Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Your Rights Online

Music Giants Sue Baidu Over Music Downloads 211

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the sweet-sound-of-being-silenced dept.
chengee writes "Music giants Universal, EMI, Warner, Sony BMG and their local subsidiaries are suing Chinese search engine Baidu for allegedly infringing the copyright of hundreds of songs, a press report said Friday. Looks like the party is going to be over for Chinese downloaders. But more importantly how will this lawsuit turn out in a place known for its lax copyright laws?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Music Giants Sue Baidu Over Music Downloads More

Music Giants Sue Baidu Over Music Downloads

Comments Filter:

  • When it suits them... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Monday September 19, 2005 @04:35PM (#13599115) Homepage Journal
    Looks like the party is going to be over for Chinese downloaders. But more importantly how will this lawsuit turn out in a place known for its lax copyright laws?"

    This round? Probably something in spirit in favor of the RIAA, but still not as well enforced or as speedily as they would like. Not as fast as, say a tune with the lyrics like "Taiwan Independence Day, Hooray!" or "Falun Gong, get it on", where everyone would remark at the swiftness and finality of their enforcement.

    But with the looming US debt owed to China, how long before they say, "No, Yankee, we don't feel like it. What are you going to do about it" and grin the grin of one who knows they hold the other by the short hairs?

    China has a track record of honoring treaties and peace when they have larger goals in sight. Once they have achieved those goals... The West will see how much they really care what the rest of the world has to say and tell it what opinion it should share of the great PRC.

    They're patient, they've put up with hundreds of years of crap and they know it. Has the West forgotten?

    There has been a growing concern among investors over the company's prospects. Its shares dropped 28 percent in New York Wednesday after two analysts warned the stock was seriously overvalued.

    And yet Google isn't?

    • Re:When it suits them... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by orzetto ( 545509 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @04:41PM (#13599165)
      China has a track record of honoring treaties and peace when they have larger goals in sight. Once they have achieved those goals...

      Give credit where credit is due. No country ever respected treaties they could infringe without fear of punishment, if they had something to gain from it.

      It's just a fact of history: the signature on a treaty is no stronger than the signing arm.

      • Re:When it suits them... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rainman_bc ( 735332 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @04:47PM (#13599232)
        It's just a fact of history: the signature on a treaty is no stronger than the signing arm.

        Which is exactly why the US completely disregards NAFTA - the framework they themselves helped build.

        They only apply NAFTA as it suits them, not the other way around. The US is no different than China IMO.
        • And what about Kioto, that Clinton signed and Bush "unsigned"?
          • And this has what to do with NAFTA? Kyoto was signed by clinton, but had to be ratified by the senate and signed by the president of the time, which it was not.

            I am absolutely no fan of GWB, but it is always better to call him on things that he has screwed up. There are plenty of them (deficit, lies, druggie, false wars, general incompetence, hiding of evidence, etc), so there is no need to hit him on things that he did not do (assuming that you are implying that NAFTA was an issue). As far as Kyoto goes,
            • There are tons of proof that the earth is warming. I agree. However, there is no irrefutable proof that it's a man-made occurrence, not a natural occurrence. A few thousand years of history and some ice cores do not definitively prove man's cause of any atmospheric anomalies. This is particularly true when compared to 2.5 billion years of environmental swings, including atmospheric compositions of such toxicity that there was no chance of life at the time.

              Now, that's not to say that we're not causin
              • Personally, I doubt that Kyoto was an attack on us. But, no doubt about it, the exclusion of China and India was ridiculus. I think their thought was that it was better to get the single largest polluter (us) to control our output. The nice thing about Kyoto is that it is causing a number of countries to explore how to generate clean energy (like there is such a thing).

                Now, as to environmentalists causing ALL the issues, well that is simply not so. After all, the best place to locate national storage of sp
              • Go jump off a cliff. There's no irrefutable proof that you won't fall either.

                Sometimes you have to act and do things without total proof.
                • Oh, that's a really mature response. "Gravity" is well-proven and quite irrefutable. And I could have sworn that I said that just because there is no proof doesn't mean that we shouldn't cut down on emmissions.

                  It's clear that you like being selective in what you read anyway, so there's no real use in continuing your immature rant.
                  • The theory of gravity isn't proven at all. You can't prove anything, you can only disprove.

                    The "intelligent falling" theory is a logically valid theory, and holds up against the evidence. It might be "God" that pushes things down when you let go of them. We cannot prove that if you personally jumped off that cliff, on that particular day and time, that you would fall.
                    All we can do is generalise from past experiments.

      • Sometimes I wish that were true, because copyright law (in the US and many other countries) is bound up in international treaties, making it a lot harder to change the law to something sane.

    • Re:When it suits them... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jherek Carnelian ( 831679 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @05:11PM (#13599412)
      But with the looming US debt owed to China, how long before they say, "No, Yankee, we don't feel like it. What are you going to do about it" and grin the grin of one who knows they hold the other by the short hairs?

      It is a two way street and will be for quite some time. China buys a lot of US bonds. But the US is China's largest market by far and for the forseeable future. They need the US to keep buying from them (remember the whole brohaha over most-favored-nation trading status). Additionally, China has a couple of looming problems - the double-digit economic growth rates are unstustainble for the long run, their economy will slow, at which point they will need the US market even more. Secondly, the one-child policy has produced a major age inversion - it is going to get harder to support the aging population with less able-bodied people entering the workforce than are retiring from it.

      Over the past year, China has made a show of cracking down on flagrant IP violators. My impression (and that's all it is, an impression) is that big crackdowns have had no long-term effects on the 'market' as a whole.

      This case is different in that Baidu is in the top-5 websites with the most page-hits in all of the world, I suspect that the Chinese goverment has "pride" in Baidu and a big punishment would be considered a loss of face. But, big show-punishments seems to be how they've handled similar complaints recently. So there is probably some level of internal conflict here. Just my occidental analysis of the situation.

      And yet Google isn't [overvalued]?

      Not the way Baidu is, see this analysis. [theinquirer.net]
      • and India too, what the heck do they need us for? Seriously, if they're exporting, what are they importing? High end machinery that takes billions to build, food and our entertainment I suppose. But how much longer will they need/want that?

    • Re:When it suits them... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @05:27PM (#13599526) Journal
      Well, more importantly, USA is moving rapidly to being an IP only country. This is easy to destroy. All china (and most of the world) has to do, is simply no longer accept the method patent. At that point, the brave new world that was started in the 80's will be destroyed.

      That is because we will have no manufactuering, no infrastructure, and quite honestly, no education. The only thing that we will have is abstract IP (music, books, software, etc). China is methodically destroying the west and making sure that they are in a good position. Sadly, our leaders do not get it.

      As to the overvalueing, most of software companies are overvalues. MS? what do they have that is worth what they are valued at? Their monopoly, which is slowly being taken apart by the marketplace. Google? Yeah, they are overvalued. But I think that they are making hay of what they have. Hopefully, they remain in the top.

      • China is methodically destroying the west and making sure that they are in a good position.

        The west ain't just America, baby.

        • That is fair. But I would argue that even Europe is in a state of "overall" decline. Look at the job closing that have been coming throughout Europe as of late. In addition, I think that we are going to see more coming in the near future.
          • I'm not so sure of this. Europe has long had problems caused by being divided into lots of small countries with different currencies, customs, etc. Now that they've united economically into the EU with a common currency, a lot of that inefficiency is gone, and as a block they have a lot more economic power to wield against the rest of the world. Notice how well the Euro is doing against the Dollar.

            Furthermore, Europe still makes stuff, and usually high-value stuff, which is exported: nice cars, foods, et
    • But with the looming US debt owed to China, how long before they say, "No, Yankee, we don't feel like it. What are you going to do about it" and grin the grin of one who knows they hold the other by the short hairs?

      If China chooses to violate US IP, the US could just as easily choose not to repay its debt, changing trillions of bonds into worthless paper. I seriously doubt the US ever WOULD do that, because it would make it very hard to get new loans in the future, but China hardly has the US "by the sho

    • "Falun Gong, get it on"

      "Falun Gong has got it going on,
      It's all I want and I've waited for so long,
      Communism, can't you see you're not the religion for me,
      I know it might be wrong but I'm not listening to the Chinese government..."
  • Avast ye scurvy scaliwags, it be the plank for ye! Arr!

  • Darn. (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheOtherAgentM ( 700696 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @04:38PM (#13599137)
    Now they're going to have to stick to buying DVDs for a dollar on the streets.
  • Sue the person who finds the links, not the person hosting the files? Like the Perfect 10 vs. Google for finding pictures on none Perfect 10 websites.

  • Great. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19, 2005 @04:40PM (#13599154)
    Welcome to China.

    Where you can walk down the street and buy hundreds of western media, IP, software and music products from corner pirate bootleggers, and nobody bats an eyelash.

    But if you want to start a search engine that might help people find resources online, well, that won't be stood for. People might use that to "pirate" things.

    This perfectly encapsulates the spirit of modern China: The capitalistic freedoms to lie, cheat and steal, but not the humanist freedoms to speak, organize and share information.
    • "This perfectly encapsulates the spirit of modern China: The capitalistic freedoms to lie, cheat and steal, but not the humanist freedoms to speak, organize and share information."

      Capitalism is not about lying, cheating, and stealing. These actions are against capitalism. Capitalism is about free, open, voluntary trade where each person understands exactly what they're getting in a transaction. Unfortunately, in real life, both buyers and sellers lie, cheat, and steal to make up for deficiencies and gain an
      • In other words, you're lying about what capitalism really is.

        Capitalism (in fact, any interaction with humans) contains a plethora of lies. It's your job to wade through them and make a good trade, and be productive.

        This is not much different from any other economic philosophy. Just, in capitalism, the rules are pretty much laid out from the get-go.

    • the difference is that the laws broken in streets of china's cities, for the most part, stay in china. if you buy a pirated DVD, there is not so great a chance that you will bring it to other countries. if you advertise copyrighted material on the web, anyone from all over the world can download that same DVD.

      yes i am sure some of the illegally duplicated western media makes it to other countries, but at not nearly the rate that it can be distributed over the internet.

    • Re:Great. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by konungursvia ( 916056 )

      Actually, lying, cheating and stealing *is* a significant part of capitalism. Worldcom, Tyco, the Savings and Loans scandals, you name it, these are just the tip of the iceberg.

      But you're right that China is far worse for hypocrisy than we are, especially in the areas of a) the environment and b) intellectual property. I lived there for four years, and there is no concept of right and wrong there in most people's eyes, according to my perceptions. Just success and failure, and if you succeed, it doesn't

  • If you have ever been to Malaysia, Russia, or Thailand, or any of the other main locations in which there are extremely lax copyright laws, you will agree with me when I say that this will change nothing. There may be a president set, after which we will see a stronger law, which may be enforced once or twice, like the 100 bat fine placed on anyone caught selling illegal videos and music at the PanTib center in Bangkok, but after the initial constrictions, I think that life will go on for those chinese dow

  • Avast Mateys!!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Eberlin ( 570874 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @04:44PM (#13599199) Homepage
    There be no treasure here, matey! Arrrr. If tis pirates they seek, tis pirates they find in these high seas. Arrrr.

    The land lubbers be afterrr us for piracy, but I swear on my right eyepatch that we be faring better than the fate of walking the plank. Arrrrr.

    Baidu be giving treasure maps to this here loot and booty (points with hook hand) but for all the enterprising yellowbeards, we have ways to bury our pirate gold. Arrrr.

    "Old pirates, yes, they rob i;
    Sold I to the merchant ships,
    Minutes after they took i
    From the bottomless pit."

        -- Redemption Song (Bob Marley)

  • Google (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mysqlrocks ( 783488 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @04:44PM (#13599204) Homepage Journal

    "From the copyright point of view, we think differently than the music companies. Baidu is just a platform for music search," Liang said.

    Why aren't they suing Google as well? Google makes it possible to find copyrighted material? Of course one could use a search engine to find the people who are providing illegal copies and sue them.

  • Lax Laws? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ahnteis ( 746045 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @04:45PM (#13599214)
    Seems rather subjective to me. I mean, granted -- I'm no expert on China's copyright laws (but I can pretend if you'd like since this IS /.) but are their laws really lax or is the submitter just so used to his own laws that they SEEM lax. Personally, I find much of US copyright law overly restrictive and biased toward corporations.

    Additionally, I don't know if laws can even be lax. Seems like it's the enforcement that should be called lax rather then the law. After all, the laws DEFINE what's legal. Perhaps lenient would be a better word?

  • Google Music Search (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Valiss ( 463641 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @04:48PM (#13599248) Homepage
    I always wondered when I added 'filetype:mp3' to my search why Google yielded zero results. Is this a copyright thing?
    • Arrrr, not at all me hardy.

      Call me a lubber, but ye're searchin for the treasure with the wrong map.

      Ye just needs to type in "Music Torrents" or "Music P2P" or "Music IRC Channel". Ye'll find the hidden treasure if ye seek it the right way!

      Ho Ho Ho and a bottle of rum.. 6 mp3's in a dead man's stick!

      • Pirate-speak (Score:3, Informative)

        by Parity ( 12797 )
        That's 'hearty' as in 'a hearty fellow'.

        On the high seas, it's assumed, of course, that -everyone- is hardy, else they'd have drowned already while leaning over the railing a bit too far when puking out their guts. But one greets one's fellows as 'me hearty', essentially complimenting them on their uncanny ability to remain in good spirits in the face of endless days of cold wind and salt water and fish stew yet again.

        Please keep it straight, or they'll all know you for land-lubber and you'll be walking the
    • No. It's a technical thing. Google and all their PhDs haven't figured out how to implement that feature yet.
    • Mostly. But there's also less data that can be searched without some very sophisticated AI: Just a file name and (possibly) some metadata or inbound links.

      Didn't stop them doing image search, of course, but that index doesn't seems to have been updated for about a year.

  • Lax? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sambo_shacklock ( 448784 )
    known for its lax copyright laws?

    Don't you mean more sensible copyright laws?

  • Wouldn't it be wonderful if... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gilgongo ( 57446 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @04:51PM (#13599266) Homepage Journal
    From TFA: "...the goal was to 'cooperate and make a platform for legal music downloads.'"

    So imagine if instead of doing what we all assume they're probably going to do (cave in to Sony, BMG et al), China turns round and says "Protect the artists? Sure! We'll do that - but only if you help us build a network that passes 100% of the purchase price of each MP3 directly to the artists that wrote or performed the tracks."

    A few yuan multiplied by a few billion makes...?

    • So why are sound engineers, recording studios, advertising agencies and music labels that are assuming risk by covering these costs in advance (to name a tiny fraction of the people involved in producing any music) no longer entitled to compensation?
      • Kneel before your teenage singer-songwriter overlord!
      • Because if the artists got all the money that they are entitled from the sale of their works, then artists would pay sound engineers, recording studios, advertising agencies and music labels (if they wanted them) as services. This is how most other industries work. If I write software for a living, I employ a PR and marketing agency, and pay them from my (hopefully increased) sales.

        Really, 100% is not such a silly idea when you have something called home recording equipment. Good music can still sound good
  • I'd hardly call a death sentence, lax.
  • pirates, aye matey?
  • The music companies allege Baidu has made it easy for users to download illegal copies of their songs via its MP3 search engine What kind of law is that? So... how can this be considered illegal? If I tell you that if you connect to E-mule you can download the same MP3 am I commiting a crime?
    • "If I tell you that if you connect to E-mule you can download the same MP3 am I commiting a crime? "

      If it's a copyrighted MP3, then yes, yes you are.

      Is it just? I don't think so -- but I don't write the laws.

      In prison, you'll be 'connecting' to more than E-mule.
  • I decided to take a peak at how this affected the Baidu (BIDU on Nasdaq) stock. (It didn't, this lawsuite seems to have happened after hours, so I'll have to wait for tomorrow to see any real affects.)

    However, I was shocked to see the price chart of the stock for last week, on Yahoo finance [yahoo.com]. What the heck is that? Up 50% then down to where it started within three days? It reminds me of the summer of 2000...

  • Copyright Laws (Score:3, Interesting)

    by IanBevan ( 213109 ) * on Monday September 19, 2005 @05:02PM (#13599347) Homepage
    My understanding, from dealing with people in New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (a government department here), is that the copyright laws in China are in fact fine, it's their enforcement that needs attention.

  • Bargaining tactic (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @05:03PM (#13599357) Journal
    FTA:"He [Liang Dong, VP of Marketing -- Baidu] was reported to have met several music company executives Wednesday to discuss copyright issues, the Standard cited a source as saying, adding the goal was to "cooperate and make a platform for legal music downloads."
    Liang said the discussions were "positive.""

    This is the recording industry leaning on Baidu to come to terms with them. I'll bet if Baidu puts methods of discouraging illegal filesharing in place, and encourages legal (read: revenue-producing) downloads, the lawsuits will be dropped or settled out of court for a pittance.

    Same MO as the earlier article today about the RIAA possible dropping huge settlement demands against Grokster et al.
  • (mentioned in TFA as their source): online here [thestandard.com.hk].

  • Who is Sue Baidu?

    Why does she work for the Music Giants? Are they a baseball team?

    And if she has got over music downloads, why haven't the rest of the RIAA got over them?

    "Music Giants Sue Baidu Over Music Downloads." Well, she's a start. Now if only the rest of them catch on...

    And in other news: Allies push bottles up Germans.

  • Probably a bad move... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tktk ( 540564 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @06:40PM (#13599983)
    for the music industry. All Baidu has to do is frame the lawsuit as a bunch of multinational companies trying to beat up a homegrown Chinese company, (if it is one).

    Bam...instant grassroots support for Baidu. Or whatever the grassroot equivalent is in a communist state.

  • What can these companies accomplish? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by beforewisdom ( 729725 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @06:59PM (#13600141)
    Unless something has changed recently the Chinese government has no respect for intellectual property.

    Do they really expect to successfully sue these people?

  • ...will be jumping up and down, all at the same time of course!

    Oh yea, like you didn't see this one coming.

  • Something tells me the PRC is going to tell teh racketeers over at RIAA to go play with themselves...
    • Not quite. In time honoured Chinese style they'll tell the RIAA that they are anxious to help them in this matter.

      Then they'll carry on regardless.
  • The only thing worse than a totalitarian communist country is a totalitarian communist country where the idea of music as a free, common good has gone out the window.

    So now, in addition to encouraging the Chinese government to pimp out its poor so we can save a few shiny dimes at Walmart, we have the audacity to expect those same wage slaves to 'respect tha authoritah' of the corrupt US music industry?

    Hello America, you can't bukkakke the world's poor and then wonder why you aren't seen as a bastion of free

  • Baidu had video search, too (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bushcat ( 615449 ) on Monday September 19, 2005 @09:29PM (#13600964)
    Posting way too late for anyone to actually read this, but c'est la guerre. Pre-IPO, baidu.com had video search which helped it increase market share pre-IPO. The button was removed before IPO, leaving just the MP3 button. Ergo, baidu.com knows what game it's playing.

    In a separate action to that brought by EMI et al, a Beijing court has just ordered Baidu.com to pay RMB68,000 to Shanghai Busheng Music Cultural Media Company. Busheng had accused Baidu of allowing Internet users to use the Baidu search engine to find and download copyright-protected music. The court has also ordered Baidu to stop providing the download services to online users. Baidu says it plans to appeal the decision. See http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticleSearch.as px?storyID=221757+19-Sep-2005+RTRS&srch=baidu [reuters.com].

    So perhaps the copyright laws will be enforced more strictly when it's locally-generated content that is being pirated.

  • I wouldn't go as far as to say that China is a piracy haven, but it's pretty damned close.

    They can't stop real pirates from mass producing actual DVDs and CDs; why in the fuck would they think that they can stop casual pirates on the internet?

    LK

  • Really intresting.. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Mr Europe ( 657225 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @05:43AM (#13602558)
    Really intresting to see how american big companies can cope chinese court in a suit based on chinese law !

    They didn't expect Baidu to obey american law did they ?
  • Baidu lost first round of copyright dispute [people.com.cn] after one day of trial in the first instance. Baidu say that they will appeal.

  • Downloads vs uploads (Score:3)

    by StormReaver ( 59959 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @06:59AM (#13602761)
    It's not music downloads that get a person into trouble. It's music uploads.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close