Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The RIAA forced me to shut down a successful website/apps I built in high school

blog.appgrounds.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 138 posts

Re: The RIAA forced me to shut down a successful website/apps I built in high school

#21

Post by lonture »

seiji wrote: post #11
langarto wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 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.

Don't become this guy: 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.

He won his case and is suing the US now I believe.

Re: The RIAA forced me to shut down a successful website/apps I built in high school

#22

Post by lcasela »

mathrawka wrote: post #14

And 17 years ago an indie emo record label in NY (that should be enough to identify them/him) forced me to shut down a website I built. That was when I left emo and went to mathrock.

You should get into midwest emo.

Re: The RIAA forced me to shut down a successful website/apps I built in high school

#23

Post by logfromblammo »

ds9 wrote: post #10
driverdan wrote: post #2

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 conten…

It'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., repor…

He has to capitulate because he's 18, ignorant of the relevant laws, and likely has no money to be thrown away on litigation. He definitely has shallower pockets than the RIAA. In the civil arena in the U.S., that's an automatic loss.

Since operating in good faith is apparently untenable, there is no particular reason for anyone to operate in good faith with respect to the RIAA. Thus copyright piracy proliferates.

I'm sure that there are plenty of software writers that would be happy to help the RIAA connect their members with potential new fans and paying customers over the Internet. It's a crying shame that the RIAA consistently turns them away by acting like total dicks.

While I also disagree that it's illegal, I do concur with the decision to fold. If you don't have a big gun behind you to back you up, like the EFF or ACLU, you lose against the RIAA. Even if you "win" in court by the judges' decisions, you already lost time, money, and reputation by the time you get there, with no way of ever getting that back.

The only way to win is not to play.

Re: The RIAA forced me to shut down a successful website/apps I built in high school

#24

Post by SEMW »

langarto wrote: post #4
driverdan wrote: post #2

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 conten…

I 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.

> 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://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/private-justice-h...

Re: The RIAA forced me to shut down a successful website/apps I built in high school

#25

Post by lambda »

adamnemecek wrote: post #19
brohee wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google actively removes links to infringing content once notified. E.g. look at the bottom of https://www.google.com/search?q=rihanna+diamond+mp3

I'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.

Yes, 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

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.

Re: The RIAA forced me to shut down a successful website/apps I built in high school

#26

Post by daemonk »

I am not a fan of aggressive, litigious companies. And the morality of physical vs intellectual property is a whole another issue that warrants more discussion.

However, all that baggage aside, you kinda did create this website so people can share copyright infringing files. Did you really expect people to only share personal, non-copyrighted music? Come on.

Anyways. You should be proud of the work you've done though. It's not easy to follow through with an idea.

Re: The RIAA forced me to shut down a successful website/apps I built in high school

#27

Post by synctext »

odonnellryan wrote: post #18
lukezli wrote: post #12

Since I'm lucky enough to be on the front page of HN (thanks a lot!) I'd just like to shamelessly self promote and say 1) I'm looking for an internship this summer at a startup- please let me know if any of you have open positions! Please email me at lukezli[at]yahoo.com. 2) Check out my new project, catchyurl.co, a url shortener that creates memorable shortened urls like catchyurl.co/EskimoHill Let me know if you ha…

catchyurl.co/EskimoHill returns a 404. I would suggest making your example link back to your page. But awesome website and good luck!

as an expert witness who served in several of these cases I would say you are very lucky. No fine even!

You have a screenshot of your app with a big-time RIAA artist, big time fail. Even helping people on your forum streaming a link like http://innocent.org/madonna.mp3 can bring down all your efforts. Lawyers will eat you for it. See the landmark work on the new inducement doctrine: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster....

For my courtroom CV, google: "borderline incompetent" :-)

Re: The RIAA forced me to shut down a successful website/apps I built in high school

#28

Post by icebraining »

ds9 wrote: post #10
driverdan wrote: post #2

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 conten…

It'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., repor…

There's no such thing as "legit content". Licensing is not a characteristic of the content, it's a relationship between the content and the person distributing it.

So give a crude example, the content on Netflix is "legit", in the sense that they have the right to distribute it, but that doesn't make it legal for you to record and retransmit the same content.

If you don't know if you can distribute it, you should assume you can't, because that's the default position in the law. You need to have some kind of license to override it.

Re: The RIAA forced me to shut down a successful website/apps I built in high school

#29

Post by voxic11 »

icebraining wrote: post #28
ds9 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'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., repor…

There's no such thing as "legit content". Licensing is not a characteristic of the content, it's a relationship between the content and the person distributing it. So give a crude example, the content on Netflix is "legit", in the sense that they have the right to distribute it, but that doesn't make it legal for you to record and retransmit the same content. If you don't know if you can distribute it, you should ass…

He doesn't distribute it though, only links to it. I am pretty sure I am allowed to link to netflix even though I don't have distribution rights for the content hosted there.
Post reply on HN