE: Does...
By porkpie on 1/28/2008 12:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I believe you are referring to the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted data
A.k.a. stealing. You can't change the smell of pig s**t by calling it rosebuds.

quote:
Downloading is not illegal.
Downloading copyrighted material is. And all the wishful thinking in the world ain't going to change that.


RE: Does...
By Oregonian2 on 1/28/2008 2:50:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Downloading copyrighted material is. And all the wishful thinking in the world ain't going to change that.


So you're saying that DirecTV is illegal because copyrighted movies are being downloaded from the satellite? Or Apple's iTunes is illegal because copyrighted material is being downloaded?

I don't think downloading copyrighted material is illegal categorically.


RE: Does...
By JustTom on 1/27/2008 6:17:13 PM , Rating: 2
Your analogy is worse than specious it is silly.


They should just stop hesitating.
By DASQ on 1/28/2008 12:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
And go ahead and sue 'The Internet'. Maybe have a legal injunction filed against it. Halt the internet.




RE: They should just stop hesitating.
By mindless1 on 1/28/2008 7:39:40 PM , Rating: 2
Hopefully they won't forget to sue multimedia player manufacturers, electric companies for making it all possible, and the letter "d" so we won't be able to spell ownload anymore.


RE: They should just stop hesitating.
By DASQ on 1/30/2008 11:52:13 AM , Rating: 2
I guess you forgot there are two 'd's in "download" :p

But nonetheless, us internet thieves are craft! www.ownloa.com will become a new haven!


By mindless1 on 1/26/2008 5:54:32 PM , Rating: 5
This is yet another example of why I'll make due with other forms of entertainment before letting my money go to Warner and others taking this kind of aggressive stance.

Remember folks, it's not whether you agree or disagree with them that matters, they will not change their ways and could care less so long as you keep paying for their content.




By wordsworm on 1/26/2008 2:22:17 PM , Rating: 5
If Google et. al are showing the way to pirated material, wouldn't that serve to help the given copyright holder the chance at finding the criminals?

For a lot of people, they see the monetary numbers and they figure this is the reason for litigious actions. But, I suspect it's more about forcing the courts to clearly define rights so that the business knows exactly where it stands. I personally don't see anything wrong with asking for too much. It's like going to the bargaining table with an offer too high/too low, so that you have some maneuverability between what you really want and what is reasonable. It's a standard negotiating tactic.

Copyright wasn't about plagiarism. It's about ownership. You can print a book, say it belongs to ______, and sell it: that isn't plagiarism, but it's still breaking copyright. What bothers me about the whole thing is the ridiculous period of ownership. It should be on par with a patent, not 75+ years. That's just retarded.




The table is tilted ...
By BloggerRadio on 1/27/2008 11:54:55 AM , Rating: 2
George Carlin says it best ... geez, I hope I'm not violating anything by posting a link to my own Blog that posts a link to this YouTube video of a live performance, oh my!

http://www.bloggerradio.com/2008/01/george-carlin-...




RE: The table is tilted ...
By Uncle on 1/28/2008 3:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
Well they better shut down the internet because most every site I go to is defended by copywrite. The gents that run these companies are from the stone age. Control Control and Own is all they know. One of the Psychology mags came out with a study that says 60% of all Ceo's are psychopaths. The more dribble that comes from their mouths, the more I can believe it.


If I wanted to kill Sarah Connor
By jimbojimbo on 1/28/2008 12:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
So if I wanted to kill Sarah Connor then used a phone book to look her up, is the phone book publisher liable? Then say I used a map from Mapquest to find out how to get there is Mapquest liable?

John would be living sweet if Sarah sued those companies.




By Kyanzes on 1/29/2008 10:08:49 AM , Rating: 2
If you put a special edition phone book in a booth though that contained the names of drug sellers and prostitutes or guns for hire, now that would be illegal and you would get sued.


By KHysiek on 1/28/2008 2:50:48 AM , Rating: 3
for example - providing them a movie about stealing, robbing a bank, killing, .... ? How about this interpretation, dear Warner :)




Funny stuff
By DanoruX on 1/26/2008 1:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
Ironically these are sites that Warner can use to find more people to sue...




By Odeen on 1/26/2008 9:24:28 PM , Rating: 2
If music and movie studios could just leave well enough alone, I might buy some content, and I might pirate some of it. They would still get their money.

As it stands, I know that any money I spend on content goes to an organization that will turn around and SUE ME for not spending MORE.

As a result, I simply refuse to purchase any content from these organizations, because it goes directly against my interests.

Congratulations, Warner Brothers - by treating people who are your customers like they are your enemy, you have lost a customer.




confused...
By judasmachine on 1/27/2008 2:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
I am going back and RTFA,(again) but are they telling me that if I tell any of you that you can go to X site and watch Comedy Central clips, or Lost, I'm breaking the law? Or if I tell you that bit torrent has the same thing? If the latter, then wil the former be illegal the day after that?




warner is evil
By rika13 on 1/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: warner is evil
By masher2 (blog) on 1/27/2008 10:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
> "we are talking about the company that sued kids for book reports on the harry potter books "

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.


linking
By wallijonn on 1/29/2008 4:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
This reminds me of a story I heard which involved MTV. They wanted local TV stations to pay them for airing their videos. When one TV station plainly refused to pay and refused to air any MTV videos, the local sales of music plummeted. MTV then went back to the TV station with their hat in hand and "allowed" the TV station to continue airing the videos gratis, without charge.

Remove all links to intellectual property, whether it be books, movies or music. Under no condition should a review of any copy righted material be allowed. I bet you sales will plummet like a heavy rock onto mud. Just shut down the whole Internet and let everyone get on with their lives.




"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki