UK's RIAA Goes After Google Using the US DMCA 184
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?
What is Google HOSTING, exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
... Hi, I'm International Law. Nice to meet you. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
They can do this... (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:BP Expense Recovery (Score:1, Insightful)
They took a risk when they invested in BP. Here in the US investment companies always tack this on to claims - "Past Performance Is Not Indicative of Future Results".
All the fund and pension managers could have brought up BP's glaring safety record at share holder meetings or moved money to other companies. But they didn't because they thought past performance was indicative of future results. And now they are screwed.
Except that is called a "fixer" (Score:1, Insightful)
Except that is called a "fixer" and is predicated off the fixer KNOWING that the car is stolen.
In this case, however, the copyrights ARE NOT STOLEN.
They CANNOT BE stolen.
Therefore your car analogy falls down.
Re:Happened to me as well. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not sure why this is a -1, because parent has a point. While it may not be clear who is paying whom royalties, etc., It is clear that the OP is not the copyright holder to any of the materials. If you don't own the copyrights and don't have a license or permission to host/post/etc., then it is infringement. I know it's not popular amongst the /. crowd, but that is the way it is.
Re:Happened to me as well. (Score:2, Insightful)
The BBC pays loads to various bodies for legal permission to use other people's music. If a musician wants to get paid for their work they need to register for the PRS and take their share of the cash. The musicians, in turn, need to get permission to use the music they sample, and the DJs also need to. It's all about playing other people's music. The creator owns and controls it. Nobody cares how hard or impractical it is - that's not their problem, that's your problem if that's how you've decided to make your money (or spend you time, in the case of hobbiest stuff). In the case of DJs playing mixes of white labels etc then yes, if the DJs have been given those white labels by the musicians or labels then there might well be some assumption that they can play them on air, but it's something you'd probably want to get in writing unless you're running a pirate station.
Re:What is Google HOSTING, exactly? (Score:1, Insightful)
Google doesn't host materials if it is providing only an index / link to them. In that respect they should be even less liable for copyright infringement than, say, a typical library that has a card catalog or the digital equivalent that points to copyrighted books sitting on the shelves, and which could be illegally copied by library patrons.
Google is not hosting the material listed in the complaint.
Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
> lamescream media
Stop that. It makes you sound like a god-damned idiot.