Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Your Rights Online Technology

UK's RIAA Goes After Google Using the US DMCA 184

Posted by kdawson
from the if-you-don't-have-your-own-use-theirs dept.
An anonymous reader passes along a DMCA takedown notice directed at Google and authored by the British Phonographic Industry, Britain's equivalent of the RIAA. P2pnet identifies the BPI as the outfit that "contributed to the British government's Digital Economy bill, complete with its ACTA Three Strikes and you're Off The Net element, with hardly a murmur from the UK lamescream media." Are there any precedents for a UK trade organization attempting to use an American law to force an American company to take down links to UK-copyrighted material?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK's RIAA Goes After Google Using the US DMCA

Comments Filter:
  • by Rene S. Hollan (1943) on Sunday June 20, 2010 @12:59AM (#32630206)

    I don't get it.

    Google does not host material it indexes.

    Material it indexes is offered publicly.

    People who follow the search results ALSO get authorized copies. It's only if they copy them that they might run afoul.

    Google has no more contributed to copyright violation than a shop selling copyright materials advertising its wares.

    • Ever heard of Youtube?

      For starters
      • Google OWNS Youtube. This does not mean they direct its day to day operation.

        If I am a BP investor, does that mean I am responsible for the Gulf Oil Spill (arguably yes, but legally, no).

        At worst, Youtube stock would take a beating if some of its directors got jailed.

        But, as far as I can see, Youtube currently responds well to DMCA takedown notices.

        Try again.

        • by Lobachevsky (465666) on Sunday June 20, 2010 @01:57AM (#32630438)

          If BP is fined $10bn (as is the current estimate), it doesn't come out of the CEO's paycheck. BP is a public company (owned by shareholders), and when BP pays a fine, it's money that the shareholders lose (because the value of the company is lowered, and therefore its stock price).

          You're talking about criminal responsibility when you speak of "jail time". Shareholders are protected from personal liability (beyond their investment in the company). The lowest grade of a corporation is LLC "limited-liability corporation", and S-Corps are just more expensive/stringent versions of the same. This means that if BP declares bankruptcy, creditors cannot chase after its shareholders beyond their stake in the company. That is, the stock price goes to $0, wiping out all the investment value shareholders have in the company, but creditors cannot go after shareholders beyond that.

          Corporations cannot be jailed, so criminal charges against them are a lot like civil charges, meaning only a monetary punishment. The plaintiff would have to file separate grievances addressing individual employees by name for individuals to be jailed. A judgment against a company does not translate into a judgment against any individuals; separate judgments on the individuals are needed.

          Regarding bankruptcy, wholly-owned subsidiaries of a larger corporation cannot always insulate the larger corporation from debt obligations. That is, if someone sues subsidiary XYZ of Google for $10 billion, and wins, then Google cannot merely make XYZ declare bankruptcy and continue on with itself protected from creditors. Google is not plural, so I don't know what you mean by "This does not mean THEY direct its day to day operation". If you mean the Sergey Brin and staff, sure, _they_ don't, but then again, _they_ are not liable anyways. Google is singular in the eyes of the law; the law couldn't care less who the CEO is or what he does with is time. If XYZ is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google, and XYZ is liable for $10 bn, and cannot meet its obligation to pay, creditors are entitled to chase after Google. Can creditors chase after Sergey Brin? No. Creditors chase after Google and property owned by Google. This is ultimately paid for by shareholders (of which Sergey Brin is one).

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by talkingpie (1443621)

            Google is not plural, so I don't know what you mean by "This does not mean THEY direct its day to day operation".

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement [wikipedia.org]

          • (because the value of the company is lowered, and therefore its stock price)

            The stock price of a company is determined by demand for stocks, and there's no a priori reason for demand to be related to "value". When a corporation pays dividends, as BP does, the profits of a company may affect the demand for stocks. But in the case of, say, Apple, it's nothing more than enough investors saying "it looks like Apple's doing well, let's buy some Apple", and the only reason Apple appearing to do well improves stock price is that more people say the same thing.

            The assumption that stock pri

          • Corporations cannot be jailed, so criminal charges against them are a lot like civil charges, meaning only a monetary punishment.

            It's still a financial punishment, but criminal convictions of a corporation can also lead to limits on the company's ability to get contracts from governments. Using BP as an example since it's fresh in the news and criminal charges are being contemplated, the federal government has remedies in addition to fines that can be pursued, including loss of existing contracts (BP has a

        • by mog007 (677810)

          If you want to talk legality, then explain how a *British* company has the authority to utilize *American* laws against an *American* company.

          • by Khyber (864651)

            That's easy. For example, while I may be a californian, I can sue anybody else (a texas judge, for example) under California law if I feel the state has jurisdiction over the case. Or I can take the same case and attempt to get a judge in Kansas that will hear it.

            The Change of Venue is an important legal tactic when it comes to getting what you want out of a lawsuit.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 20, 2010 @01:09AM (#32630260)

        Actually, this has nothing to do with Youtube. The pages mentionned in the notice are all from these sites:

        http://hotfile.com/
        http://usershare.net/
        http://2shared.com/
        http://4shared.com/
        http://mediafire.com/
        http://megaupload.com/
        http://sendspace.com/
        http://teradepot.com/
        http://zippyshare.com/

      • by Discopete (316823) on Sunday June 20, 2010 @01:13AM (#32630272) Homepage

        Read the DMCA notice.

        None of the listed 'infringing site locations' are at YouTube.com.

        This is nothing but a fishing trip by the industry.

        I'm thinking Googles response should be 'piss off'.

        • google's response should be a steaming pile of search results for members of parliament

          • by AHuxley (892839) on Sunday June 20, 2010 @02:48AM (#32630546) Homepage Journal
            Its a scary new idea I guess, if Google does not index a link/site, it does not exist online to most people?
            If Google is the only realistic way of finding the material, they see Google as part of the chain between user and uploader.
            A very very chilling fishing trip.
            • Its a scary new idea I guess, if Google does not index a link/site, it does not exist online to most people? If Google is the only realistic way of finding the material, they see Google as part of the chain between user and uploader. A very very chilling fishing trip.

              Sounds a lot like the case that was filed against the pirate bay.

            • by AmiMoJo (196126)

              It's hardly a new idea. ChillingEffects.org has plenty of examples of DMCA notices sent to Google in an attempt to remove material from their index. Scientologists, intellectual property owners, people claiming libel...

              What is news is that the BPI, a British organisation, thinks that it can use US law to get its way.

        • by jonbryce (703250)

          Google's response is usually to put a notice on the search results page saying that some results have been removed due to a DMCA take down notice, and to link to a copy of the complaint letter containing details of the links that have been taken down.

          Then, when Googlebot does its next sweep, the links may or may not come back based on its normal criteria.

      • by jonbryce (703250)

        These aren't youtube links. They are mostly rapidshare and similar links. Youtube has an agreement with the **AAs to share advertising revenue, so the stuff on there is mostly legal.

      • Youtube has nothing to do with this. This whole history of the last 10 years or so claiming copyrights over links to public content is retarded. Its like claiming copyrights over your phone number; if that were actually the case no phone book could ever be published.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by mysidia (191772)

      Google is providing links to the material through search results, and that's what the letter is demanding be removed.

      Google could refuse to remove it, at risk of being targetted for some sort of contributory infringement charges

      • And.... Google knows it is illicitly hosted?

        Look, if I ask "Where can I buy a copy of Sweeny Todd?" and someone, in good faith, sends me to a shop selling pirate copies, they are not guilty of any crime. they have to KNOW the copy is illegal.

    • by PatPending (953482) on Sunday June 20, 2010 @01:11AM (#32630266)

      Read TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 5 > 512(d) Information Location Tools.

      chillingeffects.org addresses this:

      Why does a search engine get DMCA takedown notices for materials in its search listings?

      Answer: Many copyright claimants are making complaints under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 512(d), a safe-harbor for providers of "information location tools." These safe harbors give providers immunity from liability for users' possible copyright infringement -- if they "expeditiously" remove material when they get complaints. Whether or not the provider would have been liable for infringement by users' materials it links to, the provider can avoid the possibility of a lawsuit for money damages by following the DMCA's takedown procedure when it gets a complaint.

      • by the_womble (580291) on Sunday June 20, 2010 @09:52AM (#32632114) Homepage Journal

        They can also put the link back up if they receive a counter notification.

        The point of this is that the counter notification must agree to US jurisdiction - so sites outside the US must agree to US jurisdiction or they can be removed from US search engines by an allegation of copyright violation.

        As all the main search engines are American, and most sites need search engines to bring them readers, this effectively gives the US global jurisdiction on copyright.

        The /. editor is also talking rubbish by saying it is "UK copyrighted material". It is also covered by US copyright, which is what counts in this case.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by nmb3000 (741169)

      Google does not host material it indexes.

      Material it indexes is offered publicly.

      People who follow the search results ALSO get authorized copies.

      Well, I don't know if all that really applies in this case (Google does own YouTube, for example), but what you describe there sounds an awful lot like torrents.

      The Pirate Bay does not host matieral it tracks.

      Material it tracks is offered publicly.

      People who download the torrents ALSO get authorized copies.

      Yep, pretty much the same. We've seen how well that defense has worked for torrent trackers -- how long until the **AA's starts taking search engines to court for helping people find copyrighted material? If anyone has the finances to pull Google/Yahoo/Microsoft into court it's the RIAA and MPAA. Talk about the death of meaningful search engines.

      • by nmb3000 (741169)

        Geez, some serious failure there on my part. I misread two words and my entire post is crap. Teach me to post at 2am with 4 hours of sleep...

        That said, there is still some congruency. Google indexes information that people make available copyrighted or not, but torrent trackers do the same thing. Going after trackers instead of the people uploading the copyrighted material is the same as going after Google for indexing something copyrighted. In both cases they are attacking the wrong party.

      • Guy in suit hails cab, cab pulls over.

        "Where you going to , buddy?"

        "Someplace warm, I hope. Do you know any good cathouses around here?"

        "Well, I hear talk about the East End, but I try to stay away from that area."

        "Where at on the East End?"

        "I guess I've heard more about Bill's Dive, than anyplace else."

        "Take me there, I'll give you fifty bucks!"

        "Nope, I'm not going down that alley. I'll take you to the shopping center on the main street over there, and point the direction to the alley, but I'm not going

      • Talk about the death of meaningful search engines.

        While I agree with most of what you said, I think the parties suing would rethink their position quite soon if all the meaningful search engines black listed (for example) all artists related to the companies suing them.

    • by rxan (1424721)

      It's in the DMCA that even though they are not hosting the content they must still remove links to it.

      But the DMCA takedowns fix nothing. They should be going after the source of the offending content not the locator. They merely go after search engines like Google because requesting that someone takes down a link is far easier and more effective than going after the source itself.

    • by Culture20 (968837)

      I don't get it. The Pirate Bay does not host material it indexes.

      There, FTFY.

  • by OrwellianLurker (1739950) on Sunday June 20, 2010 @01:02AM (#32630218)
    Look at all the information is listed on Chilling Effects. We know the owner of the copyright (Sony Music, Universal, and Warner seem to be popular on their takedown list), the song titles, and even what links they want removed. I'm changing my homepage from thepiratebay to chillingeffects.
    • You could also change it to riaaradar.com, which will help you avoid music RIAA-affiliated record companies and stick with independently-produced music.

  • between the internet and the old rules of old media, that they think can be applied to end consumers in the internet era

    copyright will still apply to say: jk rowlings and the hollywood studio that makes her movie: finite identifiable individuals on a closed finite issue

    but as applied to the end consumer, in the internet world: sorry, no, unenforceable

    copyright law is akin to a gentleman's agreement between captains of industry drinking mojitos in an oak paneled room. copyright law does not, and cannot, be applied to end consumers in the internet world. they call it disruptive technology for a reason

    let them try to destroy the internet. the world will simply not let the assholes grandfather themselves into our cultural space. do they really think they can hobble the internet for the sake of their continued unneeded existence? we don't NEED old school distributors anymore. they of course won't die quietly and gracefully, but die they will

  • by Big Jojo (50231) on Sunday June 20, 2010 @01:03AM (#32630230)
    I took a quick scan and didn't see any URLs that are clearly hosted by Google .... so it looks like the notice is directed to the wrong place.

    What did look scarey is including a bunch of queries that would evidently produce some/all of the content they object too. It's as if they want to claim that Google's ability to find such stuff makes them liable ... so that they should then work with the UK's RIAA to block searches for those bits of material ... ugh!!...

    • It's as if they want to claim that Google's ability to find such stuff makes them liable ...

      Well, why not? Here's a car analogy:

      Let's say some guy steals a car, and wants to sell it. You don't know the guy, but you know someone else who happens to know the thief and who arranges for you two to meet...

      The DMCA is only an American law which applies in the American part of the network. It's quite conceivable to have different laws apply in other parts of the network, which would get triggered in some

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Google should start taking DMCA notices seriously. What? Don't want us to display some link to a site which has a downloadable Metallica cd? We can't possibly filter those easily, so we will filter all web sites with the word Metallica. Poof, Metallica now loses Millions because they are effectively disappeared from the internet.

    • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

      It's as if they want to claim that Google's ability to find such stuff makes them liable.

      That's exactly what they are claiming, and the DMCA requires Google to comply if it wants to retain its safe harbor status.

      According to the DMCA safe harbor provisions, they may be liable if they don't immediately respond to a take-down notice by removing the link to the material. There is an "Information gathering services" provision in the DMCA.

      Under the DMCA, Google need not host anything, a simple link is good enough, and removal of the link on notice is required. And of course, thanks to the Berne co

      • What is disgusting about the DMCA is its automatic nature, and the absolute lack of repercussions for filing a false notice. It aught to be wire fraud, but it isn't considered such.

        No, what is disgusting is that there ARE provisions for damages and such for those who file false claims/notices, but they have never (to my knowledge) been used, tested or enforced.

    • by xenobyte (446878)

      It is exactly the same as The Pirate Bay! - No offending material hosted on any servers owned by the plaintiff but a machine generated index is, and that is the problem - if it is. The question is whether you are responsible for machine generated content or not. If The Pirate Bay is, so is Google and everybody else.

      I welcome this trial... when Google wins (and they will), The Pirate Bay is also in the clear and that is a good thing.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Obama's the president now, not Bush! Didn't the Brits get the memo?

    • In all seriousness, the democrats are not so different from the republicans, at least not anymore. The may say different things, but if you look at what they actually do, you will find that both parties really do whatever benefits corporations, even if it is at the expense of the people. Off-shore drilling? Supported by both parties until the current emergency. Secret negotiations of ACTA? Both the Bush and Obama administrations dubbed it a "national security issue." Deregulating the banking industry?
    • Both major U.S. political parties support expansion of the scope of copyright. They have to, or they won't gain the support of the Hollywood-controlled TV news outlets [pineight.com].
    • by couchslug (175151)

      "Obama's the president now, not Bush! Didn't the Brits get the memo?"

      They did, many years ago:

      "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
                                                                                            The Who

    • by Culture20 (968837)

      Obama's the president now, not Bush! Didn't the Brits get the memo?

      Are you kidding? Obama did more campaigning in Britain and Europe than any other candidate. More British probably voted for him than for David Cameroon.

  • by kaner (658550) on Sunday June 20, 2010 @01:20AM (#32630300) Homepage

    I run a site that archives the BBC's Essential Mix radio show. We (my users and I) have been collecting these shows for the past 6 years. We've built a community around it that didn't exist anywhere else. These shows aren't available for purchase or download so we had no choice but to offer them in somewhat of a grey legal area.

    June 1st, 2010 I received a Cease and Desist EMAIL from a company called Somthin' Else. They are the producers of the "Essential Mix" show, which then gets licensed to the BBC.

    They said they wanted to discuss possible deals in their email but never responded to any of my 5 attempts (from different addresses) to contact them. I'm not sure if there was some other legal path I should have taken but I would think if they can contact me in an email then we should be able to convers further over email, but that is besides the point.

    The main point is that this content is not available anywhere else so we had no option but to collect it ourselves. Not to mention all the free publicity it directed towards the DJs and the musicians.

    I posted the letter on my site, mixriot.com, and my users barraged this guy with emails. Eventually he responded over TWITTER saying that they weren't the biggest hurdle. I'm assuming that means the BBC is starting to swing its hammer. I don't understand why the BBC would need to be aggressive, they are government funded, not advertising driven.

    Below follows the entire email:

    stuart.smith@somethinelse.com
    Dear Sir / Madam,

    It has come to our attention that mixriot.com is serving streamed and download content which includes BBC Radio programmes “The Essential Mix” and “In New DJ’s we trust”.

    As the producer and copyright holder of both shows we have not granted rights to any third party at this time. We view any attempt to stream or to offer this content as a download in breach of copyright and therefore instruct mixriot to cease and desist any use of this content immediately.

    As mixriot is the recipient of advertiser and subscriber income based on content delivered to date can you please deliver to Somethin’ Else within 30 days a statement of earnings to date and how much of this is due to SE for the above content.

    Somethin Else welcomes new business opportunities throughout the world and would be interested in discussing applications and uses of our content with genuine business partners. If you would like to discuss these opportunities then please contact me.

    If you do not respond within 7 days then we will pursue other courses of action.

    Yours faithfully,

    Stuart Smith
    Finance Director

    Somethin' Else
    20-26 Brunswick Place
    London
    N1 6DZ
    UK

    Switchboard: +44 (0) 20 7250 5500
    Fax: +44 (0) 20 7250 0937

    • So, you have proof that you responded within 7 days? That should cover your arses if it goes to trial. Of course, IANAL, and you should have consulted one.

    • by topham (32406) on Sunday June 20, 2010 @01:28AM (#32630318) Homepage

      Grey area? There is no grey area, you are violating someone elses copyright.
      They are under no obligation to let you do anything with their materials.

    • Well, you got to follow the law! If a work is 'out of print' and no longer available from the original publisher, then you can request the minister of trade and industry for permission to copy the work. Go and read the copyright act. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and there is a defined mechanism for your case!
  • by Ixokai (443555) on Sunday June 20, 2010 @01:30AM (#32630330)

    I'm confused. Why do you think there is some strange new thing going on here which needs precedent?

    The Berne Convention(and newer treaties, including the WIPO) requires that signatories recognize the copyright of those in other nationalities as they recognize the copyright of their own citizens. The treaties (as amended through the years) basically mean that we grant copyright-holders in other countries the same rights and privileges as our own; we treat foreign copyright-holders the same as our own.

    This is a good thing.

    Yes, there are some problems with copyright law. There are some nutty points, especially related to some fair use concerns. The DCMA has some issues. But its based on copyright, and copyright is a good thing-- Copyright is what gives the GPL its power.

    But all that aside, why all this shock and thinking this is weird or new? We're a Berne Convention signatory, we have agreed to a sort of normalization internationally in relation to our treatment of copyright. This isn't some strange or new thing. The US finally agreed to the treaty in 198[8|9]. Its been awhile since then.

    • by khchung (462899)

      But all that aside, why all this shock and thinking this is weird or new?

      Maybe because, for once, an American company is on the receiving end of it?

      Was there any shock when American companies, using American laws, in American courts, suing foreign people/companies with no presence in America?

      Boiled down to basics by replacing a few words, there is nothing wrong, see "Are there any precedents for a copyright owner attempting to use an American law to force an American company to take down links to copyrighted material?"

      It is just plain foolish/trollish for the summary to use the

  • by GiMP (10923) on Sunday June 20, 2010 @01:41AM (#32630376)

    IANAL, but afaik...

    International copyright is bound by WTO treaties and other international law. The USA acknowledges international copyrights. The DMCA may have controversial portions, but much of it is good, providing means and method of having infringing data removed from the internet and requires certain compliance by intermediary parties (i.e. hosting companies) of infringing content. Note that by invoking the DMCA, they are clearly using US law, not UK law which would clearly not apply to data or services hosted by a US company on US soil, even if the content was created in the UK.

    As for examples, I know of many happening in the other direction, as the US is a bit more "lawsuit happy" than the rest of the world... Allofmp3.com was an interesting example as while Russia was party to WTO treaties, the site was still legal according to Russian law. Ultimately, when pressured, Russia changed their law to be more friendly to their WTO allies and the site was shut down. Had the Russians already had such laws on the books, the RIAA, a US-based organization, would've been able to immediately bring suit against allofmp3.com according to international law.

    So essentially... international law means that copyrights are unified within WTO-participating countries, but domestic law applies where-ever the law is broken, the law of the country under which the copyright is registered is NOT applied, afaik.

    It is possible that I got some or all of this wrong, because, again, IANAL!

    • by devent (1627873)
      International copyright is bound by WTO treaties and other international law. The USA acknowledges international copyrights. The DMCA may have controversial portions, but much of it is good, providing means and method of having infringing data removed from the internet and requires certain compliance by intermediary parties (i.e. hosting companies) of infringing content.

      Yeah, like printers. http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Send-Your-Enemys-Printer-A-DMCA-Warning-95089 [dslreports.com]
    • by devent (1627873)
      There is nothing good about the WTO, the DMCA and the copyright in the current form. The only people who gain a profit from it are the big cooperation and the losers are everybody else.

      PS: Why there is no edit feature on Slashdot?
      • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

        Actually I think only a few tweaks need to be made to the DMCA to make it workable in the Age of the Internet.

        First, bad-faith DMCA takedown notices need consequences. It should be wire fraud to knowingly issue a DMCA take-down notice either for works the issuer does not hold copyright for, or for very clear cases of fair use of their copyrighted material. This would add some real consequences for issuing bad take-down notices without damaging the immediacy of the system (which is necessary, given the spe

      • by GiMP (10923)

        I agree with Jeff,

        Prior to the DMCA, sites like Youtube would have been directly responsible for the content posted on their site, rather than being identified as infringement by a user of their site. You can thank the DMCA for having a commercially viable web. In theory, takedown notices are better than injunctions for both parties, although in practice, the relative ease of sending a takedown notice contributes greatly to its abuse and works strongly against site operators. The DMCA isn't entirely evil

  • Just out of curiosity -- what would happen if Google preemptively denied the UK access to its services? Maybe just for a month or two? If nobody in the UK could search using google.com? What would happen?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Wyatt Earp (1029)

      Bing.com

    • This suggestion has come up a few times now for different countries: China, Australia, Pakistan and probably many others. There looks to be a trend around the world of governments and media companies taking aim at Google for a wide range of things. What it really comes down to is that Google provides the ability for almost anyone around the world to find just about anything. This makes information easily accessible and threatens the artificial barriers to knowledge and 'fair use'. Google is the largest
      • by CAIMLAS (41445)

        Almost anything?

        Apparently not literal quotes of text anymore. Searching for precise phrases with quotes (such as what a person might find in a system event log or transcription) turn up lots of stuff completely unrelated, ignoring the quotes outright.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by 91degrees (207121)
      There are other search engines. Bing has improved over the last year or so so it's competitive at least. And nobody would switch back if Google pulled a hissy fit if it disapproved of laws.
    • by Gordonjcp (186804)

      Not much, for me. I've already switched to www.altavista.net [altavista.net] for the bulk of my web searches. Google is too spammy. If you search for information on electronic components - say, the datasheet for an IC - pretty much all the results are sites in the Far East offering to sell "ALL PART BEST PRICE CALL FOR DETAIL!!!!"

  • by durrr (1316311) on Sunday June 20, 2010 @03:01AM (#32630572)
    The new 4 step business plan of the recording industry:
    1:Record legal template
    2:Create a signed, limited run of said legal template
    3:Distribute it to as many people as possible
    4:Expect to get paid
  • We know that a website can be shut down for providing links to copyrighted material. So if that can be done to newzbin.com what principle of law makes google.com immune?
    • by Archon-X (264195)

      Be fair - newzbin was actively creating, sorting and arranging links to copyrighted material - there was manual intervention throughout the entire process.
      Google, on the other hand, could use the defense that their system is totally hands off.

  • Why would the British Pornographic Industry go after Google? I don't get it.
  • Really? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    > lamescream media

    Stop that. It makes you sound like a god-damned idiot.

    • I think it would be better to use this term sound like an idiot, than use "mainstream media" and look like a fool for giving the modern media such a lofty term of respect.

  • by war4peace (1628283) on Sunday June 20, 2010 @07:04AM (#32631286)
    Now I know what I am saying is offtopic, but why do I always read "British Pornographic Industry" when fast-reading through any website where it is mentioned?
    It's not an intentional act; maybe I'm more used to one word than another :) - but it becomes annoying. You know, stopping dead in your tracks and thinking "Wait, WHAT?".
  • Are there any precedents for a UK trade organization attempting to use an American law to force an American company to take down links to UK-copyrighted material?

    You are subject to the law of the land that you are doing what you are doing in and no other. In this particular example yes Google has a UK operation and BPI may have an alternate option in using UK law against that, but had there been no UK operations, the only choice would be for the BPI to use American law. In this case I suspect BPI is going f

    • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

      UK copyrights basically apply in the US as if they were works completed in the US by a US citizen.

      This is the part that is unique to copyright and patent law (which the OP clearly does not understand).

      For any other case, both companies must be operating in the same company, and the grievance must have occurred in that company. A UK company can't sue a US company for anti-competitive practices, for example, if that UK company is not competing in that exact same market.

      That's not how copyright works due to the Berne Convention.

      If Jim-Bob in the UK has a UK copyright on a song, and Fred Fredrickson in the

  • I live in the UK and have filed DMCA complaints with Google.. there's nothing wrong or strange with the process if you find that someone has ripped off your intellectual property. You simply file a complaint with Google to suppress the violating content from their index.. it doesn't remove the content, but it sure as hell makes it harder to find.

    If your content is on a US webhost then you can file a complaint with the webhost directly, which is more effective. But filing a complaint with Google works well

  • They should simply remove every single public link to any content belonging to any UK BPI member or mentioning any BPI member's label artists, with any attempt to access such content via google going to a page telling people to contact the BPI for information about just why it is that BPI label and artist content has completely disappeared from google.

You're already carrying the sphere!

Working...