Teen Sued for /Linking/ to MP3s 308
Alex T-B writes "A 17-year old Swede has been
sued by the IFPI for having links to MP3s from his homepage. The tracks weren't actually located on his system. How does this bode for future suing practices - can anybody get sued for just linking to stuff someone somewhere considers to be 'bad'? Der Artikel ist auf Deutsch - use babelfish. " MP3s or not, lawsuits over links scare me.
Re:Good to hear. (Score:1)
Personal freedom isnt dead in Sweden. There hasnt been a verdict yet (he'll be freed, imho), only a report in a german mag. where they probably dont know anything about swedish law.
Re:god clause (Score:1)
Well, not exactly (Score:1)
Exactly. Western Europe/Scandinavia is much more liberal in its culture than the puritanically based U.S., but the one reason I still like this country is the First Amendment.
Well, I can't speak for the other countries, but the finnish constitution basically grants these rights as well. (freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom to peacefully protest). Here's a few selected excerpts of other rights in the finnish consititution (extremely free translation):
- Firing people without a legal reason is not permitted.
- Everyone not capable of living a dignified life (due to circumstances of being unemployed etc.) is guaranteed necessary welfare and care.
- The state has to provide the necessary healthcare to everyone.
- No one can be sentenced to death, tortured or treated in a way that is inhuman. (there's the possibility of an exception to this during war, deserters will probably be shot)
- The state has to try to provide everyone with a clean environment and the responsibility for that belongs to everyone.
- No one working in the military can be elected as a representative. (IMO, a good thing)
- Gender equality.
- All men are equal before the law.
- Discrimination based on gender, age, origin, social status, religion, belief, opininion, health, handicap (etc.) is not allowed.
- The secrecy of confidential transactions of information (phone calls, letters, etc.) is to be preserved, ie. privacy is guaranteed. There's an exception for criminal investigation and national security, but the rules regarding that are quite strict.
We also have the priviledge to pay a _lot_ of taxes (50% or more isn't uncommon if you consider the sales taxes to be part of the taxation). ACRe:find out about the rules by breaking them (Score:1)
"Ignorance of the law cannot be an excuse in the eyes of the law."
On one level that's tautological, but at that time there was not enough law to prevent a normal person being able to read up on all of it, or at least have a feeling for most of it, though there was probably more than we might think.
However nowadays _everyone_ is ignorant of most law, and where the law is counterintuitive or nonsensical, I think ignorance should be an excuse, though I understand that it won't be.
Re:Still sounds like a good place to me... (Score:1)
I only wish Russia was like that when things settle down, i.e. a nice and peaceful place.
This is what we wish for as well. One of the biggest fears is that things go wrong in Russia. We're next to it and that's not a nice thought. One can only hope that the Russian people won't be agitated into voting someone not fit to rule in the office. There are a few people that are trying to do this. Zhirinovski is the first person to come to mind.
Glad you liked it. It's maybe a bit too peaceful here sometimes =) The Finnish culture is really hard to fit into anything, because we have been bouncing between the east and west before independence and after the second world war we had to walk a tightrope between the east and west. The good thing is that at least I'm under the impression that our relations with Russia are quite good right now and our politicians are accepted as mediators in many conflicts, because we're generally seen as unbiased.
There are good and bad things about every country. I think we are a reasonable compromise. The usual complaint is about the taxation, it's not easy get filthy rich by just doing well-paid work, since it's taxed progressively.
About the original post. The music industry is charging too much money for the CDs and not enough of the money is going to the artist. Granted, it is the music industry that makes the artist known and becoming successful is not possible without its help. This is the power of marketing.
ACRe:Bullshit (Score:3)
I study law in Sweden and I say without hesitation that the personal freedom in Sweden is by far greater than the freedom in the US. This is of course a hard matter to decide upon (if you have one right in Sweden which you dont have in the US and opposite, how are you going to compare the value of each?).
Secondly, and more importantly, the entire lawsuit is quite bogus, it's the kind of thing where they flex their muscles and hope that others will read and fear (no matter the outcome). He won't be convicted, period.
Re:third world countries (Score:1)
Sweden a corrupt third country? At least here we
dont go around killing eachother in school with AK47:s...
Better yet (Score:3)
----
Re:Good to hear. (Score:3)
Actually (and somewhat surprisingly), it's from a video game(!) Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri -- I like it so much that I've got it committed to memory. I actually use it a lot -- I keep hoping that other people will pick it up. As far as I can tell, it's original to the game. My girlfriend thinks it sounds like Toqueville (you know, the author of Democracy in America), but it's not.
There's one other quote from the game that I like almost as much, on the subject of genome:
To look into the very stuff of life -- to stare into the looking glass and watch a thousand generations march by -- that, friends, is both our greatest curse and our proudest achievement.
----
Good to hear. (Score:5)
So, who wants to raise a billion from an IPO and use it to set up a real off-shore data haven? Maybe set up in the Cayman Islands or somesuch, run a few fat pipes in, and give the finger to all those in the world who would deny you access to information.
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free access to information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, while the free nation gradually constricting its grip on free discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism.
Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
----
god clause (Score:4)
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The phrase "under god" was added in the McCarthyist 1950s as an attempt to distinguish the United States from "godless Communism," a convenient excuse for the religious conservatives then in power. It is not part of the original Pledge, and hence does not reflect any opinions our founding fathers may or may not have had. It just reflects the opinions of the McCarthyists.
Still sounds like a good place to me... (Score:2)
Anyway, I wouldn't mind living there, if it wasn't for the language.... This is one of the difficult parts about moving in Europe. Moving is not the problem, it's when you settle down somewhere, you definitely notice the shortcoming of not being able to speak the country's language on a daily life basis.
To get back in the subject, it was a bad move from music industry... just makes you wonder WHY exactly do artists need pimps, and just rises the hate bar one step further up...
Like the french music industry collaborating with nazis during the war, or american music industries desperately trying to survive... the wrong way.
Kitos! :-)
---
Re:You're full of sh*t (Score:1)
Re:You're full of sh*t (Score:1)
But it is almost senseless to play with "woulds" and "wouldn'ts".
Sebastian
Re:not totally against (Score:1)
Why is the EU any more responsible for that than the US or China?
I think that the US is just as responsible simply because they want to be the most powerful nation in the world. With might comes responsibility.
(Besides that, Serbia is about 400 miles away from the EU-European outer border in Austria, where the HQ is in Bruxelles in Belgium, which is about 1000 miles or the whole of Germany and Austria from this border. Europe is small, but not that small:-) ).
Sebastian
Re:One thing to note. (Score:1)
Besides, I can give numerous examples where the government has lost (at least in Germany where the system is roughly the same), and some of them very painful.
Personally, I like this system better, because juries consisting of "common people" tend to judge much more emotional and minorities may be sentenced just because they are miniroties.
Sebastian
Re:German law is crazy (Score:1)
Sebastian
Re:German law is crazy (Score:1)
Only the US way is a little more subtle, but no less cruel.
Sebastian
find out about the rules by breaking them (Score:3)
Re:Bad Karma? (Score:2)
It is not the site he linked to that is suing him... It is the recording industry. This legal battle is over whether providing the location of an opportunity to commit a crime is in itself a crime. Because so many people use analogies to explain these things, here are a few:
1. In one context, this would be telling a terrorist where he can purchase bombs and then telling him what to blow up.
2. Another context would be telling someone where the neighborhood dealer is.
3. Yet another circumstance would be pointing out an unlocked door to a stranger.
In each of these cases, a person is providing a link to an opportunity to do a crime. The first analogy will surely be brought up by the prosecuting attorneys. The last case should be mentioned by the defense attorney. The real question is how dangerous we, as a society, consider information to be. If information is harmless (Sticks and stone will break my bones, but words will never hurt me), then we should consider links to be completely benign as any other form of speech. If information is totally dangerous, then we should ban all three forms of linking. Obviously, neither extreme is correct, and it is left to us to decide what balance must be struck.
Personally, I believe that information is highly dangerous, but that it is best to let people use their own judgement in using it. We shouldn't police thoughts or communications, only actions.
-B
Re:Why is this so hard to believe? (Score:2)
But it is the responsibility of the person who sets up the files to ensure that they are legal to distribute, not the linker. If I link to mp3.com, where many legal-to-distribute files reside, and it turns out an mp3 there is illegal to distribute, should I be held liable? An mp3 is not illegal by definition. Or what if I link to a story on a news site that turns out was plagiarized? Again, am I liable?
Now, the fundamental difference here may be intent, that this kid knew these files were being distributed illegally. But at the very least this means that the plaintiffs should be required to show that he knew the distribution was illegal, which raises the bar significantly.
Re:Seriously! (Score:1)
If you think that committing crime is bad, then talking about crime being committed is equally bad.
Sorry. Doesn't follow that easily
If I, for example, say that such and such a record is good, then that is akin to linking to it -- it is up to the other person to ensure that they obtain their version legally. If that weren't the case, then advertising would encourage stealing (since seeing an advert on a wall could be construed as inviting someone to walk into a store and steal whatever is advertised)
The responsibility for the infringement lies with the person who uploads the files (for distributing) and the person who downloads (for illegally obtaining)
John
Same thing in Denmark (Score:3)
Oh, and it is the same lawyers who in the C64 dayes would claim that a 14 year old boy who collected game warez had cost the software publishers $30.000 in lost profits (the combined value of all the games).
Re:Anyone can sue for anything, for filing costs (Score:1)
satellite latency (Score:1)
--
It depends on intent (Score:1)
If you say, "Here are my buddies' web pages", then I don't think you should be held liable.
<tim><
Re:Better yet (Score:1)
Best you could do with a satelite is anonymizers. While valuable no where near as good as a real data haven.
Re:Good to hear. (Score:1)
Umm personal freedom is a property the legal system posseses. So despite the fact it may seem so we are not engaged in a discussion of whether this kid is doing good or bad but whether it is proper for the law to say he is doing bad.
Re:Scary stuff (Score:1)
It seems this would only end up with everyone claiming they were publishing information merely for journalistic purposes only...cataloging illegal music on the web like those stupid disclaimers on warez sites.
Re:Linking to 'bad' things (Score:1)
As the kid does not know the laws the reader of the site is subject to it seems ridiculous to hold him responsible
Re:Slippery Slope! (Score:1)
The point of the matter is the law is rightfully, IT IS ILLEGAL TO DISTRIBUE COPYRIGHT MATERIAL. The law is not it is illegal to disclose the location of copyrighted material. If you made 1000 windws CD's and I told someone that you had done so I merely passed along information I did not violate that law.
And I not that this all this kid did do was WRITE. He wrote etc.. he did not do ANYTHING but write. [slashdot.org]
In addition the issue at hand is not whether the kid deserves to be punished or even if it IS illegal it is whether it SHOULD be illegal and I am arguing that it shouldn't
Re:Slippery Slope! (Score:1)
CAN ANYONE SAY MALICIOUS PROSECUTION?? (Score:2)
But no, they are suing a 17 year old. Isn't it clear that they are not trying to use the lawsuit to win but as a weapon in and of itself. Isn't this illegal (with various penalties) in most civilized countries?
Slippery Slope! (Score:2)
IT IS A HONEST TO GOODNESS FACT THAT AN MP3 RESIDES AT THE END OF THE LINK.
What if the WSJ was to do a report that pointed out the locations of illegal mp3s? Surely we wouldn't consider this to be illegal so we have put the government in the dangerous position of deciding what information can have a "legal" use and what information is only "illegal"
The bomb making parrelel is wonderful. A book that tells how to make bombs *should* be legal but it is giving information that can only be used for illegal purposes. Now the government has to decide when chemical eductation ends and illegal material starts. What about anarchistic manefestos? Marx? In fact the slipery slope continues until we are prohibeted from displaying material which challenges the current political framework because the necessery consequence of acting on such information is to do things which are currently illegal.
Also this is NOT equivalent to driving the getaway car. This kid is not accused with standing over their shoulder helping type in the URL he merely provided information.
Is warez.com a problem? No, for their is no underlying philosophical reason that someone shuold control all of their productions. In fact in a better world we would not have copyright laws. Copyright laws were adopted entierly pragmatically in order to make sure that new works were continued to be published. Is warz.com stoping microsofts next release? NO! As such it really isn't a problem. Besides even if it was the solution may be worse than the problem
Two kinds of freedom? (Score:5)
Many european countries have much less puritanical cultures than the united states hence as a matter of fact they end up allowing many more things than the united states. For instance various sorts of drug use, nudity etc..
However, the united states, despite outlawing many things has much greater protections in the system for those who are extremyl at odds with society than many european countries. Sure, the culture may be much more lax there but if you fall outside (preech hate speech in germany, engage in sadomasochistic homosexual play in england etc..) the line or the will of the country changes in its attitude towards freedom you are much more at risk.
While I would much prefer to live in a liberal culture I must argue that the american system is better *as a political system* not necesserily in the niceness of living there. Sure in the short term freedom is nice b/c it lets you do things but this is not the real point of allowing personal liberties.
Free speech stops the flow of ideas in the society from stagnating due to conformity. It keeps society alive by presenting disenting opionions (hence freedoms which let you digress from the mainstream are much more important than freedoms that let you do things). Secondly freedoms serve their main political purpose when the government/society starts to turn bad. Hence the insulation of freedoms from the will of the majority is also an important system.
It is sort of a free beer/free speech issue. One kind of freedom gives you nice things to do and makes you happy. The other protects you against a rainy day and is better for philosophical reasons.
Start your own country and expect freedom? (Score:2)
Would you have everything you need to be self sufficient or will you be depending on world trade? Will all your members be judged non-threatening to countries such as the USA? What happens when you decide to create a little military defense or a few members trade weapons as a hobby, such as a certain group did in Waco, TX [salon.com]? Sooner or later, your group is going to get the attention of a restless NSA and CIA and every other three letter acronym of every major capitolistic and communistic country out there. Your little country will get noticed and be subject to much debate, much of it in the "free press."
Can there ever be such a thing as freedom or world peace?
Doesn't Australia already have something like this (Score:1)
Hmmmm....
19 clicks across (Score:1)
I guess it is time to use gopher again.
*wink*
Re:Better yet (Score:1)
Whoever came up with the idea of building Iridium didn't seem to think it all through too well. The sat-to-sat routing is neat though, I'll give them that.
Re:Linking to 'bad' things (Score:2)
Wouldn't that mean that I could face jail time if I told people which countries legalized (or at least don't prosecute for use/possession of) certain drugs? This could be good, OTOH, because at least we'd be rid of some lawyers
Depending on where you're at, you can post 'illegal' mp3s, because they're not illegal everywhere.
Re:Slippery Slope! (Score:1)
If that is illegal then so is a link to a link to a link. You want that?
Jezus, the files don't go through is machine, do not exist on his hard-drive...Like someone said, what if he just provided the URL in a non-linking format? It's information, and either it's free or not. Sure, the mp3s MAY BE illegal, so go after the guy serving them. Not the rest of the internet. You typed warez.com, that's a link! They have mp3z and you are gettin sued!
Gimme that Come on crap!
-kabloie
Bad Karma? (Score:3)
People don't get the point of this lawsuit. Pages that offer free downloads are supported by advertising and partnerships with other sites. If someone links directly to the download, it completely bypasses the site's only mechanism of revenue. What this lawsuit is arguing is that MP3 and GIF are essentially no different.
This seem's counter-intuitive, but it's a good point. If a person used the Slashdot logo on their page and they linked directly to the GIF residing on Slashdot's servers, do you think Rob would be very happy? Maybe that would be cool with him, but I doubt it. This is essentially what is happening with a direct link to MP3. The host is being bogged down by extra traffic from people who don't even know where they are. This is the real issue here. Does that justify lawsuits against 17 year old hobbyists? Make your own mind on that, I've already put my Karma in enough risk.
PS - The stuff about this opening Slashdot to suits of the same kind is sheer nonsense. It's not about links, it's about fake content.
LoaderSlippery but not unexpected? (Score:1)
Copyright is a serious issue and there are many people who make their lives from producing copyrightable material, be it software, music, prose or whatever.
Linking to other sites is the lifeblood of the web, without it the usefulness of the things disappears, but you while you cannot always control what's on the other end of the link, you can decide whether to link to it.
As a webmaster, linking to another's site is endorsing that site, whether you provide a disclaimer or not. By linking to another site you are promoting it and, implicitly or otherwise, telling your readers that that site is worthwhile.
Therefore, by linking to a site which you know to be illegal you are opening yourself up to charges (criminal or moral) of aiding and abetting.
Re:scary, yet silly (Score:4)
The difference is that a printed bibliography does not give you access to the material (of course, this is one of the benefits of an electronic bibliography). As an example, suppose "Huckleberry Finn" (or "Origin of Species") is outlawed in your state. Including "Huckleberry Finn" in your bibliography is fine, but including contact information for the underground library is another matter.
But this brings up an interesting thought. If it's illegal to include a hyperlink to (hypothetically) http://joes_music.com/like_a_virgin.mp3, then can you get around this problem by printing the URL as plain text?
Christopher A. Bohn
Seriously! (Score:1)
Whether a person hosts the MP3s himself (or herself), or links to another person's MP3s (which I believe is EVEN worse -- for small, small kinds only...), it's essentially the same. (Note that I'm talking about a direct link here.) Does people care where the URL points to? Do they download _less_ MP3s if they see that the URL is absolute and not relative? Pretty unlikely, don't you think?
So, to sum it up: If you first think having (and spreading) illegal copies of music (aka piracy), linking (directly) to it is just as bad. Perhaps not juridically (I'm no lawyer), but at least (IMHO) morally.
Whether copying music you don't already have (e.g. on CD) (optionally helping others to do the same) is `bad' or `good', is another debate, of course.
/* Steinar */
Re:Oh come on!!! (Score:1)
1. Have the artists chosen those record companies themselves?
2. Do they get money (if even a fraction) for every CD sold?
I sincerely hope you're answering yes to both. If they'd want their music to be free-for-all, they would have published it themselves. (Yes, the record contract probably prohibits that, but they didn't _need_ to sign one, did they?)
Again, I didn't mean the last post as an MP3 debate (this one probably is). It was just to point out that _linking_ to an MP3 was no `better' than publishing one yourself.
/* Steinar */
Re:Seriously! (Score:1)
And correct, you have to draw a line somewhere. And I don't know exactly where that line should go. But I'd say drawing the line at a link is too far away.
/* Steinar */
Re:Seriously! (Score:1)
I think providing a _direct link_ to an MP3 is just as bad as uploading it. Give me one good reason why it shouldn't? After all, _exactly the same_ will happen, except that the poor guy who originally uploaded the MP3 will have less bandwidth for his own `customers'.
(Again, I'm pointing out that I talk about linking to the _MP3_ file, not any HTTP/FTP url.)
/* Steinar */
Hmmmmm. (Score:1)
Any ideas?
/* Steinar */
Re:what about links to links? (Score:1)
OK....
Although soem of the URLs say "search", I didn't do any searching, just clicked on links.
And I have now just proved how easy I can get to male pr0n on-line -- oh, no, what have I done?!
Similar to Dutch ruling on hyperlinks (Score:2)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/verd2eng.html
For instance, it says:
DECLARES it to be the law that by having a link on their computer
systems which when activated brings about a reproduction of the
works that CST has the copyright to on the screen of the user,
without the consent of the plaintiffs, the Service Providers are
acting unlawfully if and insofar that they have been notified of
this, and moreover the correctness of the notification of this fact
cannot be reasonably doubted, and the Service Providers have then
not proceeded to remove this link from their computer system at the
earliest opportunity;
The good news is, Scientology itself appealed the ruling
Re:Good to hear. (Score:1)
I do not thinks it is a good thing to give people free access to copyrighted things like music. On the other hand I think record companies aearning to much money from records they are selling. Just for asking to much money for the records they bring out.
It has been said before, record companies should start thinking of a future where they are not able to count abnout the money they would earn. Just like a normal democracy!
Re:Perspectives (Score:1)
Hm - do you mean American or U.S.? America is still a bit bigger than the U.S., last I checked...
As for U.S. freedom: Sure, the problem is just that the freedom seems to stop rather abruptly as as soon as somebody else manages to get one of these weird U.S. patents and thinks you're infringing on it or when you do anthing related to cryptography and try to export it. Yup, looks like freedom... >:->
Not to mention all those funny state laws that go round the Internet to amuse the rest of the world - wasn't there even a state(district/whatever) where it's illegal to have sex before marriage or suchlike? Very free indeed...
Take it with a pinch of salt, though. I'm actually convinced that overall the U.S.A. aren't any more or less free than any other working democracy on this planet. I just get the impression that different countries seem to have very different notions of freedom - and I doubt that it's possible to judge one to be better than the other.
HAND.
Argathin
Translation (Score:5)
A Swedish teenager has to go to court because his website contains links to copyright-protected music. The Swedish recording industry is trying to create a precedent with this suit.
Stockholm - The 17-year old Swede Tommy Olsson is being accused of providing copyright-protected music for free download on his webpage. The suit has been brought by the Swedish branch of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) consisting of 53 record companies. Olssons webpage contained links to the music files. His attorney Per Olof Almer argued that Olsson didn't create, copy or transfer the files himself. "He only spread the information on where to find them".
This is the first case of its kind in Europe said the attorney for the recording industry, Magnus Maartenson. The Swedish IFPI has moved against approximately 1000 websites for copyright violations in the last two years. Tommy Olsson though is the first person who has to appear in court because of his website. The music industry quite obviously is trying to create a legal precedent with this case: "It's not about the whole recording industry pushing on one 17-year old" emphasized Maartensson.
Olsson made only a few hundred dollars from advertisements on his webpage said Maartensson. If found guilty, he will have to pay a fine of 150 to 250 Dollars. This amount will not be enough to deter others said Maartensson. "But if he is found guilty, we can sue him for damages and that will be a much bigger amount." The sentence is expected for next Wednesday.
Will "Der Spiegel" now sue me for copyright infringement ? Things are getting crazy on the web
This wouldn't happen in America. (Score:1)
In the United States, you cannot be sued for linking to illegal material. Remember the suit a photographer whose images were linked to from IMDB brought? It was thrown out of court...
Re:This wouldn't happen in America. (Score:1)
It's illogical Jim (Score:2)
In order for an end user to read a site of mine, their system must establish a link to my system and then data is transfered directly from me to them. If I have a link on the page they've just 'downloaded' that points to an MP3 somewhere, and
that user follows that link, then their system connects directly to the new destination. They don't go via my system to get there, and the MP3 doesn't travel via my system to on route back to them. Once the end user has a copy of my page on their system I'm cut out of the loop completely.
A URL is no more than a sign post, something that provides the browser with a route to a destination. How on earth can anyone be sued for that? It's obviously the work of some semi technically literate lawyer who thinks he's onto a nice little earner.
Macka
Been there...almost (Score:5)
I was one of (if not the) first person to have a web page at Ohio University. My page was up before the guy who setup our first web server had his up. So to try and show what was possible I created a site (on OU's first linux box) to host local area artists. I had a few of my photos, a few of my bosses paintings, and a link to a CS student's "body art" page.
On his body art page he had photos of his..."Prince Albert" go look it up if you don't know, all I'll say is ouch! So my homepage linked to my art site which in turn linked to the "Body art" page which linked to its creators photos of his own personal body art.
Well finally my college within the university (Visual Communications) gets with the program and creates their own website including a list of links to student created pages. (A bunch done for a "web design" class that taught to create large imagemaps in photoshop and called them webpages, and a few independly created pages). I asked for months to get listed on the indepent student pages.
Finally after nearly a year I got an answer why. Apparantly the head of VisCom and visited my site and declared that it contained pornography. Amazed I scheduled an appointment with him to find out where he found porn on my site!
He then explained how he found the photos of the "Prince Albert". Needless to say I was amazed. After nearly two hours of arguing he finally agreed to link to my site only because the linux box that hosted the art site was being taken down because the CS department coulden't find anyone in their college to take over as sysadmin once the original sysadmin graduated and went to work for a local ISP.
Ain't college great?
Re:Two kinds of freedom? (Score:1)
Every time I read about the limits of free speech in England or the limits of free religion in Germany (despite the evilness [xenu.net] of the Church of Scientology), it makes me realize why I put up with the Religious Right in this country. I know that even with their current power, it'll take a LOT for them to topple that First Amendment, and in the long run, basic freedoms are far more important than current liberties.
I mean, sure, they're making more sense now by allowing pot (i.e. Netherlands) and whatnot.. but what about when my beliefs fall under the few things they find unacceptable?
Re:Eh? (Score:1)
Listen to yourself! "I like free speech, except when I vehemently disagree with someone," is basically what you're saying! The whole POINT of free speech is that EVERYTHING is free. If you leave even one loophole, the whole thing is useless! One moment people are only restricting Neo-Nazis, but what's the prevent people from saying what YOU say is "hateful" and restrict YOUR speech?
The thing is, the validity of ideas should be decided by the people, not the government. There are a lot of people out there with ideas I really despise, but you know what? Most people aren't like that! Their influence is limited if their ideas do not appeal.
The only danger is in their ideas appealing for the wrong reasons.. A lot of these people appeal to the insecure and so forth who can't make up their own minds well because they're confused, but that just means we should be helping these people. I think the line between what is a valid political philosophy and what is "bad" is far too blurred for the gov't to make the decision.
Re:what about links to links? (Score:1)
Re:Two kinds of freedom? (Score:1)
I'm all for the banning of 'preech hate speech in germany', in fact we have the same thing in France.
I'm sure that there are problem with the freedom in France, but right now I don't see big problems.
Of course it always hard to be objective about your country...
And I always found that in the 'land of freedom', in some state, Anal sex, masturbation and oral sex are unlawful, but any citizen have the right to buy guns... That's a kind of freedom, I don't want to see here !
I guess this bears repeating... (Score:1)
If record companies are ripping off the artists, it's OK for you to rip off the record companies (and by extension, the artists), right? If the price of a CD is more than you'd like to pay, this somehow justifies theft, right?
As long as people continue to pay the record companies in ANY form, they'll continue right on doing what they've done for decades. If you steal the music, then YOU'RE just as guilty of hurting the artists as the record companies. Just don't BUY it. This is the only way that the market will be allowed to correct this problem. What could be easier than NOT giving someone your money?
The argument why links are illegal (Score:2)
Their point is, in some small way, understandable. But the implications are more severe than I think the court will ever realize. Is it, for example, illegal for a newspaper to write about problems with drugdealers in a certain park? The paper is, implicitly, telling their readers where to go to find a drugdealer. That is in my eyes equal to a link to another site that contains mp3:s.
But, and that is quite clear, the IFPI do this not because they think their argumentats are right but because they want to scare people off. They have also sent a letter to every univeristy in Sweden, where they claim that "most illegal software and music is spread through the computers of universities." In the same letter they claim that the university is legally responsible for everything downloaded to it's computers. They are, of course, lying. But if it scares universities into checking their students actions, the IFPI has succeeded. And that scares me.
There are scattered reports in swedish newspapers that the 17-year old did not only have links, but that he had actual files as well, and that those files are the main reason for the IFPI:s actions. I'm not sure if those reports are correct.
On an amusing sidenote, one of the Swedish tabloids described the case with a mild misunderstanding: "The 17-year old is charged for having files in the illegal MP3-format on his homepage." Not only was the music copyrighted, it was in an illegal format as well... :-)
Re:Perspectives (Score:1)
This isn't something you heard in the sound bite.
Dumb (Score:1)
Check your country laws for details.
You are simply not be allowed to transmit.
In btw in some countries even receiveing equipment is subject to licencing...
Re:what about links to links? (Score:1)
Re:Guns vs Cars (Score:1)
theres not many good reasons to drive a car in the city, most people are just too selfish to give up their car. 'Busses are bad, because you have to sit with poor people, who can't afford cars.'
I represent One less car.
Re: Hey moron (Score:1)
Kids in Denmark is being sued too! (Score:1)
2 of the three boys has got "free process" (I don't know what it is called in US, but I hope you know what I mean), because there don't excist any law on this area.
KODA (IFPI in Denmark) writes on their homepage that if you're linking to pages with illegal "stuff", then you're responsible too (maybe not directly for the files, allthough they would like that, but you have some sort of resposibility!).
IMHO it is going to be hard to get them convicted, because, when you link to a site, you can't know if/when that site change what it contains.
Fortunately, law-experts in Denmark has the same opinion...
Re:Good to hear. (Score:1)
--Hunter Pankey
Perspectives (Score:2)
I think that taking the position that this "tea rodent" is being maliciously prosecuted, or that the case is unfair is the wrong thing to do. I think that we should speak out more on the injustice and lack of freedom of other countries when compared to ours. While we continue to see our freedoms erode somewhat, they are still a veritable smorgasbord when compared to other countries. What's happening to this kid is a damn shame...and we ought to be angry about the situation in general...not just this particular case.
=h=
search engines (Score:1)
Re:Anyone can sue for anything, for filing costs (Score:1)
I'm not disagreeing with you, however: I think that what the plaintiffs will argue is that this shouldn't be afforded the same legal status as a simple citation. Without having read the text of the lawsuit, or actually seeing the page in question, I can pretty easily think up an almost convincing argument. It might read something like this:
Kinda scary. I can almost convince myself with an argument like that.
Re:scary, yet silly (Score:1)
I'd have to say no.
The reason I don't think the argument would hold up is that no prosecutor would argue that this was a matter of citation: it's transmission of stolen goods. In the eyes of the law, this may be tantamount to telling all your friends about a good place to buy stolen merchandise. By doing so, you become a part of the distribution channel, and suddenly you're staring at an "aiding and abetting" charge.
I'm kinda repeating myself, though. I argued this better here. [slashdot.org]
Linking to 'bad' things (Score:5)
Seriously, what are the limits? If I create a Geocities site and put some "illegal" content on there, and link to it from my site, I think most people would realize that it's part of the same logical site. But what if I link to a site run by someone else?
Remember that in most countries it's illegal to give someone help in breaking the law. If I link to a site where someone can break the law, isn't that the same as helping them break the law?
The real issue here is that the courts don't understand the technology, and as such will make stupid rulings.
contributory infringement (Score:3)
Contributory infringement is most often applied to, say, publishers who reprint a copyrighted work submitted by a third party with no rights to that work. But I believe that it has also been applied to people who knowingly provided resources (e.g. a postage meter, a CD burner or a Xerox machine) for the purpose of large-scale copyright infringement, even though they never actively took part in the copying.
Depending on the context of the original web site, there may be a strong argument to make that the teenager in this case was a contributory infringer. For example, if the links on his web site said "Here are good places to get free MP3s of the latest N'Sync tunes!" then it's pretty clear that he was directing people to the MP3s with the expectation that they would download the pirated material, i.e. he's deliberately helping the copying happen. But say that his site was a technical exposition of the MP3 standard, with links to technical specs, ripping libraries, compression algorithms, and also happened to include links to sites which happened to include some illegally-ripped songs. In such a case it's much harder to demonstrate infringement.
Last point: I do not much agree with traditional intellectual property theory and do not in general care for the notion of copyright. Within that framework, however, this does not seem like a really outrageous case.
Re:Better yet (Score:2)
I have a solution... (Score:3)
Homer -"I call President!"
Mr. Burns -"Vice President!"
Smithers -"Aww crap..."
Another news report - In English (Score:5)
Re:what about links to links? (Score:2)
The average means this: given any two pages at random, they will be ON AVERAGE 19 links away. That means that sometimes they will be one link away, and sometimes they will be hundreds of links away, but on average, they will be 19 links away.
Sheesh.
Anyone can sue for anything, for filing costs (Score:4)
The best remedy to this type of harassment suit has been debated for years, and (IIRC) the current suggestions are:
With an affirmative defense, the suit is dismissed immediately once the defendent objects and claims this defense. You don't like the fact that my personal car is red instead of blue? You even filed a suit against me, claiming it's against the neighborhood covenents? Tough, that's not something the courts will enforce. (They might enforce restrictions on *where* I park the car, especially if it's a business vehicle, but not the details of any personal vehicle.)
This idea isn't without controvery. What happens to a homeowner who files suit over a legitimate grievance, but who simply can't afford to push the case against a multi-million dollar company?
In this case, I am 100% certain that the suit will be quietly dropped within a short time because there is no fscking way they could win. (Their worst nightmare is actually *winning* the case and facing the backlash of their affluent, young market.) However they will consider it a victory since it will put a bit of doubt into the back of the minds of other people who may want to put up links or content.
One thing to note. (Score:2)
As fucked up as this may be, the Swedish legal system is a lot more sane than the american one. We have professional juries, and even if found guilty they are unlikely ask for anything like "punitive damages" or cede to the ridiculous cost estimates of American counterparts.
Hell, most of the time we don't even lock up our violent criminals...
-
Bullshit (Score:4)
Either you don't live here or you are blind. Bar the far east, Sweden has one of the most collective value systems in the world. There has never been individual freedom here, which is why we thrived for a while (50s-60s-70s) and then went right to the shitter today. Same reason places like SIngapore can thrive now, but are heading straight for the shitter tomorrow.
Say what you want about the American regime, but until now America has had better individual freedom then we do - by a long run. American kids may be forced to say the pledge of allegance in the morning, but that is nothing compared to silent indoctrination into the social (-ist) system that goes on from the the very start here.
Since my childhood was split evenly between the two countries, for once I do know what I am talking about.
-
Re:Why is this so hard to believe? (Score:2)
In other words it is like me lending my McLaren F1 (not like I have one though) to my friend, and getting sued because I *knew* my friend would drive 100mph over the speed limit.
I hope I didn't purposely commit any 3rd degree misdemeanors.
There are no laws that say you cannot provide bibliographic links (or any directions) to information that would break the law. If there was, we would be pretty much living in a police state.
Furthermore, they could of just went and sued the owner of the site where the mp3s are. They didn't. They wanted a monkey act. Now they get bad publicity.
scary, yet silly (Score:3)
I can understand the issues with embedding someone else content in your own frames, or using someone else artwork (gif, mov, etc.)
But just suing for just giving a pointer to it, that doesn't seem realistic. I wonder how what's their rationale.
Ticketmaster vs Tickets.com (Score:2)
Does anybody else remember this? There was a site that posted a photograph on the net, breaking the owner's copyright. The owner sued, not only the person who posted the picture, but the sites that linked to the picture, and to the sites that linked to the sites that linked to the picture.
The suit on the sites that linked to the copyright violater was eventually dropped, but not after making enough noise to scare the bejesus out of several website owners.
There's are more lawsuits happening over people linking to other sites. Right now, Ticketmaster is fighting tickets.com in court. If you want a ticket, go to tickets.com and in many cases tickets.com will link you to the ticketmaster webpage. Ticketmaster is suing because tickets.com is making it's business off the Ticketmaster web page.
I do NOT see any difference between linking to a site or publishing the URL for a web page to specifically buy tickets. Moreover, you can't be held liable for merely linking to a site that provides illegal content. But my guess is, the courts will see it differently. Especially with the Ticketmaster lawsuit.
It's the end of the World Wide Web as we know it, and I'm going to puke.
Loser pays in Sweden (Score:2)
I actually like the US jury system better than being judged by third rate politicians as in Sweden.
OK, so this is off topic. Sue me...
Link to vs Download from (Score:2)
1) A non-active textual link vs hypertext link.
2) A link to a page containing illegal material.
3) A link only usable for viewing copyrighted content.
4) A link that starts an illegal content download.
In case 4) you could argue somewhat persuasively that the web author has knowingly created an object whose normal and expected use causes the law to be broken.
I also have to wonder if a company profiting from advertisement on a site with links to illegal content is liable.
The trouble with this is that to obey the law you need a lot of knowledge of a rather difficult and murky field, online copyright law. This is heading towards a world where it will be impossible to publish on the web without a lawyer and a staff of people to do ongoing research on the legality of all links (as they change.)
We will probably spend the next twenty years and who knows how much money defining copyright law for the web in the courts, and then even more money enforcing that law. Worse, the only real benefit will be to the distribution channels, not the content artists or end users.
methamphetamine anti-prolif. act? (Score:3)
or could there be another motive in this, such as setting an example for people, since *many* more people link tp mp3s than produce them, and maybe that would reduce mp3 usage even more?
Re:I have a solution... (Score:2)
I can see the evening news now...
"The proposed legislation is stalled in committee after being moderated down, some say unfairly. Fert Berfner, head of the powerful right-wing ultra-conservative Fairness in Meta Moderation PAC, has said his organization is considering becoming involved. 'We need to hit the bastards where it hurts - in their Karma fields!'"
Bite My Ziff, Davis!
======
"Cyberspace scared me so bad I downloaded in my pants." --- Buddy Jellison
what about links to links? (Score:3)
I am sorry but as we would all agree, this is a lame lawsuit.
I suppose my opinion will not be popular (Score:2)
How many times have you seen sites where they say "Oh, the files are not here on my servers. I only link to them." Like Lycos [lycos.com] and MusicSeek [musicseek.net] say that they don't have the files there, that they only link to them after you search. You know what? I don't have to leave those sites to download files which are copyrighted, I put in my keyword and search. As far as the user is concerned, the files are downloaded right from those sites. This whole "I'm only linking" bull is no excuse, if you link to the file deliberately or help someone obtain illegal product you are in the wrong and you are an accomplice to the distribution of "stolen" material.
IMHO it's like giving someone the name and address of a fence and letting them use my phone to make the deal and my garage for the purchase. Would the cops give a rats rectum if I was not the one who stole the product? Heeeeeeell know. To me, this is the same type of situation. This kid (and don't get me wrong, I do pity the dude, just not much) was knowingly directing visitors to copyrighted files.
Now, if I link to a site that then links to a site for downloading an illegal file, sure, there is no reason to sue. But none of the sites which my sites link to direct the user to anything illegal, and I check that sort of thing. If a webmaster wants to, hell, be my guest. But if you link to illegal shit and you do it on purpose, and someone sues, busts, or otherwise comes after your butt, you bring the karma on yourself.
Anyhow, rant rant rant, I'll shut up and drink my beer.
Search engines? (Score:5)
If it's restricted to obvious, conscious intent (like specifically describing the content. Were one to link to a free hosted page, ala Geocities, and then that page lapsed and the address got re-used for somebody brazenly and stupidly distributing "w4r3z"... that doesn't seem like it should be prosecuted as long as ignorance is plausible.
Since the person in question was specifically and knowingly pointing to pirated content, however, that's more like a go-between faciltating a transaction between a junkie and a dealer. He might not touch the drugs himself, ever, nor necessarily the money, but he's certainly a willing accomplice, and part of the racket; and I'm pretty sure most places would bust 'im.
It's me next (Score:2)
oh no, i guess i'll be getting sued next; i have some friends who have mp3s and i think i have their phone numbers written down somewhere!
jesus.
Re:Scary stuff (Score:2)
I think the legal accountability starts when:
a) you recognize that the site you are linking to contains illegal material, and...
b) you intentionally link to it anyways.
Here's a more down-to-earth example: suppose my neighbor has a big ol' house with a beautiful garden. He also happens to be the neighborhood fence.
If I don't know that, and I tell my friends that they should really visit his place to check out his lovely petunias, I've done nothing wrong. However, if I do know the score, and I tell people that I can hook them up with a great deal on a linux laptop (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)... there's a pretty good case for aiding and abetting.
du röstar säkert på m (Score:2)
This is just a political thing for you, and doesnt have to do anything with this lawsuit because youre pissed at the path politics is taking here.
The kid will most likely have better chances here than he would have in the US because were not so money-oriented.
*Anyone* can get sued for *anything* . . . (Score:2)
So the fact that this suit has been filed means nothing at all. The question is what happens to the suit. AFAIK, no one's been successful with this kind of theory yet, but that doesn't mean they never will.
Re:Anyone can sue for anything, for filing costs (Score:2)
I'd have to agree, a lot of companies use this as a scare tactic. In the internet world, where total control isn't possible, this method can be the next best thing.
Scary stuff (Score:2)