|
MP3Board Turns the Tables on the RIAA
The tables are being turned on the Recording Industry Association of America. Instead of the self proclaimed "trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry" suing people and/or companies over copyright infringements, a complaint has been filed against the RIAA with the U.S. District Court in San Jose, on behalf of MP3Board Inc. The lawsuit states that, "Copyright laws should not apply to sites like MP3Board.com that simply offer links to other sites, even if those sites offer pirated material." The lawsuit comes on the heels of the RIAA threatening to shut down the MP3 site.
"We're not Napster. We don't have...MP3 files. We're a mere conduit, like Lycos or Hotbot. What this lawsuit is about is whether a search engine or linking service has an obligation to edit automated links. By going after us, they are basically oppressing free speech for everybody," said attorney Ira Rothken, who represents MP3Board.
In an effort to try and get some idea of the case's outcome, I contacted The Law Offices of Robert L. Miller and asked Mr. Miller for his opinion on the situation. "The law is not very well defined in this area, so a court may end up surprising everybody, but I don't think that MP3Board has a very good chance to succeed." He also added, "...Since the court will be drawing analogies from other areas where "publication" occurs, unless they can show actual malice,...that no "publisher" has a duty to check every listing, ad, etc., to see if it violates copyright laws or is just listing legal music for others to download. The burden on websites and/or search engines is too great."
Presiding over the case will be U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte, who has dealt with Internet copyright cases in the past.
| Links: |
link(www.mp3board.com,MP3Board.com)
link(www.riaa.com,Recording Industry Association of America)
link(www.rmillerlawoffices.com/rmillerlawoffices/,The Law Offices of Robert L. Miller)
|
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
spyed
|
Date: June 4, 2000 @ 4:35 PM
Hmm.. I think that lawyer is incorrect. This is the mp3.lycos.com law suit all over again.
`Angelo |
|
Heidi
|
Date: June 4, 2000 @ 5:00 PM
Give him some credit, he did say .. "a court may end up surprising everybody."
~Heidi |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: June 4, 2000 @ 6:27 PM
Basically that lawyer knows nothing. I hope you did not spend a lot of money on him. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: June 4, 2000 @ 6:58 PM
Let me elaborate some more on my comment above. The site should remove a link to a file once they become aware of a link which was not granted by the copyright holder.
Did the RIAA specifically inform the site of the "exact link" that violates the rights of a copyright holder? Did MP3Board disable the link and contact the person responsible for granting permission to publish it? Did the granter of the link respond? Does MP3Board require people that grant them permission to link to the file to own all copyrights?
Come on people, this is all common sense. If you act responsibly with high morals and can adjudicate issues then you will have no problem with any copyright holder. YES, That is hard work but it respects those that own the works. The final blame if you act reasonable is on the person that claimed ownership of the copyright and granted you permission. If the real copyright holder knows you will respect their rights WTF is the problem.
I do not like Lycos, I have had bad dealings with them before. They do not respect copyright holders. I bet MP3board does not either.
|
|
jark
|
Date: June 4, 2000 @ 8:30 PM
For what reason, other than your so-called moral obligation, should a webmaster be held responsible for links that are automatically generated, and added into a database? MP3 Lycos won their lawsuit...and that is how it should be. Placing the burden on the search engine would effectively hurt ALL search engines, making them HAVE NO CHOICE but to screen all of their submissions. That is complete, and utter, stupidity. That would effectively make EVERY webmaster, not only search engine webmasters, have to screen ALL content. Is that what we want?
Lest not forget that the copyright law was enacted in order to protect the consumers not the corporations. Now these powerful groups are trying to turn a consumer law back upon the very people that the law was enacted for, which is completely insane.
Anyhow...you say you did not like Lycos, but what point does that prove? That you got pissed off about links to copywritten material in their MP3 search engine? Wow...so, instead of going after Lycos then why did you not go after the individual who WAS HOSTING THE CONTENT? That is what should be done - not these little battles against the search engines. Let's get real.
--[ jark ]-- |
|
kurt_nimmo
|
Date: June 4, 2000 @ 9:06 PM
The RIAA, Microsoft, the MPAA, et al will not rest until they kill off mere linking to things they find objectionable. Why is it okay for the NY TIMES website to publish a link to DeCSS, but it's not for 2600? Because 2600 is comprised of Linux and DeCSS supporters. Plus, it would be expensive to sue NY TIMES, whereas 2600 is a site with limited resources.
It's really becoming surreal. Now Howard King will go after Hummer Winblad and Hank Barry, newly installed corporate types at Napster, under RICO statutes. No doubt King is attempting to whittle down that $15 million invested in Napster. Question: will Winblad now beef up the war chest? Will Napster be tangled in litigation for the foreseeable future? Is this any way to run a business, especially one that realizes zero income? And now there’s a cherry on this twisted cake – Napster sends a cease and desist order to Offspring.
Anyway, if this judge rules against MP3Board it will set a precedent on linking, as did the DeCSS restraining order. I believe this issue will go to the Supreme Court and the court will rule in favor of linking. If they rule against it, the result will strike at the foundation of the Web – document hyperlinking. I can’t see this happening.
|
|
Anonymous
|
Date: June 4, 2000 @ 9:24 PM
Actually I run a MP3 site and I do screen uploads before putting MP3s on the net. I bet Dimension does too.
In the case of Lycos they kept logging onto my upload only FTP server every 5 minutes. I use that server only for for band uploads. Not only was it very annoying, it did nothing for the consumer since their web site links to my Upload only server gave every user from Lycos "permission denied" to download. This meant I had about 50 people always trying to log on to my server. I never gave Lycos permission to link to my FTP server and when I asked them to stop spidering and remove the links they refused. How a business like that should be allowed to run beats the hell out of me.
Jark, a link to a web site that points to a page the files are at is one thing. A search engine that serves the content and the very essense of a site is completly another, and is in essense a " content distributor". A content distributor has to play by different rules.
Copyrights belong to those that own them or have permission from the copyright holders. I think the judge in the Lycos case was way to easy on Lycos. Napster would not be here today if Lycos lost. There is little difference between Lycos, Napster and MP3board. As you can see Napster is losing and in effect this sort of reverses a lot of Crap from the Lycos case.
And before you rag on me too much, I started serving MP3 music from hundreds of Independent bands back in early 1997 because the major record labels would not allow promotion of MP3. I have done a great deal to help make the MP3 name somewhat honorable.
|
|
Anonymous
|
Date: June 5, 2000 @ 12:52 AM
a search engine is mostly automated, who is gonna sit down behind a computer all day checking each link for copyright bullshit? there isnt one search engine that checks, except for yahoo, i know, i'm a webmaster and run my own site and have submitted it to hundreds of search engines. all are automated even lycos. once your link is there, they an't gonna remove it. the web would be a very boring fucking place if the IRAA and people like you had their way. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: June 5, 2000 @ 12:54 AM
RIAA* or whatever they call themselves. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: June 5, 2000 @ 10:23 AM
If the RIAA can sue Napster for promoting copyright material that isn't on Napster servers, they sure as hell can sue Lycos. Automated, so what? What was the purpose of such an engine? To promote unsigned artists? Hardly. I would put Lycos MP3, and the likes of oth.net way above that of Napster, which is only at the stage it is at now because of the media attention it has received--I was even unaware that Lycos MP3 had been tried before reading these posts. Whatever the intent of Lycos MP3 and Napster services at the time of design, it is easily argueable that they are similar, in fact it is argueable that Napster have done more to remove copyright infringements, after all, they DID voluntarily suspend, what, over 300,000 accounts. It is common sense that an automated search engine which refers the user to unauthorized links (which Napster and Lycos MP3 both do, in different ways), to allow the administration to remove the link they are unaware of before prosecution, as they are unmoderated, which Napster has done successfully. However the initial purpose of these 2 services hardly differs. I'm not saying i support the RIAA, which I remain impartial towards, but it's about time the law was re-written, and more explicitly and precisely. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: June 5, 2000 @ 12:03 PM
Good call! Common sense and high morals must be top priority in court. I do not want to get off my duff is hardly a good excuse Jark. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: June 5, 2000 @ 5:41 PM
I have created a program similar to mediaenforcer that stop piracy on gnutella. It searches automatically for pirated mp3s. Not only that but it will sabotage gnutella by returning bogus results when someone searches for mp3s. It will also track down pirated mp3s on napster. When users try to be "sneaky", little do they know that putting a false metallica title on a legal mp3 will only get them in trouble. After all, it is napster that will have to kick them off napster and they will keep getting kicked off if they come back on. The whole point is that those individuals who would steal other's hard work and be cheap about it, will have a much harder time pirating. In addition, it will make file sharing programs so bad for pirating that only the most advanced and determined users will use them. I am developing a similar program for cutemx, chat programs like mirc, scour exchange, I will continue developing my programs for new piray programs that are developed. Oh and by the way, pirate boys, its time to stop being cheap and get a real job!!! |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: June 6, 2000 @ 2:35 AM
Oops! I did it Again!
Download Mp3s using Gnutella I mean!
It can't be compared to anything else than copying cassettes from your friends and is still legal. |
|
|
Navigation
