AOL Germany Found Guilty of Piracy 82
LordArathres writes "It seems that an German appeals court has ruled that America Online is responsible if its users trade copyrighted music online. The story does not go into much detail of what ramifications this might/will have on other courts around the world. The (short) article can be found on Yahoo!" When the story was written, not much detail was known - this will be an interesting case to follow.
International Legal Precedent (Score:5)
This treaty is called the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters [cptech.org].
The Hague Convention involves some 47+ member nations, including the U.S., EU and China. The object of the convention is twofold:
1. To make foreign judgements recognizable,
and 2. To make foreign judgements enforceable.
This is extremely significant to the techie community, and anyone concerned with the application of law over the internet. Remember the Godfrey v. Dolenga [freedomforum.org] and related cases, where a British physicist sued foreign nationals under the UK's draconian libel laws (where the burden of proof is, paradoxically, on the defendent to prove his innocence)? Godfrey obtained several favorable verdicts against citizens in the US and Canada, but was (at the time) unable to have those verdicts enforced.
Under the Hague Convention, Godfrey might have been able to not only secure favorable verdicts in the UK, but able to enforce those verdicts on others not ordinarily subject to UK libel law.
That's just one example. The Hague Convention does have one loophole (a fundamental public policy exemption) that nations could use to escape the enforcement of onerous verdicts. Libel cases may be an extreme example.
However, factor in Intellectual Property -- such as the precendence laid down in Germany concerning ISPs and Copyright. The Hague Convention would make it much, much easier to corporations to take advantage of disparities between the intellectual property regimes of different nations, secure favorable verdicts by picking and choosing courts to their advantage, and then enforcing such verdicts in other nations.
Imagine what will happen if the Hague Convention is passed (it's in draft-stage negotiations now) and free-software developers in EU countries which don't currently recognize software/business method patents are suddenly liable for patent infringement due to crappy US-PTO issued patents.
I think it is time that the geek community sat up and started paying attention to international legal developments such as the Hague Convention -- the corporations and industry associations (RIAA, MPAA) sure are. If you want to see what they have to say, check these [uspto.gov] comments recently submitted to the USPTO about the intellectual property aspects of the Hague Convention.
Sincerely,
Vergil
Vergil Bushnell
Re:Deutschland, Deutschland über AOL, (Score:1)
Re:Logical deduction (Score:1)
So I guess if someone uses the road... (Score:1)
Re:New .WAV for next AOL release (Score:2)
Other guilty parties (Score:2)
Go Germany.
Ah, those Bavarians (Score:2)
Never mind that he was acquited a couple years later by a higher court. Huge damage was done alredy.
However, this was no match for the greatest damage that happened to Compuserve users. That was the buyout by AOL...
Sue Santa! (Score:1)
Re:Let's sue God too.... (Score:1)
Re:Big question - answer anyone? (Score:1)
1. Many people have a completely unhealthy obsession with Europe. They think it's really cool to "be like Europe."
2.Many politicians and bureaucrats would like nothing more than to gain power by weakening or eradicating our rights.
3. Said politicians are skilled at spotting and taking advantage of popular ideas such as the afore-mentioned obsession with Europe.
Re:Let's sue God too.... (Score:2)
--
Re:vote with your feet (Score:2)
The illegal material was transferred along a pathway owned and operated by that entity, therefore that entity should be held responsible (according to the German court).
Doug
Re:vote with your feet (Score:2)
- Cigarette companies claimed that their products had no ill effects, and were not addictive. They advertised this and many people believed it for a very long time. Cigarette companies knew their products were dangerous, and thousands (millions?) of people died or had their lives shortened as a result.
- Cigarette companies targeted advertising at minors who would buy cigarettes illegally. How many people do you know who didn't start smoking until they were eighteen? I know the cigarette companies couldn't stop kids from smoking now if they used ever dollar of profit to do it, but it is undeniable that they contributed to minors smoking.
In contrast, Smith and Wesson makes a product that is intended to be very dangerous, albeit not to the operator. The point here is that while cigarettes and guns are both designed for killing people, the gun companies aren't making any claims otherwise and don't sell
---
Re:not surprising... (Score:1)
Another point, I'm not sure how much it plays into this, but AOL has said time and time again that they are NOT an ISP. They are an "online service" that provides access to the "internet". Their actual "internet" is allready filtered and so to go another step would not be that big of a deal.
I would expect real ISPs to fight tooth and nail over an issue such as this but AOL...
Too many laws (Score:2)
Imagine what happens now if a US user trades files via email with a German user.
AOL is breaking the law in Germany if they don't snoop on the email, and committing a felony in the US if they do.
-
er... (Score:1)
Read it (Score:1)
Is AOL a community or an ISP? (Score:3)
This raises philosophical questions. Should a community be held to the norms or ethos of its members? If you subscribe to a service controlled under a legal jurisdictions are you unknowingly binding yourself to an external cultural norm? This is like asking if I used the US dollar I am following the American dream (corporate capitalism), the Euro's gentleman's agreement (state capitalism) or the Australian FairGo (social capitalism - though at the moment the only direction it is going is south).
If you think you are immune from group-think then I congratulate you on your strength of mind. Psychologists have discovered than people in general try to "fit-in" wherever possible. Recall the famous experiments (link anyone?) where they monitored strangers entering an elevator but all the other occupants were instructed to face the back, then the lone holdout also faced the back irrespective of whether there was a rational reason to. Thus if AOL knowingly (by turning a blind eye), and had the power to control the practice but did not forbid music exchanges which they know is illegal, is it an (not quite accessory??) to a crime? Note that economic crims (as self-defined by being against the interests of the incumbants :-( ) are not the really the same as personal criminal acts or even civil violations. If computer companies start competing [economist.com] in other spheres, should they not be bound by similar product safety or service conduct rules?
The law may be an ass in many countries but at least the process is (relatively) open and (given enough pockets) available (unlike proprietary code) within democratic societies. Fundamentally corporations should not be immune from the provisions that govern individuals. This should be separated from the commercial issue of whether music distribution as property right has been violated through deliberate inaction or oversight.
Unfortunately in the long run I think things may hinder the smaller companies as the risk of negative knowledge becomes so great that only MNCs can survive. Eiterh that or MNCs become so overbearing in their zeal to avoid anti-trust provisions that users voluntarily join an independent outfit even if it is located in the South Pole .... (specualtive thought ... if someone set up an ISP on the moon, ignoring latency issues, would it be governed by any earth based legal commercial code?). Since AOL wants to do business in Germany, it has to obey the law no matter how stupid it is. If the law sucks and companies refuse to operate or provide their goods or services, then it is up to the citizens to change the law. Much like you don't want independent militaries operating in your backyard (OK so the feds want a monopoly on controlled violence), I think people much prefer having corporations under at least some form of restriction even though it may create some anomalies in the short term.
LL
Ironic? (Score:1)
Re:I wonder... (Score:1)
Duh, read the article, not the headline. German courts upheld a ruling against America Online.
Why in the hell would their be an America Online in Germany?
Re:vote with your feet (Score:1)
AOLS next business plan (Score:1)
Buy Germany's bandwidth pipes.
Have AOL - Germany go out of business
Take pipes with them.
Let the German law makers know what it will take to get them beck.....
That would be funnier than this ruling...
Re:... (Score:2)
Give Internet Explorer a little bit of Everything [angelfire.com]...
--
Big question - answer anyone? (Score:1)
(I reserve the right that "we" means "we United States-ers" because /. is in the States and because I'm from the States. Don't like it, nertz to you.)
We all know what the importance of copyright in the States, and how it's closely tied to free speech (at least in concept, being an exception [IANAL]) and how fair use is intended as an exception (to the exception) existing to keep copyright from having an adverse affect on free speech.
But how does copyright fit into the German legal setup? Other countries' too for that matter? Places like Britain dont' have the free speech apparatus the States does. What is copyright even *for* in countries like that? What is really at stake in these countries when we are talking about copyright? I personally don't really know how to react to court rulings on copyright in countries where there may not be a free speech tradition.
Also, regarding the Hague thing, how likely is it that one country without a free speech tradition is going to get a place like the States to dampen their free speech protections?
Music Piracy = Criminals (Score:1)
Re:Of Course (Score:1)
I wonder... (Score:4)
Re:Big question - answer anyone? (Score:2)
New .WAV for next AOL release (Score:4)
This doesn't really set a precedent (Score:3)
Actually, this won't, or shouldn't at least, have any effect on courts "around the world," because most countries legal systems only accept precedents set by their courts under their laws.
Floppies (Score:2)
Of Course (Score:2)
Logical deduction (Score:1)
vote with your feet (Score:5)
Of course, this is unrealistic. But I can't imagine what else will work. I mean, they might as well have ruled that Microsoft is responsible if users of Windows use xcopy32.exe to "pirate" music.
MoNsTeR
Well, of course kiddie porn is tolerated. (Score:1)
This... (Score:2)
-Mad Dreamer
... (Score:3)
I doubt that this will spread to the U.S., even if it stands. Is one end of the keiretsu going to go after the other?
Let's sue God too.... (Score:3)
This is a load of crap (Score:1)
I am loath to have to grant yet another company too much access to my personal life and habits.
A good example of how stupid this could get would be when an ISP is held liable because the machine of one of its Windows (or Linux, for that matter) users gets compromised and used in compromising other hosts, particularaly ones owned by the government and corporations. We all know that ISPs shouldn't have the responsibility of securing its users machines, and the ISPs know that too, but because of this, they're going to have to crack down somehow.
Germany Online (Score:2)
what the? [mikegallay.com]
Re:AOL Responsibility (Score:1)
Re:Germany Online (Score:1)
what the? [mikegallay.com]
Re:Logical deduction (Score:1)
Re:I wonder... (Score:1)
responsibility online (Score:2)
I think this raises an interesting point. If you're going to make people responsible for their action online, the enforcement mechanism will almost certainly need to work through the isp. Once isp's are relieved of this responsibility, it will be much harder to catch people committing online crimes. This is because isp's willl have no incentive to check the identity of their customers, which they would otherwise need to do so that if the isp were sued, it could in turn sue the customer for breaching their agreement.
You may argue that it is good if responsibility online cannot be enforced since you disagree with some the laws that are in place. However, this is an indefensible position. If the law should be changed, it should be changed using the democratic mechanisms that exist for this purpose. Supporting any other way would be revealing an unhealthy disrespect for democracy and setting a dangerous precedent.
Costs too great (Score:1)
Some more info from c't (Score:1)
The interesting part is that copyright law was given priority over the Teledienstgesetz which is supposed to limit responsibility of ISPs for the activities of their users.
more information about the case (Score:2)
The most important thing to note, however, is that the case is _not_ about the Internet. The protected MIDI (!) files (no, no MP3s involved) were offered by AOL members in an AOL forum.
But, yes, you're right if you think that German courts often make stupid decisions when the Net is involved: About five years ago the German CompuServe CEO was accused of distributing child pornography, because CompuServe operated a news server for their customers which offered some news groups in which child pornography was made available. That was one of the reasons why the so called "Teledienstegesetz" was created: It should protect the ISPs, so that they were no longer responsible for the crimes their users commit. But this ruling against AOL stated, that copyright is more important than the "Teledienstegesetz" - as the reasons for this decision aren't available yet we have to keep wondering what the "Teledienstegesetz" is for if not for protecting ISPs.
Re:International Legal Precedent (Score:1)
See it works both ways.
Please post "Factually correct" and non inflammatory posts.
Thank you,
Carbon Atoms (Score:1)
Re:That's what I'd do (Score:2)
Re:vote with your feet (Score:3)
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Re:... (Score:1)
Yep. I'm rooting for Time Warner! Err, I'm rooting for AOL/Time Warner. No, wait... I'm rooting for AOL/Germany.
Seriously, why on earth would I be rooting for the recording industry in this case?
Re:... (Score:2)
not surprising... (Score:1)
The court saying that an ISP *is* actually liable for the actions of their users can hardly be justifiable...
Perhaps this is an important trend... First, lawsuits against ISPs for facilitating copyright infringement will be won in several major countries worldwide. Once a precedent is set, ISPs will realize that the only way in which they can continue to operate is by implementing technical restrictions into their services that attempt to stop the transfer of media files.
Media companies know that they can't go after every individual trading copyrighted content; it's not practical, and there is no money in it. Thus, they will put great amounts of effort into suing ISPs...
Given that AOL is owned by a media company, I wouldn't be surprised if AOL wasn't too eager to defend itself. It's probably looking for an excuse to begin restricting what people can and cannot do with their internet connections. Every ISP will follow in the next few years, and it will not end until the internet is just a point and click version of TV...
Re:International Legal Precedent (Score:1)
any kind of official unification or synchronization is just bad news.
Can you give a brief precis of why? For bonus marks, use the phrases "black helicopters", "chemtrails" and "accursed sinister foreign monkey jabbering UN devils".
Re:Big question - answer anyone? (Score:1)
Let's see if I remember my classes in constitutional law: Here in the Netherlands it says right in the constitution that no act of speech (and that includes publication in any form) shall be subject to inspection prior to being made public. However there is a neat little subclause that says that after publication such acts are subject to all normal liabilities under criminal and civil law.
As an example: the government can not forbid the publication of racist pamphlets, however once published the authors can be sued under article 137 sub c of the criminal code for defamation of a group of the population (article 137 basically deals with slander or libel, and sub c expands this to entire groups not individuals).
As far as copyright goes we're not much different from the States. Copyright term is however limited to 50 years after the death of the original author. As an interesting aside, this is how the government suppressed publication of 'Mein Kampf': They confiscated the copyright as 'enemy property' after the liberation, thus preventing publication until 1995.
MartThe Law (Score:1)
DIE AOL (Score:1)
Just shut down (Score:1)
Perhaps AOL--Gremany should just shutdown entirely and explain to the people that they cannot do business under those conditions.
Then make sure that they take down every other greman isp as well "Whoops!, they're trading illegal MP3s as well". This includes the isps that music industry uses as well.
Florida says they're not. (Score:1)
The state Supreme Court said Thursday that federal law shields America Online Inc. from illegal transactions _ in particular, the sale of child pornography
If the courts in the states determine that AOL is responsible for illegally traded copyrighted material, this will send a nice message that child porn is tolerated, but not trading mp3s.
Re:Big question - answer anyone? (Score:1)
Actually, this should more accurately be termed "authoritarian" rather than "fascist"; but it is strange. I have been told by German people that there is a lot of shame over the actions of their nation. Perhaps they are trying to make an atonement of some kind?
I am confused (Score:1)
Re:vote with your feet (Score:1)
Or do you read alan's on-line diary too?
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
AOL Responsibility (Score:1)
Re:AOL Sucks (Score:2)
Step back for a second (Score:2)
(AOL/TimeWarner is the parent of Warner records)
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
Re:vote with your feet (Score:3)
Or that General Motors is responsible if someone uses a Chevy to commit a bank robbery.
Or that Smith & Wesson are responsible if someone uses one of their shotguns to kill someone.
That sucks (Score:1)
You can't be serious. (Score:1)
Court ruling should *not* be effected by business models, if they were I have great plan for an import business which involve some Colombian druglords.
Re:Costs too great (Score:2)
Well, as AOL is the only online service in Germany that is offering and advertising their own closed content and services, that won't be that much of a problem. (And the ruling is about that closed content, and not about the Internet.) And if that really should happen I have to repeat what was already said above: Germany (and the rest of the world) would be far better off without AOL.
Re:vote with your feet (Score:1)
-RickHunter
Re:DIE AOL (Score:1)
Mod this up !! (Score:2)
Re:vote with your feet (Score:2)
Re:International Legal Precedent (Score:1)
Re:vote with your feet (Score:1)
When did clay discs and paper targets become people? How about animals? What about wounding people, is that "legitimate?" There are plenty of legitimate uses for guns out there that don't involve killing people. Just because you don't take part in these activities, that doesn't mean others don't enjoy them.
Re:vote with your feet (Score:1)
Hey! don't lump the citizens in with that; that idea was pushed from day one by a bunch of greedy lawyers and bureaucrats.
Re:vote with your feet (Score:1)
Deutschland, Deutschland über AOL, (Score:2)
Sorry, someone had to write it. Might as well have been me.
You have to wonder about German courts, finding an online service owned by the biggest media distributor in the world guilty of copyright violations. On the other hand, you have to wonder about AOL/Time-Warner lawyers, too.
That's what I'd do (Score:2)
Re:I am confused (Score:1)
Hell, to steal a line from Steve Martin, "Those Germans have a different word for everything. It's like they speak a whole different language over there!"