Warner Sues Search Engine, Tests DMCA Safe Harbor 113
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Warner Bros. Records is suing SeeqPod, the music search engine, in an attempt to test the limits of the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions with a theory of contributory, vicarious and inducement liability. While other services like Last.fm have cut deals with the labels, SeeqPod relied on the DMCA Safe Harbor alone to protect it. According to the complaint [PDF] SeeqPod 'deliberately refrains' from adding simple yet ineffective content filters to screen out copyright infringing materials, presumably by not buying those filters from label-affiliated companies. Of course, this lawsuit is merely part of a recent trend seeking to move the responsibility for policing copyrights away from the copyright holders and on to third parties."
Re:Why do they even have this much power? (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple yet . . . ineffective? (Score:1, Insightful)
Should read simple/effective, as in something they would encourage a company to use.
Versus simple/ineffective, which would mean something that is easily implemented and yet somehow manages to still do nothing.
New legal justification for open downloads (Score:2, Insightful)
It does not matter what the source is or what format we have it in. We are purchasing a license to listen at our leisure to a song or watch a movie. We can have a thousand copies because we can only listen to one at a time. Somebody needs to argue this in court. That we are in fact purchasing a license to listen, not a piece of plastic or a digital file of zero's and ones.
This is the New legal justification for open downloads of music or copy righted material:
In fact the record labels need to, I think legally provide, free downloads of music. The record companies have not provided a way for me to enjoy my license to listen if the CD gets scratched, as it is now they force us to buy a new license they should probably reimburse anyone who has had to buy more than one license because of damage media. I noticed about 10 years ago CDs became very easy to scratch not the bottom but the top.
Because the carrier medium can be damaged we should all be able to get a download of a new instance of the song we paid for from the Internet if we purchased the license to listen to it. Since the record companies have not provided a way for us to get a replacement copy the Internet downloads can ethically be justified.
Truth is we don't need the record companies anymore. We can all buy from the artists direct and vote with a link what is most popular. I would be happy to pay the creative talent directly without the huge middle man cut. Another things is corporate pressure to maintain the status quo system cannot be put on artists by large corporations.
Hopefully someone will get this into the hands of the attorneys for the defendants.
Technically based on quantum physics there is only one copy of a piece of music in the universe. This exists in the intangible realm; all tangible manifestations of this one copy are simply a physical conveyance of this one real instance. It is an information universe, everything is ultimately just information.
One less movie and one less CD sold to me! (Score:5, Insightful)
While we have seen lots of nay-sayers, the fact is that voting with your feet works, and the record companies are hurting because of it.
If we customers keep telling them "we don't want this kind of garbage, and our purchases will reflect our stance", they will listen. They have to listen. The reason they are hurting so badly right now is because they did not listen, and they are finally beginning to realize that.
Re:Why do they even have this much power? (Score:3, Insightful)
On what grounds would you refuse them this power? Surely they should have the right to pursue litigation if they feel they, or their property, is being abused. Whether or not that's intellectual or actual property, though I do agree that they should be treated differently.
'Refusing them this power' IS treating them differently. We are in apparent agreement.
BTW, the basic idea is to add this string to a google query:
search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=intitle%3Aindex.of+%22mp3%22+%2B%22YOURSONGHERE%22+-htm+-html+-php+-asp+%22Last+Modified%22&btnG=Search
Re:Reality check (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why do they even have this much power? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope,we have no love for the movie and music industries and it's simply hilarious to watch them thrash and grasp at clumps of grass as they sink deeper into their graves.
If by "hilarious" you mean "despairing at our loss of privacy and civil rights due to the perceived need to prop up an outdated, but well-heeled, distribution system" then, yeah. Hi-fraking-larious.
Re:Why do they even have this much power? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's because these sites are making money. Why go after the little guy when the key accomplice so conveniently sets up a company that is much easier to find?
The fact they refuse to filter is the whole point! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd be really surprised if the MAFIAA wins this, because the suit essentially says "damnit! stop qualifying for these safe harbors! we want you to deliberately gain knowledge of and act upon whats crossing your servers"
At the same time, I also see them winning this on the utter incompetence of judges who spent their lifetime studying law, and pay geeks to come in when they need an instant messenger installed.
OH, did I mention the current agenda of these disgusting companies is people's republic of china style destruction of the internet?