Whatever You Think Of The RIAA's Lawsuit Over Aurous, Shouldn't We Be Concerned That It's Pretending SOPA Is Law?
from the seems-like-an-issue-that-ought-to-be-looked-at dept
As you may have heard, earlier this week, the RIAA sued Aurous and its creator Andrew Sampson for creating an apparently easy to use software front-end for streaming music from some unauthorized repositories (mostly in Russia). For his part, Sampson insists that he just used some publicly available APIs and created a nice front end, without doing anything that is directly infringing himself. While I can understand those claims, the existing details and case law suggest that Sampson isn't going to fare very well in court. Given Sampson's own public statements, at the very least, the RIAA has made a fairly compelling case under the Grokster "inducement" theory. You can -- as I do -- think that "inducement" to copyright infringement is a ridiculous thing to be considered against the law, but that doesn't change the fact that it is, indeed, the law. Unless there are some as yet unknown details here, Sampson is likely going to have a hard time getting around the inducement claims.So given all that, I fully expect that Sampson will lose the lawsuit (and lose easily) if the case gets that far. However, that doesn't mean that parts of the lawsuit aren't concerning. Of particular concern is what the RIAA is asking for in the lawsuit -- and what the judge appears to have granted. Specifically, in the lawsuit itself, the RIAA doesn't just ask for Aurous to be shut down, but also asks for all sorts of third parties to be restrained as well. Here's the list of things the RIAA asks the court to issue an order for:
(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.aurous.me) through which Defendants infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights;This is problematic, to say the least. Remember, SOPA did not become law, and yet the main part of the original SOPA bill was to create just this sort of remedy, whereby copyright providers could get a court order to get third party companies to be barred from doing any business at all with a site deemed a "pirate" site. Yet, SOPA did not become the law and the RIAA is just pretending it is law in asking the court to block all of those third parties from providing any services to the site.
(B) requiring domain name registries and/or registrars holding or listing Defendants’ domain names and websites (including, without limitation, www.aurous.me) through which Defendants infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights to: (a) disable www.aurous.me 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 Defendants and any other domain names, URLs or websites through which Defendants infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights, including without limitation www.aurous.me; 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.aurous.me.
The RIAA also submitted a desired temporary restraining order, which the judge effectively rubber stamped, granting everything the RIAA asked for -- but rejecting the RIAA's request not to have to put up a bond over this. Instead, the judge ordered the RIAA to put up a tiny $5,000 bond in case a party was "wrongfully" enjoined. That temporary restraining order seems pretty broad as well:
... Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons who in active concert or participation with each or any of them, or who are aiding and abetting their conduct, are hereby RESTRAINED and ENJOINED until further Order of this Court from infringing, or causing, enabling, facilitating, encouraging, promoting and inducing or participating in the infringement of, any of Plaintiffs’ copyrights protected by the Copyright Act, whether now in existence or hereafter created...Of course, one might question what qualifies as "all persons who are in active concert or participation," but it still has the potential to be overbroad, and to pull in all sorts of third parties who are doing nothing more than providing basic services.
Again, none of this is to say that Aurous is legal or shouldn't be facing this lawsuit. But pulling in third parties here was exactly the kind of thing that Congress chose not to do when it did not pass SOPA, in the wake of overwhelming public sentiment against allowing these sorts of remedies.
So why is the RIAA simply acting like it got what it wanted with SOPA and asking the court to proceed accordingly?
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: andrew sampson, copyright, dmca, inducement, intermediary liability, lawsuit, restraining order, sopa, third parties
Companies: auroros, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why not?
On the other hand, what they stand to gain is significant. They failed to get SOPA through, but by demanding that parts of it be enforced as though it were law anyway they effectively bypass the lawmakers entirely so long as they can find a willing judge and unsympathetic enough target. Win one case, and they have a precedent to point to for future cases, all of which will be easier as a result. Win enough cases, and it doesn't matter if what they're demanding isn't actually law on paper, it will still be treated as law in practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inducement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inducement?
No. They didn't go around advertising the fact that this was a way to get around copyright law. Auroros did. The ruling in the Grokster case basically says that you're not guilty of inducement if your product can be used for infringement (even if you know it's used for infringement) if you didn't actively encourage such use. However, if you do... then you're guilty of inducement. Xerox did not. Auroros did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Inducement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Inducement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Inducement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not all music is infringing.
So I'm afraid [citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Inducement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inducement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's nothing right about copyright.™
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright was a give and take
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did Auroros even get launched or were they still essentially an idea or plan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, Here's SOPA: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3261ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr3261ih.pdf
Can you point to the section you're talking about where it would have created this remedy?
I think you're mistaken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(A) SERVICE PROVIDERS.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign in- fringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name’s Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.
Page 15:
(B) INTERNET SEARCH ENGINES.—A provider of an Internet search engine shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order, or a portion of such site specified in the order, from being served as a direct hypertext link.
Pages 15-16
(C) PAYMENT NETWORK PROVIDERS.—
(i) PREVENTING AFFILIATION.—A payment network provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the payment account—
(I) which is used by the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the order; and
(II) through which the payment network provider would complete such payment transactions.
Pages 16-18
(D) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICES.—
(i) REQUIRED ACTIONS.—An Internet advertising service that contracts to provide advertising to or for the foreign in- fringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the order, or that knowingly serves advertising to or for such site or such portion thereof, shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to—
(I) prevent its service from providing advertisements to or relating to the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order or a portion of such site specified in the order;
(II) cease making available advertisements for the foreign infringing site or such portion thereof, or paid or sponsored search results, links, or other placements that provide access to such foreign infringing site or such portion thereof; and
(III) cease providing or receiving any compensation for advertising or related services to, from, or in connection with such foreign infringing site or such portion thereof.
ISP's would have been required to block the connection to the site, search engines would have been required to de-list the site, payment network providers would have been required to block any payments made to the site through their service, and ad services would have been required to stop doing business with them. Collect all those together, and it sounds exactly like what he's talking about, forcing third-parties to completely cut ties with accused 'pirate' sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike's premise is that SOPA would have "just this sort of remedy," but I don't think that's right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(2) QUALIFYING PLAINTIFF.—The term ‘‘qualifying plaintiff’’ means, with respect to a particular Internet site or portion thereof, a holder of an intellectual property right harmed by the activities described in paragraph (1) occurring on that Internet site or portion thereof.
Page 38:
(1) SERVICE AND RESPONSE.—
(A) SERVICE BY QUALIFYING PLAINTIFF.—A qualifying plaintiff, with the prior approval of the court, may serve a copy of a court order issued under subsection (c) on similarly situated entities described in paragraph (2). Proof of service shall be filed with the court.
Page 38-39
(2) REASONABLE MEASURES.—After being served with a copy of an order pursuant to this subsection, the following shall apply:
(A) PAYMENT NETWORK PROVIDERS.—
(i) PREVENTING AFFILIATION.—A payment network provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the court order, or within such time as the court may order, that are designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and any ac count—
(I) which is used by the Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property that is subject to the order; and
(II) through which the payment network provider would complete such payment transactions.
Page 40-41:
(B) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICES.—
(i) REQUIRED ACTIONS.—An Internet advertising service that contracts with the Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property that is subject to the order to provide advertising to or for such Internet site, or that knowingly serves advertising to or for such internet site, shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, that are designed to—
(I) prevent its service from providing advertisements to or relating to the Internet site;
(II) cease making available advertisements for the Internet site, or paid or sponsored search results, links, or other placements that provide access to the Internet site; and
(III) cease providing or receiving any compensation for advertising or related services to, from, or in connection with the Internet site.
No mention of ISP's or search engines(that I saw anyway), so those might be out of reach of non-AG's, but non-AG's can most certainly get the financial support of a site cut off via court order, and a site with no financial support is one that's not going to last long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
probably because it knows that it only has to throw a few dollars at Congress and it will do whatever it can to make it appear that SOPA actually passed into law. on top of that, most courts do exactly what the RIAA and the movie industry want without even considering the arguments or evidence!
and then there is the usual RIAA tactic of just using what it WANTS to be law as if it IS law! no one else is allowed that ploy but then the entertainment industries are taking whatever steps it can think of, legal or otherwise, to get what it wants. the industries have their sights set on controlling the internet. there are law suits in other parts of the world that the industries have brought to get not just websites blocked, but the trackers! then in another part of the world, an ISP has already stated it will do as the Industries want because it cant afford to go to court to protect the identities of it's customers and is giving over the information without any court case! once that happens in that country (Italy, i believe) the industries will go global, and that means really big changes coming into force! see if i aint right!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Query from a grammar Nazi.
Can anyone tell me where this practice comes from? There's capital letters embedded in the sentence, yet not one sentence begins with a capitalized word. They can do it, yet for whatever reason, they won't. Where does this phenomenon come from? Is this just e. e. cummings mashing up against instant messaging laziness, or is this something Jobs (or whoever) came up with and it's an homage to their greatness?
I was taught that composition skills are to enhance the possibility that readers might want to read what you write. Looking at stuff like this looks like an insult to the reader, at least it does to me. It's very pathetically "arty" for no apparent purpose or value that I can think of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Query from a grammar Nazi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Query from a grammar Nazi.
I'm just curious if anyone knows where it came from and what, if any, event precipitated it. I've seen it happening everywhere in recent years, not just in this case. I'm wondering if it's the logical extreme of CamelCase variable names run amok.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Query from a grammar Nazi.
It's not completely true. Some people have been confused by my italicized scare quotes, and for those of us who've grown up with quotation marks, interpretation of them has become transparent.
We are shaped by the opinions of our professors. At least I've been by my graphic design instructors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Query from a grammar Nazi.
I've seen complaints from people who say they can't even see italics when using a cellphone. I've no sympathy. I assume they bought the wrong cellphone. They should have done better pre-purchase testing. Better luck next time, or spring for a cheap tablet or laptop. User error. PEBKAC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who needs laws anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, that moment kind felt like the end of due process.
I wonder if the RIAA and MPAA folks are figuring similarly, that they'd feel better if they just arbitrarily blamed some people and then denied them life or liberty or property.
Our people in high positions are behaving less like officials or representatives of people, and more like nobles and kings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong question
The real question is:
Why is the court acting like this is the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong question
Money talks, obviously. Judges have seen the writing on the wall and understand their new marching orders. Taxpayers and voters are the new peons, and corporations are the new citizens for whom the gov't works. "The business of America is business", and all that. They suffer our existence only as long as we're useful to them.
After all, have you seen the crap that the peons write and fight about in on-line fora? They're foaming at the mouth ignorant imbeciles. They invent crap like Occupy Wall St. and the Tea Party, ffs. Who can take anyone like that seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't SOPA going to be international law if the TPP gets passed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
here's the REAL problem
a) is concerned about following laws
b) are not as delusional (if not more so,) than the Republican Party
or c) acting as bad, if not worse, and a Sicilian Mob
take your pick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corruption and graft....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is reform even possible through intra-system means?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is reform even possible through intra-system means?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same as the old boss
Because efforts toward reform are less likely to create change than efforts to overthrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corruption and graft....
How do you propose to stop Hollywood from offering cushy post politics positions of power, that demand neither expertise nor labor of any sort, but promise a 6 digit annual income, in return for legal and political favors today??
You have to realize that today, corruption is the equivalent to a second income with bonuses (tax-free), for most of the people working for government, or as government, or in the legal professions - the very people who propose and enact legislation.
While it would normally take half a life time for a judge to save enough money to buy that lovely chalet in Spain, overlooking the sea, he can now do it in just a few years by taking money on the side for making preselected judgements that favor Hollywood, Drug Warriors, and federal government spies.
How on earth are you ever gonna get them back on the farm, once they've tasted American corruption and graft, if you cannot even pass laws that make the process illegal??
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All is Fair in Love and War.
The War on Drugs is a war on the American Public, because drug dealers and drug users are indeed American citizens.
Thus, because the federal government department of the Entertainment Industry of America wanted very much to put SOPA through, and because the public charade of democratic procedure failed to get that done, the feds have quietly installed SOPA as law, so they can use it whenever needed, but neglected to inform the general public of that fact in much the same manner as they did with the US Constitution and for pretty much the same reason.
Hollywood, of course, is fully aware of the fact that SOPA was secretly ratified and installed as law, because they wrote the legislation and paid the men and women of the federal government vast sums of money to do exactly that, so they would naturally use the legislation whenever the need arose.
When you think about it, maintaining total secrecy during the "talks" about a Free Trade Agreement, followed by non-disclosure of the details of that agreement for a decade, is pretty much the same thing as simply secretly stating the agreement is law, since there will be no public dissent allowed that might prevent that inevitable outcome.
Just a thought. :)
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because the RIAA and most assuredly not limited too, are hoping that enough people will just assume their entitled to it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]