8 ms·
IANAL. First of all a cease and desist doesn't require you to do anything. It's merely a threat. That said it seems pretty clear that you're violating copyright
by driverdan 13y ago
IANAL. First of all a cease and desist doesn't require you to do anything. It's merely a threat. That said it seems pretty clear that you're violating copyright laws. The DMCA only applies to user generated content (UGC). You're not letting users input their own links to 3rd party content, you're finding the links yourself. It doesn't matter where you get them from. Not only that but you're not linking to this content on other sites, you're actively playing it for users within your app.
It's very cool you built this in HS. Let the whole thing be a good lesson in building apps and dealing with the law.
- langarto 13y agoI wonder how can he be violating any law with respect to distribution of copyrighted content when he is not distributing anything. He is just pointing to other sources doing the actual distribution (which may be legal). He is just providing links, although with a nice interface.
- wernercd 13y agoThe same way ThePirateBay is guilty of infringement when all the host is "links". They host "nothing" and yet are the scourge of the interwebs.
- jtome 13y agoLinking can be considered "dissemination" thanks to the DMCA, see http://www.chillingeffects.org/linking/faq.cgi#QID152 http://www.chillingeffects.org/linking/faq.cgi#QID152
- adamnemecek 13y agoYet somehow Google still operates. But to respond to OP, IANAL but I think that you might have folded too easily. But it's understandable that you probably want to avoid a lawsuit at any cost. Also, you might want to check this out http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID862 http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID862 and google around for 'wrongful dmca takedowns'.
- brohee 13y agoGoogle actively removes links to infringing content once notified. E.g. look at the bottom of https://www.google.com/search?q=rihanna+diamond+mp3 https://www.google.com/search?q=rihanna+diamond+mp3
- adamnemecek 13y agoI'm aware of that. That still implies that at some point Google linked to illegal material yet when requested, they removed it. Presumably HypedMusic could have had a similar deal.
- lambda 13y agoYes, a provider can follow the DMCA safe harbor procedures to facilitate the filing of DMCA takedown notices, and comply with those promptly. The details are outlined here: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi Basically, a provider needs to provide contact information for a designated agent for DMCA takedown notices. Had Luke done so, and complied with legal DMCA takedown requests (as well as counter-notifications), he could have continued operating his service; however, that may have become considerably more work than he wanted to put into running the service.
- perlpimp 13y agoThere should be Anon Legal spamming these services with tons of links to real sites supported by RIAA as to make searching for any legal music useless through google. Because google complies with RIAA, an effort should be made to make for google to have it be too expensive to verify said claims and/or RIAA suffer from same tactics they employ.
- MWil 13y agoHis app actually played the media though and not for personal use. The copyright holders have exclusive rights to determine how their content gets played/broadcast.
- seiji 13y agoDon't become this guy: http://www.zdnet.com/student-richard-odwyer-spared-us-extradition-and-jail-time-over-tv-shack-copyright-charges-7000008025/ http://www.zdnet.com/student-richard-odwyer-spared-us-extrad... Sadly, the Internet isn't our playground anymore. You have to watch what you do even if it's just curating links to things you can download for free.
- lonture 13y agoHe won his case and is suing the US now I believe.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- SEMW 13y ago> I wonder how can he be violating any law with respect to distribution of copyrighted content when he is not distributing anything Anton Vickerman didn't host anything either. His site (surfthechannel) was also just a collection of links. And, sure enough, he was held not to have committed any copyright-related offence. So they got him on conspiracy to defraud [the record companies] instead. He's now serving a four year prison term after a private prosecution by FACT, a copyright industry trade organisation - an extraordinary move, initiated after the CPS (state prosecutors) refused to prosecute him. (Note: this is in the UK, not the US). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Vickerman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Vickerman http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/private-justice-how-hollywood-money-put-a-brit-behind-bars/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/private-justice-h...
- ds9 13y agoIt's not at all clear that he's violating any laws. There is no infringement in providing access in a good-faith belief that the content is legit. And it's a fair assumption that the people actually publishing the music files on their websites wouldn't be doing so without authorization from the rights holders. Further, downloading in general (as opposed to publishing) is expressly legal in some countries (e.g., reportedly Germany). RIAA's best argument would be "contributory infringement", but findings of CI have succeeded only when the actors had some reason to think the files in question were published without authorization. Further, the RIAA offers no evidence for its claim that many of the files were unauthorized, and its implication that you have some way of knowing their licensing status is pure fantasy or lies. So, I disagree with the "give up, it's illegal" assessment. The real problem here is that success in civil litigation is directly related to wealth, such that we have a two-tier court system which is a travesty of justice for the have-nots and an unregulated weapon for the "haves". So yes, you have to capitulate, but not for the reason the above poster suggests.
- seanalltogether 13y ago"There is no infringement in providing access in a good-faith belief that the content is legit." I don't believe that is true. Content distribution is a complicated affair. Redistribution of content is not as easy as saying "well if site xyz has the right to distribute it, so do I"
- maxerickson 13y agoThe argument also hinges on the idea that the operator has "good-faith belief that the content is legit". Stating that you have this good faith belief is not actually the same thing as having it.
- coldtea 13y agoNot to mention that even having it doesn't mean anything at all. Or, well, it make not make it "willingly infringement", but it still makes it infringement.
- 13y ago
- btown 13y agoSo then if Google happens to index and show a link to 3rd party content, it's also finding the links itself, and is similarly liable?
- wehadfun 13y agoYes but Google has plenty of money so it is ok.
- blauwbilgorgel 13y agoI am not a lawyer. I believe Google is exempt because it indexes all links it can find. It needs this to operate a general purpose search engine. As soon as Google became a specialized torrent search engine they could be similarly liable. Also Google has to comply with legit DMCA requests or they still risk being liable.
- bluecalm 13y agoI think better analogy is Bing video search. Not only it finds links but also plays it without visiting a page the video is actually hosted on.
- tptacek 13y agoIf Google becomes aware of such a link, for any reason, it is obliged by law to deindex.
- MichaelGG 13y agoHow is Google supposed to determine copyright status of arbitrary sites/"links"?