Not Allowed to even hyperlink to a mp3

19 comments

A court ruling has given the recording industry the green light to go after individuals who link to material from their websites, blogs or MySpace pages that is protected by copyright.

Full Story

Founders Note:
Not even allowed to link to it? Oh I can't wait for first time someone does a search with song.mp3 in Google... at $250,000 dollars a result for each case.. multiple that by how many times it's search for. The BIGGEST offender are the Search Engines, their SERPS link out to that crap all the time.

Comments

But Ms Heindl said MIPI

But Ms Heindl said MIPI would not be going after Google in the same way it sued mp3s4free.net.

"Mp3s4free was different in the sense that it actually catalogued MP3 files that were infringing copyright material - Google doesn't do that," she said.

Google doesn't do that

LOL!!!!

Sure they don't... However they could stop all sorts of .mp3 searches just like they do for viewtopic.php in phpbb...

http://www.google.com/sorry/?continue=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Dallinurl:viewtopic.php%26filter%3D0

That is a line of crap.. they just know that Google has money to fight off the lawsuit.. and will embarass them in court.

So if Mp3s4free...

...ran their catalog like a SE instead of a directory they would be fine? So they spider for MP3s only? If they don't like that, then do they spider for everything on a site that has MP3s and allow a SE like search of everything (then include a search directive such as "inurl:mp3" to get around the concern)?

Slippery slope that will (hopefully) soon go bye-bye.

Ugh.

SB

Whats funny

In that article, they did say that Google would be facing a suit of some kind as well.

You know whats funny, 3 of the top 10 searches for Google 2006. "mininova" - a bit torrent search site for illegal downloads
"metacafe" - offers copyrighted video content
"myspace" - plenty of copyrighted material

( ... btw, where is youtube on that list?)

Amazing Ruling

It's somewhat of an amazing ruling. Instead of targeting the actual violators, they go after those that simply link to them. It would be like arresting the guy who tells you the part of town where they sell drugs. I just can't fathom how linking to a site would not be protected under the first amendment, and furthermore why big companies get a free ride on the ruling.

Internet 2

It's all part and parcel of legislating away TCP/IP and replacing it w/ government-regulated, super-controlled, totally for-profit Internet 2.0 that has been in the works since the 90s to be "totally secure" (and hence, unfree).

COmbine that w/ tiered internet and McCain's bill that would basically shut down sites like ThreadWatch *immediately* if a competitor posts a child porn image, and you ahve the end of freedom as we know it (b/c once the internet is gone they will proceed w/ abandon).

Perhaps, naively, I'd see it

Perhaps, naively, I'd see it as an issue of *intent* - Google's general information retrieval, vs a website dedicated to helping users find illegally uploaded content?

wheres the line

Google is still helping you find the mp3. You just to know what to ask and all that info is in the help section.

There is No Line

The problem is Magicdan, there is no line for Google.

About ~2000 or so.. when Napster reigned as king... the court said that they could 'continue to operate' as long as they weeded out all the copyrighted material... this should be done by Google as well: http://www.google.com/sorry/?continue=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Dallinurl:viewtopic.php%26filter%3D0

Everyone knows that this would be a task that even Google couldn't handle... but the idea was to bankrupt Napster... I am not saying this should be done to Google.. but it has happened in the past.

End of the Internet as we know it?

... maybe. But not the end of the Internet.

You forget that the filesharing networks used so widely today were written by the kids who had to trade their "warez" on floppies, meeting in diners, clubs and alleys all over the world. The same kids who continue to meet all over the world (ever look in the back of a 2600 magazine?)

All the legislation in the world isn't going to make those same people- the people of 2600, of Threadwatch or YouTube or the Cyberarmy- go away. In the unlikely event that the gov't DOES successfully legislate the last remaining semblance of completely free expression left, it's just going to make us PISSED.

Remember when Mitnick was unlawfully kept without trial? Sure, some people just slapped a bunch of black-on-yellow "FREE KEVIN" bumper stickers all over the place (which, for what it's worth, still counts as Freaking Out The Establishment)- but then there's the countless computer labs hacked to display FREE KEVIN on their screens, the websites, the government institutions... I was reading a magazine just this month about a European computer hacker being tried for getting access to DoD, Pentagon, NASA and other servers in 2002 (think post 9/11 security measures)- and according to this kid, there are literally HUNDREDS of other hackers inside of those machines.

I'm not endorsing acts of terrorism, by any stretch... I'm just saying that the Powers that Be surely MUST know that if they take away ALL of the peoples' freedoms, we're not going to take it sitting down.

Or in the ass.

Deals

for content revenues are likely ensuring that Google's brands arent mentioned in those lists and attacks. The same people who are after the rogue users (lets be honest all users) are doing deals for content distribution with Google, You Tube etc. The Attributor is on its way too which isnt great. But as always the people who make these decisions have a biased interest or misinformed view on the reality of the internet. My faith in the legal systems around the world drops everytime I read this crap.

Not to change the subject, but...

Magic Dan, just what is it that makes you think you're so magic?

>> McCain's bill That's US

>> McCain's bill

That's US legislation. If changes to the US legislative framework made it impossible for G to operate there, they'd be a Russian / UK / Dutch / Martian corporation the next day, and it'd be the US that suffered in the long run.

Similarly, if the Australian judiciary is intent on making it difficult / impossible for search engines to operate there, it's not all that hard to purge the index of .au domains, and turn away traffic that geolocates to Australia - and then Australia suffers

hehe

I guess the lame answer is performing sem magic tricks but there is no reason really, just a nickname from my days at uni that stuck.

I'm one of them

I'm one of those freedom fighters who was involved in the pre-bittorrent credits system for uploading; way back in 2002-2003.

Just wait till the new currency system I've created unrolls; we're talking, a novel way to conduct monetary exchanges, a distributed, robust currency system where-in the creators of valuable cultural content (books, theses, music, movies, etc) literally 'create' the money used in the system and it's created by every upload.

It should revolutionize the world as we know it.

Why think of ways to *get* money when you can create a new monetary system? he who prints the money makes the rules; let's take it away from the synarchist bankers! The first vox populi monetary system ever!

Am I breaking the law?

Interesting thread.

I just started http://www.TVRoach.com

Could I be taken to court?

Wow.

Damn, hopeseekr... Setting your hopes a little high?

Guess you gotta dream big to achieve big.

Freedom fighters? Well I

Freedom fighters? Well I guess you did free creators of content from their rights to make enough money to keep creating the content you consume... congrats!

>> creators of content from

>> creators of content from their rights to make enough money to keep creating the content you consume

I'm sorry, you ARE referring to music industry execs here, aren't you? They're the ones making most of the money currently

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.