Lord Lucas Keeps Wanting To Chip Away At Digital Economy Bill: Exempt Search Engines
from the how-will-rupert-murdoch-survive dept
We’ve been discussing how Lord Lucas in the UK has spoken out against Peter Mandelson’s Digital Economy Bill, which would give Mandelson (and his successors or anyone he deputized) massive powers to change copyright law on a whim. Beyond that, the technology-savvy Lord Lucas has been proposing various amendments to the bill, including requiring copyright holders to detail actual damages and also a penalty for bogus copyright threats.
Another proposed amendment, as pointed out by Copycense would automatically exempt search engines from copyright law. While, for the most part, what search engines do seem to be covered by existing law (fair use, and the like), there are still some questions about whether or not the fundamental actions of search engines do or do not infringe. Clearly exempting them, however, could expand what search engines could do in some pretty impressive ways. This would also serve to negate the threats by the likes of Rupert Murdoch to remove News Corp. content from Google (since Google could then ignore any attempted block, as there would be no copyright violation).
Filed Under: copyright, digital economy bill, exemption, lord lucas, search engines
Comments on “Lord Lucas Keeps Wanting To Chip Away At Digital Economy Bill: Exempt Search Engines”
It is a pretty dumb idea. I could call anything a “search engine” and suddenly could ignore all copyright laws. That just doesn’t seem right.
Clearly, this would play nicely for torrent sites, as their “just a search engine” refrain would play nice in the courts. Perhaps Lord Lucas is secretly running TPB now?
Re: Re:
It is a pretty dumb idea. I could call anything a “search engine” and suddenly could ignore all copyright laws. That just doesn’t seem right.
If you called something a search engine then shouldn’t it behave like a search engine?
The same way that if you call something a library then shouldn’t it behave like a library?
“What do you mean officer, I wasn’t making illicit copies in my own home, I was making copies in a library, man. It’s totally legit!”
Perhaps Lord Lucas is secretly running TPB now?
Stay classy, TAM.
Re: Re: Re:
He’s right though, it’s the biggest legal loophole there is. I murdered like 8 dudes, but I called it self-defense, so they couldn’t touch me.
Re: Re: Re: A search engine defence
An exemption for search engines isn’t a get out of jail free card. It would be a specific clause that said that if you were able to demonstrate to the prosecutor and/or the judge that you were operating a search engine then they would deal with the initial complaint accordingly.
There would be fairly little doubt that a complaint against Google would invoke the search engine exclusion defence and a prosecutor could decide early not to pursue the case. A complaint against TPB would be subject to scrutiny and probably require a legal ruling.
Even with the “I murdered 8 people and called it self defence” argument, the decision to prosecute the crime and its subsequent treatment will depend on the prosecutor’s view of the initial evidence.
Re: Re: Re:2 A search engine defence
If this is the case, then there’s no practical difference. TPB spent half their trial trying to show how they don’t do anything different than Google. I love TPB, I even have the t–shirt… but I sincerely think that the search engine part is a minimal part of what they do. If this passes, everybody can add a “search engine” to an indexer, a database or whatever and claim they’re just a “search engine”. Not good, IMHO.
Re: Re: Re:3 A search engine defence
Yes, but in that case you would go after the person who owns the database or whatever – not the ‘search engine’.
Re: Re:
Aggregation is a particularly effective and profitable form of free-riding, especially when you have no incentive or need to contribute in any way to the things you’re aggregating.
The Internet has given people incredible power to act with unprecedented degrees of anonymity and impunity. While there are a few good reasons to provide a measure of both anonymity and impunity (e.g., political dissent, whistleblowing), it seems that far, far more people will just abuse both privileges.
The attitude around this site seems to be that maximum anonymity and impunity are absolute goods that need to be encouraged. Yet when a natural consequence of having them occurs, like spam, nobody steps up to defend the spammer.
“Search engines” that broker primarily unauthorized, highly-desirable content while also providing anonymity and impunity are especially good free riders.
In an era where original, socially-valuable content is becoming more and more of a public good (in the economic sense), doing everything in our power to encourage more free-riding isn’t the best idea.
Re: Re: Re:
Apart from making it easier for people to find content they care about in one easy place, of course.
And assuming you have any model that allows you make money from simply aggregating, and assuming your aggregation service in particular is one people will want to use, and assuming aggregation is some form of public menace and evil.
Re: Re: Re:
Well think about it, I stopped using things like TVFox or was FoxTV(a firefox addon that gives you 2500 tV channels to watch) and started to use Miro that could be seen as an aggregator and I found some things to watch over there, I rarely see TV or cable, don’t buy movies and am not aware of what is happening, music the same thing if it is not on youtube or jamendo is invisible to me.
So I think content distributors that believe in copyrights to the extreme should beg those search engines not to die otherwise people will have to make what I do and if they think people will flock to websites they own they are truly mistaken.
Adultswin is owned by Warner why would I ever go there? I hate the company, stopped buying movies because of them and other big studios, Sony opened my eyes about what “copyright” and IP laws really meant to my privacy and well being why would I want to finance, promote or even consume something from them?
The only thing keeping those people on top is because of those said search engines free riders because people could have moved on a long time ago to others things.
Re: Re: Re:
Aggregation is a particularly effective and profitable form of free-riding, especially when you have no incentive or need to contribute in any way to the things you’re aggregating.
Seriously? Providing a service to help people find things is “free riding”?
Rand McNally is “free riding” on those who create the roads, right?
You know who else are massive free riders? Librarians! How dare they.
It is not free riding. It is providing a useful service. Until you can understand that they are valued not for the information, but for the service of providing filters and directions to information, it’s difficult to take you seriously.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rand McNally is “free riding” on those who create the roads, right?
And what is the business model that maintains the roads?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Rand McNally is “free riding” on those who create the roads, right?”
Only those who make private roads…
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The same business model that maintains intellectual property?
Re: Re: Re:
“Aggregation is a particularly effective and profitable form of free-riding, “
It isn’t free riding. You have to do a good job of aggregating.
Google is where it is because they had a MUCH cleverer search algorithm than AltaVista, Yahoo etc etc.
If you view search as free riding then you would have to view ALL publishing as free riding (record companies, book publishers TV channels etc etc).
Come to think of it YOU are free riding of the evolutionary progress of millions of years of your ancestors / the creative energy of your God (delete whichever you don’t believe).
Re: Re:
Once again you wade in with an ill thought out contrary opinion based on an inadequate reading of the article and an inadequate understanding of technology and the law.
The exemption merely legitimises current common practice. After all if you put stuff on the web then I guess you want people to see it. It would be pretty dumb otherwise wouldn’t it?
If you want people to see it then I guess they need to be able to find it so letting a search engine index it is pretty sensible isn’t it?
After all as a rights holder you always have the option of NOT PUTTING IT INTO THE WEB IN THE FIRST PLACE (or of putting it behind some kind of access wall – which can be configured to keep search engines out).
If you read the article you will find that the exemption only allows the search engine to provide “search engine services” so it isn’t a license to ignore copyright law.
When you start talking about torrent sites you really descend into stupidity.
The only people who are being presumed to have given consent are the people who put up the content that the engine indexes. If they don’t have the right to that content then this amendment would not alter the legal situation in any way.
Re: Re: Re:
After all as a rights holder you always have the option of NOT PUTTING IT INTO THE WEB IN THE FIRST PLACE (or of putting it behind some kind of access wall – which can be configured to keep search engines out).
Fail.
One of the big issues is users taking content from CDs or DVDs, ripping them, and putting them online. The rights holders aren’t getting a vote in that discussion at all.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
bzzzt, try again.
Is google ripping people’s cds and putting them online?
no?
So not only does that statement have nothing to do with granting search engines some limited exemptions to allow them to to keep functioning, I think you Knew that your statement was baseless and not at all genuine.
Double fail, TAMmy
Re: Re:
“It is a pretty dumb idea. I could call anything a “search engine” and suddenly could ignore all copyright laws. That just doesn’t seem right. “
I think there is more to the story.
Re: Re:
It is a pretty dumb idea.
Oh no, I agree with TAM. For different reasons though. I don’t think there should be special exemptions for anyone; let the law apply equally. That way if there is really bad copyright law put in place, maybe it will start really messing people up and there will be public outcry about it. Exempting this or that would just sweep the problem under the rug to some extent, and maybe make it much harder to reform the bad laws.
I don’t remember who said it, but there is a very old quote to the effect that the fastest way to get rid of bad laws is to see to their strict and universal enforcement.
Tech Savy
I wish we could get a few lawmakers in the U.S. that are that tech savy and have enough guts to stand up to the media companies.
Well, at least there’s one resonable person in the industry.
TAM always used to have some sort of twisted devils advocate logic but now its just sad
http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/documents/open-government-directive
From Groklaw comes the news that Red Hat launched a new website called opensource.com that was build to inform about opensource and its spread into everything.
Like the Open Government Directive which basically says that the government will give the people information and a voice to pitch in solutions. This could be huge.
Lord Lucas should start doing that in the U.K.
IP buble burst?
Is IP laws a buble that can burst?
Re: IP buble burst?
Nice article – but maybe you should submit it as an article to Mike (follow the link at the top of the page – rather than just put it onto a thread where it doesn’t quite belong.
Same applies to the article below…
btw don’t be put off by the anti-Mike – he’s just our virtual village idiot.
Re: Re: IP buble burst?
“btw don’t be put off by the anti-Mike – he’s just our virtual village idiot.”
BIG OLE GRIN!!! I just pictured him with one of those silly jester hats… thanks you made my morning.
Community building the open source way.
Community the open source way
Great article of how people are coming together to solve their own problems inside their own communities.
Couple that with the government open initiative and people are starting to build the foundations to a better way where people take point at the issues not the government.
Re: Community building the open source way.
I think you have just become a meaningless spammer.
Re: Re: Community building the open source way.
That’s a good one coming from you SPAM, I mean, TAM.
Re: Re: Re: Community building the open source way.
Except I don’t spam, tard.
Re: Re: Re:2 Community building the open source way.
You spam insults.
Re: Re: Re:3 Community building the open source way.
nice comeback, son.
Re: Re: Re:3 Community building the open source way.
TAM doesn’t spam, he trolls.
Re: Re: Re:2 Community building the open source way.
Yes, you do. See, if you can just call anything a search engine, anyone can just call you a spammer, and they’ll both be true.
With the recent OiNK ruling, this would merely strengthen the position of torrent search sites in the UK.. and rightly so – they provide a search service – nothing more, nothing less!
and without search NO BIT TORRENT
think about how vague life is and how these fucktards will use that to make illegal your favorite things
Please tell me it’s possible to get this guy as New Zealand’s next Governer General?
please?
(‘course, like all such things, it’s ‘with the recommendation of the prime minister’ or some such, so it won’t happen, but i can dream.)