Google Wants Court To Say That Links To Music Files Don't Mean Google Is Infringing Copyrights

from the could-be-useful dept

We’ve noted in the past some of the similarities, from a legal standpoint, of search engines like Google, and music search engines/bittorrent tracker sites — and yet the music search sites keep getting shut down. So we thought it was interesting late last year when a small indie label, called Blues Destiny sued both Google and Microsoft because search results on the site pointed to unauthorized copies of Blues Destiny music that was hosted on RapidShare. There were all sorts of problems with the lawsuit, but we wondered if the ruling would at least touch on some important issues concerning music search engines. However, it appears that Blues Destiny folks realized they had no case and dismissed the lawsuit… though it told Google that it still believed the company infringed on its copyrights, and it intended to refile the lawsuit.

Eric Goldman points us to the news that after waiting a couple of weeks for Blues Destiny to refile, and having its lawyers tell Google that they believed Google still violated the company’s copyrights, Google has come back and filed for a declaratory judgment that it does not violate Blues Destiny copyrights:

So, who knows… perhaps we will get a ruling that could be applicable to other search engines after all…

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: blues destiny, google

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Google Wants Court To Say That Links To Music Files Don't Mean Google Is Infringing Copyrights”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment

TWICE in canada

“it is the responsibility of the user to visit any link which may be a breach of any type of law”

YUP that means like it should and YA know we can’t hold your hands and make tech do everything , its a simple thing to say and practice and if you do not uphold htis then it MASSIVELY OPENS liability to a TON of NON internet issues

NOW when a car is in an CRIME you could sue the manufacturer.
GET ready for the CAR CAM that is installed for YOUR PROTECTION…THE hammer and tool police that will now be required to watch you use every hammer and tool such that you are not using them in any crime

the PENCILATOR POLICE so you dont jab that next victim.
AND YES we are only doing it cause we are thinking of the children.

LOOK at p2pnet case and now its heading to supremem court and it will won cause common sense disctates that to do the opposite also places too much burden on freedoms and rights.

Here in Canada you could argue that making the link maker responsible , means they are subject then to CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT to apply the fix correction.

OF course its easy to add an exemption for illegal sex acts.
YOU dont need to punish the rest of us cause 5 people in Canada are sick out of 33 million and my last part is to that. DOES it stop the bad porn? NO Drives it underground where you cant get these sycophants.

So do we want a retarded society or one thats proud to have a brain?

P.S. OMG I hope this is readable OMG OMG

A Dan (profile) says:

Re: TWICE in canada

Yes, you make sense this time. For future reference, though, the capitalized words make it harder to read, rather than strongly emphasized. Consider bold or italic instead.

A major problem with the responsibility of visiting a posted link (other than the obvious logistical problems) is that, if a user posts a link to illegal-to-view content, visiting the link can make you a criminal.

Robert A. Rosenberg (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: TWICE in canada

Anonymous Coward states

“Hence the argument that there shouldn’t be anything that is illegal to simply view. It’s quite reasonable.”

Unless you ask the question “Illegal WHERE?”. If I was in certain Middle East Countries, it would be illegal to look at sites showing women’s uncovered faces, let alone the Sports Illustrated Swim Suit spreads (where you can see most of their bodies).

Just because something is Illegal (or against someone’s culture) does not mean that it must automatically be banned on the Internet.

James says:

Net Neutral

My philosophy is that search engines just crawl net looking for content, and it’s the individual who posts illegal content that’s at fault. If we start censoring content then that allows the floodgates to be opened and they will start censoring everything. Let’s hold the individual accountable for once and stop blaming a bigger/richer entity.

But honestly, this label is only doing this for the press and free advertising, they’re not stupid and they won’t be the last. If these labels they need to change how they view p2p and sharing and realize that the internet can be a tool for them to promote artists and get people listening to them.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...