Yahoo China Found Guilty Of Copyright Infringement For Linking To MP3s

from the how-dare-they! dept

Thu, Dec 20th 2007 10:41am — Mike Masnick

A while back, we had pointed out that the success of a few Chinese search engines wasn't necessarily that they were any better than their counterparts -- but that because they were pretty explicit in helping people find downloadable music. Baidu was famous for this -- and we wondered if the company's move to go public would force a crackdown on such activities. Indeed, soon after Baidu went public in the US, it got sued. However, eventually the courts found that it was not guilty -- but because of the way the copyright laws were worded. Simple solution: a little pressure from the recording industry and... voila: new laws. So, with those new copyright laws in place, the IFPI went after Alibaba, who also happens to run Yahoo China. And, with those new laws in place, Alibaba has now been found guilty of copyright infringement for providing easy to find links to downloadable music (not hosting the music, just linking to it). Not surprisingly, the recording industry pulls out its favorite adjective, calling the win "significant." Given all of these "significant" wins, and the fact that the recording industry's future keeps getting bleaker and bleaker, while file sharing (and the rest of the music industry) continues to grow, I'm beginning to think that the industry maybe does not really know what that word means.

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

Filed Under: china, deep linking, music search
Companies: alibaba, baidu, yahoo china

8 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Chronno S. Trigger, 20 Dec 2007 @ 10:51am

Correct me if I'm wrong
Is this article about how they got sued twice for the same thing? Doesn't that fall under double jeopardy or something?

PS: "the courts found that it not guilty" I believe you meant "the courts found it not guilty" or "that it was not guilty."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 20 Dec 2007 @ 10:56am

Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
Is this article about how they got sued twice for the same thing? Doesn't that fall under double jeopardy or something?

No, first suit was against Baidu. Second against Alibaba. Baidu got off clean.

PS: "the courts found that it not guilty" I believe you meant "the courts found it not guilty" or "that it was not guilty."

Whoops. You're right. Fixed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oliver Wendell Jones, 20 Dec 2007 @ 11:47am

Nice Princess Bride Callback
"I'm beginning to think that the industry maybe does not really know what that word means."

Inconceivable!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JB, 20 Dec 2007 @ 11:53am

An MP3 is just a file
How would Yahoo or any search engine know whether the content of an MP3 file is copyrighted?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JT, 20 Dec 2007 @ 12:23pm

Not Double Jeopardy
Double jeopardy is a protection that attaching under criminal trials, not lawsuits. Even if it was criminal, you could argue that the continuing presence of the links represented "new charges" and when the law changed, charge new counts. In any event, when it comes to lawsuits, you can get sued, and sued, and sued again. Then appeal a hundred times. It all depends on how much money the parties have for legal fees. Gotta love a litigious culture!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fushta, 20 Dec 2007 @ 1:58pm

The "Win" May Be "Significant," but...
So what if the recording industry "wins." What does it change? Nothing. They still don't make money from "winning" this battle. The people that were using the easy-to-find links will just seek out another place to get the same result: free music.

All the recording industry did was spend money on lawyers and pound its' collective chest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff, 20 Dec 2007 @ 5:50pm

Secure
Good thing they're out there looking for people to sue. Heaven forbid if they actually help their own industry by promoting the artists.
There are talented musicians no one can find because labels keep the songs bottled up tight for fear of piracy. But guess what, I can't buy something if I don't know it's out there. And I'm not buying anything I haven't tried first.
Even the ice cream shop down the street lets me try samples before I order a 3 scoop cone with sprinkles.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
maths, 21 Dec 2007 @ 12:27pm

IFPI wrongly blames Chinese Law for Baidu loss, bu
You might also want to read this, where there is the possibility that the IFPI messed up their case against Baidu and lost but now resort to blaming the Chinese law instead. http://www.music2dot0.com/archives/95
[ link to this | view in thread ]