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?
Gotta love chillingeffects.org (Score:4, Interesting)
this is the pivot point (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:What is Google HOSTING, exactly? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Gotta love chillingeffects.org (Score:1, Interesting)
Unless they're really stupid, they have already sent DMCA letters to all the operators of the sites Google had linked to.
They may also send (possibly) demands, subpoenas, or other requests for download/transfer logs from sites hosting the files.
And slashdotters really might not want to be pulling URLS that appeared in a DMCA letter and downloading the file.
If you got the links from there, it can be assumed you read the letter, and if it ever goes to court, willful infringement is oh so much worse.
And the **AA escapades and suing of individual downloaders never really stopped, by all indications, if anything they outsourced and may be upscaling it
Happened to me as well. (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:What is Google HOSTING, exactly? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:What is Google HOSTING, exactly? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Recording industry 101 (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:Happened to me as well. (Score:1, Interesting)
The BBC always have track listings on their website for all those shows - the archive goes back to 2002:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/essentialmix/tracklistings.shtml [bbc.co.uk]
This makes me thing that somewhere they are contacting licence holders and playing the required fee for broadcast.
I think publicly archiving the shows is definitely breaking copyright, but it's a real shame since this stuff can't be found at any legitimate source.
BBC is publicly funded and copyright a civil case (Score:1, Interesting)
BBC is publicly funded and copyright a civil case. Therefore, as the original paymasters of this content created, there is a grey area. As a civil case, then the owners of the copyright are owed only the losses. Since they aren't selling to anyone, these losses are nil.
Note: this is why the UK has no fair use clause, since private copying (until the change in Jan 2001 under US pressure) was strictly civil and based off actual proven damages (nil), the law allowed you to be taken to court for the damages done (nil) which would be easy to pay and cause the court to sue the plaintiff for wasting the courts' time. Therefore fair use wasn't needed. But they changed the law in 2001 to remove this damages-only section but didn't put in fair use clauses, getting the best of both worlds to the international cartels.
Re:Thought Question (Score:2, Interesting)