Is BPI Trying To Setup Google For Copyright Infringement Lawsuit?
from the here-comes-the-battle dept
Someone who prefers to remain anonymous sent over the Chilling Effects archive of BPI's recent DMCA takedown notice to Google. BPI (in case you didn't know) is the UK's version of the RIAA, and works closely with PPL, the group whose leader recently said there's no such thing as promotional use. BPI was also the driving force behind the recent Digital Economy Act that brought three strikes legislation to the UK, despite public outcry against it. Of course, lots of labels file DMCA notices all the time, and Google has noted in the past that it will take down links to infringing content when notified. While I still don't see how Google can or would be liable, seeing as it is merely accurately describing what its crawlers find and is not hosting the material in question, merely linking to it, Google still seems to go above and beyond what the law allows.However, there were some interesting tidbits in this particular takedown notice that suggest that this is a setup for a larger plan by BPI -- a plan it may regret. First, it seems a bit odd that BPI has randomly selected 30 or so songs to take down, from a wide variety of songs that it technically represents. Second, beyond just giving Google the details of the files and links to the files, it also lists out the "infringing webpage(s)" as:
http://hotfile.com/To expedite DMCA claims, Google specifically requests sufficient information "to permit Google to notify the owner/administrator of the allegedly infringing webpage or other content (email address is preferred)." But BPI does not do that. It only lists out the above webpages.
http://usershare.net/
http://2shared.com/
http://4shared.com/
http://mediafire.com/
http://megaupload.com/
http://sendspace.com/
http://teradepot.com/
http://zippyshare.com/
My guess is that this is trying to set up Google, so that Google is officially "on notice" that these nine sites host infringing content, and while Google will almost certainly take down the links to the specific files listed, it's quite likely that similar files will quickly be found elsewhere on those sites -- and BPI may then try to claim that Google should automatically know how to block those other files. Part of the DMCA safe harbors is that you need to remove content if you have "specific knowledge" of the content. This is at the center of the Google-Viacom lawsuit. Google claims it needs to know the specific files that are infringing, while Viacom claims that once Google knows that "content x on YouTube" is infringing, it should be required to find and block all such content x's, even if Viacom has not informed Google where they are.
While the final decision in that case is still a ways off, for now, it looks like BPI is setting itself up to sue Google for lots of money as well, if Viacom gets away with its argument. And, you can bet that others will be lining up to do so as well. If anything, this suggests the massive legal problem that will result if Viacom wins its lawsuits. Suddenly, lots of content holders will be looking to "cash in" by suing YouTube for not tracking down each and every last version of any particular content.
Hopefully, the courts recognize (similar to what was recently found in the Perfect 10/Rapidshare case) that when a site gives clear tools to let you remove specific infringing content, making a general claim does not fly.
Along those lines, however, it is worth noting that Google recently dropped a lawsuit against record label, Blues Destiny, in which it sought a declaratory judgment that just linking to content is not infringing. Google withdrew after Blues Destiny promised it wasn't going to sue Google for infringement, but it might have been better to get that legal precedent in place.
Either way, sooner or later, it looks like we're going to get another legal showdown over whether or not it's legal for Google to just link to infringing material. When that case goes forward, it could be a defining moment in whether or not search engines, themselves, are actually legal. If BPI does sue -- and loses -- it could also open up some legal room for content specific search engines that aren't deemed infringing as well.
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: copyright, dmca, takedown
Companies: bpi, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
File lockers
In other words, they are no more responsible for users' infringement than Google is.
If those sites are indeed blocked by Google, leading to less search engine traffic, then every single one of those sites would have grounds to file a libel suit against the BPI.
That's something I'd like to see!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: File lockers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: File lockers
Cite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: File lockers
But even if that's true, then the copyright holders should file a DMCA takedown notice against that content. Not a blanket ban on the service itself, and certainly they should not demand that a third party ban them.
It's exactly as if the BPI wrote a threatening letter to Best Buy, saying that they have to stop selling VCR's, or they will get sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: File lockers
Thank goodness for the Google/Viacom ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
find it funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: find it funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not W/O Precedent
But, most importantly, not without precedent in the sense that the offending organizations and the individuals who run them demonstrably have their heads buried as far up their rear quarters as conceivably possible (as amply noted by Mike).
And, like probably quite a lot of folks within this community, would be quite excited by such a lawsuit. One for the sheer joy of watching another utter FAIL by the recording industry, but, two also by the fact that such a suit would take, what, 5 years to come to a decision?
How many millions of kids coming of age and going to college would Big Content alienate in this time? How many millions of young adults graduating from college and entering the world would Big Content alienate in this time?
Yep, ANOTHER entire generation, lost as potential customers. Tell me that's not fun to watch.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not W/O Precedent
How many of those kids are going to sit in their dorm rooms and start writing code for the next P2P, weblocker, or TOR like app? What happens when one of them writes an encrypted, distributed P2P version of a torrent tracker that runs on a million machines, mixes in VPN, and torrent download ability?
Or ... (other shoe drops) ... when someone creates small 5 meg VPN app, with forwarding-proxy, DFS, and virtual DNS? Some thing that you can sit any web based server or app on top of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Often the best way to win a war is to not fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why? Because it can speed your enemy onto their just demise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.jamendo.com/en/artist/Houdini_Roadshow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]