Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Media Your Rights Online

Warner Sues Search Engine, Tests DMCA Safe Harbor 113

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the lawyers-in-a-quick-draw-holster dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Warner Sues Search Engine, Tests DMCA Safe Harbor

Comments Filter:
  • by pembo13 (770295) on Friday January 25, 2008 @09:15PM (#22189324) Homepage
    Why does Warner yield this apparently massive amount of power in the first place?
    • It's called America.
    • by nurb432 (527695) on Friday January 25, 2008 @09:17PM (#22189334) Homepage Journal

      Why does Warner yield this apparently massive amount of power in the first place?
      Because they have so much money.
    • by ricebowl (999467) on Friday January 25, 2008 @09:27PM (#22189396)

      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.

      Just because Warner is suing Seeqpod doesn't mean that they have any over-arching power to do as they will, regardless of the majority/vocal opinion around the internet; but, and bear in mind I'm not American, so I could easily have this ass-backwards, if this goes to court then either the DMCA Safe Harbour will be found, in some way, inappropriate or the case will enforce the perceived strength of the Safe Harbour provision.

      While I'd hope for the former (and coming from the UK I'm envious of the American Fair Use doctrine) I'd accept the risk of the latter, despite the obviously-limited effect that'd have on me. Surely to deny someone, corporation or individual, the right to pursue judicial support would be, if not unconstitutional, but unethical.

      Yes, I know the patent trolls and various labels and companies have abused that right, but that right should be protected in order that everyone else can be safe in the knowledge that they can go to the courts for help and restitution. Denying one makes it easier to deny the second. Slippery-slopes and all that...

      Despite all of that I do believe that Warners are acting like fools pursuing this, but that's their right.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by OECD (639690)

        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%

      • by dpastern (1077461)
        Maybe because the DMCA is an ACTUAL abuse of power, granted by a corrupt government, to keep the rich and the powerful happy? Let's return to the way things were:

        1. Remove the DMCA
        2. Remove software patents
        3. Reduce copyright terms to a maximum of 50 years, no more.

        Modern business and the modern US government have overstepped the boundaries put in place by the copyright act as deemed by the founding fathers of the US. Public domain no longer exists, and this was NOT the intention.

        I still say that total
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by flyneye (84093)
      Warner has this kind of power because they are a multi-national communications company.
      They're prolly bigger than Microsoft if you put all the subsidiaries together and counted the till.
      Unfortunatly for them they specialize in movies and music,two "commodities" whose business model is falling apart due to the evolution and wising up of the human race.We no longer wish to pay to hear the same old stories rehashed ineptly on the same old template.We also no longer wish to pay for music that we are "told" is t
      • by mcpkaaos (449561)
        I've often thought of becoming a golf club...
      • by OECD (639690) on Friday January 25, 2008 @10:45PM (#22189804) Journal

        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.

        • by flyneye (84093)
          Well,quit wallowing in despair and fight back.Spread the word.Take every opportunity to make war on the industries.F**k em up!Take back privacy and rights by killing the adversary.
            yes,HILARIOUS,perhaps shadden freude.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by CSMatt (1175471)
        People may no longer wish to pay for that stuff, but that doesn't mean that the world has suddenly ceased to be inhabited by sheep who will still consume it.
        • by flyneye (84093)
          Yes,but,it's the way it is and thats no survivable business model.
          Tear down the WALLS!

      • What will rifftrax [rifftrax.com] have to riff on if they die completely?!

        surely they must survive in some irrelevant form for us to mercilessly lampoon?!
        • by flyneye (84093)
          No one is going to stop making movies or music.It just won't be the same asshats doing it.Now there is a level playing field for Artists and craftsmen and its evolving in great leaps.Without the old industry in the way,new smaller distribution systems will prevail.Lampooning may continue unabated.

    • Thankyou warner music I had not idea that a service like this existed.

      Thanks to the law suit I now have a music search engine I will share with others.

      ~Dan
    • The word you're looking for is 'wield'.
    • If America has shown us anything, it's that we can legally sue anyone we please, for any reason, either real or imaginary. WINNING based on legal merit is a whole other story.
  • by garcia (6573) on Friday January 25, 2008 @09:18PM (#22189340) Homepage
    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.

    No, this lawsuit is just testing the waters to see if they can overturn pieces of the DMCA that do not work in their favor. If they can turn this provision over then they can fuck Google over too and tap into that endless revenue stream for allowing services like g2p [g2p.org] to exist out there.

    If anything, they should be using these sites to take down the offenders' pages and not the sites themselves.
    • g2p?
      My work filter flags it as a social engineering site and denies access...
      never heard of it before.
      -nB
      • by garcia (6573)
        It uses Google searches (mostly for MegaUpload) to find albums, songs, etc available over the web.
      • by Rudolf (43885) on Saturday January 26, 2008 @01:15AM (#22190612)
        g2p?
        My work filter flags it as a social engineering site and denies access...
        never heard of it before.


        Never heard of it, either.

        Here's what it says:

        What does G2P do?
        -G2P (Google to Person) uses some crafty Google searches to help locate open directories or otherwise shared files. These searches are nothing secret (In fact, take a look at the results, so you can see how it is done. However, it is much easier to remember g2p.org than these complex searches. Really I put this site together to make it easier on me, and then shared it with you.

        Why use G2P instead of P2P or BT?
        -P2P/BT is being monitored -- Using Google we can download a lot more safely. We are simply just following a link -- curious how it leads directly to the file we are looking for. =)
    • by jc42 (318812) on Friday January 25, 2008 @09:35PM (#22189464) Homepage Journal
      If anything, they should be using these sites to take down the offenders' pages and not the sites themselves.

      Y'know, I've often wondered why people haven't been pointing that out. It would seem that for a copyright holder suing the person that points them to an infringer would be just a case of "shooting themselves in the foot". Why wouldn't they want someone to collect pointers to their copyrighted material, and make it easy to go after the infringer?

      Maybe Warner is secretly in favor of copyright infringement, and it trying to shut down the search sites so that infringement can continue untracked. If so, there's some interesting economics going on here.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Y'know, I've often wondered why people haven't been pointing that out.

        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?

        • by mixmatch (957776)
          Isn't this the exact same as going after sites that host torrents rather than the servers hosting trackers?
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by OECD (639690)

            Isn't this the exact same as going after sites that host torrents rather than the servers hosting trackers?

            Rare to be able to say this on /., but yes, it's the exact same thing.

            Coincidence?

      • Why wouldn't they want someone to collect pointers to their copyrighted material, and make it easy to go after the infringer?

        Because a distribution site/point can close down and move to a new place, new name, new page layout and start up again. If they register with the search engines, they're just as visible as they were before the move. The fact that the site has to change address means that they would lose contact with their audience if it wasn't for the search engines.

        This has created the current

        • by repvik (96666)
          Heh, your logic is flawed. Kill the hub, and two new ones show up easily found on google. Go after content hosts, and you catch the "criminals".
    • by Half-pint HAL (718102) on Friday January 25, 2008 @10:52PM (#22189830)

      No, this lawsuit is just testing the waters to see if they can overturn pieces of the DMCA that do not work in their favor.

      No, they're seeking to either (A) Overturn bits of the DMCA that are over-broad or (B) challenge over-interpretations of the DCMA. I do not know the DCMA very well. IANAL. IANfromtheUSA.

      BUT

      To understand Safe Harbor and its intentions, consider the paper publishing industry. If I write a defamatory newspaper article, who can be sued for it? I can -- I wrote it; the editor probably can too -- he gave it the green light and so effectively put his name against it; but the publishing company is the most likely target. They approved it, they make money based on sales, they're ultimately responsible -- and they have the money to pay the settlement, while neither me nor my editor is likely to be good for the cash.

      Who is not sued? The printer. The printer is paid by the page. If it doesn't sell, he doesn't lose out. He has no control or interest in the content of his work -- he is content neutral.

      The first rightful beneficiary of Safe Harbor legislation is Bob's Server Shack. Your average host is content neutral and has no editorial control over your site. You pay a flat fee to him directly -- Bob has no real stake in the "saleability" of your site. Bob is the same as the printer.

      I don't think Safe Harbor should apply to YouTube, for example. YouTube does not receive a flat fee from the content producers, instead making its money on click-through ads. This means that YouTube's profit is intrinsically linked to the popularity of its content (and, incidentally, the most popular material often infringes copyright). To my mind, this makes YouTube a publisher, not a printer, hence a valid target for law suits. They have chosen not to employ editors. Would a newspaper company be able to publish an edition without an editor and disavow all responsibility for the content? I think not! Why should YouTube get different treatment?

      Search starts to get a bit tricky though, but I think we should apply the same content neutrality argument. Most major search engines are largely content neutral. OK, PageRank may have some bias in it, but most potential hits translate to actual hits. You can search for anything you want, and Google/Yahoo/Ask/Altavista will return it. These sites don't exist purely to find illegal material.

      SeeqPod is different. SeeqPod is a music search engine, and the only music people search for is illegal stuff. Sure, you may be able to search for legal stuff, but who would bother? Legal MP3s just aren't redistributed much -- if you want them, you go to the band's homepage and download them, and you don't need a music search engine for that.

      In my opinion, if the Safe Harbor defence works, then the Safe Harbor law needs to be rewritten.

      HAL.

      • by repvik (96666)
        You're doing the same mistake as the RIAA is doing. You are assuming that people are criminal by default, and you blame the tools instead of the user.
        A hammer *can* be used to break windows, therefore it should be illegal and not under "safe harbor" provisions.
        I've used g2p.org, but there's still not a single "unlicenced"/"pirated" bit on my harddrive (I used it to find an obscure and FREE electronica collection where I only remembered part of the name).

        Regarding YouTube.. Do you have any basis to claim tha
        • And you're doing what the RIAA is doing: spreading FUD.

          Copyright is not a criminal matter, it's civil -- so I'm not calling anyone a criminal.

          A hammer is "content neutral". A hammer is not dedicated to breaking windows. A better example is a lock pick. As I understand it, possession of these is illegal in most US states as "burglar tools" (professional locksmiths excepted). The argument that the owner of the lockpick only uses it to open doors he is legally obliged to do is considered unlikely. There has

          • by repvik (96666)

            And you're doing what the RIAA is doing: spreading FUD.

            Copyright is not a criminal matter, it's civil -- so I'm not calling anyone a criminal.

            If you break copyright law, you can go to court and face a fine/jailtime. Whether or not you're calling anyone a criminal is semantics. Which btw. RIAA does not seem to understand. They are comparing pirating with stealing a car/purse/statue of liberty, which I believe are all criminal matters?

            A hammer is "content neutral". A hammer is not dedicated to breaking window

            • (BTW, can you document that SeeqPod/YouTube are mostly used for illegal purposes as you claim in your OP, or is that just scaretactics?)

              OK, I 'll rephrase that. The overwhelming majority of YouTube links that I receive (via email, social networking sites and RSS blog feeds) are of unauthorised TV rips or fan-vids.

              Now look back at my justification for saying that YouTube should be liable for infringements: YouTube looks like a publisher; it quacks like a publisher. The only material difference between it

              • by repvik (96666)
                It looks like a publisher, it "quacks" like a publisher. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is a publisher. YouTube has NO WAY of checking the rights of the uploaded material! If I make a school project and someone rips a copy and uploads to YouTube, how can they know? They can't. It is the persons that are uploading content that have the necessary info to judge whether or not it is LEGAL to upload it to YouTube. Also, screening every single video uploaded to YouTube would take an incredible amount of ma
      • by astrotek (132325)
        The only way the internet is going to survive is if rights holders are only allowed to go after the people hosting the content. Sites that catalog it just make enforcement easier and wouldn't be popular if all the search results were taken down. There is a problem with overseas hosts but that is a totally different argument.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        The first rightful beneficiary of Safe Harbor legislation is Bob's Server Shack. Your average host is content neutral and has no editorial control over your site. You pay a flat fee to him directly -- Bob has no real stake in the "saleability" of your site. Bob is the same as the printer.

        Not true.

        Bob's Server Shack gets to charge you extra when your usage goes through the roof due to the popularity of your content -- thus giving them more profit. They actually DO have an interest in having customers who ha

      • I don't think Safe Harbor should apply to YouTube, for example. YouTube does not receive a flat fee from the content producers, instead making its money on click-through ads. This means that YouTube's profit is intrinsically linked to the popularity of its content (and, incidentally, the most popular material often infringes copyright).

        And if the magazines a printer prints are more or less popular has no effect on the revenue stream of the printer?

        To my mind, this makes YouTube a publisher, not a printer

    • Nah ... all they'll do is make such ventures too risky, nobody will undertake them, and that will be that. The consumer is who will get fucked over (again.)
  • I'm not going to bother reading the legal document. Instead, I'm going to assume the slashdot editors are being sloppy as always.

    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.
  • Maybe this idea will get to the right minds perhaps one of you know who they are and will create awareness. When we purchase music we purchase a license to listen to the songs we paid for. I don't think the music industry understands this; apparently this has not been clarified in the courts. We are not buying the piece of plastic they are printed on.

    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

    • When we purchase music we purchase a license to listen to the songs we paid for. I don't think the music industry understands this; apparently this has not been clarified in the courts. We are not buying the piece of plastic they are printed on.

      No, you're buying the piece of plastic actually. Remember, not everything to do with creative works falls within the realm of copyright law. Copyright prevents you from lawfully making a copy of the piece of plastic, or from publicly performing it, but copyright does
      • And how does an MP3 datastream represent, or even look somewhat close to a 44.1KHz 16 bit pcm encoding?

        What copying do we see here? I see 2 completely different data patterns.
        • Who cares about the encoding? Remember, copyright law is a human construct. It does not matter whether it is encoded with one codec or another, lossy or lossless, compressed or uncompressed, digitally or analog -- if, at the end of the day, a human being (either with or without the aid of some device, such as music playing software) perceives it as being the same song, then it's the same song.

          It's just like how it doesn't matter when you copy a book, if you change the typeface, or you write it in script ins
          • by Kjella (173770)

            Finally, also note that the reproduction form of copyright infringement, 1) doesn't care about encoding (meaning that mp3's are straight copies, despite being lossy, and are not derivatives, not that it really matters), and; 2) doesn't care about how much was copied, particularly.

            Fair use does actually, and some of those uses clearly involve reproduction. It's one of the impossible things about DRM, if it would be fair use to use a frame or short clip from a movie then it's impossible to allow that while at the same time preventing someone from reassembling the whole movie from the bits. Anyway, kinda off topic because I never heard of anyone trying for a fair use defense like that. You'd probably end up with a conspiracy to commit copyright infringement charge if there is one. If

            • True, fair use does care about how much of the work was unauthorizedly used and how important those portions were to the work. It's not determinative, however. Sometimes it is fair use even when you copy all or a substantial part of the work, and sometimes it is not fair use where you use only excerpts.
      • by Omestes (471991)
        Copyright prevents you from lawfully making a copy of the piece of plastic

        You had me until that point. You can make as many copies as you feel like, DISTRIBUTING those copies fall under copyright law. Last time I check, fair use still existed.

        It would be nice if owners of copies were allowed to freely download more copies, but that's not how things currently work. As for ethics, copyright and copyright infringement both have nothing to do with ethics in any respect; it's a utilitarian, amoral field.

        Depend
        • You had me until that point. You can make as many copies as you feel like, DISTRIBUTING those copies fall under copyright law. Last time I check, fair use still existed.

          Hoist by your own petard, I'm afraid.

          First, copyright deals with both the reproduction of works as well as the distribution of works, among other things. From 17 USC 106:

          [T]he owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecor

      • No actually, I am buying the license to listen to a particular copyrighted work. You may be buying the piece of plastic, not me. And if that were true you are overpaying for the plastic disc. There seems to be some confusion regarding this issue and it needs so be clarified.
        • No actually, I am buying the license to listen to a particular copyrighted work

          Well, that's certainly not how it works in the US, anyway. US copyright law does not cover mere listening to a copyrighted work. Since the copyright holder never has the right to control mere listening, he has no power to issue a license, nor is one required. The closest it comes is that copyright does include public performances (sometimes), and so if you were going to play the CD for a paying audience in a concert hall or somet
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Klaus_1250 (987230)

      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.

      That is one of the reasons why downloading (NOT uploading) is legally allowed here in the Netherlands, though this is now under attack. If I'm not mistaking, record labels are also obliged to swap damaged media carriers at a reasonable cost (handling, packaging, shipping, media), but for some awkward reason, this is not mentioned anywhere.

      • It looks like the Netherlands have it correct then. Yet this conversation brings up another idea. There is a difference in quality of listening between the methods of encoding. MP3 is not that good because it reduces quality but not that noticible of a reduction so that it can be small and compressed. Record companies good provide high quality downloads becuase that is what I would want. Mp3s are diminshed in quality.
  • I am a dummy when it comes to this stuff, but it sure seems like the term "search engine" is pretty broad and could apply to a lot of things.
    • Google: Provides an interface to search and display the contents of multiple computers.
    • Seeqpod: Provides an interface to search and display the contents of multiple computers.
    • Napster: Provides an interface to search and display the contents of multiple computers.
    • Grokster: Provides an interface to search and display the contents of multiple computers.

    Does the DMCA S

    • by repvik (96666)
      It is nothing but a tool. If the tool was specifically designed to *only* find infringing copies OTOH, it shouldn't be covered by safe harbor.
  • > ...'deliberately refrains' from adding simple yet ineffective content filters...

    I need more to drink. That didn't make sense.
    • I'm glad it's not just me who had to double-take that bit.

      Why would people bother adding ineffective content filters? I call tyop.
  • Filters (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ajehals (947354) <a.halsall@pirateparty.org.uk> on Friday January 25, 2008 @09:42PM (#22189488) Homepage Journal
    From the summary;

    ...'deliberately refrains' from adding simple yet ineffective content filters to screen out copyright infringing materials...
    Unless this is a typo, it seems perfectly sensible, if you are not required to use filters (Assuming that "Safe Harbour" applies) at all, that you would certainly not use ineffective ones. If that is all that is available in terms of content filters, then I guess you could go further and say that there is *no* way of filtering content effectively and so it is absurd to take legal action against someone for not doing so.

    I guess the best method would be ORAPC (One RIAA Agent Per Computer), they could sit next to you whilst you browse the web and help you avoid infringing.
    • Re:Filters (Score:4, Interesting)

      by rhizome (115711) on Friday January 25, 2008 @10:05PM (#22189606) Homepage Journal
      Unless this is a typo, it seems perfectly sensible,

      It's not a typo, it's editorializing on Slashdot's part. Notice where the quotation marks are.
    • If that is all that is available in terms of content filters, then I guess you could go further and say that there is *no* way of filtering content effectively

      That's a curious logic. You're basically saying that if something hasn't been done already then it's impossible. Don't you believe in innovation?

      Not sure about your sense of architecture, either. How would you propose a website distributes those agents? A simpler approach would be to simply apply the filter at the central search engine.

      • by Ajehals (947354)
        To answer your first point; No. I'm saying that if these ineffective filters are all that exist then at present, no filtering system exists that would be effective in filtering copyright material. I am not saying that creating one is impossible nor that one cannot be created, I am saying that as it stands the technology does not exist in a viable form.

        Secondly, about my sense of architecture, clearly it is superior to yours. How would I propose a website would distribute the Agents I suggested? Well I wou
  • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Friday January 25, 2008 @09:47PM (#22189520)
    I will deliberately avoid paying for Warner Brothers products next time around.

    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.
    • I was just thinking how strange it is that everyone supports these companies because they somehow can't resist their entertainment products, even while these companies shit all over our legal system in blatant attempts to slow down societal progress in the name of profits.

      I know warner brothers can make good movies, but are seeing them worth fucking up our societies legal system?

      I really wanted to see I Am Legend, but the price of admission suddenly seems way too high.
      • I didn't like it if it's any consolation...
        I won't issue a spoiler (as this is clear in the first 5 min of the movie):
        Scientist cures cancer by altering the measles virus.
        + a couple years and NYC is a ghost town.
        Smith is a survivor and BadThings happened to other people.
        Meh, I didn't even finish watching it (not going to spoil any more) as I don't "do" the types of movies that it was.
        Just hopped over to watch another movie.
        -nB
      • by TheLink (130905)
        You didn't miss much if you didn't watch "I Am Legend".

        It wasn't a terrible movie. But it's basically a very dumbed down version of Omega Man which I guess was a dumbed down version of "The Last Man on Earth". The plot got pared down to near nothing.

        Cinematography was not bad. And it definitely had a lot better special effects (of course). But nothing you probably haven't seen before.
        • They're all dumbed-down versions of the novel I Am Legend by Richard Matheson, actually. It's a great read. Give it a shot, and don't be prejudiced by the various movie versions.
    • You've not made your complaint clear. One business sues another - where's the problem?
      • by shark72 (702619)

        "You've not made your complaint clear. One business sues another - where's the problem?"

        Well, SeeqPod is a search engine that specializes in letting you download music for free. The big meanies at Warner Brothers would really rather that we all buy the music than get it for free courtesy of SeeqPod. Now, if you were John Q. Slashdotter, on whose side would you be on?

      • My point was that a small company was apparently following the law, and a big media company did not like what they were doing, and so is trying (yet again) to distort the law in order to guarantee themselves a profit at the expense of the consumer. So... I just buy less of Big Company's products. Works for me.
        • OK, good reason generally but I don't think it applies here for two reasons. First, the small company is claiming to follow the law, which is a completely different kettle of fish. You say "apparently" but on what basis? It's pretty obvious SeeqPod is a music distribution business, not a search business, so does their Safe Harbor claim have any merit? Their motive is different to Google, their business model is different, their service is most definitely not "neutral" with regards to the content it finds, e

    • by novakyu (636495)

      I will deliberately avoid paying for Warner Brothers products next time around.

      Why stop at one and just "next time"?

      I stopped buying any music or going to theaters altogether (at least for MPAA-member-produced movies) ever since the Sony BMG and the MPAA University Kit deal.

      When these people "catch a pirate", they don't simply give them $200 fine and let them go (you know, like a speeding ticket). They extort them for thousands, and, if they resist, sue them for hundreds of thousands.

      Why should we be "easy on them"?

      Stop buying music and movie altogether. There are plenty of free musi [opsound.org]

      • Good point.

        Lately I have been buying a lot of CDs of local bands... money from my hands into theirs, CDs from their hands into mine. No contracts or big studios involved.
    • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

      by houghi (78078)
      Be shure ti not buy any products that have anything to do with WB. So nothing with Harry Potter, Batman, Superman, anything from Hamma-Barnera or Tom&Jerry.

      Obviously do not use any of their afiliated cinema's and do not watch any of the DC comics related things on tv.

      The website is talking about some 6600 feature films, 48000 television titles and 14000 animated titles.

      And I am not even talking about Time Warner. And the other larger companies are just as bad.

      In all honesty, it is either un-possible or
  • Sorry eff seeqpod is not web 2.0, just another useless flash site.
  • Reality check (Score:3, Informative)

    by ContractualObligatio (850987) on Friday January 25, 2008 @10:04PM (#22189598)
    Seems pretty simple to me - set up a business (e.g. SeeqPod) that explicitly aims to make money out of online content, and you'll either pay fees or get sued by the owners of that content.

    No doubt there will be many and various cunning arguments in this thread as to why this is wrong e.g. if I can't get it for free, I'll take my money elsewhere; I've already got the CD so why should a service that also caters to people without the CD have to pay anything; technology may be a wonderful thing but strangely I also believe it is incapable of ever doing something I don't approve of; etc. While all of these points do actually have merit in various aspects of the whole brave new digital world discussion (please ignore my paraphrasing), they neglect a fundamental law of human nature:

    When you seek to make money based upon other people's efforts or property, those other people will find a way to get some or all of your profits.

    Corollary: When money is involved, you will never win an argument by stating that the property doesn't actually exist i.e. smart arse comments about "Imaginary Property" won't cut it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ronocdh (906309)

      When you seek to make money based upon other people's efforts or property, those other people will find a way to get some or all of your profits.
      Interesting argument, considering that the labels have caused many of their biggest acts to go indie. It would appear that the labels themselves are screwing the artists out of money in many instances, and the artists, not the labels, who are trying to "find a way to get some or all of [the] profits."
      • Interesting argument, considering that the labels have caused many of their biggest acts to go indie

        It's not clear - are you agreeing, disagreeing, or building upon my point?

  • So, how many people just learned about SeeqPod for the first time due to the actions of the RIAA?
    • by Dan541 (1032000)
      Me!

      Which is also alot of people by the time word gets around!

      ~Dan
    • by Anonymous Coward
      And how many will learn about the mobile version [seeqpod.com] (that lets you directly access the files rather than locking you into a Flash jail) from this very comment? That sure is an easier way to get mp3s than entering a long special search into Google. Use it while you can, that's my advice.
  • by plasmacutter (901737) on Saturday January 26, 2008 @04:47AM (#22191662)
    If they were to filter they would no longer be classifiable as a neutral intermediary.

    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?
  • Then they shall give away the filter softwares for free.

    The next thing is that you have to have a license to operate a search engine.

  • Since when are the filters are simple. What are they talking about "-infringement" or "-illegal"? :P
  • I hadn't heard of this site before, it looks pretty useful. Thanks for bringing it to my attention Warner :)

Help me, I'm a prisoner in a Fortune cookie file!

Working...