Teen Freed for Linking to MP3s 125
7 year old free from charges in swedish mp3-case
The district court of Skövde announces today that the 17-year old who had using links to mp3-files on his homepage, is now acquited. Justification being that the 17-year old had only been directing to, not distributing the actual files. The classification was "crime against the copyright law through digital mp3-technics".
Even though he is now acquited, the court thinks he is guilty of complicity to crime against the copyright law. But since he was never prosecuted for that crime, he is released.
This is the first time in Europe a mp3-case has been brought to court. Its the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) who prosecuted the 17-year ord. The organisation has charged him with fines, but crimes against the copyright law can result in up to two years in prison. IFPI has not yet responded if it will appeal against the judgement.
Re:English Translation (Score:1)
Tongue in Cheek Noise... (Score:2)
What music sites need to do is put their MP3's and other media under the GNU General Public License. That way, if some punk Swedish kid tries to link to them with an tag, he must subsequently make his whole home page GPL as well. But because MP3's are not GPL, anyone in the world can link to them, and possibly even download and play them back on a non-GPL MP3 client.
Seriously though. An URL is just an address of a file. Plain and simple. It's equivalent to a citation in a bibliography or footnote. This is "fair use". There is nothing wrong with making a link to a file, it's allowed for under copyright law (in the US), even though the lawyers and politicos may not think so. If the MP3 owner does not want people linking to it, all they need to do is put it behind a secure server.
Re:Shifting responsibility (Score:1)
The kid was in fact a girl, about 18 or 21. She was asked by federal police at a party whether they could find any LSD. She said no, but said that her boyfriend had some. She was arrested and charged under conspiracy to supply drugs. She was tried in a federal court under the infamous Regan's `War on Drugs' laws, found guilty and received the mandatory sentence of 10 years imprisonment without parole. The judge who sentenced her described it as a miscarriage of justice, but said he was powerless to give any other judgement.
Scary.
Re:Shifting responsibility (Score:1)
Bullshit.
Otherwise, he was providing information either to a known cop as part of a set-up, which renders the whole thing invalid, or he was only saying that person
I think it considerably more likely that some injustice was done to this chap, and ought to be rectified.
New abilities != lawlessness (Score:1)
Copyright is not theft, copyright is an assertion that you have created something original and that you want at least recognition of this fact and possibly monetary reward. If you want to use copyleft or something similar to allow free use, go for it, that's great, you're an altruist.
Rippers, encoders, warez sites, k3wl kids and CDs full of MP3s don't cover the fact that there are rules, internationally agreed rules, that dictate what you are and are not allowed to do with copyrighted material in your posession.
Linking to MP3 files that you know to be illegal must be viewed poorly, by linking to that site you are allowing people to exploit their presence and that should be considered abuse.
There's no difference between that and broadcasting the URL on a radio show or publishing it in a newspaper.
Fair use is allowed and copying for yourself is not going to get you into trouble, buy the CD once and listen to it on your laptop, on your MD walkman or on the tape player in your car - go right ahead, the music industry will not touch you. But publishing an MP3 on the web should be jumped on and linking to that MP3 is not dramatically different.
You might not agree with the rules, so try to change them - remember, direct action is a viable means of protest, but there's a good chance that it might also be illegal.
Re:Shifting responsibility (Score:1)
I don't think there's any difference between the first and third alternatives you presented:
- he was providing information either to a known cop as part of a set-up
- he was providing information on the basis that it would be used to
In the second case (he was only saying that person
Personally, I think the real injustice lies in the mandatory life sentence - otherwise common sense could have been applied by the judge or jury.
Hamish
The Berne Convention (Score:3)
While I don't know the text of the Berne Convention by heart, I'd say it's only marginally relevant (legally speaking, it's not a law, by the way). The Berne Convention sets some minimum standards for copyright, but its primary purpose is to let foreign authors enjoy the same rights as the nationals of the country where copyright is claimed.
Before the Berne Convention was established in the late 19th century, a Swedish publisher could obtain a book by a British author, possibly translate it, and distribute as many copies he liked within Sweden, without the British author getting a say (or even receiving a penny in compensation)! Even today, copyright legislation is essentially national, with various conventions extending the rights given by national laws also to foreigners.
I don't think the Berne Convention says much about encouraging infringement or similar "side issues". The function of the Berne Convention (or perhaps some other convention) in this particular case was essentially to allow the recording industry to bring charges to the Swedish teenager on behalf of foreign musicians. The rest was up to the Swedish court to decide in accordance with the Swedish Copyright Act [www.kb.se] and other relevant statutes.
There is another potential twist related to the Berne Convention though: I don't know from what country the actual MP3 files were (and maybe still are) served. In this layman's opinion, charging somebody with assisting infringement by linking to those files will require their distribution to be illegal in the first place. What if they reside on a server in a country which isn't party to the relevant conventions, or where even domestic copyright law is insufficient? Can you be charged with helping someone abroad to commit an act that would be illegal if committed in your own country, but not where it's actually committed?
Note that making a single copy for your own personal use normally isn't illegal in Sweden, so I don't think you'll get anywhere by claiming the teenager was assisting those who downloaded the music to commit "petty theft of intellectual property" or something. The issue here is whether he in effect operated as the advertising agency of an actual pirate (something the court appearantly didn't address, due to sloppy homework on the part of the prosecutor).
Re:See: "Fair Use" (Score:1)
If you set up an enormous site with millions of MP3z^Hs then they'll come after you. If you link to 5 on other sites they won't. If you give away all of the Beatles on a coverdisc on a magazine they'll prosecute and if you lend your mate a CD to copy they won't.
Just keep them moving around so there's too many targets and we'll all get free music. Cool!
Re:Shifting responsibility (Score:3)
Re:About Credit Card Numbers... (Score:2)
If on the other hand you posted the algorithm for generating valid credit card numbers, you would be a criminal, and I doubt anyone would argue with that. If your best mate set up a site with that algorithm on it, and you set up a site directing people to his site (maybe he lived in a country with no extradition treaty to the USA or something), then you're part of a serious crime.
I think the analogies hold up, but the critique is interesting. Thanks.
jsm
Re:Is the problem . . . ? (Score:1)
The fact is that without access to expensive studio equipment it is extremely difficult to get a master recording at a high enough quality to sell. Getting a record deal makes this a lot easier as the record company pays for the studio (in exchange for most of your profit...) So, unless you're willing to sink pretty much everything you have into equipment and studio time, record companies still have a pretty big part to play for most bands.
yeah.. but how long until "Real Recording" studios don't cost as much as they do now?
Non-linear costs a zillion bucks because the systems are all old (in computer years, where 18 months is an eternity)
"Cheap, high quality" recording studios are _not_ far off. Someone just has to sit down and figure out a good business model, design a easily reproducable studio, and franchise it.
Today's studios have all this huge "big iron" behind the glass.. and i'm sorry, but soon, all those mixing boards and wires and cables and mics will all funnel into a tiny little graphite/white box with 4 handles and an Apple on the side via a firewire cable and will leave the studio thru the ethernet cable.
A backup of the entire recording session will leave on a $30 DVD-RAM so you can remix, re-record, whatever - wherever - whenever.
No, you can't do it all on one computer *now* with "real studio" quality, but you will within 2-8 years i guarandamntee you. Its like StarOffice 5.1.... no, its not as presentable as office 2000, but for the price difference, you shure can't bitch.
Record companies will either adapt, and go digital (production/distribution/sales), or they will die.
There's money to be made - and someone will soon take advantage of the fact that the big labels just don't get it.
Re:I think people are missing the point (Score:1)
The problem isn't linking in general. The problem is linking to something which breaks the law. Like it or not, posting
(Warning: extreme example coming)
Say you had a friend who you KNEW killed people for a living. Say someone came to you and said, "Hi! I'd like to have
someone killed. Do you know who I can go to?" You say, "Sure! Just go ask my friend."
If I know of someone who is willing to do it, I have the right to inform him of it. On the other hand, if I am aware of his intention, I am obligated to notify the authorities.
Another possible legal hole. (Score:2)
There's a very large amount of psuedo legal wrangling. Does a router that passes along MP3 data that is being copied illegal count as assisting, leading to arrest/prosecution of owner of said router/backbone? This'd certainly harken to the situation in Australia where people are being restricted in their personal freedom.
I'm amazed more people don't realise that freedom to choose == freedom to choose crime, and then try and make it harder to committ crime (by law), when no law will stop a person who wants to.
Re:See: "Fair Use" (Score:1)
He had been warned (Score:2)
According to an interview today, he had been warned twice by IFTI (or whatever). He thought the first warning was a joke by someone, but he took the second warning serious---he moved his site abroad...
I think he is guilty of being stupid. There is definately a gray zone here, but if you are asked to remove your links because you are doing damage then I think you have an obligation to do so.
Re:Piracy not the problem according to the EFF (Score:1)
At least I am, I can't speak for everyone.
Within the last three or four months I've purchased no less than seven CDs that I would have never considered had a friend not e-mailed me the mp3 and said "Check this out."
Two of these were artists appearing on mp3.com who for some strange reason have no major label deal even though they are infinitely more talented than much of the watered-down garbage I hear on my radio every day.
Watch out scour (Score:1)
And I doubt that they have the legal capital that an outfit like lycos does to fight the bad guys (was I correct in reading that it is the pornographic publishers alliance, or something like that, that was pursuing the Swedish fellow? Sheesh.
-awc
Re:Does this mean... (Score:2)
our society greatens many "knowledge based"
industries will be made obsolete and thereby will
use their current economic power to find every
possible fashion of stopping and stifeling their
depleating place in the economy. Expect more
witch-hunts. Though there is a way around
this. It's called value added services. Take
Macmillian publishing and their personal
desktop service. Seeing that it was so simple to
copy their material (mainly books) they made them
free and used advertising to sustain the service
meanwhile offering the "ability" to purchase a "hard copy." Unfortunately greedy old companies don't like new business models. In Canada the CRTC has regulated the upstream cap on dialup and other transmission means from the public sector.
Well that's my 2 cents.
no, no, I don't buy this at all (Score:3)
I don't buy this.
First things first; this comment is an example of what is usually an admirable principle; that control and prohibition should be kept as close in the causal chain as possible to the "bad act". This keeps the sphere of prohibition as small as possible, which is good.
But there comes a point at which it's just not possible to use the "other people have free will" argument, and when you have to suspect bad faith. Human beings aren't super-rational calculators running algorithms designed by Donald Knuth. They're funny, kludgey systems which react to stimuli in partly autonomous but partly predictable ways. And they're about as manipulable as the slashdot Karma system (no offense). People who behave in ways which influence the behaviour of others are part of the causal chain which leads to someone's rights being violated.
Should I be allowed to put up a site of credit card numbers? Hey, the people who download them have free will, don't blame me for what they do with them! How about if, for a fee, I introduce you to a guy who knows a hit man? How about if I publish the names and addresses of abortionists on the Net, with a red cross over the ones that have been killed? If you lent me your car and I left it out in a bad neighbourhood with the keys in the ignition, would you consider it to be partly my fault when it got stolen?
In a lot of these cases, I'm intending that crimes happen, and helping them to happen. I'm part of (an accessory to) the crime. I can claim that it's not my intention that these bad things happen (if I've got a good story, I might even get away with it). Some examples aren't crimes at all. But there's certainly a case to answer -- it's not the same as owning an automatically spidered search engine (and most search engines do attempt to keep themselves warez-free).
David Hume has a good few words to say about this, if I could only remember them.
jsm
Re:Is the problem . . . ? (Score:2)
So says the hype. I've been down this route with my band for a demo tape, recording the instruments on my soundcard, using a multitrack app etc., and then the band went into a studio and recorded a 6-track EP; we could just about afford it. The audio quality was reasonable but not great.
The fact is that without access to expensive studio equipment it is extremely difficult to get a master recording at a high enough quality to sell. Getting a record deal makes this a lot easier as the record company pays for the studio (in exchange for most of your profit...) So, unless you're willing to sink pretty much everything you have into equipment and studio time, record companies still have a pretty big part to play for most bands. Plus, of course, it's a chick-magnet being able to say, "oh yeah, well, we got our new record deal last month"
axolotl
The translation may be illegal.. (Score:1)
Re:Watch out scour (Score:1)
I think people are missing the point (Score:1)
(Warning: extreme example coming)
Say you had a friend who you KNEW killed people for a living. Say someone came to you and said, "Hi! I'd like to have someone killed. Do you know who I can go to?" You say, "Sure! Just go ask my friend."
(If this is too extreme, think of the neighborhood/dorm drug dealer rather than a hit man.)
I don't see much difference between acting as a reference in meatspace and providing a link on the web. Have you commited a crime by knowingly aiding someone else in commiting a crime? Have you commited a crime by knowing that a crime is happening and not reporting it?
-jon
At first glance... (Score:1)
Re:Freed? (Score:1)
Besides the chilling effect, which I also consider the most plausible explanation, they may want to use their loss in court as a political argument, hoping to "improve" copyright legislation to deal with people telling where to find pirated stuff. I don't think they'll lose any sleep over the millions in damages this teenager wasn't ordered to pay.
With all the free publicity you get from suing teenagers, their presumed ingenuity but limited financial resources, and the desire of the legal system to prosecute juvenile delinquents with priority, teenagers with computers seem to make excellent legal guinea-pigs. Perhaps the babelfish wasn't too far off calling this guy a "tea rodent"...
The threat to sue (Score:1)
In itself, this is not too much of a problem. However, if you look at the initial motivation for copyright protection, you can see that the law was there to protect the weak and the poor, the writers and inventors. How can we reconcile the outcome of one full century of copyright protection, with the fact that the music industry seems to benefit from copyright laws so much more than the artists who were supposed to be the main beneficiaries? Does Bill Gates need protection from us, or is it rather the other way around?
Re:I think people are missing the point (Score:1)
with criminal laws. You are using criminal
law examples to illustrate a civil matter.
In defense of the verdict (Score:1)
Whoa, whoa, whoa... hold on there!
I think it's time to rein in the horses there a bit, buddy!
Now, let's look at what you just said... you assert that, first of all, a person's intent should have no effect on whether or not they are guilty of a crime ("Whether or not he had a guilty mind, however, shouldn't affect the law."). I see an inherent self-contradiction in there, but I'll let it pass, for now.
Second, you claim (or at least, strongly imply) that any variation or permutation on a crime should be taken, de facto, as being the same as the crime ("If it is illegal, then that sign at my local library that points to the Copier Room needs to come down too.").
Now, are you sure you really want to go down this path? Let's follow it a bit. Pretty soon, you come to the take-no-prisoners stance. Zero tolerance. This is the same sort of mentality that leads to little kids being expelled from school for bringing Aspirin to class (well... it's a variation of a drug, and those are dangerous! We have a zero-tolerance policy on drugs! Kick the kid out!). Or howabout the case (no references on-hand, sorry -- maybe someone could provide them?) where the guy was expelled for giving his teacher a bottle of wine as a present? Oops! Can't have that! He didn't intend to drink it? Too bad! No exceptions! Doesn't matter what his intentions were... he's guilty as charged!
Granted, these are somewhat extreme cases, but nevertheless they follow the same principle. And it's not that big a step.
Now is that what you really meant, or did you just not think it entirely through?
Now, before I get too carried away, lemme add that the other extreme is just as bad. While the intentions of the accused should affect the judgement, they shouldn't necessarily become the focal-point. While in theory that would be nice, it leads all too-easily towards the dreaded thoughtcrime and the ultimate invasion of privacy that entails.
Which is why I defend the verdict -- whatever it was in its details. I confess to not having read the original article, although most of what I've said so far relies on it not one bit. I actually trust the courts, as they are, to come up with a judgement that takes into account the intent, criminal or not, of the kid. After all, despite the fact that the judge felt that he should be convicted as an accessory, that's not how (s)he ruled. Not sure of the details; something about it not being the crime he was charged with.
Which is fine with me.
Okay, so call me a conservative.
--
- Sean
Re: Teen Freed for Linking to MP3s (Score:1)
Time for Jon Katz to write an article about how MP3s are revolutioning the criminal justice system.
Distribution Middlemen in a Global Panic (Score:1)
Re:Hmm... "assisting copyright crime"?!? (Score:2)
But you have to exchange the freedom to wander the land for the safety of the compound. Exchanging one for another.
Much the same way, if bombs and gunshot are going off all around you, it's not very safe.
Much the same if I lock you in a box, you are very safe, but where is your freedom?
They may not be opposing poles but there is most definitely an inverse relationship between them.
Were the mp3s actually illegal? (Score:1)
People have been assuming (it seems to me) that they were illegal bootlegs, but some of the comments imply that they were legal, but not intended for public distribution.
What is the truth?
They *ARE* doing that (Score:1)
I am sure most reasonably big companies *have* people searching the web on daily basis, probably using AltaVista. Or more likely, they subcontract that work to someone else.
Re:He had been warned (Score:1)
That's freedom.
Re:I think people are missing the point (Score:1)
Since civil suits are brought by citizens against other citizens and criminal suits are brought by the government against citizens, it appears that this was in fact a criminal case. I've mixed up nothing.
In fact, the burden of proof is far lower in civil cases than in criminal cases (preponderance of evidence vs. beyond a resonable doubt). Ask OJ Simpson about that.
-jon
Freedom and Safety (Score:1)
Take for example somebody who is locked into a really bad prison. Their freedom has been taken away, and at the same time the prison may be a very violent and dangerous place. They have lost both freedom and safety. Conversly, when they are later released from prison, they may live in a much safer place and hence have increased both freedom and safety.
Going back to the earlier example of the "safe" compound and the "dangerous" wilderness it is easy to show that freedom has nothing to do with it. If you are in the compound because you choose to be of your own free will, then you enjoy some level of freedom. Just because I choose to live in a safe place instead of a dangerous place doesn't mean that I am less free. It just means that I am prudent.
On the other hand, if I live in the "safe" place because I am a slave and my owner doesn't want to risk his investment by letting me wander around where it's dangerous, I'm not free at all. Or, maybe my owner thinks he can get the most out of his investment by forcing me to fight lions in the colloseum. Either way, my "safety" isn't related to my "freedom".
well.. (Score:1)
Hmm... "assisting copyright crime"?!? (Score:5)
For example, say I, at school, decided to use a cd burner to record a song? Since it's their eq, would that be "assisting copyright crime"? What if I give someone a MP3->.wav converter? Or for that matter a CD ripper? Have I "assisted copyright crime"? The entire charge is both nebulous and overreaching. If I send an MP3 to someone under the assumption (which may well have been stated on his page, although I honestly don't know) that they already own the CD, and they happen not to, does that qualify?
Sorry about mixed-upness, it's not even 1000...
Quickie Translation (Score:5)
The court in Skövde said that the 17 year old who had links from his homepage to MP3 files is acquitted. The reason is that the 17 year old didn't spread the files, but simply linked to them.
Today the verdict was delivered in the highly publicised case against a 17 year old who linked to MP3 files. The charge was crime against copyright laws using MP3 digital media.
Although he is now free, the court said he was guitly as an accessory to copyright infringements. But because he was not charged, he can go free.
First legal case in Europé
The case deals with the music industry's worries about pirate copying of music and the case is unique - the first time that an MP3 case case been taken up in Europe.
It was the recording insutry's IFPI, International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, who prosecuted the 17 year old. The organisation has pressed for a fine, but copyright violations can carry a sentence of up to two years in prison. The IFPI has not said that it will not appeal the decision.
The court followed the line given by lawyer Per-Olof Almers. He argued that the case was not a crime. The 17 year old only showed interest in other's MP3 files.
(Very quick translation indeed)
Hope that sets something of a precedent (Score:1)
*winces at the thought of getting flamed for screwing up*
The one day some DJ's declared...
"Let this house be progressive!"
Law and borders on the internet (Score:1)
I assume since this incident they'll start cracking down on people with links to warez, cracking tools, exploits or pretty much anything they think can be classified illegal
once they start arrasting people for linking
In south Africa there are few laws covering internet crime
Translation of Posting (Score:3)
Bork Bork Bork!
Re:Law and borders on the internet (Score:1)
Seriously - they have a channel called 'bestofwarez'... which I think is a *good* idea, in much the same way that some people think legalising cannibis is a good idea. It removes the "shock! horror!" interest factor, so people won't want to do it as it isn't revolutionary any more.
Let's have some real psychology in the legal process, for a change.
Re:Freed? (Score:1)
Re:Hmm... "assisting copyright crime"?!? (Score:2)
Supposing you link to a book written by an author who died sixty years ago? Changes in copyright law mean that (in Europe) it's coming back into copyright. Do you get done for that?
The only way to stay safe seems to be: no external links.
Does this mean... (Score:2)
Re:well.. (Score:1)
MP3s should be entirely legal. Rather than screwing around with those who believe in free noise as well as free speech (and possibly free beer), why don't the courts clamp down on the music industry instead?
Re:Does this mean... (Score:1)
Pretty damn silly :-(
Freed? (Score:2)
--JT
English Translation (Score:1)
(1999-09-15 14:12)
Tingsrätten [approx. "district court"] in Skövde [an administrative region in south-central Sweden] reports that the 17-year-old who had links on his home page to websites with mp3-files has been freed [exonerated?]. The motivation is that the 17-year-old hasn't distributed the mp3-files, but has only pointed them out [linked to them].
Today the decision was handed down in the noted case against a 17-year-old who linked to home pages with MP3-files [sic]. The charges were violation of copyright law via digital MP3 technology.
Even though he is now exonerated[?] of these charges, the court considers him guilty of abetting violations of copyright law. But since he isn't being charged for it, he is allowed to go free.
First case in Europe
This case is about the music industry's concern about pirating musik and the case is unique -- it is the first time in Europe that an MP3-case has been taken up in Europe [sic].
It is the record companies' branch organization IFPI,nternational Federation of the Phonographic Industry, that has brought this case against the 17-year-old. The organization has pushed for daily fines, but violations of copyright law can yield up to two years in jail. IFPI has not yet indicated whether the organization will contest the decision.
The court followed lawyer Per-Olof Almer's line of reasoning. He doesn't view the accused's actions as criminal. The 17-year-old has only pointed out interested parties to others' MP3-files.
What if a link changes? What about books? (Score:2)
Re:The translation may be illegal.. (Score:1)
so what about... (Score:1)
The idea being that Demon Internet 'hosted' the article thus were in some way guilty for that.
Are you still a 'co-conspirator' if you have a link pointing to the root of ya mates page somewhere, www.blahblah.com/mate and he has a www.blahblah.com/mate/mp3 dir?
So ummm, glad he's free - just seems extremely dumb to me... Hell imagine if every major company employed someone to spend time surfing the web looking for their copyright material...
Maybe it's not that far off (cringe)?
my 2c? nah - just my non-sense...
assist (Score:1)
When you assist you make and ass of 'i' and 'st'
Re:Hmm... "assisting copyright crime"?!? (Score:1)
Re:Watch out scour (Score:1)
Heh.
Doh!
-awc
Translation issues (Score:1)
"Even though [the 17-year old] is now acquitted it is possible that he is guilty to the charge of `assisting an offense against the copyright law'. But as he was not tried for this crime he is freed."
Maybe not beautifully translated, but perhaps somewhat clarifying. It seems to me that this underlines that he was not tried for this charge, and therefore we can't really tell wether or not he was guilty.
BTW: An IFPI lawyer claims that "the court has not properly understood the technical details of deep-linking etc." (My free interpretation, just heard this on the radio).
Re:Freed? (Score:1)
Fallout (Score:1)
I personally have this dream of musicians grouping together not only for the aim of making music but also to distribute their own music for free.
The idea is very similar to the concept of getting free software and paying for the service. From what I hear, musicians don't really make that much money from selling their albums. Any real money is made thru performances. Sites hosting groups of musicians would distribute the MP3s for free, promotional samples if you will of what they will be performing live.
There wouldn't really be much loss since almost all the gains of cutting a CD goes to the Label. And since you're only making a few tracks, the cost of studio time wouldn't be to difficult to manage on your own.
There are a few sites I've stumbled across that sort of do this, but unfortunatley:
a) they didn't really have the talent to back the idea.
b) the site was small and really wasn't able to be a platform for promotion.
c) the bands were caught up in the notion that producing a CD was what it was all about.
My perception of whats happening is that the music industry is financially suffocating both the artists and the fans. It would be nice to see the major artists that do own their own labels take a cue from the internet culture, adopt this stragety, and make it viable. Can it be done?
Re:Hmm... "assisting copyright crime"?!? (Score:2)
Is promoting copyright abuse by others illegal, though? Is it as illegal as the original copyright abuse was? I'll agree that it sounds like the guy knew what he was doing: pointing people to mp3s which were illegally available on the web. Whether or not he had a guilty mind, however, shouldn't affect the law.
The law should either specifically state that assisting others in breaking copyright law is illegal, or else it isn't. If it is illegal, then that sign at my local library that points to the Copier Room needs to come down too. In some cases, promoting a crime is illegal - for example, inciting a riot. But those cases are normally spelled out in the law which involves the original crime. What does the Berne Convention have to say about encouraging copyright violation? That is probably the relevant law in this case.
It seems like the music industry is going about this backwards anyway - there are likely many more sites that link to mp3 sites than sites that actually provide the mp3s themselves. If they were really interested in stopping the problem, they would go after sites which provide the mp3s in the first place, and the problem of people linking to mp3s would be solved. It appears that they're trying to annoy people with a marginal connection to the copyright violation rather than solving the copyright problem at its root.
Re:I think people are missing the point (Score:1)
Say you had a friend who you KNEW killed people for a living. Say someone came to you and said, "Hi! I'd like to have someone killed. Do you know who I can go to?" You say, "Sure! Just go ask my friend."
BUT!
If someone didn't ask and you were discussing Dan Quayle 2000 campaign with him and during the conversation you said... "BTW, I have a friend called Mike, who is a hitman."
Re:Shifting responsibility (Score:2)
For instance, if you walk into a 'head shop', you'll find a vast array of bongs, pipes, rolling papers, hydroponic systems etc. Ninety-five percent of them are surely taken home and loaded up with pot, but the fact that they can be used to smoke tobacco and other legal substances gives the storeholder the right to sell them.
In the case of the teenager, he might have a defence if he argued that he was somehow aware of the identity of the undercover cop, and was passing on the information to assist in bringing the dealer to justice. Otherwise he was certainly providing that information on the basis that it would be used to commit a crime.
With this approach, it would be straightforward to argue that linking directly to an mp3 file consituted an offence; less obvious that linking to the http://mp3.warez.com homepage was illegal; and very hard to argue that linking to a site which provided links to mp3 files was illegal (unless that site provided no other information).
Hamish
Re:Hmm... "assisting copyright crime"?!? (Score:1)
Well, I don't think he would'we been convicted for that either. Because in Sweden it's legal to make copies of copyrighted material for own use. That is you are allowed to make copies of any published work, with three exceptions, buildings, computer programs and digital copies of digital collections.
I've heard people say that music CD's are considered a computer program, but I don't think a court would agree. You might also argue that a CD constitutes a digital collection, but that's doubtful and easy to work around (just mix the songs with other songs).
That brings me to the conclusion that your free to make copies of mp3's for personal use. So linking to mp3's could be considered helping people to make copies for personal use which is legal. It could of course also be considered helping someone distributing mp3's, which is illegal.
Anyway I don't think he would have been convicted for "assisting copyright crime" and that's probably why he wasn't tried for that.
I should also say that I'm not a lawyer, so this is just a laymans interpretations of the law.
Some more info (Score:2)
This was on the news here (though pretty deep in the broadcast) tonight, and one of the channels (the youth oriented Mtv clone) had an interview with the a representative from IPIF.
He said he felt the court had misunderstood the technical nature of the Internet (personally I would say he is the one who has missunderstood it) and that they would most probably appeal it. Court cases can always be appealed here.
He did however concede that the topic was a "difficult" one.
Ironically, I have never seen mp3s mentioned on the news here before this case. As an mp3 supporter I think it did us more good than bad here. There is nothing like getting a hand from the enemy.
Oh, and, Kids: Go ahead an pirate all the music that you want, but when you pirate an album, put 1$ in an envelope and send it to the artist. That is more than he would have seen of your 15 for the album.
-
Re:Hmm... "assisting copyright crime"?!? (Score:1)
The law doesn't show mercy for ignorance... just a little bit of leniancy.
If I send an MP3 to someone under the assumption (which may well have been stated on his page, although I honestly don't know) that they already own the CD, and they happen not to, does that qualify?
In that case they might lessen the charge slightly, just because you didn't know... If you could get the charges dropped by saying you didn't know something, then we would have alot of criminals out on the street 'not knowing' what they are doing.
Re:stupid people on slashdot (Score:1)
Re:no, no, I don't buy this at all (Score:1)
Whats next (Score:1)
Re:Piracy not the problem according to the EFF (Score:1)
Re:Translation of Posting (Score:1)
Teenen hu vas sewd foer lankar til MP3 filer har bin fried buy lokale kort. Korten say him are gillty still av hjelping kopieratt kreim, bat sints det warnt vad him were charged with, him vas let gaa.
Since Svenska looks like badly written Engelska in the first place, I think it's harder to fake.
-M
Re:Hmmmm... Linking to linkings??? (Score:1)
Re:Oh Jesus (Score:1)
Copyright is hard to enforce but that shouldn't be taken as a green light to just go ahead and flaunt it.
I presume, from the tone, that you don't have anything out there from which you make money? What would your feelings be toward someone who uses your products/services without paying for them? That's your livelihood, that is. Sure, only a small ripple on the human ocean, but a large wave in your local pond!
Actually, I think parking violations can be fairly serious, too. In the same way that someone parking for 90 seconds outside a shop to pay a newspaper is less serious than someone parking so as to block the ambulance entrance to a hospital, so there are degrees of copyright abuse.
Incarceration is harsh, I agree, a fine might be enough - but let's see some fines start to get meted out, then.
Re:Shifting responsibility (Score:1)
I'd agree though, the mandatoriness of the life sentence is crap too though.
Re:Shifting responsibility (Score:1)
A quick search on altavista revealed this link for those interested in more information
www.buildfreedom.com/tl/ffp04.shtml
Stephen
Re:In defense of the verdict (Score:1)
You make a good point considering intent, but I think you've misconstrued part of my post. I'm not saying that any variation on this crime should be considered the same as the crime. What I'm trying to point out is that the two variations we're discussing (linking to copyrighted material which may be available to make illegal copies, and pointing to a copying device which may make illegal copies of copyrighted material) are similar enough that making variation A (the mp3 linking) illegal would be just as silly as making variation B (the copier room at the library) illegal. In both cases a crime is committed by those who illegally reproduce copyrighted material. This does not automatically make it a crime for someone to point you to a way to commit copyright infringement, however, and that's what the court in this case is asserting.
Now, if there is an applicable law which states that this linking is illegal, then of course the defendant could be prosecuted under that law. My original point was that the presence of a law against illegal copying does not explicitly mean that the law also can be applied against pointing people to a place where they can commit copyright infringement. If you asked me for directions on the street, and I told you how to get to the bank, and then you robbed it, that doesn't make me a robber, for example. Of course, there's still the question of intent.
As far as intent goes, I would much rather have more specific laws rather than depend on the arbitrary interpretation of vague laws by the judiciary. You pointed out some very good examples of laws that were too broad - expelling children from school for any drugs, for example. In these cases, we don't need to make exceptions to the laws on the basis of intent, we just need more specific laws so that exceptions are unnecessary. This is again the same point I was making before - it is wrong to interpret a law to make more things illegal than are explicitly stated in the law. If there is a specific law forbidding something, then breaking the law is illegal regardless of intent. Contrariwise, if there is no law, then you haven't done anything that was illegal by definition, even if you did it with bad intentions.
Re:Quickie Translation (Score:1)
Re:Hope that sets something of a precedent (Score:1)
That surely does NOT make sense. Since most people have a free will (and there are laws governing the actions of those who don't) we can, in our very self-conscious, lawful way choose not to download copyrighted material (or kill, steal, whatever..) just because we are presented with the opportunity.
Is the problem . . . ? (Score:3)
Mp3's is the only thing that can save music from itself at this point. Having worked in the music buisness ( Before my transforamtion into an uber-geek ) I can assure you every major record company is scared out of their pant's. The biggest worry they have is not really copyright issues. It's the fact that music act's don't really need record companies anymore. With MP3's, you can create your own CD, promote and sell it on the web. Look to Public Enemy for an example,
Hmmmm... Linking to linkings??? (Score:1)
Re:Law and borders on the internet (Score:2)
Will they then get sued for linking to a site that links to a site that has warez?
Researchers showed that the Internet is 9 clicks wide, so pretty soon all the Internet will truely be illegal.
EjB
Re:English Translation (Score:1)
It's funny, but when I went looking for an article in Swedish about this topic the other day, I couldn't find anything. But this item implies that the case got a lot of press.
Re:Freed? (Score:2)
I can't help but wonder why IFPI chose this as their first case in Sweden. They could have charged someone who was actually disseminating MP3 files, and would almost certainly have won. Instead they chose to persue a case that they were very unlikely to win. Can anyone figure out why?
See: "Fair Use" (Score:3)
Likewise encoding huge chunks of your CD collection onto one CD using MP3 compression would also be covered under fair use as long as you don't give the CD away, sell it or otherwise distribute the files on it. You can use it for your own use so you don't have to stop and change CD's every 72 minutes.
You're getting into some hazy areas with linking. IANAL, but I'll take a stab at it. Linking is just telling someone where to find something else. If you say I can be prosecuted for copyright violations for linking, you'd damn well be ready to go down that road.
1) If I call you on the telephone and tell you where to find MP3 files, can I be prosecuted for copyright violations?
2) If I say on a radio show where to find MP3 files, can I be prosecuted for copyright violations?
3) If the MP3's are legit, obviously I can't be prosecuted for copyright violations.
4) Can you prove I knew the MP3's weren't legit? Should you have to?
5) If I link to a site that has displays one image that violates copyright laws, can I be prosecuted for copyright violations?
6) Do I have to ask permission before I do this? [usatoday.com]
You'd better be willing to answer "yes" to most of these questions if you want to go down that road. Apparently the RIAA is willing to answer yes to most of these questions. Are we?
Re:Shifting responsibility (Score:1)
Re:Hmmmm... Linking to linkings??? (Score:1)
Re:Shifting responsibility (Score:1)
19 (Score:1)
You and every other >startup (Score:2)
Maybe, if your band is good enough, you can attract financial backing. Startup capital. Sell shares of your future earnings for what you need to get going now. If you have commercial promise, why wouldn't investors go for this?
Of course, most bands suck, just like 90% of everything sucks. Investors need to spread the risk around, so maybe a group of them will wind up backing 100 bands, and a couple make it and make up for the rest. Everyone's happy, everyone gets paid, the bands get to do their thing, except for those who couldn't even make the initial cut (keep the day job..) Investors will get together and form some company that supports bands with at least some promise in the that some, even a tiny few, will pop. And since there are so, so many bands, the people with the money would have enormous leverage in any deal. Bands need them much more than they need any single band. It's venture capital plain and simple.
Of course that's the music industry. Why would - or should - it be any different than, say, tech?
Re:See: "Fair Use" (Score:1)
According to the judge in Sweden, no. But you could be prosecuted for helping others commit copyright violations. (IANAL.)
So linking to USA Today would not be illegal, unless you did so in order to help others rip images from the site or something.
There was a stupid judgment in the UK (Scotland, I think, probably applies to the rest of the country) where one local newspaper's website was ordered to stop linking to another paper's site. I'm not sure what the justification for this was, certainly they hadn't copied anything, nor were they inciting others to illegaly copy things.
The court did not say he was assisting crime (Score:2)
"The prosecutor never charged the 17-year old with assisting a crime. Therefore the court does not take any stand on that issue."
Re:Shifting responsibility (Score:1)
Unfortunately, I didn't read it, I saw it on some news program on television. Other than the information I posted above, the only other detail that might be useful is that I seem to recall the state that this took place in being Michigan. I could be wrong on that, though.
I'll do a little checking around. If I find any relevant details, I'll post them here.
Re:Shifting responsibility (Score:1)
Hamish
They are going to appeal the judgement? (Score:1)
Sure he may be guilty of assisting in the crime. But how can they appeal the judgement of the case if the court says that wasn't the crime he was being accused of. There appeal will IMO be a waste of money. If they want to sue someone tell them to sue themselves for utter stupidity
About Credit Card Numbers... (Score:1)
Tommorow, I've decided to put up a page showing every possible combination (it would be a BIG page!) of 16 digits for a BofA Visa credit card. I will put on it a big title that says "Some of these numbers are actual accounts! Use them as you like!".
Would this be illegal?
Should it?
whats important... (Score:1)
Shifting responsibility (Score:4)
An undercover cop walks into a party. Asks a teenager if he had any drugs for sale. The kid says "No, but that guy over there might." The cop proceeds to buy a large amount of, if I recall correctly, cocaine from the person the kid pointed out.
The kid is prosecuted for his "active participation" in this drug deal, and since the amount purchased crossed over some legal limit in that state, he received a mandatory life sentence with no possibility for parole.
So this is not just an Internet issue. In both cases a fairly innocent teenager was prosecuted for nothing more than passing along information.
It seems to me that the prosecution of someone who merely points out where something is available is simply one more way our society has devised of removing responsibility from where it truly belongs: with the person actually committing a crime.
What's next? Do I get a speeding ticket for telling someone "If you push that pedal on the right further down, your car will go faster."
Re:Hmm... "assisting copyright crime"?!? (Score:2)
looks like it's time to choose between freedom and safety again.
One of the main problems is that in this country (US) we have allowed our government to be run by businesses, they then make laws to protect business which are then moved through the U.N. and treaties to the rest of the world (and vice-versa). Then even changing a single government won't get us out from under unjust laws. My advice for this particular set of misguided laws, just keep breaking them until they turn to dust.
Re:Hmm... "assisting copyright crime"?!? (Score:2)
Obviously in a "nineteen clicks wide" network, then the chances are that the majority of all web pages are in some way "linking to" illegal material.
But there's a difference between that and putting up your fabulous "list of warez/mp3z site" which is obviously designed to promote piracy. Just as there's a difference between writing technical specs for Ma Bell and publishing "How to Get Phone Calls Free", even though you got the information for the one from the other.
It's an ambiguous issue, and there's no clear-cut way to decide it (if there were, the books of laws would be a lot shorter). The legal concept would be mens rea or "guilty mind". So, did the guy know he was doing something bad, but thought that the technical facts about the Internet would mean he couldn't be caught for it? If yes, then guilty he is.
On the other hand, music copyright law is a pretty bad law anyway, and deserves to be broken. If I ruled the world, I'd replace the concept of mens rea in copyright cases with:
jsm's Principle of Not Taking The Piss:
Trade mp3s if you like, but don't take the piss. Remember that they are actually someone's work
Oh, if only the world would put me in charge . . .
jsm
Re:Translation of Posting (Score:1)
Piracy not the problem according to the EFF (Score:2)
According to the executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) [eff.org] piracy is not the key issue facing the music industry. She feels that by locking down internet music distribution people might be encouraged even more to 'steal' [music].
This was said in front of a lot of music industry suits at the recent Digital Distribution and the Music industry '99 [firstconf.com] conference.
I've seen a lot of arguments for the free electronic distribution of music via the internet. One that usually surfaces is that people will be encouraged to buy the original after having easy&free access to it.
My question is: will people or are people currently doing this? I have to admit that the most of the MP3's on my workstation != the CD's in my car!