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?