Major Record Labels Use Lawsuit Against MP3Skull To Try To Backdoor In SOPA
from the another-backdoor-attempt dept
Another week, another attempt by the legacy copyright players to find a way to enact SOPA via the backdoor. As we've been covering quite a bit lately, the Sony hack has revealed how "site blocking" (the key part of SOPA -- which is more accurately described as censoring parts of the internet) is still a major priority for the the legacy copyright industry, and they're exploring all sorts of ways to make it happen, from new lawsuits to new legislation to trade agreements to pressure on third parties to local politicians to the International Trade Commission to attacks on encryption and more.It appears that the strategy of using lawsuits is now well underway with the major labels all teaming up to sue the site MP3Skull. That site has been around for a while, and is one quite frequently cited by copyright maximalists as an example of a "bad" player in helping people find unauthorized copies of music. At first I wasn't even sure if it was worth covering the lawsuit as it seemed rather typical of similar lawsuits that the legacy entertainment industry has filed against a variety of sites and services. Frankly, I don't know nearly enough about how MP3Skull works to have much of an opinion on the legal basis for the lawsuit, but it does seem odd that the labels are suing in Florida, when they're mostly based in NY and MP3Skull is most likely based in Russia. I'm guessing the MPAA's win against Hotfile in Florida may have something to do with the choice of venues.
But the reason this story is worth covering has little to do with MP3Skull itself. Rather, it's the remedies the labels are asking for: which is basically to have the court issue an insanely broad order that no one can ever point anyone to MP3Skull's websites or in any way help MP3Skull. Basically, the record labels are asking the court to pretend SOPA is the law despite it failing as a law:
...entry of an Order, pursuant to Section 502 of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 502), 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), and this Court’s inherent equitable powers, (A) enjoining Defendants and all third parties with notice of the Order, including any Web hosts, domain-name registrars, domain name registries or their administrators, from facilitating access to any or all domain names, URLs and websites (including, without limitation, www.MP3Skull.com and www.MP3Skull.to) through which Defendants infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights;That's a lot of text, but what it's saying is that the labels want the court to issue an order that the labels can then wave around to basically anyone, saying they cannot provide any services to the site and cannot link ("facilitating access") to MP3Skull. The labels chose their target carefully. It seems unlikely that MP3Skull is going to show up in a Florida court to defend itself if the site really is run by a group of mysterious folks in Russia who haven't revealed themselves. Thus, there's a half decent chance that a judge could just issue a default judgment, and possibly just sign off on giving the labels exactly what they're asking for. This doesn't always happen in default cases, but certainly is more likely when there's no real adversarial hearing to point out how insane and questionable the proposed remedy is.
(B) requiring domain name registries (including VeriSign, Inc.) and/or registrars holding or listing Defendants’ domain names and websites (including, without limitation, www.MP3Skull.com and www.MP3Skull.to) through which Defendants infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights to: (a) disable www.MP3Skull.com, www.MP3Skull.to and any related domain names specified by Plaintiffs through a registry hold or otherwise, and to make them inactive and non-transferable, and (b) transfer Defendants’ domain names to a registrar to be appointed by Plaintiffs to re-register the domain names in Plaintiffs’ names and under Plaintiffs’ ownership;
(C) enjoining all third parties with notice of the Order from maintaining, operating, or providing advertising, financial, technical or other support to MP3Skull and any other domain names, URLs or websites through which Defendants infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights, including without limitation www.MP3Skull.com and www.MP3Skull.to; and
(D) enjoining all third-party distributors of applications, toolbars or similar software with notice of the Order from distributing any applications, toolbars or similar software applications that interoperate with any domain names, URLs or websites through which Defendants infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights, including without limitation www.MP3Skull.com and www.MP3Skull.to.
Courts should generally try to avoid putting burdens on third parties entirely unrelated to the case in question. The labels must know this, but are hoping that without an adversarial process, they can present a very one-sided (and potentially misleading) story, and get the kind of ruling it wants, and then use that as a precedent for as long as they can.
Whether or not MP3Skull itself broke the law (and it's certainly possible the site did), everyone should be extremely concerned about the excessive remedies being sought and the way the labels are looking to get a judge to effectively pretend that an extreme version of SOPA is already the law.
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, russia, site blocking
Companies: arista, atlantic, capitol records, elektra, emi, mp3skull, riaa, sony music, universal music, warner music group, zomba
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Does the US and Russia Have A Trade Deal to Cover This
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Accessories to a 'crime'
Every single web browser can take that simple string of letters and numbers and turn it into an actual page of information, and that information infringes on somebody's copyright! And since it's by design, it's willful! The RIAA needs to eliminate web browsers to save the "artists"!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Insanity on several levels
What about foreign search engines?
Even so, what if mp3skull changes it's domain name?
Do they think they can get every ISP in the entire world to block the IP address? What if mp3skull changes IP addresses? Then should the new owner of the IP address get to sue the major record labels? (Like if you bought a house that all services and utilities were forbidden from servicing because of some former owner's actions.)
If they are successful, do they realize what a Pyrrhic victory this will be? Sort of like shutting down Napster was. It just caused an explosion of new ways to distribute infringing material that was no longer centralized. (am I making a threat (gasp!) for mentioning the possibility of how other people than myself might react? Make no mistake, I am a lifetime subscriber to the practice of buying and listening to zero of the RIAA member's products. Yes, really.)
If this backdoor SOPA censorship happens, I can make a few technical predictions.
1. A new decentralized way of looking things up by name (directory)
2. A new decentralized way of searching for things not reachable by major search engines (search, index)
3. Source and destination endpoint encryption or anonymizing of communications. (Tor on steroids)
How will censorship, errr... I mean copyright deal with that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That is what SOPA is. A big magic off switch for anything not liked -- whether it is infringing or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Accessories to a 'crime'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That could be a blank check. as who would oversee the labels selection of sites to be blocked under such an order.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If I were the judge
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Accessories to a 'crime'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Insanity on several levels
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
amicus?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Accessories to a 'crime'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: If I were the judge
[ link to this | view in thread ]
After this I'll be able to say and write 'Hitler', but I won't be able to whisper 'M*******'. And Google won't be able to index any site that allows me to post 'M*******'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Let's take this to its logical conclusion
Linking to an infringing mp3: RIAA goes after that, even though it is actually a tool to find the actual infringing material.
But do they stop there?
Linking to a site that links to infringing mp3: Shut it down because it is facilitating and enabling.
Linking to a site that links to a site that links to infringing mp3s?
Linking to a site that links to a site that links to a site that links to infringing mp3s?
Oh, wait! Now it makes sense! So that is why SOPA is about shutting down the entire internet!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Fixed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Let's take this to its logical conclusion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Funny thing tho, everyone just laughed and took him to jail. Maybe Masnick can write some articles on that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Florida
"but it does seem odd that the labels are suing in Florida, when they're mostly based in NY and MP3Skull is most likely based in Russia. "
From Ars Technica:
"The record labels' lawsuit (PDF) was filed in the Southern District of Florida, where the site's Web hosting service, Webzilla, is based."
So there is at least some logic to suing in Florida.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ignorance is the risk here...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Can the Judge do that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Once the **AA holes can arbitrarily censor anything they like for any conceivable reason, misconception, misunderstanding, or rationalization, the internet will break.
If one user on a major site links to the wrong thing, or maybe even just says the wrong thing, then the entire site will disappear in a puff of smoke.
And it won't be just the **AA holes, it will be any big corporate interest. So nothing will exist on the internet unless it absolutely offends nobody and can not be construed as being a crime, even if it is not. Like fair use. Or reporting of news facts that are embarrassing.
You think they won't go this far? They will do even worse. Until the world wakes up to the level of abuses and takes their ability to do it away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ignorance is the risk here...
Two words: ex parte
RIAA used such proceedings to try and pry identities out of (eg) universities and ISPs for mass infringement lawsuits. Admittedly, it eventually stopped working so well, but for a while there...
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court also operates ex parte.
Ex Parte is the exception rather than the norm, but in general, you're right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Listen to the tech sector for once about undemocratic site blocking being dangerous, discard their bad ideas once and for all, and give up while still behind.
or
Attempt one last shred at relevance (by trying to backdoor SOPA) that will only make everyone that isn't in their inner circle hate them and invoke another Disco Demolition Night, only with far less book burnings (and possibly more of that other definition of burning media), geared toward entire labels (as opposed to a genre), and with zero chance of a revival.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the really pissy thing is how, yet again, the USA thinks it rules the planet and can make any decision for what will happen in countries it has absolutely no jurisdiction over. one day, one of these nations is going to get a serious hard on for taking the US orders and shoving them where the Sun dont shine! the problem then will be how long the planet lasts because the thick fuckers ruling the US will go ape shit as usual and take the most stupid action it can and do the lot of us!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What's needed is an amicus brief to discourage finding direct infringement and limit the harm of finding secondary infringement
I mean they can't seriously think MP3Skull is a threat to their business. They say it's infringing and causing harm "on a massive scale," but they have no numbers to back that up and don't need any. That's because it's not about MP3Skull or their business model at all. MP3Skull could shut down today and it wouldn't result in any bump in business. Nor does the RIAA want to partner with MP3Skull and get a cut of their ad revenue.
No, they really just want to get a ruling against this type of website; they are seeking a declaration that any site willfully infringes if it is a search engine that provides links to copyrighted content.
One of the things the RIAA is doing here is trying to solidify the concept of secondary, contributory infringement—an emerging doctrine in civil case law which does not require proof of actual infringement by the defendant, but rather just proof that the defendant has a sort of conspiratorial role with the people doing the actual unauthorized copying and distributing. All that needs to be shown is that infringement has occurred as a result of MP3Skull's actions, and that MP3Skull was knowingly facilitating it. In this regard, the case is an easy win for the RIAA, and their complaint is chock-full of evidence against Mp3Skull. MP3Skull uses major-label artists as examples, and instructs & encourages users to work around blocks instituted as a result of takedown notices. The RIAA has already used that kind of "red flag knowledge" of infringement by users to obtain favorable precedents against user-uploaded content services, file-sharing services, and file-sharing software distributors. MP3Skull's smoking guns are in plain sight, no discovery of internal emails needed.
One of the other things the RIAA is doing in this case is much more sinister. In addition to claiming secondary infringement, they are claiming direct infringement. They present absolutely no evidence in support of this, but they are hoping the judge (who I assume they've forum-shopped for) will agree with their claim that MP3Skull's owners "reproduce and distribute unauthorized reproductions" and "engage in unauthorized public performances". This right here is the backdoor SOPA and must not be allowed traction.
Unfortunately, MP3Skull's owners are unlikely to emerge from the shadows to raise a First Amendment defense. I am also wondering if it's reasonable to expect any amicus briefs from companies which now have an "arrangement" with the RIAA, like Google/YouTube, Soundcloud, Spotify, etc. Even if a "hyperlinking is free speech" defense were raised, I wouldn't expect it to succeed in this case, given MP3Skull's public nose-thumbing and their apparent intent to hook people up with any music whatsoever, regardless of whether it can be legally distributed.
I think the best we can hope for is an amicus brief from the EFF in an effort to limit the collateral damage. They should insist that no "plain reading" of the statutes nor circuit precedent supports a finding of direct infringement. And if the court is to find secondary infringement, then it must be expressed in a way that makes it clear that it's contingent upon 1. evidence of direct infringement by MP3Skull users (or at least evidence that such infringement is likely, based on site traffic and an as-yet undemonstrated ability to search for and acquire plaintiffs' recordings via the site); and 2. the egregious infringement-encouraging and facilitating things that MP3Skull did above and beyond mere indexing and hyperlinking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What's needed is an amicus brief to discourage finding direct infringement and limit the harm of finding secondary infringement
IMHO, without such an assertion, it can't be assumed that users are able to infringe plaintiffs' copyrights for those specific recordings, and thus there should be no finding of secondary infringement by the site's operators.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This is something that is in the domain of legislation - not a civil lawsuit. And the thrust of this article is that they're doing so to attempt to de facto manufacture a law without it needing to be passed by the legislature and signed by the executive.
A law that they *tried* to get passed by the legislature, in fact, and it was denied.
To hell with copyright - to me what they're doing is a very literal and serious attempt to usurp the political framework (albeit on a lesser scale then, say, planning a military coup).
The goal of copyright is the encouragement of innovation - but attempting to get around the whole principle of approval-by-voting is "this would be treason if that wasn't already strictly defined" territory.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Insanity on several levels
Short of reopening the case to send out fresh injunctions every year, I don't see how that could possibly work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]