4 ms·

The site contained no piracy, only links. If it was a "piracy website" why are German authorities not going after Google, Yandex & co? There was no law forbidd

The site contained no piracy, only links. If it was a "piracy website" why are German authorities not going after Google, Yandex & co? There was no law forbidding what they did at the time they ran the site, even if there have been law changes since. It's the PirateBay nonsense all over. In that case it was later discovered that one of the police officers investigating the site had previously worked for Warner Brothers before returning to the Swedish police.

plumeria 3y ago
> In that case it was later discovered that one of the police officers investigating the site had previously worked for Warner Brothers before returning to the Swedish police. Revolving doors [0], IMHO should not be permitted. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- sph 3y ago
  Rules for thee...
- lifestyleguru 3y ago
  That's evil. Vicious copyright predators with lawful monopoly for violence and escalation. How worse it can turn?
  - coldtea 3y ago
    A hell of a lot more. What you describe is the PG-13 version.
    - lifestyleguru 3y ago
      Copyright police with armed units.
_fizz_buzz_ 3y ago
It’s kind of irrelevant who the police officer worked for. In the end courts have to interpret the law and decided how a law is applied. Even if a law might not explicitly state the exact circumstances, the court may decided that the spirit of the law was broken. It’s of course a more difficult case to make for investigators, why law makers might then codify the law more precisely.
dewey 3y ago
This has been discussed numerous times over the years, you can read the court documents for the "kino.to" case which was very similar here: https://openjur.de/u/961112.html https://openjur.de/u/961112.html The key is usually the part where it's done with the explicit goal of making money exclusively off copyrighted material ("gewerbsmäßig begangene unerlaubte Verwertung von urheberrechtlich geschützten Werken"), that's also why the court case of TPB was so focused on how much money their ad business made. Google, YouTube and other similar players are very well integrated in the whole DMCA takedown process and you can't really compare them.
- trompetenaccoun 3y ago
  Friends of mine who watch movie streams on similar sites tell me they always get their links from Google. Apparently all you have to do is input the movie name, together with relevant keywords. Since authorities started cracking down on these streaming link sites, they now have to frequently change their URLs, so ironically general search engines like Google are the fastest way of finding the latest working links. Google has the exact same business model of making money with ads on their site, which people visit to get those links. It's easy to look up rulings and see that European courts interpret the law the way you say - 100% correct. It's rule of corporations, not rule of law. Google will never be touched, even though they have served a larger number of supposedly illegal links to users. Of course Hollywood doesn't go after them because it's a fight they could not win.
  - nilsherzig 3y ago
    Friends of mine told me that someone automated that for you https://github.com/movie-web/movie-web https://github.com/movie-web/movie-web
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - dewey 3y ago
    The point is not if you are able to find streaming links on Google in the window of time before the copyright holder files a DMCA (https://lumendatabase.org/notices/search?term=google+streaming&sort_by= https://lumendatabase.org/notices/search?term=google+streami...) notice and they are blocked from the index or not, but if the site has a legal process to process these. I don't find it very hard to see a difference between "illegal" streaming site with no contact information, imprint or company behind it vs. large companies that have a working legal framework to take down content and do so all the time.
germanier 3y ago
Do we know for a fact that the operators didn't run file hosters as well with links to those hosters being preferred? Because that was the business model of their predecessor.

plumeria 3y ago

> In that case it was later discovered that one of the police officers investigating the site had previously worked for Warner Brothers before returning to the Swedish police. Revolving doors [0], IMHO should not be permitted. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sph 3y ago
Rules for thee...
lifestyleguru 3y ago
That's evil. Vicious copyright predators with lawful monopoly for violence and escalation. How worse it can turn?
- coldtea 3y ago
  A hell of a lot more. What you describe is the PG-13 version.
  - lifestyleguru 3y ago
    Copyright police with armed units.

_fizz_buzz_ 3y ago

It’s kind of irrelevant who the police officer worked for. In the end courts have to interpret the law and decided how a law is applied. Even if a law might not explicitly state the exact circumstances, the court may decided that the spirit of the law was broken. It’s of course a more difficult case to make for investigators, why law makers might then codify the law more precisely.

dewey 3y ago

This has been discussed numerous times over the years, you can read the court documents for the "kino.to" case which was very similar here: https://openjur.de/u/961112.html https://openjur.de/u/961112.html The key is usually the part where it's done with the explicit goal of making money exclusively off copyrighted material ("gewerbsmäßig begangene unerlaubte Verwertung von urheberrechtlich geschützten Werken"), that's also why the court case of TPB was so focused on how much money their ad business made. Google, YouTube and other similar players are very well integrated in the whole DMCA takedown process and you can't really compare them.

trompetenaccoun 3y ago
Friends of mine who watch movie streams on similar sites tell me they always get their links from Google. Apparently all you have to do is input the movie name, together with relevant keywords. Since authorities started cracking down on these streaming link sites, they now have to frequently change their URLs, so ironically general search engines like Google are the fastest way of finding the latest working links. Google has the exact same business model of making money with ads on their site, which people visit to get those links. It's easy to look up rulings and see that European courts interpret the law the way you say - 100% correct. It's rule of corporations, not rule of law. Google will never be touched, even though they have served a larger number of supposedly illegal links to users. Of course Hollywood doesn't go after them because it's a fight they could not win.
- nilsherzig 3y ago
  Friends of mine told me that someone automated that for you https://github.com/movie-web/movie-web https://github.com/movie-web/movie-web
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- dewey 3y ago
  The point is not if you are able to find streaming links on Google in the window of time before the copyright holder files a DMCA (https://lumendatabase.org/notices/search?term=google+streaming&sort_by= https://lumendatabase.org/notices/search?term=google+streami...) notice and they are blocked from the index or not, but if the site has a legal process to process these. I don't find it very hard to see a difference between "illegal" streaming site with no contact information, imprint or company behind it vs. large companies that have a working legal framework to take down content and do so all the time.

germanier 3y ago

Do we know for a fact that the operators didn't run file hosters as well with links to those hosters being preferred? Because that was the business model of their predecessor.