Microsoft Clings To 'Software Plus Services' Mantra

MPAA Sues Sites For Linking To Infringing Content

from the just-a-link dept

Wed, Jun 27th 2007 5:51pm — Mike Masnick

It's amazing how badly the entertainment industry wants people to believe that anything they don't like must be illegal. There's already a long history of them suing the easiest party for them to find rather than the party actually breaking the law, so it shouldn't be much of a surprise to see them doing so again. Apparently the MPAA has sued some sites that create a directory of online videos, mainly TV shows and movies. These sites do not host the files. They simply point people to where they are online. Effectively, it's the same thing that a search engine like Google does. There are plenty of Google searches that will lead you to unauthorized content, but for some reason, the entertainment industry believes that if you make a specialized search engine or directory you're somehow liable. These sites have come under attack before, and the MPAA may be hoping that by creating a specialized search engine they'll be able to show "inducement" under the Supreme Court's Grokster standard. It will definitely be worth watching how these court cases go, because if the MPAA succeeds, it effectively means that they'll have the right to sue anyone who links to infringing content by claiming inducement. That would be a horrible precedent to set.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

10 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 27 Jun 2007 @ 6:16pm

The precedent has already been set
Remember Napster? That was shut down because it was providing a directory of links to infringing content. And the injunction on 2600 magazine preventing it from linking to sites hosting the DeCSS code?
In other words, no surprise if this lawsuit succeeds as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2007 @ 6:38pm
  
  Re: The precedent has already been set
  I am not aware of any final court ruling in the Napster case. I believe it was settled out of court. If you're point then is that they may be bullied by a lawsuit (and not whether what they are doing is legal or not) you may be right. Sadly lawsuits are a tactical business technique instead of a tool of justice.
  
  As for 2600, they were not indexing content (it wasn't a 'search' service).
  
  Re-iterating the OP, I can see no reason how they can be treated differently (in a legal sense) from Google's search engine.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- memory hole, 28 Jun 2007 @ 6:15am
  
  Re: The precedent has already been set
  Apparently, the Napster thing has gotten lost in the memory hole. Napster was shut down because it HOSTED infringing content, on it's own servers. That's exactly why they were unable to win a case, because they were DIRECTLY infringing. Napster was NOT a directory of links to infringing content.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shay, 27 Jun 2007 @ 6:31pm

Not the whole story
The part that is not mentioned in this article is that these sites are making large amounts of money through advertising on their sites. This is how they are being held liable for infringement/inducement. It's not a good business plan to base your income on linking to known infringing content. Google searches the net, these sites profit by making illegal content easier to find (like napster and grokster).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 27 Jun 2007 @ 7:56pm
  
  Re: Not the whole story
  The part that is not mentioned in this article is that these sites are making large amounts of money through advertising on their sites. This is how they are being held liable for infringement/inducement. It's not a good business plan to base your income on linking to known infringing content. Google searches the net, these sites profit by making illegal content easier to find (like napster and grokster).
  
  I don't see how that's relevant. They're still not the ones breaking the law. If I'm an ISP and you're hosting illegal content on one of my servers I'm not liable. It's that simple. You're the one who is liable... EVEN IF I'm making tons of money through you paying for the service.
  
  It has nothing to do with profitability.
  
  It has everything to do with who is actually liable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker, 27 Jun 2007 @ 9:11pm
  
  Re: Not the whole story
  It's not a good business plan to base your income on linking to known infringing content.
  If you link to content these days, it's ALL under copyright. Suprisingly, many of these 'protected' works actually want to be linked to. So, how do you tell them apart?
  That, to my mind, is the faustian deal that the content squatters got into when they pushed for opt-out copyright. Everything they create (or, more often, obtain) becomes sacrosanct. Fine, but the burden then falls to them to police it. Suprisingly, that became a drain. Unsuprisingly, they then try to outsource that as well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2007 @ 7:32pm

making large amounts of money
Dear poster #2
First of all, I don't believe you, personally, have any idea how much money they are making or losing. If you do know, how about letting us in on how you got the knowledge.

According to your argument, would it be legal if they were losing huge amounts of money?

Like Mike said, it's like Google, dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2007 @ 8:37pm

Down with the MPAA !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
me, 28 Jun 2007 @ 8:20am

Napster
I don't believe that Napster is a good comparison, it provided a METHOD to retrieve the "infringing content", this is simply a listing of where you can find what you are searching for.

RIAA doesn't sue google cause they have enough money and press to shut them up and show YET AGAIN that RIAA is simply on a wild chase, picking off the easiest targets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SM, 28 Jun 2007 @ 10:48am

Google
I'm fairly certain that as we speak, these guys are dreaming up a way to sue Google for the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]