Dangerous Ruling In Germany Makes Domain Registrar Liable For Copyright Infringement On Website It Registered

from the any-means-necessary dept

We already find the concept of "secondary liability" when it comes to copyright troubling enough. It's worrisome when a third party who had no direct involvement in the actual infringement can be blamed for it. Yet, in the legacy entertainment industry's insane infatuation with stopping all infringement, they keep going further up the chain, past secondary liability into tertiary or possibly even quaternary liability -- blaming those further and further removed from the actual infringement. That includes going after companies like ad providers and search engines -- but also, apparently, it includes going after registrars. We've seen some of this recently in various attempts to target registrars, but a ruling in Germany is hugely troubling, finding a registrar guilty because a site registered through that registrar was apparently used by someone to infringe.

Let's be clear just how far this is removed from the actual infringement. The infringement, if it actually existed, was between two or more individuals, who shared a torrent of Robin Thicke's album Blurred Lines. Once removed from that was the torrent site H33T, which did not actually engage in any infringement, but hosted the torrent (which, again, is not the actually infringing file). Another layer removed from that would be H33T's web host. And then we go one more layer up, and we finally get to Key-Systems, the registrar, which was ordered by a court to stop the infringement all those many layers down. And, of course, as the registrar, its only option was to yank the DNS entry, which it did, shutting down the entire site, even if everything else on the site was legal.

It's no secret that Germany seems to be much more open to ridiculous secondary liability claims, leading to some bizarre and dangerous rulings that will stifle innovation. And this seems to fit right in with those in the past. Key-Systems' lawyer agreed, telling TorrentFreak that the ruling "made no legal sense" and had "dire consequences for the kind of services German registrars can provide."

Universal Music, which brought the lawsuit, defended the outcome with some bizarre logic in a comment to TorrentFreak as well. First, a lawyer for Universal claimed that since H33T was a domain reseller, that tied the two companies together, but that makes no sense, especially since the issue of the torrent is totally unrelated to reselling domain names. Just because the companies have a relationship, doesn't make one liable for the others' totally unrelated actions. But then there's this absolutely insane logic:
Bruess says at this point it became “quite clear” that as “the only party involved who could stop the infringement”, Key-Systems needed to take action. That involved Key-Systems effectively disabling the whole domain, but Bruess says that was not his company’s request. They had only one requirement – to disable access to a single URL.

“In essence, Rasch Legal had not asked Key-Systems to close down h33t.com, but to stop one single torrent from being communicated to the public through h33t and h33t’s tracker,” he explains.
But, let's take that ridiculous logic one step further. Say, for example, that the registrar was unable to stop this particular torrent from being shared? Do we move one step up the ladder? They could, say, go to VeriSign, and demand they take down the entire .com database, right? Because that would be "the only party who could stop the infringement" at that point, right? And, even though they just wanted that single torrent taken down, if the only way VeriSign can do it is to nuke most of the internet, well, that's perfectly reasonable, right?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Ehud Gavron (profile), Feb 13th, 2014 @ 5:18pm

    The Obi-Wan Doctrine

    The Obi-Wan Doctrine clearly indicates that in the event only one entity can solve the problem of the horrible business model the plaintiff chose upon itself, then that entity -- despite not being involved, and miles away -- must involve themselves to their own eventual death.

    "Help me Obi-Wan, you're my only hope." -- Leia

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Zauber Paracelsus (profile), Feb 13th, 2014 @ 6:39pm

    I'm waiting for the day when someone sues the government of Germany for secondary liability, on grounds that they allow citizenship for infringers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    jt, Feb 13th, 2014 @ 6:43pm

    This is like suing Saudi Arabia because one of the oil companies there sold oil to shell which is where some guy put fuel in his car and then used that fuel to flee from police. It's about that stupid anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2014 @ 6:43pm

    Re:

    I think the labels should sue the artists for producing the media that allows it to be infringed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2014 @ 7:14pm

    I once choked on a corn kernel. I think Monsanto should be held liable for my near death experience. According to Germany, this makes perfect sense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2014 @ 7:24pm

    And what about IP addresses...

    So, if they yank the DNS entirely, what happens when the file is still available via IP address?

    Does every router on the internet have to immediately ban access to that subnet?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2014 @ 7:25pm

    Re: Re:

    I think they should sue the laws of physics for making infringement physically possible.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    zip, Feb 13th, 2014 @ 7:27pm

    It might be a completely ridiculous ruling, but at least the domain owner got to argue the case in court, and (presumably) can appeal the verdict and get it overturned. That's the way the law is supposed to work.

    It's probably worse here in the states, where the feds seized Dajaz1.com without so much as a warrant, then despite all the negative publicity, stonewalled for over a year before finally 'noticing' that the site was completely legal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2014 @ 7:56pm

    As a few of you may recall the US at one time had national alcoholic probation. Even less well known was that at the same time there was state probation.

    National was repealed in 1933 but not some state.

    Come the 1960s and I am in college reading the local news rag.

    One article described the following situation in one of the dry states.

    Seems the dry law in that was that one could not possess alcoholic for the purposes of consumption but there was nothing in the law that limited possession for sale or non consumption.

    The state being ever so helpful there fore open state stores - state monopoly stores that sold you guessed it alcoholic.

    What would then happen is the state would sell you the booz and then the cops who were waiting outside the state store would arrest you for possession of booz.

    Now it comes along the Governor throws a major party. All the legislator was in attendance.

    Being fed up with the ridiculous situation the state attorney rounded up the lot of them and off to the slammer they go.

    The legislature, who makes laws and governor, who runs has to approve new laws were all there.

    So, what did they do?

    They convened an emergency meeting of the state legislator, passed a bill that rescinded prohibition retroactively so that their actions of the day before were legal.

    Maybe that is what needs to be done here to the apporiate people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2014 @ 7:59pm

    Re:

    Lets see Verisign is up for Quaternary liability and then the next level is the government that empowered Verisign. So the government is ultimately liable for all these transgressions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    eaving (profile), Feb 13th, 2014 @ 8:00pm

    Curious

    At some point if countries keep rolling out stupid rulings such as this, or some of the French attacks on Google, can these companies simply start blocking said countries? While I'm sure the domain registrar or Google would be unhappy to lose the corresponding business it still seems less painful and I would frankly love to see the reactions of the governments when large portions of the net simply went away.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Pawn to d4, Feb 13th, 2014 @ 8:56pm

    The logic of the ruling (I live in Germany and speak German at near-native level) seems to be—by analogy—that the surest way to fix a leaky roof is to burn down the house. It is also unfortunate that this matter landed in Saarbrücken. If I had to wager, I would guess that this matter is the first music industry matter to have been adjudicated in Saarbrücken. If, however, this matter had landed in Berlin or Hamburg, I would be willing to wager that another ruling would have been made.

    This ruling makes a mockery of helping. The respondent did not act hostilely to the petitioner when it requested voluntary injunctive relief from the respondent, but tried to help the petitioner by providing it with the information it needed to take legal action against the infringer itself. I find it hard to imagine that this would have been a contributory factor against the respondent in a larger city. In Saarbrücken, however, the respondent was rewarded with an injunction, court fees, and a bizarre ruling against it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2014 @ 9:11pm

    What comes around....

    Under this logic the record label should be able to sue the artist for making the music that was pirated in the first place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Feb 13th, 2014 @ 9:33pm

    Re: What comes around....

    Why sue the artist, when they can take the vast majority of the profits from their music due to one-sided contracts and give them just enough to survive on and continue to make the label even more money?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Mike Gale (profile), Feb 13th, 2014 @ 9:46pm

    If you object,do something

    These bizarre things will continue while we have law systems based on inappropriate core precepts administered by those who are criminally ignorant of the world they impact.

    Secondary Liability cuts both ways.

    This music company (Universal) represents artists. So I guess they bear primary responsibility for this travesty of reason, rightness and humanity.

    If you care tell their fan clubs, burn your copies of their music (if that's your thing), boycott their concerts, tell them in person whatever (as long as you stay within the law).

    Here's some names from the Universal web site:

    A THOUSAND HORSES
    AALIYAH
    AARON FRESH
    AARON NEVILLE
    ABRAHAM MCDONALD
    ACE HOOD
    ADRIENNE BAILON
    AFI
    AFROMAN
    AGNES
    AGNETHA FÄLTSKOG
    AIR
    AKON
    AKWID
    ALACRANES MUSICAL
    ALEJANDRO ESCOVEDO
    ALEJANDRO FERNANDEZ
    ALEX CLARE
    ALEXISONFIRE
    ALFREDO OLIVAS
    B.B. KING
    BABASONICOS
    BABY BASH
    BABY BOY
    BAD LIEUTENANT
    BAD MEETS EVIL
    BANDA EL RECODO
    BANDA LOS RECODITOS
    BANDA SINALOENSE MS DE SERGIO LIZARRAGA
    BANKS
    BARRY WHITE
    BASTILLE
    BAT FOR LASHES
    BE YOUR OWN PET
    BEASTIE BOYS
    BEBEL GILBERTO
    BECK
    BELANOVA
    BERNARD FANNING
    BETH ORTON
    C. BREWER/D. RUNNICLES/ASO
    C2C
    CAFÉ TACUBA
    CALIBRE 50
    CAPITAL CITIESCARE BEARS ON FIRE
    CARIBBEAN CONNECTION FEAT. DAD
    CARLA BRUNI
    CARLOS Y ALEJANDRA
    CARLY RAE JEPSEN
    CARNEY
    CASHIS
    CAT STEVENS
    CELTIC THUNDER
    CHAMILLIONAIRE
    CHARLES HAMILTON
    CHASE COY
    CHENOA
    CHER
    CHESTER FRENCH
    D. FRIZZELL/S. WEST
    DANIEL ASH
    DANIEL HOPE
    DASHBOARD CONFESSIONAL
    DAVID BANNER
    DAVID BISBAL
    DAVID GARRETT
    DAVID GRAY
    DAVID GUETTA
    DAVID NAIL
    DAYS DIFFERENCE
    DEAN MARTIN
    DEBI NOVA
    DECEMBERISTS
    DEF LEPPARD
    DELTA SPIRIT
    DEMI LOVATO
    DERRICK HODGE
    D'ESPAIRSRAY
    DIAMOND RINGS
    EASTON CORBIN
    EDDY LOVER
    EDWARD SHARPE & THE MAGNETIC ZEROS
    EELS
    EL DE BARGE
    EL MACIZO
    EL POTRO DE SINALOA
    EL TIGRILLO PALMA
    EL TRONO DE MEXICO
    ELBOW
    ELECTRIC TOUCH
    ELECTRIK RED
    ELEFTHERIA ARVANITAKI
    ELEPHANT MAN
    ELI YOUNG BAND
    ELIZABETH AND THE CATAPULT
    ELLIE GOULDING
    ELTON JOHN/LEON RUSSELL
    ELVIS COSTELLO
    EMELI SANDE
    FABOLOUS
    FAIR TO MIDLAND
    FALL OUT BOY
    FANNY LU
    FAR EAST MOVEMENT
    FATBOY SLIM
    FEDERICO AUBELE
    FEFE DOBSON
    FEIST
    FERGIE
    FIDEL RUEDA
    FINDLAY BROWN
    FIVE FINGER DEATH PUNCH
    FLIPSYDE
    FLOBOTS
    FLORENCE + THE MACHINE
    FLYLEAFFONOVISA
    FOREVER THE SICKEST KIDS
    FOUR TOPS
    G. LOVE
    GABRIELLA CILMI
    GAME
    GARY ALLAN
    GARY GO
    GAVIN ROSSDALE
    GEORGE STRAIT
    GERMAN MONTERO
    GHOST B.C.GHOSTFACE KILLAH
    GIN WIGMORE
    GINUWINE
    GIRLICIOUS
    GIT FRESH
    GLORIA TREVI
    GODSMACK
    GOLD FIELDS
    GORAN BREGOVIC
    GOYO GASTELUM
    GRACIELA BELTRÁN
    HAJI SPRINGER
    HAL LINTON
    HALEY REINHART
    HALFORD
    HATEBREED
    HAYES CARLL
    HAYLEY WESTENRA
    HAYSTAK
    HECTOR EL FATHER
    HEDLEY
    HELENE GRIMAUD
    HOLE
    HOLLY WILLIAMS
    HOLLYWOOD UNDEAD
    HOOBASTANK
    HOT CHIP
    HUICHOL MUSICAL
    I-15
    IDA MARIA
    IGGY AZALEAIL VOLO
    IMAGINE DRAGONSIMELDA MAY
    IMOGEN HEAP & FROU FROU
    INDIA.ARIE
    INGRID MICHAELSON
    INNERPARTYSYSTEM
    INTERSCOPE
    ISSA GADALA
    IVAN
    IVY QUEEN
    J KING Y MAXIMAN
    J. FUTURISTIC
    JA RULE
    JA-BAR
    JACK JOHNSON
    JACKIE CHAIN
    JACKSON 5
    JADAKISS
    JAKE BUGG
    JAMES
    JAMES MORRISON
    JAMES VINCENT MCMORROWJAMEY JOHNSON
    JAMIE CULLUM
    JARED EVAN
    JARON AND THE LONG ROAD TO LOVE
    JARVIS
    JASON ALDEAN
    JASON MORAN
    JAVEN
    KACEY MUSGRAVES
    KAISER CHIEFS
    KANYE WEST
    KANYE WEST/JAY-Z
    KARDINAL OFFISHALL
    KATE NASH
    KATE VOEGELE
    KATHARINE MCPHEE
    KATIE MELUA
    KATY PERRY
    KEAK DA SNEAK
    KEANE
    KELIS
    KELLY ROWLAND
    KEM
    KENDRICK LAMAR
    KENNY "BABYFACE" EDMONDS
    KERI HILSON
    KERLI
    KEVIN RUDOLF
    L.L. COOL J
    LA APUESTA
    LA ARROLLADORA BANDA EL LIMON
    LA FACTORIA
    LA INCONTENIBLE BANDA ASTILLEROS
    LA ROUX
    LADY ANTEBELLUM
    LADY GAGA
    LADYHAWKE
    LARRY HERNANDEZ
    LAURA BELL BUNDY
    LAUREN ALAINA
    LEDISI
    LEE ANN WOMACK
    LEE RITENOUR
    LENY
    LIFEHOUSE
    LIGHTS
    LIL JON
    LIL' ROB
    M.I.A.
    MACHETE MUSIC
    MACK & MALONE
    MACY GRAYMAJOR LAZER
    MAKANO
    MALI MUSIC
    MALLARY HOPE
    MANN
    MANNHEIM STEAMROLLER
    MARCO ANTONIO SOLIS
    MARGO GURYAN
    MARIAH CAREY
    MARIANNE FAITHFULL
    MARILYN MANSON
    MARISA MONTE
    MARK SALLING
    MAROON 5
    MARQUES HOUSTON
    MARTINA MCBRIDE/TRAIN
    N.E.R.D
    NAS
    NAS & DAMIAN MARLEY
    NATALIA KILLS
    NATALIE COLENATURALLY 7
    N-DUBZ
    NEIL DIAMOND
    NEIL HALSTEAD
    NELLY
    NELLY FURTADO
    NEON TREES
    NERO
    NERVO
    NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK
    NEW YORK DOLLS
    NE-YO
    NICKI MINAJ
    NICOLE SCHERZINGER
    NIKKI YANOFSKY
    OLGA TANON
    ONE BLOCK RADIUS
    ONEREPUBLIC
    ORIANTHI
    ORIGINAL BANDA LIMON
    ORIGINAL CAST RECORDING
    OWL CITY
    PABLO MILANES
    PAC DIV
    PALOMO
    PAPA ROACH
    PARACHUTE
    PARADISO GIRLS
    PATRICK STUMP
    PAULA COLE
    PAULINA RUBIO
    PEARL JAMPEDRO FERNANDEZ
    PEGGY LEE
    PESADO
    PET SHOP BOYS
    PETER FRAMPTON
    PHIL VASSAR
    PHILLIP PHILLIPS
    PHILTHY RICH
    PHOENIX
    PJ HARVEY
    Q-TIP
    QUEENS OF THE STONE AGE
    QUINCY JONES
    R.CITY
    RAKIM
    RAMMSTEIN
    RANDY HOUSER
    RANDY MONTANA
    RASCAL FLATTS
    RAY LAVENDER
    RAZORLIGHT
    REBA MCENTIRE
    REDMAN
    RENI LANE
    REV THEORY
    RHYERICH BOY
    RICHY NIX
    RICK JAMES
    RICK ROSS
    RIHANNA
    RISE AGAINST
    ROB ZOMBIE
    SAFETYSUIT
    SALIVA
    SALLY SHAPIRO
    SALT-N-PEPA
    SAM SPARRO
    SARAH BLASKO
    SARAH BUXTON
    SAUL EL JAGUAR ALARCON
    SCHOOL GYRLS
    SCOOTER SMIFF
    SCORPIONS
    SCOTTY MCCREERY
    SEAN GARRETT
    SEAN O'CONNELL
    SEBASTIAN INGROSSO
    SELENA GOMEZ
    SEMI PRECIOUS WEAPONS
    SERENA RYDER
    SERGIO DALMA
    SHANIA TWAIN
    T.O.K.
    TAIO CRUZ
    TAMAR KAPRELIAN
    TANYA MORGAN
    TAXI DOLL
    TAYLOR SWIFT
    TEARS FOR FEARSTECH N9NE
    TED NUGENT
    TEDDY THOMPSON
    TEENA MARIE
    TERENCE BLANCHARD
    TERIYAKI BOYZ
    TERRIBLE THINGS
    TEYANA TAYLOR
    THE AIRBORNE TOXIC EVENT
    THE ALL-AMERICAN REJECTS
    THE AVETT BROTHERSTHE B-52S
    THE BAND PERRY
    U2
    UMLE
    UNIQUE
    UNLADYLIKE
    UNWRAPPED
    UTADA
    VALERIA GASTALDI
    VAN MORRISON
    VANESSA CARLTON
    VERSE SIMMONDS
    VINCE GILL
    VIOLENT SOHO
    VISTOSO BOSSES
    VITA CHAMBERS
    VOLBEAT
    VOZ DE MANDO
    WALE
    WAYNE SHORTER
    WE ARE THE FALLEN
    WEEZER
    WHITE LIES
    WILL.I.AM
    WILLIAM ORBIT
    WILLY NORTHPOLE
    WISIN & YANDEL
    WOLFMOTHER
    XAVIER RUDD
    XTREME
    YANNI
    YEAH YEAH YEAHS
    YELAWOLF
    YG
    YO GABBA GABBA!
    YOUNG JEEZY
    YOUNG LOVE
    YOUNG MONEY
    YOUR VEGAS
    YUKSEK
    YUMMY BINGHAM
    YUNG LA
    Z-RO & CHILL
    ZZ WARD
    .38 SPECIAL
    10 YEARS
    16 FRAMES
    2 CHAINZ24 HORAS
    3 DOORS DOWN
    4 MINUTE
    40 GLOCC/SPIDER LOC
    50 CENT
    9TH WARD

    Even if they're great artists, these guys have no right to smash the Internet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2014 @ 9:55pm

    Next they'll take down tier providers of hosting companies for a single URL, then sue root nameservers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Feb 13th, 2014 @ 10:49pm

    Re:

    And given their track record you wouldn't expect anything less stupid from the Rasch posse either, would you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2014 @ 11:18pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    And the laws of biology for 'unlawful copying'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 14th, 2014 @ 12:31am

    Re:

    Cool story. Name of state, name of state attorney, name of governor, name of "local news rag" where you read this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Feb 14th, 2014 @ 1:30am

    Would Universal be ok with being held liable for crimes perpetrated by their signed artists? Would they accept being liable for tax evasions of one of the companies they buy supplies from? I guess not. Then why are they pushing for secondary/tertiary/quaternary liability?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 14th, 2014 @ 1:51am

    Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    WysiWyg (profile), Feb 14th, 2014 @ 2:00am

    Re: Curious

    I would think it easier to just not have any direct presence in those countries. Although I don't know to what degree US courts would honor these messed up rulings and enforce them locally.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Gracey (profile), Feb 14th, 2014 @ 2:59am

    Re:

    What copyright law?

    That wasn't enforcing a copyright law. That was simply making up your own copyright.

    When do they start making the computer manufacturers liable for someone else's infringement simply because they used that manufacturer's computer to infringe on copyright?

    ...geeze, get a grip.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 14th, 2014 @ 3:58am

    this, like 99% of verdicts in Internet and it's related cases are ruled on by judges who haven't got a damn clue what is involved, how it works or what the hell they are talking about! i seriously hope there is an appeal because as i have said many times, the entertainment industries will carry on until they have completely fucked up the whole Internet or have complete control of it, deciding what can be done etc and where. they are not bothered which of the two options happen because the dopey fuckers still think that people are going to run back to the high street stores as fast as their legs can take them!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Just Sayin', Feb 14th, 2014 @ 4:24am

    moronic

    "But, let's take that ridiculous logic one step further. Say, for example, that the registrar was unable to stop this particular torrent from being shared? Do we move one step up the ladder? They could, say, go to VeriSign, and demand they take down the entire .com database, right?"

    You get points for trying for outrage, but you fail so badly that it hurts.

    The registrar, in removing the domain from service, makes the file unavailable via that URL, plain and simple. It doesn't and never would go any further than that. Of course, if the registrar failed to remove the domain from action (and aided the pirates by knowingly keeping it active), then perhaps action would be taken against the registrar by ICANN, who have shut down a number of registrars in the last little while for non-compliance issues.

    There is no "take down the whole .com" here, there isn't even a logical way to end up there. Stop waving your arms around on this one, you look like you are losing it, Glenn Beck style.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    scotts13 (profile), Feb 14th, 2014 @ 5:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Happens. Have the wrong strain of corn show up in your field, then harvest your own grain for seed. Bingo, you're infringing!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 14th, 2014 @ 5:10am

    What if we had laws like that with 40+ year old adults?

    I wonder if those judges who are fine with this would be perfectly fine with extending secondary liability to parents, for their 40+ year old kids who long moved out of their house.

    After all, you created them! If they get a speeding ticket, it's all your fault for not controlling them!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Pragmatic, Feb 14th, 2014 @ 5:39am

    Re:

    Silly Ninja! Universal OWNS politicians and a flock of lobbyists. Since they make the law, they're above the law. /s

    I wouldn't be too surprised to see the slimy hand of GEMA in here somewhere.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Feb 14th, 2014 @ 6:11am

    Imagine this

    1. Jane registers jane.com with SuperDooperDomains.
    2. SuperDooperDomains is strongly against copyright infringement.
    3. Jane puts up a website that has only legal content.
    4. Some time passes.
    5. Evil Jane changes her website, while twirling her mustache, and starts hosting copyright infringing content.
    6. Now SuperDooperDomains is suddenly liable through no action or intent of it's own. Furthermore SuperDooperDomains is strongly against copyright infringement.

    This seems insane.

    Wouldn't it be a reasonable, well considered and fair solution, in the interest of justice, to put the liability onto Google instead? After all, it's obviously Google's fault.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    Baldaur Regis (profile), Feb 14th, 2014 @ 7:19am

    Re:

    It's both nice and horrible to see other countries have their own East Texas.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    beltorak (profile), Feb 14th, 2014 @ 8:40am

    Re:

    > It might be a completely ridiculous ruling, but at least the domain owner got to argue the case in court, and (presumably) can appeal the verdict and get it overturned. That's the way the law is supposed to work.

    I disagree. Something like this should be laughed out of court.

    > It's probably worse here in the states, where the feds seized Dajaz1.com....

    Yes, there are crazier things happening throughout the world, but making the comparison this way you are implying that we shouldn't worry too much about it. In effect you are setting the threshold for concern on the wrong end of the scale.

    The baseline for reasonableness should be not fucking crazy; we should not be comparing events (or by extension philosophies) on the basis of "well, worse things have happened, so this is not that big of a deal".

    Whether or not you believe that, the tone of your post strongly implies that "this is not that big of a deal".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 14th, 2014 @ 8:52am

    Still not enough inane and laughably poor analogies in this thread; get to work, d-bags!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Lord Zebulon, Feb 14th, 2014 @ 9:02am

    Go all the way to the source

    I believe that Universal Music should have been a target of the lawsuit, since they were the ones to originially produce the content used in the infringement. Without their participation, however far removed, the infringement could not have taken place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    beltorak (profile), Feb 14th, 2014 @ 9:24am

    The plaintiff would like to consolidate the following defendants in this claim:

    - happyp1r4te for copying the work
    - Alienware for making the computer allowing the work to be copied
    - Intel for making the CPU that changed the work into a readily piratable form
    - Hitachi for making the monitor displaying the progress of the infringment
    - Logitech for making the keyboard permitting the infringer to hack infringing codes
    - Realtek Semiconductor for enabling the computer to transmit the infringing work
    - Belkin for making the internet cable carrying the infringing content
    - LG for making the powerstrip keeping the computer on while it was infringing
    - Linksys for making the router enabling the infringment to be transmitted to the internet
    - Comcast for selling infringment-enabling services ("internet access")
    - AT&T for the internet routers that carried the infringement
    - GoDaddy for providing the domain name on which the infringement was hosted
    - Verisign for allowing GoDaddy to continue to sell services to infringers
    - IANA for not revoking Verisign's right to use ".com" under which the infringement was hosted
    - Adobe for selling "dreamweaver" without proper safe guards in place to prevent "hot links" to the infringing works despite this simple suggested modification to their software!
    - Google (of course) for directing users to infringing works
    - The US Intelligence Agencies (NSA, FBI, CIA, DHS, ICE, CBP, and the NYPD) for not stepping in to stop the infringement
    - The Poetry Foundation for promulgating the works of one "William Shakespeare" (presumed deceased) which allowed the infringer to clearly articulate the infringement
    - God for imbuing "happyp1r4te" with the spark of life after knowing infringment would be taking place

    I hereby attest in good faith that we have named all responsible parties, however we reserve the right to amend this list as new details come to light.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    RonKaminsky (profile), Feb 14th, 2014 @ 1:36pm

    Gotta try this

    Let's invent an algorithm for generating a sequence of random fallback tracker URLs, similar to the algorithms for C&C URLs for botnets --- but let's make sure that it involves using some information from all/any of the *AAs websites.

    Then, by the same logic, the court would have to ask for those websites to be similarly expunged. This outcome might "help" the court understand that such a ruling is not a good idea...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    fred, Feb 14th, 2014 @ 3:59pm

    Re: Imagine this

    sooper domains would only be liable if they dont take action after notification. Thet don't become instantly liable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Feb 14th, 2014 @ 4:34pm

    "And, even though they just wanted that single torrent taken down, if the only way VeriSign can do it is to nuke most of the internet, well, that's perfectly reasonable, right?"

    Yes.

    "Nothing stings more than a massive amount of fees, even if, in most cases, it's the taxpayers who are being docked, rather than the officers (and their supervisors) themselves.

    ...This fine is in place to help ensure accountability..."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 14th, 2014 @ 6:19pm

    average_joe just hates it when due process is enforced.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Feb 15th, 2014 @ 8:41am

    Re: Re: Imagine this

    Why should SuperDooperDomains even be involved. Removing the domain name accomplishes nothing. The infringing material is still available, if only by IP address.

    Why not go after Evil Jane? Why is everyone else, who did nothing wrong, to be pestered? I don't think you understand the scope of the problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2014 @ 10:07pm

    Re:

    Still butthurt over SOPA, boy?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 24th, 2014 @ 12:24am

    Re: moronic

    horse with no name just hates it when due process is enforced.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    The Wanderer (profile), Feb 27th, 2014 @ 2:59pm

    Re: moronic

    There's no logical way to end up at VeriSign (whose only way to take down the offending link might well be to take down the entirety of .com), you're right about that.

    But there's no logical way to end up at the registrar (whose only way to take down the offending link was to take down the whole domain), either - and yet that's where this already ended up. So why shouldn't we now consider the scenario where the other illogical thing might happen?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This