New Zealand Newspaper Threatens Blogging Critic With Trademark Infringement Claim

IFPI Using Disputed Pirate Bay Verdict To Claim Web Hosting Companies Are Liable

from the stretch-the-truth-much? dept

Thu, May 7th 2009 4:04am — Mike Masnick

After the entertainment industry partially won its Supreme Court decision against Grokster, it didn't take long at all for the RIAA to start claiming the ruling said stuff it didn't. Specifically, the Supreme Court ruling said that a site could be found liable if it induced infringement by encouraging such uses. This was already quite surprising to many because the idea of an "inducement" standard for copyright is not found in the law (in fact, some in Congress had introduced an "INDUCE Act" to try to put it into the law -- suggesting that even Congress didn't think copyright law includes an inducement standard). However, the RIAA falsely started claiming that the Supreme Court ruling made all sorts of file sharing apps -- even those that did not encourage unauthorized copying -- guilty of infringing copyrights.

So, it should come as little surprise that the RIAA's international wing, the IFPI, appears to be doing the exact same thing with the recent Pirate Bay ruling (which, of course, is still being appealed and is highly disputed due to conflicts of interest with the judge in the case). The IFPI is apparently going around to web hosting firms who host other torrent trackers, and claiming that The Pirate Bay ruling makes them potentially criminally liable if they don't take down the tracker sites. But, of course, The Pirate Bay ruling was specific to the facts in that case, which are somewhat different from a random web host hosting a website for someone. Still, it just goes to show the lengths that the industry will go to in order to twist any legal ruling to try to shut down sites it doesn't like.

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: inducement, liability, sweden, trial
Companies: ifpi

11 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Tor, 7 May 2009 @ 4:29am

Swedish law
It seems that ISPs are protected against damages but not necessarily against criminal liability. Let me quote the swedish law:

16 § A service provider which transmits information that has been given by a client in a communications network, or which provides access to such a net, shall not on the basis of the contents of that information be liable to compensate damages or pay sanction fees, in case the provider does not:
1. initiate the transfer
2. select the recipient of the information, or
3. select or modify the information.

19 § A service provider which transfers or stores information on someone else's behalf may only be found guilty of crime if the crime was committed intentionally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matt, 7 May 2009 @ 5:49am
  
  Re: Swedish law
  I thought you were going to include something about criminal liability? I don't see anything there unless a provider does it "intentionally", which is not even an issue here, let alone damn hard to prove in any court.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tor, 7 May 2009 @ 12:47pm
    
    Re: Re: Swedish law
    If you do something criminal and are indifferent to the consequences of your actions even though you understand the risk/dangerousness then that counts as intent under Swedish law. I should have pointed that out. It's called "indifference intent" (I'm not sure what the corresponding term is in English).
    
    For example this kind of intent is what the prosecutor in the Pirate Bay referred to - the TPB guys knew the consequences of their actions but were indifferent to the result.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2009 @ 5:32am

How it works
The RIAA and IFPI represnt the groups who loose out on collecting the COMPULSORY MECHANICAL LICENSE. As of 1996, this was $.091 for songs 5 minutes or less, or $.0175 per minute or fraction thereof per copy for songs over 5 minutes.

So if someone puts together a Youtube video and doesn't have the right paperwork, so the labels unleash the trove of lawyers and sue them for $250,000 per illegitimate copy of what would normally be their share of a $.091 song.

Even by following the original spirit in which the copyright law was written, if someone physically reproduced a song that is less than five minutes, and made one million copies, the COMPULSORILY license would be in the amount of NINETY ONE THOUSAND ($91,000) DOLLARS.

But in reality, there is no physical copy, so COMPULSORILY MECHANICAL LICENSING doesn't apply, so their request is based on smoke and mirrors.

So they try to muddy the water by saying it's STEALING. But it's NOT because they still have in their possession the gold and platinum masters.

Why do you think the RIAA ranks the music the way they do? It's because back in the 1950s and 1960s, they physically pressed the vinyl using Gold Masters, because they last longer than a Silver Master.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ricardo, 7 May 2009 @ 2:41pm
  
  Re: How it works
  It's lose not "loose". If you lose something find it. If something is loose, tighten it up. I hate that one. It takes away any integrity in your reply.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2009 @ 6:25am

What next, Jury all RIAA employees? Judge on the MPAA payroll?

The Pirate Bay Verdict is a JOKE!

The Judge was in on it with the RIAA, Hardly a win!

FAWK YOU! IFPI

Go to hell and be with your RIAA, MPAA and other co-herts that need to burn in hell!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vincent Clement, 7 May 2009 @ 6:44am

This is the same IFPI that said:

Canada has one of the world's highest levels of internet piracy and one of the weakest IP enforcement systems. The country suffers from serious legislative deficiencies and a lack of engagement by its enforcement authorities.

The IFPI are nothing but masters of deception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MadJo (profile), 7 May 2009 @ 6:59am

I want to dunk these morons in a vat of acid. :(

How long until we have people in charge there who actually have a clue how it works?
And how long does it take before companies start reigning in their legal teams?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chris (profile), 7 May 2009 @ 8:31am
  
  Re:
  How long until we have people in charge there who actually have a clue how it works?
  
  how about never? does never work for you?
  
  And how long does it take before companies start reigning in their legal teams?
  
  yeeahh, i'm going to have to go with never.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MadJo, 7 May 2009 @ 3:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm afraid you are right. Oh well, it's fun to dream.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
midlantan, 8 May 2009 @ 10:47am

AC: No
Anonymous Coward - RIAA/IFPI don't represent those who would be collecting compulsory mechanical licenses, as you suggest in your semi-coherent post above. They represent performers, not songwriters or composers. Also, countries outside the US don't necessarily follow the same compulsory licensing scheme for mechanical rights that the US does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]