Bargler
"OSLO, Norway -- Norway's supreme court ruled Thursday that a student whose Napster.no homepage was linked to free Internet music files must compensate the music industry."
This is a scary ruling. This person hosted none of the files, but linked to *other sites* that were distributing the copywrited material.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/aptech_story.asp?category=1700&slug=Norway%20Napster%20Ruling
I'm no advocate of stealing music, by any means, but I have to wonder at the implications of this. If the Norwegian courts are beginning to hold sites responsible for what they link to, then what happens when you link to my site and I change the content without telling you?
What about Google? They have links to all kinds of copyrighted material.
DJ-in-Norway, you better go check all the links going out of your webpages, buddy!
This is a scary ruling. This person hosted none of the files, but linked to *other sites* that were distributing the copywrited material.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/aptech_story.asp?category=1700&slug=Norway%20Napster%20Ruling
I'm no advocate of stealing music, by any means, but I have to wonder at the implications of this. If the Norwegian courts are beginning to hold sites responsible for what they link to, then what happens when you link to my site and I change the content without telling you?
What about Google? They have links to all kinds of copyrighted material.
DJ-in-Norway, you better go check all the links going out of your webpages, buddy!
Posté Fri 28 Jan 05 @ 6:33 pm
cyberia
After reading the article on the Web, it was obvious that the ruling was not as clearcut as it may appear. After the appealate court overturned the original (guilty) ruling, it was up to the Supreme Court to find the dude guilty for registering napster.no and providing links to a mere 170 songs. Think about all those people with thousands of illegal copies on their hard drives...
In the end, the ruling was based on INTENT. Dude's actions "were premeditated and worthy of criticism," according to the final ruling. Which means the actions were planned. With Google, and you providing the links to the web sites that later change, the actions are "not premediated," hence neither you nor Google should be responsible.
An opinion only, of course.
In the end, the ruling was based on INTENT. Dude's actions "were premeditated and worthy of criticism," according to the final ruling. Which means the actions were planned. With Google, and you providing the links to the web sites that later change, the actions are "not premediated," hence neither you nor Google should be responsible.
An opinion only, of course.
Posté Fri 28 Jan 05 @ 8:32 pm
anewsome
Nawtboy might think twice about those mp3 mixes he is hawking on his website.
Posté Fri 28 Jan 05 @ 9:19 pm
Bargler
But a court might disagree on the Google case. They are definitely purposefully linking to the files in question. That's the design of their site, afterall. Google is jam packed with links to stolen and/or outright illegal materials.
What about linking to streaming radio stations? Most of them do not have permission to broadcast those songs, so one could argue that a DJ with a simple link to Digitally Imported or Afterhours was aiding in the violation of copyright law.
I realize I'm being argumentative here. Just wanted to make the point that these laws of "intent" tend to put the burden of proof on the accused, often asked to prove a negative. How do you prove that you did NOT post those links with the intent of defrauding the record company?
It's a very slippery slope.
What about linking to streaming radio stations? Most of them do not have permission to broadcast those songs, so one could argue that a DJ with a simple link to Digitally Imported or Afterhours was aiding in the violation of copyright law.
I realize I'm being argumentative here. Just wanted to make the point that these laws of "intent" tend to put the burden of proof on the accused, often asked to prove a negative. How do you prove that you did NOT post those links with the intent of defrauding the record company?
It's a very slippery slope.
Posté Fri 28 Jan 05 @ 10:14 pm
cyberia
>>It's a very slippery slope.
Exactly--that's why the original decision was overturned by the court of appeals. The dude probably got a better lawyer ;), who was able to convince the jury (if that is how the cases are tried in Norway) that the real bad guys were the ones posting illegal music online.
>>I realize I'm being argumentative here...
Hehe, you should try being a lawyer, you'll be paid to argue for a living ;).
If we take it one step further, it looks like Atomix may have to acquire a BMI license (if they don't have one) to continue the streaming radio shows.
Exactly--that's why the original decision was overturned by the court of appeals. The dude probably got a better lawyer ;), who was able to convince the jury (if that is how the cases are tried in Norway) that the real bad guys were the ones posting illegal music online.
>>I realize I'm being argumentative here...
Hehe, you should try being a lawyer, you'll be paid to argue for a living ;).
If we take it one step further, it looks like Atomix may have to acquire a BMI license (if they don't have one) to continue the streaming radio shows.
Posté Fri 28 Jan 05 @ 10:51 pm