Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

German Domain Registrar Liable For Copyright Infringement

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the with-a-name-like-h33t dept.

Piracy 164

jfruh writes "When the German domain registrar Key-Systems registered and maintained the domain h33t.com, should it have been obvious that their customer would use the site for unauthorized distribution of Robin Thicke albums? A regional German court says that they should've known, and once they had been notified they should have taken steps to prevent it from happening. Obviously domain registrars are worried that this will upend their entire business model."

cancel ×

164 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I don't often first post... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194067)

But when I do it's because I'm staying at a holiday inn express using a custom HOSTS file with the free public wifi connection.

Now, pass those hot grits so I can enjoy this episode of golden girls with Natalie Portman.

Viva la beta!

In before Fuck Beta (5, Informative)

kevingolding2001 (590321) | about 6 months ago | (#46194085)

Let it go...
I fully commiserate with you, but it's over. Read the excerpt below from the Dice 2013 full year financial report.

Slashdot Media was acquired to provide content and services that are important to technology professionals in their everyday work lives and to leverage that reach into the global technology community benefiting user engagement on the Dice.com site. The expected benefits have started to be realized at Dice.com. However, advertising revenue has declined over the past year and there is no improvement expected in the future financial performance of Slashdot Media's underlying advertising business. Therefore, $7.2 million of intangible assets and $6.3 million of goodwill related to Slashdot Media were reduced to zero.

Zero!!

They've basically written off slashdot as worthless and are now in desperation mode trying to minimize their losses, and if that means turning slashdot into a Justin Beiber Fan page on Facebook then that is what they will do. The original slashdot "audience" is worthless to them and they don't give a damn if we are unhappy and threaten to go elsewhere.

The slashdot that we used to know and love is gone, and the only thing left for us is to direct our energies towards either the altslashdot initiative or respectfully ask Mr. Perens to re-ressurect technocrat.net.

Re:In before Fuck Beta (2, Interesting)

GiantRobotMonster (1159813) | about 6 months ago | (#46194175)

They've basically written off slashdot as worthless

Should be cheap to buy it off them, then!

Re:In before Fuck Beta (2)

loufoque (1400831) | about 6 months ago | (#46194513)

I'll buy it for 1,000 bucks.

Re:In before Fuck Beta (1, Interesting)

Kell Bengal (711123) | about 6 months ago | (#46194533)

Serious question: is this a feasible approach? If we can cash them out on a firesale and restore the site back to the ownership of someone who gives a damn, is it worth the psychic damage of giving these fuckers our money? I know Hackaday tried to go private with a kickstarter but failed... could Slashdot have more success?

Re:In before Fuck Beta (3, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 6 months ago | (#46194575)

It's only valued at zero the same way hollywood movies never make any profit; financial hacking to prevent paying tax and dividend.

Re:In before Fuck Beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194579)

FUCK YES!

If we all chipped in just a tiny $1 it be enough to buy it of them.

Re:In before Fuck Beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194201)

RIP Slashdot

Taco must be turning in his grave

Re:In before Fuck Beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194279)

Taco must be turning in his grave

Nope. Not yet.

Re:In before Fuck Beta (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194309)

In his grave of money, surrounded by beautiful zombie-women.

Capitalism ruins everything, and the time to ruination is, on average, 15 years.

Then another idealistic upstart appears, builds something wonderful, sells out, and the cycle repeats.

Re:In before Fuck Beta (1)

zidium (2550286) | about 6 months ago | (#46194553)

He's not dead, yet, fool.

He just gave his thoughts about Slashbeta to the Washington Post yesterday, for christ's sake! [he hates it, and laughs]

Re:In before Fuck Beta (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46195461)

Here be the sad story. [washingtonpost.com]

Re:In before Fuck Beta (2, Informative)

justthinkit (954982) | about 6 months ago | (#46195545)

As interesting as that was, this [washingtonpost.com] is the story GP referred to.

Then donate it to the community (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194245)

create a non-profit, donate slashdot and let it run by the community. This is the only right choice here dice.

FUCK BETA

Re:In before Fuck Beta (1)

fatphil (181876) | about 6 months ago | (#46194431)

Google finds that easily, but for the lazy:
http://www.diceholdingsinc.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=211152&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1896508&highlight=

Thanks for posting that.

See you on Technocrat, I hope...

Jeeeesus! I just got a 0.5s view of Beta. It burns the eyes its so ugly. Back button! Back button! Phew!

Re:In before Fuck Beta (2)

Anachragnome (1008495) | about 6 months ago | (#46194521)

These guys think Beta is 100/100.

(Script warning!)

http://www.webutations.net/go/... [webutations.net]

Apparently, they want people to write reviews for beta.slashdot.org.

Re:In before Fuck Beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194911)

There are plenty of other good technical discussions sites. We just don't mention them on slashdot because we don't want the hoard of awful slashdot posters and moderators to come and ruin them like they've ruined slashdot.

Re: In before Fuck Beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194933)

Tell me again how awesome Adblock is.

Re:In before Fuck Beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194963)

My 6.3 cents of goodwill for slashdot have just been reduced to zero.

on topic (0, Offtopic)

thephydes (727739) | about 6 months ago | (#46194097)

fuck beta - fuck off! I say wtf to this. I provide a service (domain reg) and I am legally responsible for what goes on on domains registered with me? WTF WTF WTF something is very wrong here

Re:on topic (1, Insightful)

GiantRobotMonster (1159813) | about 6 months ago | (#46194189)

of course the guy that put up the street signs and the house numbers are responsible for what goes on inside the buildings; makes perfect sense to me.

Also, fuck beta.

Re:on topic (2)

gweihir (88907) | about 6 months ago | (#46194571)

This is a German _regional_ Court. They are often exceedingly clueless and some times their verdicts border on arbitrary. This will likely get overturned on appeal. (Worst case: after 3 levels of appeal in, say, 10 years or so. Yes, the German legal system is severely broken.)

Re:on topic (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | about 6 months ago | (#46195329)

I am actually surprised that it is not the Hamburg regional court this time.

Dicenuts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194099)

Nuts Dice and poops out feta. FUCK BETA

Audience responds! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194107)

FORK /.

Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement* (5, Insightful)

aaribaud (585182) | about 6 months ago | (#46194123)

... which the Slashdot title does not exactly convey. From TFA, what happened is the domain was registered and used to distribute material without consent of the right owner(s), the infringement was obvious, the registrar was notified, and did not take action beyond passing the notice to the website owner. *This* lack of action is what made them liable; TFA even explicitly states that generally, registrars are not liable if they do act promptly upon serious requests.

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 6 months ago | (#46194143)

So,
- Some troublemaker files a false complaint to my registrar who, afraid of liability, immediately kills my domain and takes down not just web but email too.
- Some troublemaker files a false complain to whoever sold microsoft.com and their complaint is forwarded to the trashcan.

It's the DMCA again: Another trick internet bullies can use to silence and annoy anyone they dislike. I hope Anonymous figures this out and starts abusing the process,then we might see some attention given to the issue.

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | about 6 months ago | (#46194181)

Some troublemaker files a false complaint to my registrar who, afraid of liability, immediately kills my domain and takes down not just web but email too.

So what you are saying is this will probably work against beta?

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (4, Insightful)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 6 months ago | (#46194223)

I guess you didn't RTFA.

the court ruled that the registrar had a duty to investigate after notification of infringing activity and had to take corrective action in case of obvious violations,

The registrar did not investigate at all. What you are talking about is a knee jerk reaction. What the court is talking about is reasonable action.
Combining the court scenario with your scenario would come out as follows;
- Some troublemaker files a false complaint to my registrar. The registrar investigates and finds the complaint to be false and ignores it. The troublemaker goes to court, loses and has to pay the legal fees of the registrar.

If Key-Systems ignores this ruling it faces a maximum fine of €250,000 (US$339,000).

The registrar is not being fined if they follow the ruling. Their only cost would be the legal fees. If the troublemaker's claim was obviously bogus the court could award costs to the plantif so the registrar would be out nothing.

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194235)

The registrar did not investigate at all.

Nor should they be required to enforce copyright for parasites like these.

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 6 months ago | (#46194341)

Investigations cost money. If the registrar is making $30 a year on a domain, it isn't going to be worth a formal investigation. They might be concerned about getting a reputation as an 'easy takedown.'

You want to see an example, you only need to look at the DMCA and youtube. DMCA complains are a standard tool of visious youtube fights - people DMCA videos that insult them, pseudoscience organisations use DMCA takedowns to take down videos condemning them*, political factions DMCA videos promoting opposing views. Even worse, it's largely automated. Bots take down anything that matches their filters - witness the rather amusing incident of the Hugo awards, which showed a clip (with permission), and found their ustream blocked mid-broadcast because the copyright holder had neglected to whitelist the show's stream channel on their enforcer bot, or the takedown of NASA's coverage of the Curiosity landing because a news channel automatically submitted everything they broadcast to the enforcer-bot.

Investigations cost human time. It's also a risk - humans make errors. Unless you're a major customer, you're not worth that much as an individual. This will be especially true when someone realises that you can take the result from googling 'justin beiber intitle:"index of" ' and feed it straight into the mailer. There's no penalty for submitting false positives.

*The producers of the HIV-denying nonsense 'house of numbers' have been doing a lot of this. Criticise the many, many errors and outright lies in their 'documentary' and you may well find a takedown headed your way.

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 6 months ago | (#46194913)

I used to handled DMCA requests for an ISP. They are awful. There is no real way to verify the person complaining is who they say they are, much less that they own the content. What if the complaint came from Robin Thicke himself? Does he own his own songs? Or does his record company? Micheal Jackson owned the Beatles albums... and how do you know this is really him? All you got was an email...

Then, on the other side you have the supposed infringer. First you have to verify they are doing what the complaint says... no easy task. It also involves invading their privacy, annoying them, etc... and keep in mind they are the ones PAYING you.

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 6 months ago | (#46195795)

I used to handled DMCA requests for an ISP. They are awful. There is no real way to verify the person complaining is who they say they are, much less that they own the content. What if the complaint came from Robin Thicke himself? Does he own his own songs? Or does his record company? Micheal Jackson owned the Beatles albums... and how do you know this is really him? All you got was an email...

You don't have to verify any of these. You verify that all the required information is there (otherwise you throw the request away), remove the content, and pass all the info you've got on to the person whose content was removed. If the information is false, that's perjury. To be precise, if the person making the DMCA request doesn't hold the copyright or acts for the copyright holder of the content that they claim is there, that's perjury. It's up to the person whose content was removed to investigate this.

Re: Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringemen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194975)

It has begun .... http://www.psu.com/a022384/Watch-Dogs-trademark-abandoned-by-Ubisoft-
In summary, some unknown person filed false papers and some game company has seemed like it has abandoned its claim to a trademark hahaha

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 6 months ago | (#46195763)

- Some troublemaker files a false complaint to my registrar who, afraid of liability, immediately kills my domain and takes down not just web but email too.
- Some troublemaker files a false complain to whoever sold microsoft.com and their complaint is forwarded to the trashcan.

If you are damaged by a false complaint, you sue the troublemaker for damages. And the judgment we are talking about was about a case where there was "clear and obvious" infringement. I suppose it means that if the registrar had bothered to visit the website, they would have seen clear and obvious infringement with their own eyes.

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 6 months ago | (#46194147)

*This* lack of action is what made them liable

Not enforcing copyright for slimy, parasitic companies? Interesting how the law works in Germany.

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (1)

aaribaud (585182) | about 6 months ago | (#46194267)

*This* lack of action is what made them liable

Not enforcing copyright for slimy, parasitic companies? Interesting how the law works in Germany.

This is not about "enforcing [or not] copyright for slimy, parasitic companies" (a statement which I find quite one-sided), this is about the registrar being notified of a possible copyright violation and having to decide whether i) to just ignore an invalid (or, at least in France but possible in all Europe, non-obvious) complaint, or ii) to consider the complaint valid and well-founded and remove access to avoid any liability, or iii) to consider the complaint valid and well-founded but maintain access and accept potential liability. All three cases have happened (again, in French courts).

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194335)

This is not about "enforcing [or not] copyright for slimy, parasitic companies" (a statement which I find quite one-sided), this is about the registrar being notified of a possible copyright violation and having to decide whether i) to just ignore an invalid (or, at least in France but possible in all Europe, non-obvious) complaint, or ii) to consider the complaint valid and well-founded and remove access to avoid any liability, or iii) to consider the complaint valid and well-founded but maintain access and accept potential liability. All three cases have happened (again, in French courts).

Are ISPs/registrars supposed to be experts on copyright law? Why can't the copyright holder take the owner of the domain/site to court directly? The ISP or registrar can/will take action if the court finds the complaint valid... Nah, that would cost them to much money - instead they pressure a 3rd party to short circuit due process by intimidation.

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (1)

aaribaud (585182) | about 6 months ago | (#46194515)

Why can't the copyright holder take the owner of the domain/site to court directly?

They can, too.

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46195601)

And thus, by ignoring the entire rest of my post, you reveal your true nature as an industry shill.

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194461)

Is the postman expected to open that parcel and search for child porn, and if he doesn't he gets blamed? Is the UPS driver supposed top check packages for drugs?

You're a moron.

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 6 months ago | (#46194505)

), this is about the registrar being notified of a possible copyright violation

Since when are registrars ever at all responsible for content? They're registrars. Their function is to record that you own the domain name, and to record the authoritative dns servers for the zone. That's pretty much all a registrar is.

Most of them these days will also host your dns zone file for you. (And thus provide you with the authoritative dns servers instead of merely point at them.)

A "full service" registrar may also host your actual site, but that is no longer under the hat "registrar" now they are your "web host", and that's a whole other ball game. I have no real issue with a webhost potentially being responsible for not taking a web SITE offline in egregious circumstances.*

But to expect a registrar to suspend a DOMAIN? That's absurd, and a whole other ball game.**

* but even for a webhost to take down a site, I'd like to see a court order; unless there is actual obvious and measurable harm -- e.g. its clearly a phishing site, or hosting malware, etc. And now, mere, "Copyright infringement" doesn't rise to that threshold.

** and under no circumstances should a registrar suspend a DOMAIN without a court order, EVER.

So what happened here? Are they wearing a web host hat? Or a registrar hat? or both hats? Because those are two very different hats.

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (2)

aaribaud (585182) | about 6 months ago | (#46194523)

Since when are registrars ever at all responsible for content?

IIRC, since European Directive 2000/31/CE, more than 13 years ago.

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 6 months ago | (#46194543)

This is not about "enforcing [or not] copyright for slimy, parasitic companies"

Actually, yes it is. The registrar has nothing to do with anything, and shouldn't be expected to investigate copyright claims.

(a statement which I find quite one-sided)

1 + 1 = 2; that's a simple fact, and I don't care if someone finds it "one-sided." When we have evil laws that give certain people monopolies over ideas, it's okay to be "one-sided" and state that such things are, in fact, evil. When a company abuses these monopolies and makes the situation even worse, again, calling them evil parasites is perfectly justified.

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 6 months ago | (#46194969)

I don't understand why the registrar has to do anything without a court order. I could ask a registrar to investigate a website that I'm claiming killed my cat, but why should they? I'm not a customer of them and haven't signed a contract with them - they owe me nothing. If I have a grievance, then that is what the law is for, not some third party that has nothing to do with it.

What about the electricity provider - do they have to investigate any proposed illegal activity by their customers?

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (2)

KiloByte (825081) | about 6 months ago | (#46194193)

Here's a car analogy: it's akin to making the license number bureau liable because they haven't acted upon some hearsay that the car's owner keeps it dirty.

Bloody well played, old boy. (3, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 6 months ago | (#46194463)

If car analogies were cars that one would be a Rolls Royce.

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 6 months ago | (#46195037)

Or, contacting the car manufacturer to inform them that a model of their car has been seen driving on a section of road that you claim is for your own private exclusive use.

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (1)

Zedrick (764028) | about 6 months ago | (#46194329)

What?

That might be how it works in some... countries, but in a civilized society (Germany?) it's not enough with random requests or notifications to shut down something even if it's "obvious", without a court order. The registrar (and the webhost) is not a court of law. If they passed it on to the owner of the site, and the owner of that site for whatever reason didn't agree and didn't remove the material, then it should be decided by a court.

This case might be black and white (no idea, never visited h33t.com), but most cases are not, and it's therefore not up to the registrar or the host to shut down anything.

I work for a large European webhost, every time I get some shutdown request or ridicolous DMCA-blaha from someone in a country ruled by copyright holders, I just tell them stop bothering us and report the actual owner of the site to the police (in whatever country the siteowner lives in), if it's really copyright infringement.

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (1)

aaribaud (585182) | about 6 months ago | (#46194417)

That might be how it works in some... countries, but in a civilized society (Germany?) it's not enough with random requests or notifications to shut down something even if it's "obvious", without a court order.

Not sure what point of TFA you're discussing here, but AFAIU, no one said that a registrar *had* to shut down a domain upon complaint; only that *if* a registrar does not shut it down, then it *might* be held responsible.

I work for a large European webhost, every time I get some shutdown request or ridicolous DMCA-blaha from someone in a country ruled by copyright holders, I just tell them stop bothering us and report the actual owner of the site to the police (in whatever country the siteowner lives in), if it's really copyright infringement.

Was the European Directive 2000/31/CE not transcribed into German Law?

Re:Liable *of not acting upon obvious infringement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194491)

Who cares if it's obvious? Why does a registrar have any legal duty to enforce the law at their own expense? They don't host the infringing material.

A quick Google search... (1, Troll)

Anachragnome (1008495) | about 6 months ago | (#46194133)

A quick Google search reveals that "fuck beta" brings up only one result in the first ten pages relating to Slashdot, as follows (YMMV, default search, no scripts allowed, cache cleared)...

http://slashdot.org/journal/63... [slashdot.org]

THAT'S IT.

How is that possible?

Re:A quick Google search... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194233)

It appears that Altslash is already under a spam attack...

http://www.altslashdot.org/wik... [altslashdot.org]

Keep loading that and you'll see that someone is loading random shit from the web onto the wiki.

Seems they want Slashdot dead, no replacements and that Google is helping hide the carnage.

Sigh...
"Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 25 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"

Re:A quick Google search... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194337)

It appears that Altslash is already under a spam attack...

http://www.altslashdot.org/wik... [altslashdot.org]

Keep loading that and you'll see that someone is loading random shit from the web onto the wiki.

It's a site using a well known wiki engine (MediaWiki), the admin doesn't seem to know anything about administrating a wiki, and there are no anti-spam measures used in account creation. Of course it's under a spam attack.

Re:A quick Google search... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194833)

You're right, he doesn't know how to manage a wiki and neither do most of us. A lot of us are developers with different backgrounds but know very little about using mediawiki and irc. I find this pretty amusing but we're suspecting DICE to be abusing us. FUCK BETA, FUCK DICE. We are many, we understand each other but the top shit heads at dice won't listen.

Re:A quick Google search... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194301)

How is that possible?

Because Slashdot isn't that big, and there's absolutely nothing Slashdot-specific about the search terms "fuck beta"?

Re:A quick Google search... (1)

Number42 (3443229) | about 6 months ago | (#46194385)

Writing "slashdot fuck beta" in the search bar (sans quotes) has the first page full of, well, "fuck beta," aside from an odd link about Google Glass beta testing.

With apologies to R.E.M. (1)

admiralfurburger (76098) | about 6 months ago | (#46194153)

"It's The End Of Slashdot As We Know It (And I Feel Fine)"

That's great, it starts with an earthquake
Birds and snakes, an aeroplane, and Rob Malda is not afraid

Eye of a hurricane, listen to yourself churn
Dice serves its own needs, don't misserve your own needs
Feed it up a knock, speed, grunt, no, strength
The ladder starts to clatter with a fear of height, down, height
Wire in a fire, represent the seven games
And a government for hire and a comment site
Left her, wasn't coming in a hurry with the Furries breathing down your neck

Team by team, reporters baffled, trumped, tethered, cropped
Look at that low plane, fine, then
Uh-oh, overflow, population, beta group
But it'll do, save yourself, serve yourself
Dice serves its own needs, listen to your heart bleed
Tell me with the Rapture and the reverent in the right, right
You vitriolic, patriotic, slam fight, bright light
Feeling pretty psyched

It's the end of the Slashdot as we know it
It's the end of the Slashdot as we know it
It's the end of the Slashdot as we know it, and I feel fine

Six o'clock, TV hour, don't get caught in Slashbeta
Slashdot and burn, return, listen to yourself churn
Lock him in uniform, book burning, bloodletting
Every motive escalate, automotive incinerate
Light a candle, light a motive, step down, step down
Watch your heel crush, crush, uh-oh
This means no fear, cavalier, renegade and steering clear
A tournament, a tournament, a tournament of lies
Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives, and I'm gone

It's the end of the Slashdot as we know it (I had some time alone)
It's the end of the Slashdot as we know it (I had some time alone)
It's the end of the Slashdot as we know it, and I feel fine (It's time I had some time alone)
I feel fine (I feel fine)

It's the end of the Slashdot as we know it (It's time I had some time alone)
It's the end of the Slashdot as we know it (It's time I had some time alone)
It's the end of the Slashdot as we know it, and I feel fine (It's time I had some time alone)

The other night I dreamt a nice continental drift divide
Mountains sit in a line, CmdrTaco
Soulskill, Samzenpus, and Cowboyneal
Wedding proposal, omg ponies, goatse.cx, boom
You symbiotic, patriotic, slam but neck, right? Right

It's the end of the Slashdot as we know it (It's time I had some time alone)
It's the end of the Slashdot as we know it (It's time I had some time alone)
It's the end of the Slashdot as we know it, and I feel fine (It's time I had some time alone)

It's the end of the Slashdot as we know it
It's the end of the Slashdot as we know it
It's the end of the Slashdot as we know it, and I feel fine (It's time I had some time alone)

It's the end of the Slashdot as we know it (It's time I had some time alone)
It's the end of the Slashdot as we know it (It's time I had some time alone)
It's the end of the Slashdot as we know it, and I feel fine (It's time I had some time alone)

It's the end of the Slashdot as we know it (It's time I had some time alone)
It's the end of the Slashdot as we know it (It's time I had some time alone)
It's the end of the Slashdot as we know it, and I feel fine (It's time I had some time alone)

(It's time I had some time alone)

Rock genre lyrics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46195621)

Rock genre lyrics are the most repetitive of all.
Rock genre lyrics are the most repetitive of all.
Rock genre lyrics are the most repetitive of all.

Elephant in the room on copyright infringement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194155)

Dice sux cox.

Crucial information (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 6 months ago | (#46194177)

From the article:

Since the album was still shared through h33t after several requests sent to the website's operator by Key-Systems to stop the infringing activity, the registrar had to act to stop the infringement, the court found.

In other words, the registrar did check what the customer does on the domain, did notice that they do something illegal, and did ask them to stop it, without success. Therefore they have done more than just a technical service (providing the domain name). They had evidence, through their own investigations, that the domain was used for illegal activity.

I believe (and hope!) that if the provider really just had provided the domain without looking at what the customer does with it that they would indeed be in the clear. But that's not what happened. They actively sought to know what was happening on that domain, and therefore they are responsible on not acting on that knowledge.

Imagine you're selling someone fertilizer. Now if that person is using that fertilizer to build a bomb, you should of course not be responsible. Also it's unreasonable that you should have to check what they do with this fertilizer. But if you check, find out they build bombs with it, and continue to sell them the fertilizer knowing that they use it for building bombs you are of course also responsible for the deaths those bombs cause.

Re:Crucial information (1)

pjt33 (739471) | about 6 months ago | (#46194225)

I think trying to draw analogies between criminal offences and torts risks coming to unreasonable conclusions. The reasonable process here is for the music label to sue the site operators. Not only are they the ones who are (allegedly) actively infringing the label's rights, but taking down the domain name doesn't stop the site being accessed, so it doesn't fully accomplish the label's goal anyway.

Burden of proof (3, Interesting)

x0ra (1249540) | about 6 months ago | (#46194241)

You cannot be prosecutor, judge and jury. You are still presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. The domain shall be taken down only if instructed to do so by the competent court of justice whenever its owner is found guilty.

The fertilizer example is bogus, the tangible property, the fertilizer, has been sold and you have no right to take it back if you discover its purpose. A better example would be a rented car. If A rent B a car, the responsibility of the car's usage is on B, even if A is aware B is speeding. The same way, if C rents a place and tell the landlord he's gonna run a brothel, the responsibility of running the brothel is on C, not on the landlord.

Re:Burden of proof (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 6 months ago | (#46194317)

The same way, if C rents a place and tell the landlord he's gonna run a brothel, the responsibility of running the brothel is on C, not on the landlord.

I do not agree with that opinion. I think that a court would find that the landlord knowingly renting the place for illegal activity would fall under conspiracy or aiding and abetting.

Re:Burden of proof (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 6 months ago | (#46194711)

When I criticize this, I'm not saying what I think the law is. I'm saying I think the law is wrong.

Different country different laws (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194389)

Firstly the fertilizer example is top on, it is not about taking it back, but refusing to further sell more fertilizer. Secondly german law is so that if you see something illegal you MUST report it or be liable yourself. There is also the concept of assistance-of-person-in-danger, if you see an accident on the route you HAVE to help. Naturally you are automatically by law freed from all civil liability for your help. For example if your help made it worst and the person is paralyzed you are not liable.

Re:Burden of proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194803)

The same way, if C rents a place and tell the landlord he's gonna run a brothel, the responsibility of running the brothel is on C, not

Now I understand what the landlord was saying when I've complained that the hookers next door are ugly as hell...

Re:Crucial information (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 6 months ago | (#46194255)

Imagine you're selling someone fertilizer. Now if that person is using that fertilizer to build a bomb, you should of course not be responsible. Also it's unreasonable that you should have to check what they do with this fertilizer. But if you check, find out they build bombs with it, and continue to sell them the fertilizer knowing that they use it for building bombs you are of course also responsible for the deaths those bombs cause.

That is close to the scenario but misses one major point. The registrar did not check on their own initiative but as a response to a report by the copyright holder. A more accurate scenario is as follows;

Imagine you're selling someone fertilizer. Now if that person is using that fertilizer to build a bomb, you should of course not be responsible. Also it's unreasonable that you should have to check what they do with this fertilizer. If someone reports that they are building bombs and it is obvious that they are building bombs, and you continue to sell them the fertilizer knowing that they use it for building bombs you are of course also responsible for the deaths those bombs cause.

Indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194359)

If you rent a home to somebody, and see they are doing a crack labor on it, you call the police. Otherwise you are liable.

Re:Crucial information (2)

allo (1728082) | about 6 months ago | (#46194405)

maybe, but it depends. If you know somebody is dealing with drugs, is this a reason to remove his entry in the phone book?

Re:Crucial information (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 6 months ago | (#46194425)

If it is an entry in the yellow pages, then yes.

Re:Crucial information (1)

allo (1728082) | about 6 months ago | (#46194625)

a domain is like a telephone book, a forum for explicit warez links is like yellowpages

Re:Crucial information (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 6 months ago | (#46194775)

No, a domain is not like a telephone book. A DNS server is more like a telephone book.

Note also that there's a difference between a registrar and a DNS provider.

Re:Crucial information (1)

allo (1728082) | about 6 months ago | (#46195277)

A registrar allows you to fill in an telephonebook entry. Yellowpages are more like advertisments, so i think of web catalogs (you know the good ol' times) or maybe search engines. Or like in my example: Warez forums, where people exchange links, knowing that they link to copyrighted stuff.

Re:Crucial information (1)

Froggels (1724218) | about 6 months ago | (#46194413)

Imagine you're selling someone fertilizer. Now if that person is using that fertilizer to build a bomb, you should of course not be responsible. Also it's unreasonable that you should have to check what they do with this fertilizer. But if you check, find out they build bombs with it, and continue to sell them the fertilizer knowing that they use it for building bombs you are of course also responsible for the deaths those bombs cause.

A more accurate analogy would be this: Imagine that your company maintains an independent telephone directory service. A fertilizer company whose number happens to be listed in your directory (un)knowingly sells "illegal bomb-making materials" to "terrorists" who happened to your directory service to find the fertilizer company's number. After a bombing attack your telephone directory service company is then held liable because you didn't happen to scrutinise your publicly accessible database close enough to weed out any potential bad guys who might receive calls as a result of you having listed their telephone numbers.

Re:Crucial information (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 6 months ago | (#46194453)

A domain registrar is not an independent telephone directory service. They don't just provide DNS so you can access domain names, they provide the domain name itself.

Also, you clearly didn't read what I wrote: It's not about a failure to detect illegal activity, it's about a failure to act after you became aware of illegal activity.

Re:Crucial information (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 6 months ago | (#46195019)

How can you be sure that it is illegal activity without a court or law official being involved? Especially with something as tricky as copyright law. First, how do you identify the legitimate owner of the copyrighted work - is there any kind of central resource that can provide a definitive answer? Secondly, how do you validate the claimant's identity without checking physical documents (e.g. passport, driver's license)? Thirdly, how do you prove that the infringer hasn't secured a license?

"But if you check" (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 6 months ago | (#46194871)

Regardless of your product, it should not be your responsibility for doing background checks on all your customers and making judgment calls.

Robin Thicke has albums? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194195)

The wonders never end.

Usenet is the new Slashdot! (2)

RocketRabbit (830691) | about 6 months ago | (#46194207)

Just hop on over to Eternal September and get your free account. The official new replacement for Slashdot is comp.misc - see you all there!

Other people are trying to get something off the ground, but all the ideas they have had so far involve ad revenue, overlords with administrative powers, and basically all the components that eventually combined into the shit-nano that is currently known as Slashdot.

See you all on Usenet, the censorship-free, decentralized, JavaScript-free, blind-friendly, non commercial wave of the future.

Re:Usenet is the new Slashdot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194229)

Actually 4chan is a better replacement. See you all in /g/.

Re:Usenet is the new Slashdot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194305)

Bless you, RocketRabbit.

My ISP (Time/Warner) stopped providing a news service a long time ago, and I haven't had the time or interest in setting up my own INN server.

This looks like it might do the trick. Thanks for the info.

Re:Usenet is the new Slashdot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194789)

Good recommendation, thank you. Did that. See you there.

Also on topic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194257)

It is slashdot.org, not slashdot.com. It's supposed to be a non-profit. Doesn't trying to make a profit off a .org create a domain name violation?

Re:Also on topic. (1)

emmagsachs (1024119) | about 6 months ago | (#46194427)

Apart from .edu, .gov, and .mil., no TLD has rules constraining subject matter or business model.

I'm not even sure which one is more odious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194263)

Copyrights or Slashdot Beta.

BUCK FETA

I LOVE BETA (-1)

future assassin (639396) | about 6 months ago | (#46194297)

fuck the ALT embrace BETA http://beta.slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org]

Re:I LOVE BETA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194379)

fuck the ALT embrace BETA http://beta.slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org]

If you can suck your own cock

you can probably run Slashdot.

The real users are leaving, only sockpuppets remain.

"boo hoo!" cried a sockpuppet, "stay on topic so the money flows through our penises"

Re:I LOVE BETA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194397)

fuck the ALT embrace BETA http://beta.slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org]

Slashdot tries something new!

Slashdot Media was acquired to provide content and services that are important to technology professionals in their everyday work lives and to leverage that reach into the global technology community benefiting user engagement on the Dice.com site. The expected benefits have started to be realized at Dice.com. However, advertising revenue has declined over the past year and there is no improvement expected in the future financial performance of Slashdot Media's underlying advertising business. Therefore, $7.2 million of intangible assets and $6.3 million of goodwill related to Slashdot Media were reduced to zero.

Audience responds!

As a German.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194303)

I would have to admit that Germans, especially our politicians, are stupid and never seem to learn nor think about the long term consequences of their actions.

But the registrar CAN'T stop the infringement (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194323)

Universal demanded that Key-Systems end the infringements by deactivating the domain, and asked it to sign a contract agreeing not to let the infringement happen again in the future

The problem with blaming the registrar is that the registrar has no power to stop the infringement. The registrar does not control the server that distributes the infringing material. All the registrar can do is deactivate the domain name, but people who want access to the infringing material can still link directly to the IP address of the server.

Re:But the registrar CAN'T stop the infringement (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 6 months ago | (#46195051)

You act like the judge presiding over that would possibly consider logic an important matter.

There's no sense in laws and judgement concerning sex, drugs and copyright.

Re:But the registrar CAN'T stop the infringement (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 6 months ago | (#46195863)

The problem with blaming the registrar is that the registrar has no power to stop the infringement. The registrar does not control the server that distributes the infringing material. All the registrar can do is deactivate the domain name, but people who want access to the infringing material can still link directly to the IP address of the server.

That's if there is a fixed IP address. And most people don't know the IP address. And anyway, it would be the domain registrar's job to do their bit. Next you can go to the ISP and ask for the account to be closed down, and the IP address is gone.

Slashdot holder liable for BETA Infringement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194339)

Please post this to new articles if it hasn't been posted yet. (Copy-paste the html from here [pastebin.com] so links don't get mangled!)

On February 5, 2014, Slashdot announced through a javascript popup that they are starting to "move in to" the new Slashdot Beta design. Slashdot Beta is a trend-following attempt to give Slashdot a fresh look, an approach that has led to less space for text and an abandonment of the traditional Slashdot look. Much worse than that, Slashdot Beta fundamentally breaks the classic Slashdot discussion and moderation system.

If you haven't seen Slashdot Beta already, open this [slashdot.org] in a new tab. After seeing that, click here [slashdot.org] to return to classic Slashdot.

We should boycott stories and only discuss the abomination that is Slashdot Beta until Dice abandons the project.
We should boycott slashdot entirely during the week of Feb 10 to Feb 17 as part of the wider slashcott [slashdot.org]

Moderators - only spend mod points on comments that discuss Beta
Commentors - only discuss Beta
  http://slashdot.org/recent [slashdot.org] - Vote up the Fuck Beta stories

Keep this up for a few days and we may finally get the PHBs attention.

-----=====##### LINKS #####=====-----

Discussion of Beta: http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=56395415 [slashdot.org]

Discussion of where to go if Beta goes live: http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&type=submission&id=3321441 [slashdot.org]

Alternative Slashdot: http://altslashdot.org [altslashdot.org] (thanks Okian Warrior (537106) [slashdot.org] )

The truth about copyright infringement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194369)

If you can suck your own cock

you can probably run Slashdot.

The real users are leaving, only sockpuppets remain.

"boo hoo!" cried a sockpuppet, "stay on topic so the money flows through our penises"

Rasch (1)

allo (1728082) | about 6 months ago | (#46194399)

They are the german law-trolls. They are well known for sending cease-and-desist ("Abmahnungen", not sure if its really the same) letters. Many people will just pay, but the best defenses are not to react, or to send a modified letter, telling them you will stop but now pay. They will insist a few times and then give up.
I guess because they normally sue users on dsl-lines, the domain registrar wasn't prepared to react to this.

Who is Robin Thicke? (0)

clickclickdrone (964164) | about 6 months ago | (#46194441)

And why does he have such a silly name? Oh yes, FUCK BETA.

I Can't Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46194481)

I can't wait to sue the DMV for giving a driver's license to a convicted felon who then committed a drive-by shooting. Obviously they should have known he would use his driving privileges in a criminal manner and done something about it.

Germany needs to get their copyright laws in order (1)

pouar (2629833) | about 6 months ago | (#46195821)

If anyone should be held liable it's h33t.com, they're the ones ding this. Of course if h33t.com's content is user generated then h33t.com isn't liable either. Also aren't torrents similar to links. The content themselves aren't hosted on their servers either but via a bunch of bittorent clients working together, so h33t shouldn't be liable at all.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>