Can Someone Explain To The RIAA That SOPA Didn't Actually Pass?

from the let's-try-this-again dept

Earlier this week, basically all of the major record labels filed a lawsuit against YouTube-mp3.org, which as you may have guessed from the URL, helps people get audio downloads from YouTube videos. There have been a number of similar sites over the years, and they tend to disappear relatively quickly. Apparently this one lasted long enough that the major labels decided to sue.

There are many, many, many problems with the lawsuit which we'll be discussing, but let's start with the big one. The RIAA and the labels seem to believe that SOPA became law back in 2012, rather than being soundly rejected. That's because, as the EFF notes in a blog post, the real target of the lawsuit does not appear to be Youtube-mp3.org, but a bunch of third party service providers. Specifically, the lawsuit asks for two highly questionable remedies targeting non-parties to the lawsuit:
enjoining Defendants and all third parties with notice of the Order, including any Web hosts, domain-name registrars, domain name registries, and proxy or reverse proxy services, and their administrators, from facilitating access to any or all domain names, URLs and websites (including, without limitation, www.youtube-mp3.org) through which Defendants infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights;
and
enjoining all third parties with notice of the Order from maintaining, operating, or providing advertising, financial, technical, or other support to YTMP3 and any other domain names, URLs, or websites through which Defendants infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights, including without limitation www.youtubemp3.org; and enjoining all third-party distributors of applications, toolbars or similar software with notice of the Order from distributing any applications, toolbars, or similar software applications that interoperate with any domain names, URLs, or websites through which Defendants infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights, including without limitation www.youtube-mp3.org.
Again, this was the kind of remedy SOPA was designed to enable. But SOPA did not become law. As the EFF points out:

As we’ve explained before in other cases, this request is a gross overreach. Federal court rules have a narrow provision that lets successful plaintiffs request a court order against a defendant and people in “active concert and participation” with them, meaning a close associate or co-conspirator. That provision doesn’t allow for orders that bind every vendor providing services to a defendant, especially those with no direct business relationship. So the litany of intermediaries listed in the labels’ complaint are not within the court’s power to bind.

What the complaint asks for is also far broader than the law allows. By asking all of those intermediaries to block all “websites through which Defendants infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights,” without specifying the URLs, the labels are seeking to conscript all of these companies as investigators who must chase down the defendants and block every website they use, under any name. Neither copyright nor trademark law allows courts to put this burden on Internet intermediaries, and for good reason: it’s prohibitively expensive for many, it inevitably leads to blocking of lawful speech, and it gives a big advantage to established players.

Finally, and perhaps worst of all, the record labels want to ban “any applications” that might “interoperate” with with youtube-mp3.org and any other websites owned by the defendants. That would seem to require every Web browser, mobile app, and Internet-connected device to block an ever-changing list of websites. Left unchecked, these kinds of orders could become a mechanism whereby the content industry gets veto power over online innovation.

Also, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in California, the site is owned by a guy in Germany, Philip Matesanz. An RIAA press release notes that the IFPI has also indicated it's going to file a similar case in the UK. Considering that there's a decently high chance that the guy in Germany won't bother responding to a lawsuit halfway around the world, the RIAA and its labels may simply be hoping for a default judgment, which they can then use to force all those third parties into blocking a website, despite a lack of a full trial over the issues with the case.

And, oh boy, does this lawsuit have serious issues. On a conceptual level, how is what this site is doing really all that different from a VCR in recording a TV show? In this case, it's just recording an audio file from a video file. And such recordings for personal time shifting uses are considered fair use and not infringing. It's also quite a useful tool for other fair use activities too — we've used a similar site to grab audio quotes from videos for discussion in our podcast. The "stream ripping" site is just a tool for making such fair use recordings, meaning it has substantial non-infringing uses. So why do the RIAA and these labels insist that it's infringing?

The lawsuit notes that this service likely violates YouTube's terms of service, but YouTube/Google are not the plaintiff. They're not the ones arguing over the terms of service being violated (in fact, you could argue that Google is a target of the lawsuit via the third party injunction attempts discussed above).

Part of the lawsuit alleges that YTMP3 violates the DMCA by "circumventing" YouTube's "technological measures" designed to block access to the actual video file, but it's not clear how this kind of thing is really a technological protection measure under the DMCA. All it does is obscure the full URL, but still make it accessible. Is it really circumvention to figure out how to get to a publicly accessible URL? That seems like a big leap by the RIAA:
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege as follows: YouTube has adopted and implemented technological measures to control access to content maintained on its site and to prevent or inhibit downloading, copying, or illicit distribution of that content. YouTube maintains two separate URLs for any given video file: one URL, which is visible to the user, is for the webpage where the video playback occurs, and one URL, which is not visible to the user, is for the video file itself. The second URL is generated using a complex (and periodically changing) algorithm – known as a “rolling cipher” – that is intended to inhibit direct access to the underlying YouTube video files, thereby preventing or inhibiting the downloading, copying, or distribution of the video files.
That second URL is not "protected" in any real way. It's a publicly accessible URL -- it's just that YouTube doesn't make it easy to find. So does that really count as circumvention? That seems like a big question here as well.

Either way, as noted above, these important questions may not get answered if YTMP3 simply decides to ignore the lawsuit -- and the RIAA may very well be counting on that. It really does seem like the labels deliberately picked a site that is likely not interested in defending this lawsuit, no matter how questionable, allowing it to really go after a ton of 3rd party sites and services, as if SOPA were the law.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2016 @ 8:52am

    So...

    Nothing new on the MafiAA front then?

    These organizations will continue to use money to shutdown every little guy they cannot directly control. I never buy music from any label, because doing so means giving evil people more money to oppress others. If YouTube did not have so much money, they would shut it down too!

    I only buy music from independents. And yes, their music is every bit as quality as the "big boys/girls".

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2016 @ 8:58am

    The RIAA are fully aware that SOPA failed to pass and that's why they are trying their damned hardest to get SOPA like laws passed via the backdoor through court cases like this one.

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

  • identicon
    Andy, 28 Sep 2016 @ 9:01am

    The only thing I can see as troubling is they do the conversion server side. That means the audio of the video sits server side and the they generate a link to it. At that point are they distributing copyrighted audio? Or are they protected by safe harbor?

    I guess they should have put a disclaimer on their site that it's the users responsibilities to make sure the video and audio are public domain and they are not responsible for users using a generic tool to to nefarious things.

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

    • identicon
      cpt kangarooski, 28 Sep 2016 @ 9:20am

      Re:

      I agree. Part of the Sony case involves Sony's lack of control over the use of Betamaxes after they're sold. Doing this server side, or even where the service provider has any awareness of what's occurring, may expose them to liability.

      It's like people didn't learn from the evolution of peer to peer file sharing services, from Napster, that knew everything, to BitTorrent, that does little other than providing a protocol, if anything.

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

    • identicon
      Ed Allen, 28 Sep 2016 @ 12:53pm

      Re:

      The article mentions that even copyrighted material can have snippets used under "fair use", which the RIAA wishes would be forgotten.

      But that leaves this to be dealt with:
      https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/
      youtube-dl is a command-line program to download videos from YouTube.com and a few more sites. It requires the Python interpreter (2.6, 2.7, or 3.2+), and it is not platform specific. We also provide a Windows executable that includes Python. youtube-dl should work in your Unix box, in Windows or in Mac OS X. It is released to the public domain, which means you can modify it, redistribute it or use it however you like.

      Good luck wth getting those executables back.

      They can pressure YouTube but they had that option to begin with. Bullies prefer their victims to not fight back.

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

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 28 Sep 2016 @ 9:05am

    Maybe they are hoping for a sympathetic judge that doesn't bother to fact check their case and just awards them a win based solely on their word.

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

  • icon
    sladebarker (profile), 28 Sep 2016 @ 9:11am

    Except for one thing

    I would only note that I have spoken at great length with the former head of the RIAA, and with the relevant exec at the MPAA, and their position REMAINS that making a copy of a CD, even on an obsolete form such as a cassette, and making a copy of a movie, even on such an obsolete form as a VHS tape, is actually a violation of copyright! They have NEVER budged on this position. The MPAA guy told me he scolded his own mother for making a copy of an album to play in her car!

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2016 @ 10:04am

      Re: Except for one thing

      I hope his mother punished him accordingly, A Paddling ought to suffice

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2016 @ 1:14pm

      Re: Except for one thing

      Did he submit her name to his legal department for litigation?

      Your honor we call Mr. MPAA to the stand.
      Mr. MPAA, please tell the court what you saw at your mothers house.

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

    • icon
      ltlw0lf (profile), 28 Sep 2016 @ 2:47pm

      Re: Except for one thing

      I would only note that I have spoken at great length with the former head of the RIAA, and with the relevant exec at the MPAA, and their position REMAINS that making a copy of a CD, even on an obsolete form such as a cassette, and making a copy of a movie, even on such an obsolete form as a VHS tape, is actually a violation of copyright!

      Except that, according to the legal statement they seem to like putting on those CDs, they sold me a license, not the physical medium. Sure, the legal statement also says that it is illegal to make unauthorized copies of the medium, but seems like they are playing both sides of the fence here.

      The MPAA guy told me he scolded his own mother for making a copy of an album to play in her car!

      And yet when her car gets broken into and all of her CDs are stolen, or when they melt due to heat, he makes no attempt to replace them without repaying the license fee.

      I just love how two-faced they are...everything in the name of greed. Which is why I tend to avoid their little aluminum and plastic coffee coasters.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2016 @ 9:12am

    Thanks, RIAA! I was looking for a tool like this recently and because of you, I now know where to find it.

    Time to go download those Barbra Streisand songs from YouTube I've been wanting.

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

  • icon
    Rapnel (profile), 28 Sep 2016 @ 9:29am

    "Can Someone Explain To The RIAA.."

    You lost me... isn't that a little like expecting to have a conversation with a rock?

    Rocks are good for building walls and breaking glass. I don't recommend attempting to communicate with them though.

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

  • icon
    TasMot (profile), 28 Sep 2016 @ 9:47am

    New Trolling M.O.

    Now instead of all that trouble with trials, just sue someone out of the country that won't show up for the trial (how can they actually be in jurisdiction) and get a default judgement against a bunch of un-involved third parties who have to submit to the judgement. That's going to fill up the courts very soon. Just wait until the thin-skinned president finds out that this work.s The US courts are going to be filled with all kinds of suits against people in Turkey to force down the content he doesn't like. Easy-peasy and no actual trial to worry about.

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

  • identicon
    PRMan, 28 Sep 2016 @ 10:00am

    Different than a VCR

    Seriously, Mike, did you even read it?

    They copy the file to their own site first for processing before downloading it to you.

    So they ARE distributing copyrighted material without a license.

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

    • identicon
      Thad, 28 Sep 2016 @ 10:11am

      Re: Different than a VCR

      Seriously, Mike, did you even read it?

      Did you? You might want to read the rest of the paragraph you're responding to. The phrase "substantial non-infringing uses" is instructive.

      They copy the file to their own site first for processing before downloading it to you.

      So they ARE distributing copyrighted material without a license.

      Sounds like something that's covered by safe harbor to me. Should an online app with a neutral purpose and a simple technical function be required to validate the copyright/license status of every file it processes before it processes it? Even if it's coming from a site like YouTube that has already done exactly that?

      Further, your objection seems to be that the program is run server-side. Okay. So you'd be okay with it if a program with the *exact same function* ran client-side? Why does the distinction matter, in practical terms?

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

      • identicon
        Ed Allen, 28 Sep 2016 @ 1:02pm

        Re: Re: Different than a VCR

        Again:
        https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/

        Already exists and since github is reachable world wide every high school kid can set this up as a service for their friends.

        Good luck getting teens to rat each other out !

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

        • icon
          orbitalinsertion (profile), 28 Sep 2016 @ 3:13pm

          Re: Re: Re: Different than a VCR

          Yes, and ten thousand other applications which will download from Youtube either incidentally or as a purpose-built feature. Or one can trawl their browser cache. One may discover for oneself the file URL and GET it if they want.

          Oh dear. Well i suppose they will just have to make the internet illegal, which is apparently what they want anyway.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2016 @ 10:26am

      Re: Different than a VCR

      Umm, what exactly is it you think a VCR does?

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

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Sep 2016 @ 1:46pm

      Re: Different than a VCR

      They copy the file to their own site first for processing before downloading it to you.


      There are some legal questions here, but US copyright law says, the work has to be somewhere for more than a "transitory duration." If it's just on their servers for a very brief period of time to effectuate the service, I don't see how that makes a difference.

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

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 28 Sep 2016 @ 10:54am

    The cord is too long, that's the difference. Even if the case moves forward we have plenty of examples on how this can turn into a duck.

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

  • identicon
    Angetenar, 28 Sep 2016 @ 1:20pm

    Common law legal system.

    In a common law legal system judges can make law. So, even if SOPA failed in the legislature, an RIAA friendly judge can just give it to them anyway.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2016 @ 1:33pm

      Re: Common law legal system.

      i'd bet that the judge gets a gulfstream jet or some other contribution with the right verdict.

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

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 28 Sep 2016 @ 2:37pm

    If at first you don't succeed...

    ... lie and pretend that you did.

    They know that they lost the SOPA fight, what they're hoping for is that if they manage to con enough judges into thinking otherwise they can get enough cases to swing their way to either make the loss moot, since the various rulings will have handed them what they wanted anyway, or provide enough 'evidence' to be able to try to shove through SOPA 2.0.

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

  • icon
    Dave Cortright (profile), 28 Sep 2016 @ 4:39pm

    If I were Philip Matesanz...

    I would have a bunch of domains registered like youtube-mp3.net, youtube-mp3.io, youtube-mp3.cc... you get the picture. Now start redirecting youtube-mp3.org to one of these other sites and show them a banner telling them that .org is going away soon, please update your bookmarks. Rinse, repeat.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2016 @ 7:15pm

      Re: If I were Philip Matesanz...

      Assuming that Matesanz is the guy behind the site.

      Given the RIAA's track record, I take any attempt of theirs to match a name or face to an IP address with a pinch of salt.

      And by a pinch, I mean the whole fucking shaker.

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

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 29 Sep 2016 @ 12:07am

        Re: Re: If I were Philip Matesanz...

        A shaker? I'd got with a 50 lb bag at the least, given their accuracy tends to be in the 'blind crack-fiend with a hangover and a home-built pistol'-level more often than not.

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

  • icon
    OldGeezer (profile), 29 Sep 2016 @ 12:49am

    Why did mp3.org even exist?

    What was the point of this site? Who needs a web site to download audio tracks ripped from YouTube when there are so many applications that can download both audio and video yourself? There is no DRM on YouTube and if they do implement it there will be ways to defeat it in a matter of days, if not hours. YouTube itself is a site offering free downloads of copyrighted music. If all you want is audio there are thousands of sites where you can find it in better quality than ripped from them.

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 29 Sep 2016 @ 2:15am

      Re: Why did mp3.org even exist?

      Well, the first thing would be that it's not specifically used to rip music, just audio tracks from the video. While music is what it seems to be used for, there's plenty of other soundtracks people might want to store that aren't music. It works just as effectively for taking audio from a movie trailer to use in a podcast, for example, as it does for random songs.

      Secondly, most people don't give 2 craps about audio quality, they prefer convenience. They hear something they like on YouTube, they'll get it from where they already are, not go searching around.

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

      • icon
        OldGeezer (profile), 29 Sep 2016 @ 3:29am

        Re: Re: Why did mp3.org even exist?

        My question is still: Why not just rip it yourself with so many free apps available? Are there that many people unaware of these tools? I would much rather watch a video of the artist performing than just listen to a track. If you only want the audio for your mp3 player or phone or podcast that's simple. Copy the YouTube link and Jdownloader will give you all the options. Video, audio, subtitles, description, etc. I don't need this site. I guess maybe someone who is really technologically challenged might. I thought pretty much everyone was aware that it easy to download from YouTube and many other video sites but I guess I could be wrong.

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 29 Sep 2016 @ 4:11am

          Re: Re: Re: Why did mp3.org even exist?

          "Why not just rip it yourself with so many free apps available?"

          Why install an app if you can just use a website in another tab? I think many people would rather open a website than download a program, especially if you're using a computer other than your own.

          "I would much rather watch a video of the artist performing than just listen to a track"

          Are you able to do this 100% of the time, or are there times when the audio would be more suitable? There's plenty of reasons it's better to have the audio version, be that the inability to watch a video at a particular time, not being online and having limited storage space, etc.

          "I don't need this site"

          Cool. Some people do, or prefer it this way. If your only problem is that you dislike this particular method, then fine. But, it clearly filled a niche even if you personally don't like it. It's not hard to imagine why a person would prefer copying a link into a website, rather than search for a good tool, install it and risk crapware/viruses, etc.

          "I guess maybe someone who is really technologically challenged might"

          a.k.a. a depressingly large proportion of the general population. If you've seen the poor state of their computers with the things they decide to randomly install, you'd probably know why the web version is preferable.

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

          • icon
            OldGeezer (profile), 29 Sep 2016 @ 7:56am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Why did mp3.org even exist?

            I will certainly agree that there is a risk of malware installing free programs and some people are better off with this site. I use a lot of really good free software but I never install anything without research. Even legitimate programs sometimes come with additional options that you have to uncheck. It's not necessarily malware but just annoying when you discover something you did not need and have to uninstall it. Jdownloader is an excellent safe program, but in the early days of version 2 they came under heavy criticism for bundling extra crap with the upgrade. They apologized on their site and released a clean install. There are some people who will click on anything. I have the advantage having a son who is a computer genius who taught me a lot or I might be the same way. There are probably YouTube download programs that are trojans or at least adware.

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

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 29 Sep 2016 @ 11:55pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why did mp3.org even exist?

              "I use a lot of really good free software but I never install anything without research."

              But, sadly, you and I are not the average person. The people using this site are not going to be tech-savvy people who know what they want and what they're doing. They're going to be people who've been warned off downloading random programs by exasperated friends and family who are tired of removing crapware from their computers who were redirected to use web-based solution because they're traditionally safer. They're people who want to rip the audio by pasting the link into a website because they don't know what they're doing otherwise.

              I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp - yes, *you* prefer an app-based approach and *you* have needs that are not met by this website. But, as a tech-savvy individual, you are not the average member of the general public.

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

  • icon
    Whatever (profile), 29 Sep 2016 @ 4:40am

    For the location of the lawsuit, there are a few things to consider here:

    Youtube, aka Google, are an American company based in California. They are the source of the material, and thus, there is at least a "toe in the water" in that state.

    Further, the mentioned website appears to be hosted on Amazon's platform, with an IP that points to their Ireland data centers - but that can and does easily change. A new instance could be fired up anywhere. Filing in the UK (which is still part of the EU last I checked) seems reasonable.

    Pretty much every ripping tool faces the same issue. This one faces a bigger legal issue because there are only race circumstances where what you would be ripping would be something you have the rights to. So there are limited legal uses, many potentially illegal uses. It's hard to imagine it standing up to a legal challenge, even if the guy did show up.

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 29 Sep 2016 @ 5:40am

      Re:

      "Further, the mentioned website appears to be hosted on Amazon's platform, with an IP that points to their Ireland data centers - but that can and does easily change... Filing in the UK (which is still part of the EU last I checked) seems reasonable."

      Why would you be suing based on the location of the hosting provider, rather than the location of the person running the site? Especially a cloud provider who you even note aren't tied to a single geographical location.

      "A new instance could be fired up anywhere."

      Exactly. Your idea would do very little to stop the site from running, and would do nothing to prosecute the person actually responsible. You and the people you support sure do love a game of whack a mole, though.

      "So there are limited legal uses, many potentially illegal uses."

      So, as usual, screw the people using the tools for legal purposes because there's imaginary profits to be had. Better to chase the bad users on to another tool we can go after later than address the actual problems at hand.

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

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 29 Sep 2016 @ 5:53am

        Re: Re:

        "an IP that points to their Ireland data centers... Filing in the UK..."

        Oh, and Ireland isn't part of the UK, you muppet.

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

        • icon
          Whatever (profile), 29 Sep 2016 @ 4:13pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Ireland and the UK are BOTH part of the EU, muppet.

          You are truly lame.

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

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 12:00am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Yes, but the are different sovereign nations, as are all members of the EU. EU membership has nothing to do with which nation you file your legal complaint with. Why would you file a lawsuit in the UK when your target is Ireland? Would you also file one with Poland and Portugal just to make sure you covered your bases? If so, why would you not just file it with Germany - you know, where the person running the site is confirmed to be located?

            But, again, I notice that you ignored every other point raised, every other direct question, in favour of the single point you can try to wave away as if you know something. Failing miserably while doing so. What an ignorant, arrogant asshole you truly are.

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

            • identicon
              Wendy Cockcroft, 30 Sep 2016 @ 5:47am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Irish woman here; what PaulT says.

              Get over yourself, Whatever, and go and learn some history. Ireland has been independent of the UK since 1922. Therefore UK law doesn't apply to us.

              EU laws are a different thing and are not interchangeable with UK laws.

              I live in the UK, and as an activist I make it my business to know things like this.

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

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 6:09am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                You don't need to be an activist, just someone aware of the basics of world geography and jurisdiction.

                It seems he honestly thought that UK courts could deal with Irish jurisdiction, and then chose to double up with another mistake about EU jurisdiction, rather than admit he didn't know the UK and Ireland were different countries.

                No wonder the personal attacks he attempts on me are so laughably wrong.

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

              • icon
                Whatever (profile), 1 Oct 2016 @ 2:31am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Wendy, I am a UK citizen. I understand the complexities of the whole UK / Northern Ireland / Ireland thing. I also understand that there is the legal question of "doing business in...".

                If the tool available to be used in the UK? Yes. Is the UK part of the EU? Yes. Does the UK have a legal system that tends to frown on "[pirate innovations"? yes. It's the perfect place therefore to filing suit.

                Ireland has it's only legal system which tends to lean (aggressively) in support to technology companies who have brought jobs to the country, investment, and little or no tax revenue. Filing there wouldn't be as productive.

                As both are part of the EU, so a good ruling in the UK against the tool would be a great start towards applying it to other parts of the EU.

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

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 1 Oct 2016 @ 4:12am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Oh, FFS stop it, you're really embarrassing yourself. Just admit you were too ignorant to understand that the UK and Ireland are different countries and move on.

                  "If the tool available to be used in the UK? Yes."

                  No. If you're attacking the Amazon hosting, Amazon AWS has no presence in the UK. It has a datacentre in Ireland, which is a different country.

                  "As both are part of the EU, so a good ruling in the UK against the tool would be a great start towards applying it to other parts of the EU."

                  So, if you're filing suit in random related countries in the EU, why not do what the company in question is doing and file in Germany where the person running the site lives?

                  Face it, this is idiotic even by your standards. Let it go.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2016 @ 6:20pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You're a UK citizen and are somehow also living in Canada to whine about your region-locked options for entertainment? What's wrong with the UK, taxes too distasteful for you?

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 2:08pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Ireland and the UK are BOTH part of the EU, muppet.

            And both in the came galaxy! You forgot that!

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

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 1 Oct 2016 @ 5:28am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Might as well use the law of the moon of Europa to attack the site since it's in the same solar system as the datacentre. Makes as much sense as what this tosser is saying.

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

      • icon
        Whatever (profile), 29 Sep 2016 @ 4:19pm

        Re: Re:

        "Why would you be suing based on the location of the hosting provider, rather than the location of the person running the site? Especially a cloud provider who you even note aren't tied to a single geographical location."

        Same reason you charge someone with a crime where it happens, not in some random non-related location. California is logical as it is the location of the source material as well as both service providers involved, and England is reasonable as it's still in the EU.

        "So, as usual, screw the people using the tools for legal purposes because there's imaginary profits to be had. "

        No, no, no... there are few clearly legal uses, but plenty of illegal uses. Like DVD cloning software, the rare legal uses do not in any way outweigh the illegal ones.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 3 Oct 2016 @ 10:34pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          So, harass the poor schmuck you can intimidate with resources and political clout instead of going after the original culprit. It's the RIAA/Prenda Law way. Small wonder why Whatever is such an advocate.

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 3 Oct 2016 @ 11:54pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Same reason you charge someone with a crime where it happens, not in some random non-related location. "

          Then, why are you advocating the UK and not Ireland, where the servers are hosted? Why advocate the UK and not Germany, where the culprit lives? Are you still unaware that EU law does not replace the law of each member country and you still have to deal with the national jurisdiction?

          You really are this stupid, aren't you?

          "California is logical as it is the location of the source material"

          Did you notice how I didn't question California being included, only your moronic use of the UK to go after crimes which only happened in the EU jurisdictions of Ireland and Germany? There's a reason for that (hint: it's not idiotic)

          "England is reasonable as it's still in the EU."

          So is Slovakia. You'd still be a moron to suggest that, but your logic states it's OK to file suit there.

          "No, no, no... there are few clearly legal uses, but plenty of illegal uses."

          As there are for audio cassettes, VCRs, photocopiers and anything else that's been deemed legal despite widespread infringing ones? That's kind of my point.

          "Like DVD cloning software, the rare legal uses do not in any way outweigh the illegal ones."

          Rare like duplicating your own work rather than having to pay corporation to do it for you? Strange why you always advocate whatever will harm the independent party and benefit the majors, isn't it?

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 29 Sep 2016 @ 5:42am

      Re:

      "Further, the mentioned website appears to be hosted on Amazon's platform"

      Actually, where are you getting that from? Everything I'm seeing suggests it's using Cloudflare as a CDN.

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

      • identicon
        Wendy Cockcroft, 30 Sep 2016 @ 5:48am

        Re: Re:

        It's not even YouTube, PaulT. It's some German dude using it as part of his domain name.

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 6:05am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I know that Wendy, I was referring to my quick investigation into the domain name in question. It's registered in Germany but appears to use Cloudflare as the CDN. Meaning, basically, it's irrelevant where it's being hosted from and idiotic to go after anything other than the primary source.

          So, of course, Whatever advocates an approach that not only targets countries uninvolved in any part of the process, but would do less than what's already being done...

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.