Hollywood Gets Injunction Against Pirate Bay Bandwidth Provider?
from the what-is-that,-fourth-party-liability? dept
Looks like Hollywood is really reaching at this point. Apparently, they've been able to go to court in Germany and get an injunction against the bandwidth provider for The Pirate Bay by claiming that since The Pirate Bay has been found guilty of copyright inducement, the broadband provider is also responsible. Yes, if you're playing along with the home game, we're now talking about fourth party liability. The bandwidth provider isn't infringing on anyone's copyright. The Pirate Bay isn't infringing on anyone's copyright. It's some users of The Pirate Bay who are. So now we're going further back. Where do we go from there? Fifth party liability? Will backbone providers have to get involved next? Where does it stop?
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: bandwidth, copyright, fourth party liability, germany, third party liability
Companies: the pirate bay
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Fifth party liability
(Sarcasm, in case it goes over anyone's head.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fifth party liability
I'm worried about the six degrees of separation idea. After all, if they're up to fourth party so far it's only two more steps and they're able to sue the entire world!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fifth party liability
six degrees, really? You think Kevin Bacon is behind all of this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fifth party liability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Face / Palm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's an easy one Mike!
Bolt your doors, and get out the tin-foil hats
***The Preceding post was intended as hyperbole. Have a nice day!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
putz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're part of the problem too. Unless you stop talking about them, they won't go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Okay, so does everyone who DOES provide a service associated with the Pirate Bay's activities find themselves liable? That's going to be a shitload of people/companies....
"i dont link to them"
Okay, so does everyone that DOES link to the Pirate Bay find themselves liable? That's going to be a shitload of people/companies....
"there is nothing i personally can do to stop their infringing."
Okay, so does everyone that IS able to personally do something to stop the Pirate Bays activities (which aren't directly infringing, btw) find themselves liable? That's going to be a shitload of people/companies....
"sounds like you realize that i hit the nail right on the head, and you hate it."
No, it sounds like I realize just how many people you want to place in the legal system, and THAT I truly do hate....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's kind of odd, because I don't know all that much about the specifics of the original judgement, nor do I have much of an opinion about it one way or the other. I think it's a stretch to demand culpability for people providing links, but I also am able to see how the Pirate Bay operates like they are just asking for trouble, by name and their general operation.
Personally, I don't download infringing material intentionally (I have on occassion mistakenly thought I was in the clear and infringed on accident, as in the case with Nintendo ROMs I had previousy owned and used to think I was okay to DL on my computer), so I don't have an emotional dog in this fight. What I HATE is criminalizing behavior that doesn't deserver criminalization. The legal systems on this planet, in general, blow donkey wang. I want to see as few people forced into them as possible.
"the guys providing connectivity to tpb can do something about it."
Yes they can. So can the electric company. So can their municipal govt., by rezoning the space or some other such means of kicking them out. The question isn't whether they can, it's whether they should and whether they should be liable for penalties and damages if they don't.
"there is no rush to drag the world into it."
Sorry, but I'm not rushing to drag the world into this, YOU are, by making criminals where there previously wasn't any. Casting a wide net works for a lot of things, but NEVER in the legal world.
"are you suggesting that an isp with a known child porn site on its service should just leave it up, and not take action, especially when notified?"
So many questions:
1. Leave what up? The ISP isn't leaving the child porn up. They only control the bandwidth. And no, they should not take away bandwidth to punish criminal behavior unless ordered to do so through proper legal mechanisms.
2. Notified by whom? By law enforcement? Then yes, remove their bandwidth link. By a citizen? No, direct the citizen to tell law enforcement, who then takes the proper steps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Moral liability? Perhaps. Legal liability? I don't think so.
there is no rush to drag the world into it.
The fact that a party who is only tangentially "responsible" for the original infringement is proof that there is a rush to drag the world into it.
again, are you suggesting that an isp with a known child porn site on its service should just leave it up, and not take action, especially when notified?
Morally? Yes. Legally? I don't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Laughter. The sound you hear is laughter. You should be used to it by now.
"by your logic, a host that has a child porn site running on it is under no liablity to disconnect the site from their network, even after the operators are found guilty?"
Indeed. No network provider should be lifting a finger without a court order or a violation of its own user contract. If they haven't put a clause under their own contract to be able to pull the plug in this situation then they're stupid, but I won't let their stupidity affect the civil liberties of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *sigh*
(Also, nice appeal to emotion there.)
Hey, coward! Can you throw in a logical argument, or just some fallacies & "for the children"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: *sigh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: *sigh*
How about "Wolffe's Law"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
you're missing something important: this won't have any effect.
seizing the servers shut the site down for a few days. getting their hosting shut down a couple of years ago shut the site down for a few hours. go ahead and pressure their provider, given the success rate of previous attempts, the shutdown will only last a few minutes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
After the original raid on TPB's servers the boys swore it wouldn't happen again. They made arraignments for the service to be transferred to other hosting parties automatically in the case of another takedown attempt. Since the original raid, the service hasn't been down longer than 24 hours at any time.
Smashing mercury with a hammer is the analogy I believe.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Its like me building a massive network of roads, and then selling large portions of that road to companies for use, who then in turn will lease off smaller chunks of road to companies/individuals for their use. Then the police come after me because a couple individuals used a part of those roads, which were leased to a company, in this case TPB, to commit or aid in some form of illegal activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait, the landlord also leases the property to the Pirate Bay, better go after them as well!
Crap, the grocery store on the corner sells food to the operators of the Pirate Bay, the need to be included because they facilitate the ongoing infringement.
If you want to go down this road, please explore where the road goes first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You will be prosecuting God next
"your Father which is in heaven: ... maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."
Matthew 5- 45
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward
Why should they be held liable? Do you honestly think that all web hosts know the content of what their customers are posting online? Technically they have ACCESS to that information, but expecting them to monitor everyone's website or postings is a bit too much to ask, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which they didn't.
The short answer, Mike, is it doesn’t. Crucial issues that will define our digital/industrial marketplace for the foreseeable future are being played out under law at least a decade old. The first problem is, infringement was illegal back then, too, and so the pirates themselves have seen to it that “stealth facilitated infringement” (instead of reasonable rights for consumers) is the playing field on which the laws of our digital future are being determined.
If protecting consumer rights in the digital age was the goal, the proper path forward was to NOT BUY, and allow the predatory industries to die a natural, (and this is vital) LEGAL death.
Instead, in what will come to be known as the greatest examples of mass shortsightedness of all time, pirates “stole” instead, (I use quotes to recognize the clear differences between infringement and theft).
But the second problem is that those differences are being perceived largely as academic, indeed, mass infringement has been defined, right or wrong, as the largest industrial ransacking of product and merchandise in business history. It’s no wonder that industry, legislation and the judiciary are reacting as they are.
This generation had the opportunity to rewrite the rules using “digital” as the justification for a sea-change in consumer rights, but piracy has instead taken whatever it can get its hands on, handing the coin of the realm back to industry on a silver platter. So instead of government hearing argument from well ordered, articulate, law respecting constituents who refuse to fund the gatekeepers, pirates come off as arrogant, entitled and swaggering, actually challenging government instead of wisely petitioning it with very reasonable consumer grievance. The disheartening erosion of freedom and liberty won‘t stop until infringement does which means that now it will never stop. Government loves the control this unlawful behavior “justifies” and the historical pairing of corporate-governance continues. The RIAA couldn’t have planned this better had they tried. Or even had the vision to try. Which they didn’t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which they didn't.
I call utter BULLSHIT on this idea. When did we (the consumer) have ANY say in how we wanted our media? When did we (the consumer) have any "opportunity to rewrite the rules"? Really? When? No, instead WE chose the internet and digital distribution, NOT the rights holders. WE chose to leverage the digital medium to OUR advantage, when the rights holders and big media just stuck their head in the sand and HAVE YET to (after DECADES) adequately provide their product in through these means. WE chose to share our culture when the big media you so dearly love and defend has chosen instead to LOCK CULTURE UP, and in some cases (like The John Larroquette Show), REFUSE to provide it IN ANY LEGAL MANNER WHATSOEVER. So, no, you dont get to BLAME the consumer on this one. The blame for this rests SQUARELY with the Content Industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Which they didn't.
You have an opportunity to rewrite the rules every time you vote. If you think this is a big deal, and enough people agree with you, you can vote in the people who will work to amend the current laws.
If the 'owner' of The John Larroquette Show decides to lock it up, that is their right. It might be a bad business decision, but that doesn't give you the right to infringe. You are not 'entitled' to The John Larroquette Show.
Why do you align yourself with the 'consumer'? Most consumers don't infringe and most consumers are not supporters of infringers, even though they are against the ridiculous judgements against kids and grandmothers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Which they didn't.
Wow. Can't get your Larroquete fix, eh? Poor guy.
Which, I suppose, in your view gives you rights to dismantle 50 years of copyright caselaw and simply do as you wish with the registered intellectual property of others. And!!...... challenge government to dare to try to stop you in the process, hm?
Do I understand you correctly? if so, then......
You, sir, are a moron, you are exactly the peabrain to which I have been referring and you will be the reason why we will lose important personal freedoms to your greedy (Larroquette related!) malfeasance going forward.
Thanks so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
Which, I suppose, in your view gives you rights to dismantle 50 years of copyright caselaw and simply do as you wish with the registered intellectual property of others. And!!...... challenge government to dare to try to stop you in the process, hm?
Do I understand you correctly? if so, then......
You, sir, are a moron, you are exactly the peabrain to which I have been referring and you will be the reason why we will lose important personal freedoms to your greedy (Larroquette related!) malfeasance going forward.
Thanks so much."
Wow indeed. I cant even imagine where to being with such a moronic, idiotic, fucktard statement you made. Its not even close to the point, yet being the good corporate lapdog shill you are, you go right to "PIRATE!! THIEF!!" and skip EVERY OTHER FUCKING RELEVANT POINT in this argument.
FOAD, you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Which they didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which they didn't.
Instead, what I think we are experiencing is the consumers removing the yoke of limited use of the products that we purchase. Indeed, this is perhaps one of the core pillars of this issue:
The Media Industry does not want you to use the products that you've purchased in the way that you want to use it (you can only play this MP3 on this piece of hardware. You cannot make a backup, etc.). In other words, they want to treat the software / media that you've purchased as a licensed good.
On the flip side, they want to have rights much like property rights for themselves in it. They want to claim people are "stealing" (which is incredibly foolish to use this term). They want to have explicit "ownership" of a digital good. This simply is a non-sequitur.
At the end of the day, the Media Industry is not interested in consumer rights. They want to deny rights to consumers, while enhancing their own rights.
Where in this does the digital era fall? Where in this does if pirates suddenly stop the Media Industry will play nicely fall? Unfortunately, I believe the answer to be that it simply will not happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Which they didn't.
Absolutely true. Consumer rights are not, at the moment, in their interests. But I never suggested industry would "gladly come along", I said that had this issue been addressed lawfully by not buying they would have had no other option but to fold.
But as it is, by entering into an unlawful behavior that enriches their personal entertainment collections at no financial cost to themselves, the consumer has squandered their voice in a well documented orgy of personal greed and the government, predictably, is reacting accordingly. Paybacks, historically, are a bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
a lot of people are buying. you know, record box office numbers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
However, we do need to factor in some historical forces here. The industries freaked when the VCR came out. They freaked when the cassette came out.
This isn't entirely a reaction against "piracy" so much as a reaction against new technology (as Mike argues quite frequently).
I'm not condoning breaking the law, but on the flip side, I'm not condoning the law supporting outdated business models. Especially when these business models have already gone through this process a few iterations and done everything in their power to not change.
So yes, your point about the ammo is valid, and I do agree. The choice was a foolish one. But, I think the choice to pursue piracy was born less out of greed and more out of a reaction to how the Media Industry has demonstrated its lack of willingness to evolve and expand as new technologies evolve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
lol
right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And then consumers win
Right, we'll see what'll happen to this industry goons trying to take away perople's personal rights. Guess who can live better without the other?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Which they didn't.
No, there was no implication that the consumers should play nicely, just that breaking the law is not the most effective way to create change.
The RIAA and MPAA only care about one thing - money. 'Stealing' from them is one way to get their attention. That's a flawed strategy because it causes them to miss the whole point about what's changing in their business while they focus on trying to stop the piracy.
Simply 'NOT BUYING' is another way to get attention. I'll argue it's more effective because it has the same bottom line impact but it doesn't arm these organizations with the courts as a club. It FORCES them to evolve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
Oh right! because that didnt work AT ALL for the people who left england, or fought the revolutionary war, or the boston tea party...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
I agree completely, and although I realize I live in a fantasy world, if everyone would quit d/l bootleg music and movies and would also quit buying legitimate music and movie products, the MPAA and the RIAA whinies would have no further ammunition with which to beat on that old drum, and they would no longer be able to demand special exemptions and protections from the government.
One thing I believe Hollywood wheelers and dealers fail to understand is the power of tech-smart consumers. Maybe 1 in 10 of us understand this stuff, but we're the ones who friends, family and co-workers turn to every time they have a tech-related question. We influence what other people buy. I've been able to explain to several people who asked about the Blu-Ray compatibility problem and the FCC ruling that gave media companies the right to fuck with the settings on our DVRs. With every bonehead move intended to protect their cash cow, the MPAA and the RIAA are driving away more and more of their legitimate customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
That is very questionable. The effective seditionary is pragmatic:
A boycott -- what you are suggesting -- is playing the corporations on their own turf. They have spent the last several decades refining the art and engineering of persuading people to buy things they don't really need or want. Can some activist group persuade the opposite harder than all that corporate force? It seems a doubtful approach.
And where is the personal motivation? When people boycott they might get some community spirit, but when they share they get things cheaply too. If you want to get people involved, showing them some personal gain must surely be a stronger way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which they didn't.
The primary point, in my opinion, is that pirates have been the masters of their own destiny when it comes to the unpopular actions being taken today to try to protect the rights of copyright holders. Nobody is 'forced' to infringe. Without infringement, the RIAA and MPAA would be focused on other things. The legal community is backed into a corner because it cannot simply 'look the other way' on these illegal acts without very clearly understanding the precedent it would set and all of the associated legal implications. If the copyright owners didn't care, it might be different, but in this case we have very vocal organizations representing the copyright owners demanding that the laws on the books be enforced, which they have every right to do, so long as those laws exist. This situation is going to continue to fester unless the laws are updated.
A secondary point (also in my opinion), is that the RIAA and MPAA are also masters of their own destiny, to a large degree. Sometimes it's not enough to have the law on your side. Refusing to recognize and adapt to a changing business environment and instead using the law as a club on what should be a good chunk of your customer base seems awfully short-sighted. Some new thinking and a new approach is needed.
The majority of consumers are stuck in the middle of a war between two opposing groups of low-lifes: the infringers in one camp and the RIAA/MPAA in the other. The common and core element for each group is a false and arrogant attitude of entitlement, in my opinion. Unfortunately, I don't see anything that is going to cause either group to shift from their current position, so the rest of us are going to have to put up with technical hassles and silly legal judgements.
Me, I'm happy enough to pay for the content I think is worth having. The cost of a song is less than a buck and the cost of videos is coming down even as the quality goes up. Ultimately, the market will dictate the price and I'm ok with that.
I don't like green eggs and ham.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Which they didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Which they didn't.
So, you start off with a comment about someone else's post being well articulated and then immediatly follow up with an ad hominem attack. Irony much?
The legal community is backed into a corner because it cannot simply 'look the other way' on these illegal acts without very clearly understanding the precedent it would set and all of the associated legal implications.
There's a big difference between good faith enforcement of the law and going to ridiculous extremes that actually run counter to the intent of the law.
The common and core element for each group is a false and arrogant attitude of entitlement, in my opinion.
There are extremists on each side of the argument, to be sure, but I think it's a very unfair characterization to imply that most of the people who comment on TechDirt are in favor of indiscriminate infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
I agree, and if that's how my post came across, I apologize to all those here who are not in favor of indiscriminate infringement, including Mike, who I believe is passionate about the need for change but not a personal supporter of infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
Don't think I have seen any in years.
Must be doing something wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
- don't infringe copyright on purpose
- support creators who are doing things you like
To producers:
- don't use the law to go after your customers
- give people something they want to buy
- understand basic economics
(this is not an exhaustive list) I don't remember him ever recommending anyone stop buying from RIAA labels, MPAA studios, etc. So he's not preaching one thing and doing another. Just because he isn't promoting YOUR idea of changing the market doesn't make him a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Which they didn't.
Actually the trend is toward an continued decrease in profits for the record labels, followed within five years the same happening to the Movie industries and then two years later the TV industry. The "shift from their current position" will come from the side of the tv and movie industry, as the rest of the world goes the way of spain and south korea. Watch what happens in those two countries over the next two years to see what will happen country by country. (these are my latest forcasts and will be refined in the future)
Here are my predictions.
The nations with the highest broadband and wireless network speeds will be the first to follow what has happened in spain and south korea.
It will happen from highest to lowest broadband speeds.
It will accelerate over time.
Nothing, not even a legal option for media access will change spain and south korea back.
JMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
http://www.youtube.com/videos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
there is tons of great stuff out there already and more will get made before it's all over.
piracy shines a bright light on hollywood's product problem: their stuff costs too much to make. they have marked up promotion and distribution in order to subsidize content creation. piracy fixes the promotion and distribution problem, leaving hollywood with their outdated, expensive productions.
sooner or later, production prices will fall in line with the market, and when it does, the people who can make quality content at a realistic price point will prevail.
will be all be stuck watching an endless loop of sita sings the blues and home movies of guys getting hit in the balls with plastic baseball bats? the stone does not fall in the pond without creating ripples, you need to consider what happens as a result, not just what you wish.
you probably think the independently made stuff that's out now is poor quality because you are too old or too out of touch to get it, but have no fear. at some point you will find something that will change the way you look at media and you will never look back.
once you find something that speaks to you, you'll get it. not just a book or song or movie that you like, but something that feels like it was created specifically for you because it was created by someone who is just like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Which they didn't.
With music and movies, consumers have long had the ability to make copies of copyrighted materials and no one tried to criminalize the activity. VCRs, CDRs, and DVRs have long given the consumer to duplicate CD's and DVDs or just to record from TV or the radio. Now that the format and distribution channels have changed it's become an issue. The RIAA should understand that if they shut down every P2P network today, it's still easy to go online to any internet radio station and record the music being broadcast. They can only get paid so many times, the chain has to stop somewhere. I'm surprised that every CD doesn't come with an EULA that says I owe the record company a penny every time I play the CD I just purchased.
Copying content with intent to sell is criminal without a doubt since that is what the copyrights are designed to prevent. Claiming that copying for personal use is stealing is not very accurate nor does it strike me that it should be illegal.
With software and games, copying becomes a much more serious issue. I would guess that copying software and games has much more impact on sales than shared music, but that's a discussion for another post.
Calling people criminals or low-lifes for sharing or downloading media is harsh. I paid to see Avatar in the theater 4 times in 2D and twice in 3D, but I also watched it streaming online (infringing) 8 times. Does that mean I stole the revenue from 8 showings of the movie? I don't see it that way at all. I've also watched crappy movies streaming online (infringing) that if I had paid to see them in a theater I would expect the MPAA to reimburse me for. Is that stealing ?
There is no easy solution, since the RIAA and MPAA and the people they represent are entitled to protection, but unfortunately those groups are more motivated by greed than the rights of artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Which they didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which they didn't.
It will never work, too many sheeple are involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which they didn't.
This is exactly what most of us techdirt commenters have been doing. The problem is that we are in no better position to stop the rest of the world from copying stuff than the studios are. I don't know why you expect us to be able to wave a magic wand and stop the rest of the world from infringing.
Of course we also point out that infringement is inevitable - but criticising us for that is just a point less exercise in blaming the messenger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which they didn't.
> "The disheartening erosion of freedom and liberty won't stop until infringement does which means that now it will never stop."
You have to have some conception of the primary actor, which is a quite natural one I would think. If you are fighting off an attack, you may be responsible for doing it ineffectively, or on the other hand using excessive force, but you are not responsible for the original attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gasping the last breath
Anybody remember Lotus 123, they sued everyone in the early 80's for the pull down menu. Look at them now. The mighty fall HARD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Applying liability to a party doing something perfectly legal because their activity allowed for someone to break a law is a big deal when you start looking at other situations where it could be applied.
Even if you take the assumption that the ISP knew there was infringement happening, it could be easily translated into an auto manufacturer having to police the activities it's cars are being used for because some of the uses could be illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Where I live, there is a noise ordinance that can result in a fine for playing loud music at night. Is the record company liable? I have been specifically told by the music itself that I should "play it loud" and "if it's too loud, you're too old".
I'm not completely against inducement standards, but they need to be VERY high, or they are likely to allow a lot of mis-placed liability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kill 'em all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kill 'em all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love to count!
One! One Party Liability! AhHahHah!
*thunder crash*
Two! Two Party Liability! AhHahHah!
*thunder crash*
Three! Three Party Liability! AhHahHah!
*thunder crash*
Four! Four Party Liability! AhHahHah!
*thunder crash*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inevitable if unlimited income from limited work.
If you think there's continuing value to mere amusement, then why isn't there continuing payment to those who built your house, or car? -- By what strange reason are those who merely amuse entitled to payments forever for a limited amount of easy work that they enjoy? -- Only reason is that the high incomes allowed them to sway, and BUY, politicians to make statutes granting these super-rights, and now, they're *REALLY* getting greedy. And they don't give a damn about your rights, whether you support them or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inevitable if unlimited income from limited work.
Oh, and argument 1 is totally off topic, too. All this is IMO of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The 0th Party
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EMbedded Document
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whoops...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colossal Tard
No they arent. This is being proven RIGHT NOW. They are not "forced to change" they run crying to congress, BRIBE (and thats what it is) lawmakers to change the laws to benefit THEM at OUR expense. This is happening right now in front of your blind eyes.
"If the 'owner' of The John Larroquette Show decides to lock it up, that is their right. It might be a bad business decision, but that doesn't give you the right to infringe. You are not 'entitled' to The John Larroquette Show."
It aired on national TV, free, over the air. I have EVERY right to it. THEY aired it, not me. If they dont want their material to be available, then DONT RELEASE IT EVER. Why is it legal to record it off air (A FREE BROADCAST) and view it forever, but not legal to download it later when it is NO LONGER PROVIDED IN ANY FORMAT WHATSOEVER? Your little "They can do what they want" doesnt cover this adequately nor is it a fair option for the consumer (or the public in the case of things that SHOULD return to the PD).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Colossal Tard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hell lets put their parents in jail for facilitating by allowing them to be born!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I give you a lift to pick up your car so you can lend it to your mate who drives for a guy who robs a bank, am I now liable for the crime?
I give lifts to many people and I must accept that one day one of these linked people may commit a crime. must I now stop giving lifts to any of my friends to stop this happening?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
12th Party Liability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid laws get ignored by most people.......
It seems as if everyone who claims people who share content are stealing/infringing/low lives/pirates/.... just don't get it. Most people who 'share content' don't believe that they are doing anything wrong. It's not wrong morally, ethically, or spiritually. It just so happens to be illegal, at the moment.
It's only illegal because vested interests are using the law to make boatloads of cash. They are in control of the government (by the corporation, for the corporation) and pass laws that benefit themselves. If confronted with a nonsensical law, the common response is to ignore it.
If a law was passed tomorrow that made it illegal to use certain words without paying a 'rights holder' (You think I'm kidding. If singing to yourself requires a license payment, speaking is gonna be next.) These rights holders just happen to be major corporations. Do you honestly think the average person is going to count up his words and send some organization a check at the end of the day? Good luck with that.
If people don't agree with the word tax, they should just refrain from speaking (according to 'Sam I am') and let the word licensing industry die a legal death.
Just what kind of pirate goes about using words without a license. Don't they realize all of the hard work that went into creating those words? Just think of all the people that they are putting out of business. Why I hear the corn farmers are suffering terribly.
Yea, right....
Most people think of copyright (on every little thing, into perpetuity - minus a day) as nonsensical.
People understand stealing. That's why your average copyright infringer wouldn't for a moment consider walking out of a store with an unpaid for DVD, or CD, or book. That's wrong. I can't take some _THING_ without paying for it. On the other hand, it's perfectly natural to share what you have, or to 'go in halves' with some one else if you can't afford it.
The only thing that's changed over the years is that technology has progressed to the point were we can make copies of things, easier and cheaper.
First there was stories, songs, know how. Someone learned it and taught others the story, the song, how to do it.
Then there was writing, books, parchment. Someone, or lots of someones bought/borrowed a book and a copy was made, may be of all of it, maybe only a part.
Then there was recorders, and photocopiers. Someone bought a book or went to the library and used the photocopier. Someone bought a record, or put their tape recorder up to the radio and copied a few songs. You taped a television show this afternoon and watched it that evening. If your neighbor missed it, you lent/gave her your VHS tape. Still no problem (at least as far as common sense would have it).
Now at this point, copyright infringement done for personal use, without making over $1000, was completely legal. You could make a mix tape and give it to your friends legally. The Supreme Court gave us the Sony Betamax decision which prohibited the content industries from dictating technology.
Then we had CD's and personal computers. BBS (Bulletin Board Systems for you youngins) and AOL. Things are even easier to copy. I still have an older stereo system LP/cassette tape/CD player. It has synchronous taping to make it easier to create copies from CD's and other tapes.
Most 'boom boxes' had built in microphones to let you record whatever you wanted. (Bask for a moment in the forgotten freedom.)
Then the world started getting crazy. The No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act) made infringement illegal even if it was not for profit. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DCMA) was passed, making it illegal to bypass any half hearted attempt at copy-protection. Even if you were legally allowed to make that copy (back up/time shifting/ etc.). At the same time we have the Internet, DVD burners, scanners, multi terabyte hard drives.
It's now easier than ever to share content. Instead of asking your neighbor if they could tape that episode of South Park for you, you could see if anyone else on the planet had, and if they did, could give you a copy.
Instead of borrowing that tape from your brother and making yourself a copy. You could check if anyone on the planet could give you a copy.
Unfortunately, the people who were making millions out of having you buy an Lp, then rebuy a cassette then rebuy a CD wanted to keep making their millions. So they kept getting laws passed. Like extending copyright to everything, not just those things that were registered. Like making copyright last for 100+ years, instead of 28. Like allowing patents on math, genes, software, and exercising your cat.
You share what you have with others, not making a hundred boot leg disks and selling them out of your trunk, just passing around the digital equivalent of mix tapes, and VHS tapped television shows and suddenly you're a 'pirate', your a 'thief', a 'low life'. You're potentially on the hook for millions of dollars. If you walked into Wal-Mart and stole a CD, you'd get a fine (couple hundred dollars max) maybe a day or two in jail. You share a song with other like minded individuals. A copy from your hard drive, to their hard drive. No one's stolen anything from anyone. You're looking at a six or seven figure fine?!?!?
It boggles the mind. It doesn't compute. So most people deal with it the only way they know how. They ignore it.
The only people stealing anything are the content industries that are stealing our history, our culture, our sense of identity. Locking up pictures, melodies, even words trying to extort us into paying to express ourselves.
The only sane result is to have copyright/patents repealed. No one can with a straight face honor a copyright system that says every utterance in a fixed medium is covered by copyright for more than a hundred years. No one with a straight face can honor a system that claims exercising your cat with a laser pointer, doing math a certain way, having blue eyes, deserves a patent.
The only thing is how much collateral damage will be allowed to happen before it's washed away.
Remember we once had a constitutional amendment that prohibited people from consuming alcohol. Just how well did that work out? Even grandma kept a pint '...strictly for medicinal purposes...'.
The 'intellectual property' (I feel dirty just typing it) system has gotten to the point that it's farcical.
Learn a song, and teach it to your friends and family.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid laws get ignored by most people.......
I don't think the RIAA cares much if you do any of the equivalent of the past methods of sharing. I don't think they care if you make a mix CD, or even a digital playlist, and share it with your friends. The people who do that aren't the ones who are ending up in court.
I think the RIAA cares very much about those who make digital copies available to the general public on torrent sites. That is hardly like sharing tracks with your friends in 'the old days'. These are the people we see getting hauled into court.
A digital copy is not like an analog recording or a tape. In those cases, each time the original is copied, the quality degrades, so there is much less impact on potential sales. I don't really understand why the MPAA and cinema owners care about people sneaking into movies with cameras because the resulting quality of the recording is not going to dissuade more than a tiny fraction of the potential market from buying an authorized quality version.
Even amidst today's insanity around piracy, I still see a lot of reasonable behavior. Unfortunately, the more infringing we see, the more rigid and less reasonable the RIAA and the courts are going to be, in my opinion. The infringers are being every bit as unreasonable and naive as the RIAA or MPAA, in thinking that breaking the law is an effective strategy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fifth party liability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
about godwins law for the nazi's
The nazi party was bad, but the SS and the hierarchy was far worse. Think also of the catholic church in middle ages when most criminals knew that if they could get ordained they would affectively go "scot free".
Ther fact michael giest in a discussion of a law that would bring about aspects of nazi germany to canada , banned me from posting is an act of nohting less then censorship and not an act of preserving good behaviour, or just smalling or defaming someone.
The truth is and still is every democracy needs oversight because of the fact we are all human we make mistakes whethar intentional or not. Correction always comes later and without that you increase the chances of a dictatorial life
michael giest for you i will now type the following
nazi
nazi
nazi
and remember in matrix revolutions in the train station while neo talks to the "program" about the love. IT is not just that it is a word , it is the connection the word implies.
THIS is why without a shadow of a doubt the people that just poof off godwins law are actually trying to suppress that "nazi" word cause it is in most cases a true thing to equate to a situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: about godwins law for the nazi's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Declare!
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fix to the problem
Who really benefitted from the free and easy exchange of information anyway. And we'll still have books, and newspapers, and the radio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fix to the problem
Who really benefitted from the free and easy exchange of information anyway. And we'll still have books, and newspapers, and the radio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/pirate-bay-isp-bashes-hollywoods-cluele ss-idiots.ars
If I understand correctly Mickey Mouse would have been in public domain by now. Not that I'm interested by I'm sure there are works out there that should have been in public domain by now. Except that the IP fascists bought the politicians and changed the law to prevent this from happening. So all you RIAA shills claiming we consumers are the bad guys need to take a look at the hipocrisy of the industry. They are the real thieves. Stealing culture from us and locking it down.
Meet file sharing.
Karma is a bitch, isn't? it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you believe the plaintiff's lobby, anyone who is responsible should be liable. Likely end points include ICANN - but wait, ICANN received its original authority from the Commerce Dept - so that means the US Government - but wait - didn't Al Gore invent the Internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cyberbunker the Pirate Bay ISP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]