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!

Warner Sues Search Engine, Tests DMCA Safe Harbor

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the lawyers-in-a-quick-draw-holster dept.

Music 113

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Warner Bros. Records is suing SeeqPod, the music search engine, in an attempt to test the limits of the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions with a theory of contributory, vicarious and inducement liability. While other services like Last.fm have cut deals with the labels, SeeqPod relied on the DMCA Safe Harbor alone to protect it. According to the complaint [PDF] SeeqPod 'deliberately refrains' from adding simple yet ineffective content filters to screen out copyright infringing materials, presumably by not buying those filters from label-affiliated companies. Of course, this lawsuit is merely part of a recent trend seeking to move the responsibility for policing copyrights away from the copyright holders and on to third parties."

cancel ×

113 comments

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

Why do they even have this much power? (2, Interesting)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189324)

Why does Warner yield this apparently massive amount of power in the first place?

Re:Why do they even have this much power? (1)

wanderingknight (1103573) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189330)

It's called America.

Re:Why do they even have this much power? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22189704)

Because only in America ...
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/25/1928253 [slashdot.org]

Re:Why do they even have this much power? (5, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189334)

Why does Warner yield this apparently massive amount of power in the first place?
Because they have so much money.

How to politicians get voted in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22192250)

People hear about them. This requires access to the media.

Warner has access to many channels to the public.

Oh, and the only thing USA exports now is movies.

Re:How to (sic) politicians get voted in? (1)

ralewi1 (919193) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193720)

Oh, and the only thing USA exports now is movies.
Go to http://tse.export.gov/ [export.gov] to learn about some of the other things the USA exports - over a trillion dollars in export goods, not counting entertainment. And if it'll make you happy, you can bring up the data showing the $800+B trade imbalance.

Re:Why do they even have this much power? (4, Interesting)

ricebowl (999467) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189396)

On what grounds would you refuse them this power? Surely they should have the right to pursue litigation if they feel they, or their property, is being abused. Whether or not that's intellectual or actual property, though I do agree that they should be treated differently.

Just because Warner is suing Seeqpod doesn't mean that they have any over-arching power to do as they will, regardless of the majority/vocal opinion around the internet; but, and bear in mind I'm not American, so I could easily have this ass-backwards, if this goes to court then either the DMCA Safe Harbour will be found, in some way, inappropriate or the case will enforce the perceived strength of the Safe Harbour provision.

While I'd hope for the former (and coming from the UK I'm envious of the American Fair Use doctrine) I'd accept the risk of the latter, despite the obviously-limited effect that'd have on me. Surely to deny someone, corporation or individual, the right to pursue judicial support would be, if not unconstitutional, but unethical.

Yes, I know the patent trolls and various labels and companies have abused that right, but that right should be protected in order that everyone else can be safe in the knowledge that they can go to the courts for help and restitution. Denying one makes it easier to deny the second. Slippery-slopes and all that...

Despite all of that I do believe that Warners are acting like fools pursuing this, but that's their right.

Re:Why do they even have this much power? (2, Insightful)

OECD (639690) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189646)

On what grounds would you refuse them this power? Surely they should have the right to pursue litigation if they feel they, or their property, is being abused. Whether or not that's intellectual or actual property, though I do agree that they should be treated differently.

'Refusing them this power' IS treating them differently. We are in apparent agreement.

BTW, the basic idea is to add this string to a google query:
search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=intitle%3Aindex.of+%22mp3%22+%2B%22YOURSONGHERE%22+-htm+-html+-php+-asp+%22Last+Modified%22&btnG=Search

Re:Why do they even have this much power? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22190360)

Because, it would seem that Warner is attempting to place the onus of the protection of their copyrights on the service, instead of where it SHOULD rest, which is with Warner, itself. Warner owns the copyrights and, therefore, is arguably solely responsible for protecting them. Safe Harbor is pretty clear - the responsibility for the protection of copyrighted material falls squarely on the shoulders of the copyright holder(s).

While it may be arguable that a third party should take some precautions to avoid the transferring of copyrighted materials across their service, given the immense volume of material that crosses such services, such internal policing by the service itself can be quite difficult and, like any transportation company, it is not their positive requirement TO police the material under Safe Harbor under DMCA.

It is, and always has been, the responsibility of the copyright holder to protect their rights and not to try to foist their responsibility off onto a third, and arguably protected, party.

This is a test case, obviously, and it will be interesting to see how the arguments play out and whether they get a judge who has even a moiety of understanding of how the internet works. Or if they get one who thinks it's a "bunch of tubes."

Re:Why do they even have this much power? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22189438)

Hey, guys! Let's vote Democrat in 2008 to throw out those big-business beholden bastards and vote IN the time-warner beholden bastards!

Re:Why do they even have this much power? (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 6 years ago | (#22195078)

You mean the party of Feinstein and Boxer? Sorry, on some issues you can make a case that the Democrats are better than the Republicans (though you often need to work at it), but on this one they are, if anything, worse. Granted, it's hard to tell the difference between the parties on this issue. Both sides seem wholly owned (with a few individual exceptions).

Re:Why do they even have this much power? (3, Interesting)

flyneye (84093) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189616)

Warner has this kind of power because they are a multi-national communications company.
They're prolly bigger than Microsoft if you put all the subsidiaries together and counted the till.
Unfortunatly for them they specialize in movies and music,two "commodities" whose business model is falling apart due to the evolution and wising up of the human race.We no longer wish to pay to hear the same old stories rehashed ineptly on the same old template.We also no longer wish to pay for music that we are "told" is talent and the best to be had as long as its easy to market for them.
Nope,we have no love for the movie and music industries and it's simply hilarious to watch them thrash and grasp at clumps of grass as they sink deeper into their graves.
          Frankly,from an evolutionary standpoint,we are moving beyond our T.V.,radio and theater addictions,in favor of more homegrown internet entertainment and just blend the industries product into the slurry and pop em all like bon bons indiscriminatly.
          I suppose if those industries want to quit losing money,they should quit spending it.Cut their losses and provide products or services people want to purchase.At the very least they should slap some stockholders till they regain intellegence.It's evolution baby,and Warnercom is just a fossil and doesn't even know it yet.HI-lari-OUS!
          "But what about all the poor people whose livelihoods depend on the world paying far too much for garbage entertainment?"
        To quote Ted Knight in "Caddyshack" "The world needs ditchdiggers too".

Re:Why do they even have this much power? (1)

mcpkaaos (449561) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189764)

I've often thought of becoming a golf club...

Re:Why do they even have this much power? (4, Insightful)

OECD (639690) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189804)

Nope,we have no love for the movie and music industries and it's simply hilarious to watch them thrash and grasp at clumps of grass as they sink deeper into their graves.

If by "hilarious" you mean "despairing at our loss of privacy and civil rights due to the perceived need to prop up an outdated, but well-heeled, distribution system" then, yeah. Hi-fraking-larious.

Re:Why do they even have this much power? (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 6 years ago | (#22192680)

Well,quit wallowing in despair and fight back.Spread the word.Take every opportunity to make war on the industries.F**k em up!Take back privacy and rights by killing the adversary.
  yes,HILARIOUS,perhaps shadden freude.

Re:Why do they even have this much power? (3, Insightful)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189874)

People may no longer wish to pay for that stuff, but that doesn't mean that the world has suddenly ceased to be inhabited by sheep who will still consume it.

Re:Why do they even have this much power? (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 6 years ago | (#22192686)

Yes,but,it's the way it is and thats no survivable business model.
Tear down the WALLS!

But.. but.. (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22191676)

What will rifftrax [rifftrax.com] have to riff on if they die completely?!

surely they must survive in some irrelevant form for us to mercilessly lampoon?!

Re:But.. but.. (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 6 years ago | (#22192716)

No one is going to stop making movies or music.It just won't be the same asshats doing it.Now there is a level playing field for Artists and craftsmen and its evolving in great leaps.Without the old industry in the way,new smaller distribution systems will prevail.Lampooning may continue unabated.

Re:Why do they even have this much power? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22189932)

Why does Warner yield this apparently massive amount of power in the first place?
They aren't yielding any power. Maybe you didn't read the summary... Warner is the one bringing the lawsuit.

Maybe the question you are trying to ask is....
How does Warner come to wield such a large amount of power in the first place?

Thanks to Warner (2, Funny)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 6 years ago | (#22190026)

Thankyou warner music I had not idea that a service like this existed.

Thanks to the law suit I now have a music search engine I will share with others.

~Dan

Re:Why do they even have this much power? (1)

DeusExCalamus (1146781) | more than 6 years ago | (#22191562)

The word you're looking for is 'wield'.

Re:Why do they even have this much power? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22192828)

yield or wield?

Re:Why do they even have this much power? (1)

uxbn_kuribo (1146975) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193022)

If America has shown us anything, it's that we can legally sue anyone we please, for any reason, either real or imaginary. WINNING based on legal merit is a whole other story.

Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof! (5, Informative)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189340)

This lawsuit is merely part of a recent trend seeking to move the responsibility for policing copyrights away from the copyright holders and on to third parties.

No, this lawsuit is just testing the waters to see if they can overturn pieces of the DMCA that do not work in their favor. If they can turn this provision over then they can fuck Google over too and tap into that endless revenue stream for allowing services like g2p [g2p.org] to exist out there.

If anything, they should be using these sites to take down the offenders' pages and not the sites themselves.

Re:Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof! (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189352)

g2p?
My work filter flags it as a social engineering site and denies access...
never heard of it before.
-nB

Re:Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof! (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189368)

It uses Google searches (mostly for MegaUpload) to find albums, songs, etc available over the web.

Re:Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof! (3, Informative)

Rudolf (43885) | more than 6 years ago | (#22190612)

g2p?
My work filter flags it as a social engineering site and denies access...
never heard of it before.


Never heard of it, either.

Here's what it says:

What does G2P do?
-G2P (Google to Person) uses some crafty Google searches to help locate open directories or otherwise shared files. These searches are nothing secret (In fact, take a look at the results, so you can see how it is done. However, it is much easier to remember g2p.org than these complex searches. Really I put this site together to make it easier on me, and then shared it with you.

Why use G2P instead of P2P or BT?
-P2P/BT is being monitored -- Using Google we can download a lot more safely. We are simply just following a link -- curious how it leads directly to the file we are looking for. =)

Re:Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof! (4, Interesting)

jc42 (318812) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189464)

If anything, they should be using these sites to take down the offenders' pages and not the sites themselves.

Y'know, I've often wondered why people haven't been pointing that out. It would seem that for a copyright holder suing the person that points them to an infringer would be just a case of "shooting themselves in the foot". Why wouldn't they want someone to collect pointers to their copyrighted material, and make it easy to go after the infringer?

Maybe Warner is secretly in favor of copyright infringement, and it trying to shut down the search sites so that infringement can continue untracked. If so, there's some interesting economics going on here.

Re:Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof! (2, Insightful)

ContractualObligatio (850987) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189888)

Y'know, I've often wondered why people haven't been pointing that out.

It's because these sites are making money. Why go after the little guy when the key accomplice so conveniently sets up a company that is much easier to find?

Re:Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof! (1)

mixmatch (957776) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189934)

Isn't this the exact same as going after sites that host torrents rather than the servers hosting trackers?

Re:Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof! (2, Funny)

OECD (639690) | more than 6 years ago | (#22190012)

Isn't this the exact same as going after sites that host torrents rather than the servers hosting trackers?

Rare to be able to say this on /., but yes, it's the exact same thing.

Coincidence?

Then wonder no more.... (2, Interesting)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189900)

Why wouldn't they want someone to collect pointers to their copyrighted material, and make it easy to go after the infringer?

Because a distribution site/point can close down and move to a new place, new name, new page layout and start up again. If they register with the search engines, they're just as visible as they were before the move. The fact that the site has to change address means that they would lose contact with their audience if it wasn't for the search engines.

This has created the current internet ecosystem: sites and collections of files that drift from place-to-place, and search engines/indexing sites that act as a fixed-location portal to the itinerant sites. The public only need to know the portal address. The portal is the hub. Kill the hub and you break the entire network, but go after content hosts and nothing changes.

HAL.

Re:Then wonder no more.... (1)

repvik (96666) | more than 6 years ago | (#22195338)

Heh, your logic is flawed. Kill the hub, and two new ones show up easily found on google. Go after content hosts, and you catch the "criminals".

Re:Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof! (5, Informative)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189830)

No, this lawsuit is just testing the waters to see if they can overturn pieces of the DMCA that do not work in their favor.

No, they're seeking to either (A) Overturn bits of the DMCA that are over-broad or (B) challenge over-interpretations of the DCMA. I do not know the DCMA very well. IANAL. IANfromtheUSA.

BUT

To understand Safe Harbor and its intentions, consider the paper publishing industry. If I write a defamatory newspaper article, who can be sued for it? I can -- I wrote it; the editor probably can too -- he gave it the green light and so effectively put his name against it; but the publishing company is the most likely target. They approved it, they make money based on sales, they're ultimately responsible -- and they have the money to pay the settlement, while neither me nor my editor is likely to be good for the cash.

Who is not sued? The printer. The printer is paid by the page. If it doesn't sell, he doesn't lose out. He has no control or interest in the content of his work -- he is content neutral.

The first rightful beneficiary of Safe Harbor legislation is Bob's Server Shack. Your average host is content neutral and has no editorial control over your site. You pay a flat fee to him directly -- Bob has no real stake in the "saleability" of your site. Bob is the same as the printer.

I don't think Safe Harbor should apply to YouTube, for example. YouTube does not receive a flat fee from the content producers, instead making its money on click-through ads. This means that YouTube's profit is intrinsically linked to the popularity of its content (and, incidentally, the most popular material often infringes copyright). To my mind, this makes YouTube a publisher, not a printer, hence a valid target for law suits. They have chosen not to employ editors. Would a newspaper company be able to publish an edition without an editor and disavow all responsibility for the content? I think not! Why should YouTube get different treatment?

Search starts to get a bit tricky though, but I think we should apply the same content neutrality argument. Most major search engines are largely content neutral. OK, PageRank may have some bias in it, but most potential hits translate to actual hits. You can search for anything you want, and Google/Yahoo/Ask/Altavista will return it. These sites don't exist purely to find illegal material.

SeeqPod is different. SeeqPod is a music search engine, and the only music people search for is illegal stuff. Sure, you may be able to search for legal stuff, but who would bother? Legal MP3s just aren't redistributed much -- if you want them, you go to the band's homepage and download them, and you don't need a music search engine for that.

In my opinion, if the Safe Harbor defence works, then the Safe Harbor law needs to be rewritten.

HAL.

Re:Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof! (1)

repvik (96666) | more than 6 years ago | (#22192066)

You're doing the same mistake as the RIAA is doing. You are assuming that people are criminal by default, and you blame the tools instead of the user.
A hammer *can* be used to break windows, therefore it should be illegal and not under "safe harbor" provisions.
I've used g2p.org, but there's still not a single "unlicenced"/"pirated" bit on my harddrive (I used it to find an obscure and FREE electronica collection where I only remembered part of the name).

Regarding YouTube.. Do you have any basis to claim that the most popular content on YouTube is infringing? Where do you find all this content? All the links people send me are LOLCATS, people staring into the camera and such.

A tool is a tool is a tool. Don't forget that. You, my friend, are a Tool of the RIAA

Re:Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof! (1)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | more than 6 years ago | (#22195032)

And you're doing what the RIAA is doing: spreading FUD.

Copyright is not a criminal matter, it's civil -- so I'm not calling anyone a criminal.

A hammer is "content neutral". A hammer is not dedicated to breaking windows. A better example is a lock pick. As I understand it, possession of these is illegal in most US states as "burglar tools" (professional locksmiths excepted). The argument that the owner of the lockpick only uses it to open doors he is legally obliged to do is considered unlikely. There has been no huge outcry on this as an invasion of your natural rights, because it protects more innocent people than it harms.

HAL.

Re:Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof! (1)

repvik (96666) | more than 6 years ago | (#22195324)

And you're doing what the RIAA is doing: spreading FUD.

Copyright is not a criminal matter, it's civil -- so I'm not calling anyone a criminal.

If you break copyright law, you can go to court and face a fine/jailtime. Whether or not you're calling anyone a criminal is semantics. Which btw. RIAA does not seem to understand. They are comparing pirating with stealing a car/purse/statue of liberty, which I believe are all criminal matters?

A hammer is "content neutral". A hammer is not dedicated to breaking windows. A better example is a lock pick. As I understand it, possession of these is illegal in most US states as "burglar tools" (professional locksmiths excepted). The argument that the owner of the lockpick only uses it to open doors he is legally obliged to do is considered unlikely. There has been no huge outcry on this as an invasion of your natural rights, because it protects more innocent people than it harms.

I don't live in the US fortunately. Over here we don't prohibit tools because they may be used for a crime. If I made myself a set of lockpicks to open my car when I lost the key, so frigging what? That doesn't make me a criminal! If I use the tools to steal a car, I would be a criminal.
What defines a lockpick btw? I've got plenty of tools that I may easily use to pick a lock, are they prohibited too, or are only factory-made lockpicks prohibited?
Your choice of tool is interesting though. When I was younger I routinely picked locks for fun. Not to gain entry anywhere, but to learn how to do it.
The lack of "huge outcry" isn't surprising. Besides slashdotters, it doesn't seem to be much outcry about removing US citizens rights. It would appear that few americans notice rights being taken away, and even fewer cares about the slippery slope.

SeeqPod/YouTube/ThePirateBay aren't doing anything illegal. The persons uploading/sharing copyrighted material are. Don't destroy a perfectly good tool because some people use it to find copyrighted material. You can use Google to find CP too. Google ain't doing anything illegal. Stop being scared of the internet, use the fricking tools and go after the ones actually breaking copyright law!
(BTW, can you document that SeeqPod/YouTube are mostly used for illegal purposes as you claim in your OP, or is that just scaretactics?)

Re:Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22192246)

SeeqPod is different. SeeqPod is a music search engine, and the only music people search for is illegal stuff. Sure, you may be able to search for legal stuff, but who would bother? Legal MP3s just aren't redistributed much -- if you want them, you go to the band's homepage and download them, and you don't need a music search engine for that.

Riiiight. And the same thing's true for Google etc. as well, isn't it? It's only ever used for illegal stuff. After all, if you want information on something, you just go to the relevant site directly, after the URL magically appeared in your head. No need to use Google - the only people who do that are those searching for illegal things, because for them, the magical URL-appearing doesn't work. Wow, proof that the universe is good, too! Hallelujah! God bless America! Speaking of which, why do you hate America, terrorist?

Re:Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof! (1)

astrotek (132325) | more than 6 years ago | (#22193374)

The only way the internet is going to survive is if rights holders are only allowed to go after the people hosting the content. Sites that catalog it just make enforcement easier and wouldn't be popular if all the search results were taken down. There is a problem with overseas hosts but that is a totally different argument.

Re:Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof! (2, Informative)

An Ominous Cow Erred (28892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194746)

The first rightful beneficiary of Safe Harbor legislation is Bob's Server Shack. Your average host is content neutral and has no editorial control over your site. You pay a flat fee to him directly -- Bob has no real stake in the "saleability" of your site. Bob is the same as the printer.
Not true.

Bob's Server Shack gets to charge you extra when your usage goes through the roof due to the popularity of your content -- thus giving them more profit. They actually DO have an interest in having customers who have popular data, just like the printer has a vested interest in newspapers selling well, because the printer gets more profit when the newspaper has wider circulation and thus prints more copies.

Re:Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof! (1)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | more than 6 years ago | (#22195458)

I don't think Safe Harbor should apply to YouTube, for example. YouTube does not receive a flat fee from the content producers, instead making its money on click-through ads. This means that YouTube's profit is intrinsically linked to the popularity of its content (and, incidentally, the most popular material often infringes copyright).

And if the magazines a printer prints are more or less popular has no effect on the revenue stream of the printer?

To my mind, this makes YouTube a publisher, not a printer, hence a valid target for law suits.

They're both, but they're given the same sort of protection that common carriers are. And in return, they have to follow certain procedures to maintain neutrality.

They have chosen not to employ editors. Would a newspaper company be able to publish an edition without an editor and disavow all responsibility for the content? I think not! Why should YouTube get different treatment?

Because YouTube isn't a newspaper, just like the phone company or /. isn't a newspaper. The conscious choice to abdicate oneself from editorial control is precisely because (a) it holds the poster responsible for their own post, (b) it allows less bias to be expressed by editors, and (c) it allows for a much larger volume of content to be passed through the phone company/YouTube than would be realistically possible if everything had to get a "seal of approval". Now, does this mean YouTube or the phone company gets to act with no regard to the people/the government? No. It means that they're afforded some liability protection in exchange for things like (a) promptly removing alledged infringing material, (b) being prevented from going out and censoring content that they disapprove of, and (c) not being allowed to advertise their service precisely for its unlawful uses.

SeeqPod is different. SeeqPod is a music search engine, and the only music people search for is illegal stuff. Sure, you may be able to search for legal stuff, but who would bother? Legal MP3s just aren't redistributed much -- if you want them, you go to the band's homepage and download them, and you don't need a music search engine for that.

Um, because it's quicker/easier to search by a song name than to first search for a band name, then navigate a site?

Btw, it's great to know you've done a survey to find out that "legal MP3s just aren't redistributed much". Are you also for tapping and filtering phone lines because "legal [phone usage] just [doesn't happen] much"? I mean, I really love your approach to fixing criminal problems. Don't hold the people accountable who are commiting the actual crime. Instead, go after the people who "faciliate" the crime. Btw, since there's a gas tax to faciliate road repair, does that mean every single high speed chase, speeding ticket, etc means the government can be charged with conspiracy and aiding and abetting? I mean, they sure have an interest in seeing people using their gas less efficiently, resulting in larger gas tax revenue.

PS - I don't search for illegal music. But, then, I rather like game music and there's lots of nice people who post content to ocremix.org. Of course, I presume that there's more than ocremix.org out there for such content. But, you know, I guess I can't be allowed to search for it because of all the people who would dare to do something illegal.

Re:Almost, but not yet, fully bulletproof! (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189960)

Nah ... all they'll do is make such ventures too risky, nobody will undertake them, and that will be that. The consumer is who will get fucked over (again.)

Simple yet . . . ineffective? (2, Insightful)

Nebuul (1008475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189358)

I'm not going to bother reading the legal document. Instead, I'm going to assume the slashdot editors are being sloppy as always.

Should read simple/effective, as in something they would encourage a company to use.

Versus simple/ineffective, which would mean something that is easily implemented and yet somehow manages to still do nothing.

It's called saying what you really mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22190170)

> I'm not going to bother reading the legal document. Instead, I'm going to assume the slashdot editors are being sloppy as always.

Nope, it's called wordplay. The submitter is saying what they really mean. Here, look at the submission:

"[...] simple yet ineffective content filters to screen out copyright infringing materials, presumably by not buying those filters from label-affiliated companies."

Now if you compare that to the legal document (where they claim merely that the filters would be "simple"), you'll see what's going on. Basically, the labels aren't asking for copyright filters to be put in because they *work* (they don't and they've been tried many times before), they're asking them to be put in because they want to force this company to buy filtering technology from their partners. It's ultimately a ploy whereby they seek to gain control over and thereby influence our means of searching for things online. Given how little people trust Google's accumulation of power, even if they haven't done anything *too* evil, I don't really think we can trust the "mafiaa" with that kind of power.

So that phrase was no mistake, it was just a bit of wordplay designed to trip up anyone carelessly reading it, thereby making them take notice of what's going on without having to bloat the submission with a lengthy analysis of what they're up to. Judging by your post, it appears to have worked... at least in terms of getting attention.

What's my basis for claiming all this?
I wrote this submission.

That's right. I don't believe in imaginary property.

Re:It's called saying what you really mean... (1)

Nebuul (1008475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22191540)

Well, newsflash: If you incorporate quotes in a statement on a news article, and then you misquote (and believe it or not, stating a different meaning than the quote used even when not quoting verbatim is a misquote), that's crappy journalism. The slashdot editors should have noted it in your summary. Here is the full quote, since you left out some: "According to the complaint [PDF] SeeqPod 'deliberately refrains' from adding simple yet ineffective content filters to screen out copyright infringing materials, presumably by not buying those filters from label-affiliated companies." You give source material and a quote from the document, and then have your "oh I'm clever" misstatement of what it actually says in the document. Don't worry, though, you didn't make the editors here seem any less professional.

New legal justification for open downloads (2, Insightful)

FromTheAir (938543) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189388)

Maybe this idea will get to the right minds perhaps one of you know who they are and will create awareness. When we purchase music we purchase a license to listen to the songs we paid for. I don't think the music industry understands this; apparently this has not been clarified in the courts. We are not buying the piece of plastic they are printed on.

It does not matter what the source is or what format we have it in. We are purchasing a license to listen at our leisure to a song or watch a movie. We can have a thousand copies because we can only listen to one at a time. Somebody needs to argue this in court. That we are in fact purchasing a license to listen, not a piece of plastic or a digital file of zero's and ones.

This is the New legal justification for open downloads of music or copy righted material:

In fact the record labels need to, I think legally provide, free downloads of music. The record companies have not provided a way for me to enjoy my license to listen if the CD gets scratched, as it is now they force us to buy a new license they should probably reimburse anyone who has had to buy more than one license because of damage media. I noticed about 10 years ago CDs became very easy to scratch not the bottom but the top.

Because the carrier medium can be damaged we should all be able to get a download of a new instance of the song we paid for from the Internet if we purchased the license to listen to it. Since the record companies have not provided a way for us to get a replacement copy the Internet downloads can ethically be justified.

Truth is we don't need the record companies anymore. We can all buy from the artists direct and vote with a link what is most popular. I would be happy to pay the creative talent directly without the huge middle man cut. Another things is corporate pressure to maintain the status quo system cannot be put on artists by large corporations.

Hopefully someone will get this into the hands of the attorneys for the defendants.

Technically based on quantum physics there is only one copy of a piece of music in the universe. This exists in the intangible realm; all tangible manifestations of this one copy are simply a physical conveyance of this one real instance. It is an information universe, everything is ultimately just information.

Re:New legal justification for open downloads (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189458)

When we purchase music we purchase a license to listen to the songs we paid for. I don't think the music industry understands this; apparently this has not been clarified in the courts. We are not buying the piece of plastic they are printed on.

No, you're buying the piece of plastic actually. Remember, not everything to do with creative works falls within the realm of copyright law. Copyright prevents you from lawfully making a copy of the piece of plastic, or from publicly performing it, but copyright does not prohibit you from listening to it privately. Private performances of musical works and sound recordings is in the public domain, and you don't need anyone's permission or license to do it. You do, however, need a copy of the work (the piece of plastic) in order to have access to the work you want to listen to, so that's what you go out and buy.

This point really has never been disputed by anyone who knows the law, so I wouldn't rely on the courts to side with your bizarre theories, if I were you.

We can have a thousand copies because we can only listen to one at a time.

You can _have_ that many copies, but making new copies yourself is something that falls under copyright law, and is generally prohibited.

Because the carrier medium can be damaged we should all be able to get a download of a new instance of the song we paid for from the Internet if we purchased the license to listen to it. Since the record companies have not provided a way for us to get a replacement copy the Internet downloads can ethically be justified.

It would be nice if owners of copies were allowed to freely download more copies, but that's not how things currently work. As for ethics, copyright and copyright infringement both have nothing to do with ethics in any respect; it's a utilitarian, amoral field.

Re:New legal justification for open downloads (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22190622)

And how does an MP3 datastream represent, or even look somewhat close to a 44.1KHz 16 bit pcm encoding?

What copying do we see here? I see 2 completely different data patterns.

Re:New legal justification for open downloads (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 6 years ago | (#22191224)

Who cares about the encoding? Remember, copyright law is a human construct. It does not matter whether it is encoded with one codec or another, lossy or lossless, compressed or uncompressed, digitally or analog -- if, at the end of the day, a human being (either with or without the aid of some device, such as music playing software) perceives it as being the same song, then it's the same song.

It's just like how it doesn't matter when you copy a book, if you change the typeface, or you write it in script instead of in print, or you use shorthand, or what. It's all the same thing so far as copyright law is concerned.

Based on previous experiences, I suspect that the follow-up comment will be something to the effect of, 'with the right software then, the number 1 could be the White Album, and the number 0 could be Smell The Glove, but surely the Beatles don't own the number 1.'

Well, they don't. First, because again, the specific format of the work is irrelevant so long as a person can somehow perceive it in its intended form. That is, you get a copyright on the White Album, not a specific compressed form of it. Second, because originality, and therefore provenance, are central to copyright. Originality, in this context, means that the work owes its origin to its creator. If you write down the number 1 and you didn't copy from the highly-compressed White Album, then you're fine. It doesn't matter that they are the same number, so long as there's no other connection between them. This is discussed at length in a very good essay here [sooke.bc.ca] .

Furthermore, a work fixed in some form means nothing without knowledge of how to perceive it, whether directly, or with the aid of a machine or device. If you wrote down the number 1 and asserted that it was your work in a compressed form and that no one had better write down that number, then you'd lose unless you could show how it decompressed and that whoever you accused of infringement knew about that. For standards, this is easy: works encoded in mp3 form, for example, are easily decoded. But if you're using arbitrary techniques that no one else knew, then they couldn't've perceived the work, and thus never had a copy to begin with.

Finally, also note that the reproduction form of copyright infringement, 1) doesn't care about encoding (meaning that mp3's are straight copies, despite being lossy, and are not derivatives, not that it really matters), and; 2) doesn't care about how much was copied, particularly. Copy half of a song, and it's still infringing. Copy one note, and perhaps it is not, but copy many individual notes and reassemble them into the song again, and it's infringing because no one is so stupid as to fall for such an idiotic trick. This is because the law is applied by human beings, usually pretty smart ones who do not appreciate a wrongdoer's attempts at cleverness, who can see through this stuff, rather than mere machines that are easily duped.

Re:New legal justification for open downloads (1)

Omestes (471991) | more than 6 years ago | (#22196530)

Copyright prevents you from lawfully making a copy of the piece of plastic

You had me until that point. You can make as many copies as you feel like, DISTRIBUTING those copies fall under copyright law. Last time I check, fair use still existed.

It would be nice if owners of copies were allowed to freely download more copies, but that's not how things currently work. As for ethics, copyright and copyright infringement both have nothing to do with ethics in any respect; it's a utilitarian, amoral field.

Depending on how we frame the debate, this could be true. But first we must decide if copying is indeed "theft" or not. Since theft is indeed an ethical issue. Then we must decide if following laws are an ethical proposition, or if the principle behind the law takes precedence in our ethical system. If we define copyright violation as theft (as we are wont to do here) then indeed violation is ethically wrong. If not, we still need to decide whether following a (perceived) unjust law is ethical or not

To be the pedantic philosophical type that I am; all actions fall under ethics, since ethics are the principles that guide our behaviors (or "ought" to).

Re:New legal justification for open downloads (2, Interesting)

Klaus_1250 (987230) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189714)

The record companies have not provided a way for me to enjoy my license to listen if the CD gets scratched, as it is now they force us to buy a new license they should probably reimburse anyone who has had to buy more than one license because of damage media. I noticed about 10 years ago CDs became very easy to scratch not the bottom but the top. Because the carrier medium can be damaged we should all be able to get a download of a new instance of the song we paid for from the Internet if we purchased the license to listen to it. Since the record companies have not provided a way for us to get a replacement copy the Internet downloads can ethically be justified.
That is one of the reasons why downloading (NOT uploading) is legally allowed here in the Netherlands, though this is now under attack. If I'm not mistaking, record labels are also obliged to swap damaged media carriers at a reasonable cost (handling, packaging, shipping, media), but for some awkward reason, this is not mentioned anywhere.

PIRACY IS KILLING PC GAMING (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22189402)

We pulled some disturbing numbers this past week about the amount of PC players currently playing CoD4 Multiplayer (which was fantastic). What wasn't fantastic was the percentage of those numbers who were playing on stolen copies of the game on stolen / cracked CD keys of pirated copies (and that was only people playing online).

Not sure if I can share the exact numbers or percentage of PC players with you, but I'll check and see; if I can I'll update with them. As the amount of people who pirate PC games is astounding. It blows me away at the amount of people willing to steal games (or anything) simply because it's not physical or it's on the safety of the internet to do.

PIRACY IS STABBING PC GAMING'S COLD CORPSE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22189530)

Microsoft already killed it by making the lucrative lowest common denominator a console with a 9-button controller and joysticks.

Re:PIRACY IS KILLING PC GAMING (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189882)

We pulled some disturbing numbers this past week about the amount of PC players currently playing CoD4 Multiplayer (which was fantastic).
...and how exactly was that? Typical **AA tactic, just "statistics" with no way of backing them up.

Re:PIRACY IS KILLING PC GAMING (1)

greyblack (1148533) | more than 6 years ago | (#22192380)

The **AA Method (tm):

See this hat? Nothing in it, right? Well, TADA! here's your number!

The term "search engine" is pretty broad (1)

Damon Tog (245418) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189408)

I am a dummy when it comes to this stuff, but it sure seems like the term "search engine" is pretty broad and could apply to a lot of things.

  • Google: Provides an interface to search and display the contents of multiple computers.
  • Seeqpod: Provides an interface to search and display the contents of multiple computers.
  • Napster: Provides an interface to search and display the contents of multiple computers.
  • Grokster: Provides an interface to search and display the contents of multiple computers.

Does the DMCA Safe Harbor provision include ways to draw distinctions between these services? I was under the impression that the wording was rather broad.

While I'm not thrilled that the RIAA wants to Filter the Internet, I hope SeeqPod's defense amounts to more than:
  • We don't actually host any infringing files.
  • We are but a simple search engine.
  • We're just like Google. Seriously!

Re:The term "search engine" is pretty broad (1)

repvik (96666) | more than 6 years ago | (#22192088)

It is nothing but a tool. If the tool was specifically designed to *only* find infringing copies OTOH, it shouldn't be covered by safe harbor.

Head asplodes (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189452)

> ...'deliberately refrains' from adding simple yet ineffective content filters...

I need more to drink. That didn't make sense.

Re:Head asplodes (1)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194006)

I'm glad it's not just me who had to double-take that bit.

Why would people bother adding ineffective content filters? I call tyop.

Filters (3, Interesting)

Ajehals (947354) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189488)

From the summary;

...'deliberately refrains' from adding simple yet ineffective content filters to screen out copyright infringing materials...
Unless this is a typo, it seems perfectly sensible, if you are not required to use filters (Assuming that "Safe Harbour" applies) at all, that you would certainly not use ineffective ones. If that is all that is available in terms of content filters, then I guess you could go further and say that there is *no* way of filtering content effectively and so it is absurd to take legal action against someone for not doing so.

I guess the best method would be ORAPC (One RIAA Agent Per Computer), they could sit next to you whilst you browse the web and help you avoid infringing.

Re:Filters (3, Interesting)

rhizome (115711) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189606)

Unless this is a typo, it seems perfectly sensible,

It's not a typo, it's editorializing on Slashdot's part. Notice where the quotation marks are.

Re:Filters (1)

ContractualObligatio (850987) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189924)

If that is all that is available in terms of content filters, then I guess you could go further and say that there is *no* way of filtering content effectively

That's a curious logic. You're basically saying that if something hasn't been done already then it's impossible. Don't you believe in innovation?

Not sure about your sense of architecture, either. How would you propose a website distributes those agents? A simpler approach would be to simply apply the filter at the central search engine.

Re:Filters (1)

Ajehals (947354) | more than 6 years ago | (#22190074)

To answer your first point; No. I'm saying that if these ineffective filters are all that exist then at present, no filtering system exists that would be effective in filtering copyright material. I am not saying that creating one is impossible nor that one cannot be created, I am saying that as it stands the technology does not exist in a viable form.

Secondly, about my sense of architecture, clearly it is superior to yours. How would I propose a website would distribute the Agents I suggested? Well I would guess that when you buy your computer that you would have to wait whilst whoever sold it to you contacted the RIAA via a website and had an Agent dispatched to your home. That way when you get home you will find your personal Agent waiting for you outside, he'd probably introduce himself and then he can get on with the task of "sit(ting) next to you whilst you browse the web and help you avoid infringing.".

One less movie and one less CD sold to me! (5, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189520)

I will deliberately avoid paying for Warner Brothers products next time around.

While we have seen lots of nay-sayers, the fact is that voting with your feet works, and the record companies are hurting because of it.

If we customers keep telling them "we don't want this kind of garbage, and our purchases will reflect our stance", they will listen. They have to listen. The reason they are hurting so badly right now is because they did not listen, and they are finally beginning to realize that.

this is the thing YOU don't understand (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22189686)

the public, doesn't have YOUR taste. YOUR TASTE is not the arbiter of quality. you have some deluded notion that YOU know what artistic quality is, and everyone needs to get on your side. well guess what jabroni, there is no such thing as quality when it comes to art. quality is in the eyes/ears of the beholder, it's highly subjective and personal. so get over it, people buy things they like and want, not according to Jane Q. Public's taste list. learn this, and that bitter taste in your throat will go away, comic book guy.

Re:this is the thing YOU don't understand (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22189760)

Except that, the public's taste has spoken numbnuts, and the numbers reflect the public in general agreeing with "comic book guy" as you called him.

So far, you're the fucktard of the night. congratulations.

Re:this is the thing YOU don't understand (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189826)

What the HELL are you talking about?

Oh... never mind. The other reply explained it.

But just so it is out of my own mouth, as it were: this has nothing to do with my "taste". This has to do with not buying from a company that has been determined to rip me off just about every chance it has gotten. My response (and that of many others) is: okay... I will just not buy your products.

And it *IS* working.

Re:One less movie and one less CD sold to me! (1)

riseoftheindividual (1214958) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189780)

I was just thinking how strange it is that everyone supports these companies because they somehow can't resist their entertainment products, even while these companies shit all over our legal system in blatant attempts to slow down societal progress in the name of profits.

I know warner brothers can make good movies, but are seeing them worth fucking up our societies legal system?

I really wanted to see I Am Legend, but the price of admission suddenly seems way too high.

Re:One less movie and one less CD sold to me! (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189922)

I didn't like it if it's any consolation...
I won't issue a spoiler (as this is clear in the first 5 min of the movie):
Scientist cures cancer by altering the measles virus.
+ a couple years and NYC is a ghost town.
Smith is a survivor and BadThings happened to other people.
Meh, I didn't even finish watching it (not going to spoil any more) as I don't "do" the types of movies that it was.
Just hopped over to watch another movie.
-nB

Re:One less movie and one less CD sold to me! (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 6 years ago | (#22190076)

You didn't miss much if you didn't watch "I Am Legend".

It wasn't a terrible movie. But it's basically a very dumbed down version of Omega Man which I guess was a dumbed down version of "The Last Man on Earth". The plot got pared down to near nothing.

Cinematography was not bad. And it definitely had a lot better special effects (of course). But nothing you probably haven't seen before.

Re:One less movie and one less CD sold to me! (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 6 years ago | (#22191632)

They're all dumbed-down versions of the novel I Am Legend by Richard Matheson, actually. It's a great read. Give it a shot, and don't be prejudiced by the various movie versions.

Re:One less movie and one less CD sold to me! (1)

ContractualObligatio (850987) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189944)

You've not made your complaint clear. One business sues another - where's the problem?

Re:One less movie and one less CD sold to me! (1)

shark72 (702619) | more than 6 years ago | (#22190670)

"You've not made your complaint clear. One business sues another - where's the problem?"

Well, SeeqPod is a search engine that specializes in letting you download music for free. The big meanies at Warner Brothers would really rather that we all buy the music than get it for free courtesy of SeeqPod. Now, if you were John Q. Slashdotter, on whose side would you be on?

Re:One less movie and one less CD sold to me! (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22191512)

My point was that a small company was apparently following the law, and a big media company did not like what they were doing, and so is trying (yet again) to distort the law in order to guarantee themselves a profit at the expense of the consumer. So... I just buy less of Big Company's products. Works for me.

Re:One less movie and one less CD sold to me! (1)

ContractualObligatio (850987) | more than 6 years ago | (#22194530)

OK, good reason generally but I don't think it applies here for two reasons. First, the small company is claiming to follow the law, which is a completely different kettle of fish. You say "apparently" but on what basis? It's pretty obvious SeeqPod is a music distribution business, not a search business, so does their Safe Harbor claim have any merit? Their motive is different to Google, their business model is different, their service is most definitely not "neutral" with regards to the content it finds, etc.

Second, I just don't like SeeqPod's apparent approach. If I ever manage to start a business in music distribution (I've given up on anyone ever liking my own music), I would hold it to be necessary that we find a way to pay the artists we profit from. SeeqPod appear to be simultaneously paying lawyers to avoid any such obligations, while asking other people to give them money because they've found a nifty way to getting free music, essentially shitting all over the artist. I think that attitude stinks and I've no problem with them being sued.

The fact that Warner Bros may not give artists a fair share of what comes in and generally needs to wake up and smell the coffee is irrelevant. If you want to avoid the majors for that reason, or simply because you've got good taste, that makes sense. But to support a company with an even more exploitative attitude to the individual just because they're a smaller company doesn't make sense to me.

Re:One less movie and one less CD sold to me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22190124)

I will deliberately avoid paying for Warner Brothers products next time around.

"Warner Music Group"

It comprises not only warner brothers records, but many, many others. A separate entity from Warner Bros movies etc.

The way that Seeqpod does their thing is interesting, and it would appear that the reason that they are being attacked is that they actually are stealing money from the company. They aren't stealing it by doing the search for the music but because they are completely circumventing all advertising revenue that would be coming in, not only to them, but to Youtube and Daily Motion and the other sites.

When I first saw seeqpod, I was amazed that youtube didn't go after them.

What we will see, whether or not this lawsuit is successful is in-video advertising being added to the content. I'm surprised they didn't have this already. Much like google's "I'm feeling lucky" button, embedding a youtube video on your page actually prevents youtube from making any money. They're depending on the power of their brand to get you to go to the site and actually cause ad impressions.

There are other sites that are built on top of seeqpod, too, that have their own advertising, which is stealing would-be ad revenue from seeqpod. This whole thing is cannibalizing itself and I can't see where any of these companies will make any money in the end without becoming a sanctioned outlet for the content (either form youtube or from the labels and tv networks themselves). The video providing sites need an API for webpeople to build search engines and playlist engines on top of so everyone can share the ad revenue. There's a lot of money to be made.

Re:One less movie and one less CD sold to me! (1)

novakyu (636495) | more than 6 years ago | (#22191210)

I will deliberately avoid paying for Warner Brothers products next time around.
Why stop at one and just "next time"?

I stopped buying any music or going to theaters altogether (at least for MPAA-member-produced movies) ever since the Sony BMG and the MPAA University Kit deal.

When these people "catch a pirate", they don't simply give them $200 fine and let them go (you know, like a speeding ticket). They extort them for thousands, and, if they resist, sue them for hundreds of thousands.

Why should we be "easy on them"?

Stop buying music and movie altogether. There are plenty of free music [opsound.org] out there, and chances are, one day there will be some good free video [youtube.com] as well.

Make these bastards go out of business. Don't buy their stuff. Ever.

Re:One less movie and one less CD sold to me! (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22191520)

Good point.

Lately I have been buying a lot of CDs of local bands... money from my hands into theirs, CDs from their hands into mine. No contracts or big studios involved.

Re:One less movie and one less CD sold to me! (0, Redundant)

houghi (78078) | more than 6 years ago | (#22192276)

Be shure ti not buy any products that have anything to do with WB. So nothing with Harry Potter, Batman, Superman, anything from Hamma-Barnera or Tom&Jerry.

Obviously do not use any of their afiliated cinema's and do not watch any of the DC comics related things on tv.

The website is talking about some 6600 feature films, 48000 television titles and 14000 animated titles.

And I am not even talking about Time Warner. And the other larger companies are just as bad.

In all honesty, it is either un-possible or you can not live a life as you do it now. So better give up entertainment all together. Just go to the local pub where some local band is playing. Leave the moment they stop and the recorded music is back on.

The problem is, is that we are not their only consumers. Kellogs and MacDonals are also and they buy their crap to 'give' it to us as pictures on a box, so we buy more of their crap.

not web 2.0 (1)

Ice Station Zebra (18124) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189550)

Sorry eff seeqpod is not web 2.0, just another useless flash site.

Re:not web 2.0 (1)

Earle Martin (647758) | more than 6 years ago | (#22190190)

What does "useless flash site" mean? Please explain to us.

Reality check (2, Informative)

ContractualObligatio (850987) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189598)

Seems pretty simple to me - set up a business (e.g. SeeqPod) that explicitly aims to make money out of online content, and you'll either pay fees or get sued by the owners of that content.

No doubt there will be many and various cunning arguments in this thread as to why this is wrong e.g. if I can't get it for free, I'll take my money elsewhere; I've already got the CD so why should a service that also caters to people without the CD have to pay anything; technology may be a wonderful thing but strangely I also believe it is incapable of ever doing something I don't approve of; etc. While all of these points do actually have merit in various aspects of the whole brave new digital world discussion (please ignore my paraphrasing), they neglect a fundamental law of human nature:

When you seek to make money based upon other people's efforts or property, those other people will find a way to get some or all of your profits.

Corollary: When money is involved, you will never win an argument by stating that the property doesn't actually exist i.e. smart arse comments about "Imaginary Property" won't cut it.

Re:Reality check (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22189670)

They can seek whatever the hell they want, but I'm still not going to give them a dime.

You may be right that it's a law, but there's nothing inherent about copying that lets them know when someone is doing it to "their" file, so you could say that it's trumped by a higher law: you can't control other people's real property with your imaginary property.

Re:Reality check (1)

ContractualObligatio (850987) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189794)

I'm still not going to give them a dime.

Filled with a sense of self-importance, aren't we?

there's nothing inherent about copying that lets them know when someone is doing it to "their" file

You completely miss the point. Catching an individual P2P transfer may be tricky, but setting yourself up as a company, attracting investors, making press releases, and cutting deals with other service providers is bit of a fucking clue, isn't it?

Re:Reality check (3, Insightful)

ronocdh (906309) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189766)

When you seek to make money based upon other people's efforts or property, those other people will find a way to get some or all of your profits.
Interesting argument, considering that the labels have caused many of their biggest acts to go indie. It would appear that the labels themselves are screwing the artists out of money in many instances, and the artists, not the labels, who are trying to "find a way to get some or all of [the] profits."

Re:Reality check (1)

ContractualObligatio (850987) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189852)

Interesting argument, considering that the labels have caused many of their biggest acts to go indie

It's not clear - are you agreeing, disagreeing, or building upon my point?

muslims are shit. they need flushed. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22189602)

if you're a fucking muslim reading this know that you're a fucking worthless dungball in the worlds worst religion. turn against islam now. it's the human thing to do. otherwise you're a fucking faggot.
 
FUCK ISLAM!! FUCK ALLAH!!
 
or are you going to try to beat an old woman up for naming a child's toy after your lying faggot prophet? is this what it takes to prove your worthless religion right?

Christians are tampons and need to be thrown away, (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22189658)

Fuck christioans . I fucked the virgin mary with my 10 inch dick.. I fucked jesus. I fucked them and they moaned

Re:Christians are tampons and need to be thrown aw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22190160)

Congratulations, you're both right.

hypothesis, not theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22189836)

If we won't use the terms properly then who are we to complain when knuckledraggers misuse the terms?

Yeesh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22189876)

Two stories about people suing in a row. Due to corporate personhood, I propose we refer to all sue happy companies as 'Whiny Bitch Inc.'

Will the publicity pay the court costs? (1)

Phat_Tony (661117) | more than 6 years ago | (#22189928)

So, how many people just learned about SeeqPod for the first time due to the actions of the RIAA?

Re:Will the publicity pay the court costs? (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 6 years ago | (#22190146)

Me!

Which is also alot of people by the time word gets around!

~Dan

SeeqPod is a lot more useful than many people know (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22190224)

And how many will learn about the mobile version [seeqpod.com] (that lets you directly access the files rather than locking you into a Flash jail) from this very comment? That sure is an easier way to get mp3s than entering a long special search into Google. Use it while you can, that's my advice.

The fact they refuse to filter is the whole point! (3, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22191662)

If they were to filter they would no longer be classifiable as a neutral intermediary.

I'd be really surprised if the MAFIAA wins this, because the suit essentially says "damnit! stop qualifying for these safe harbors! we want you to deliberately gain knowledge of and act upon whats crossing your servers"

At the same time, I also see them winning this on the utter incompetence of judges who spent their lifetime studying law, and pay geeks to come in when they need an instant messenger installed.

OH, did I mention the current agenda of these disgusting companies is people's republic of china style destruction of the internet?

If they want their content protected (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 6 years ago | (#22192172)

Then they shall give away the filter softwares for free.

The next thing is that you have to have a license to operate a search engine.

Filters simple? (1)

psychicsword (1036852) | more than 6 years ago | (#22192540)

Since when are the filters are simple. What are they talking about "-infringement" or "-illegal"? :P

DMCA directs co-operation (1)

Grampaw Willie (631616) | more than 6 years ago | (#22195900)

the DMCA requires the ISP to co-operate in removing copyright material upon receipt of formal notice and request

if Seeqpod has been given the required notice they will have to comply, otherwise they are in violation of DMCA and they don't want to be there.

Thanks Warner (1)

dacaffinator (750403) | more than 6 years ago | (#22196058)

I hadn't heard of this site before, it looks pretty useful. Thanks for bringing it to my attention Warner :)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>