[ds9]

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., reportedly Germany).

RIAA's best argument would be "contributory infringement", but findings of CI have succeeded only when the actors had some reason to think the files in question were published without authorization. Further, the RIAA offers no evidence for its claim that many of the files were unauthorized, and its implication that you have some way of knowing their licensing status is pure fantasy or lies.

So, I disagree with the "give up, it's illegal" assessment.

The real problem here is that success in civil litigation is directly related to wealth, such that we have a two-tier court system which is a travesty of justice for the have-nots and an unregulated weapon for the "haves". So yes, you have to capitulate, but not for the reason the above poster suggests.

[icebraining]

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.

[voxic11]

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.

[icebraining]

Beemp3 provides just links. HyperMusic (from the screenshots) actually played them on the app itself. Maybe it downloaded them locally, but that's an irrelevant technical detail.

[alextingle]

> If you don't know if you can distribute it, you should assume you can't

That's 100% wrong. The default state of a work of art is to be in the public domain. Copyright law creates only a limited exception to that general rule.

[falcolas]

That's actually incorrect in the US. The default state of a work of art is that it is copyrighted with ownership granted to the creator, with all rights reserved.

These rights have to be waived for it to become public domain.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102

[pyre]

It's actually difficult to explicitly put your work in the public domain. There are no well-worn routes to doing so.

[russellsprouts]

The Creative Commons level zero license is probably the best option. In some jurisdictions it is impossible to give up something into the public domain, so the CC0 explicitly gives up as many rights as possible. If it is possible to put something into the public domain, then it does.

[dlgeek]

That's incorrect in any country (167 of them, including most of the west) that signed the Berne Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_convention), which makes all works copyright-by-default.

[alextingle]

For a limited time.

[Nursie]

Morally speaking you might be right, and on geological timescales, sure. But every work is under copyright the moment it is created until copyright expires unless the creator specifically gives it to the PD.

In the modern world, unfortunately, if there's no accompanying license with the material it's pretty likely that you don't have the legal right to distribute it.

[alextingle]

I am aware of that. However, it doesn't invalidate my point.

[rhino369]

Not really. Works are automatically copyrighted upon creation. It's not some limited exception. You cannot assume a work is public domain until proven otherwise. Otherwise you'll be getting a nastygram from the RIAA.

[alextingle]

Works are automatically copyrighted upon creation for a limited time.

[logfromblammo]

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.

[rayiner]

> 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.

Let's be real here. You're not operating in good faith when you link to a bunch of major-label content free on the internet. It's implausible that you actually believe that content to be legitimate. Rather, you're looking to profit from a loophole.

[at-fates-hands]

I agree.

He's young enough and clearly sharp enough to get some promotion out of his ordeal (front page HN isn't too bad) and will move on to certainly bigger and better things. No reason to start out your dev career in the hole a few hundred grand to lawyers and the RIAA and get nothing out of it.

Like Kenny used to say, "You gotta know when to hold them and know when to fold them."

[poopsintub]

He should have made decent revenue with banner ads or interstitials at this point with that large user base. Getting a lawyer to at least look into it would have been an option.

[auctiontheory]

The only way to win is not to play.

How about a nice game of chess?

[blauwbilgorgel]

From the letter:

The clear purpose and/or design of this application is to encourage, _facilitate_, and/or cause its users to stream and/or download popular sound recordings, the vast majority of which are owned or controlled by RIAA Member companies and are not authorized for distribution in this manner, while at the same time providing you/your company with _certain financial or related benefits_.

This is how a lot of Dutch sharing websites were closed: Facilitating copyright infringement with monetary gain. They got TV links (a site very similar to OP's site, only crawling for and posting links and embeds) for trademark infringement. Later on some Dutch ISP's were forced to block The Pirate Bay, because by allowing access to the site they facilitated copyright infringement(or so the court ruled). A Dutch blog was charged with republishing copyrighted material by placing a link. This later was overturned and became a fine for "facilitating".

Placing some links as facilitating copyright infringement sets a dangerous precedent for net neutrality.

[seanalltogether]

"There is no infringement in providing access in a good-faith belief that the content is legit."

I don't believe that is true. Content distribution is a complicated affair. Redistribution of content is not as easy as saying "well if site xyz has the right to distribute it, so do I"

[maxerickson]

The argument also hinges on the idea that the operator has "good-faith belief that the content is legit".

Stating that you have this good faith belief is not actually the same thing as having it.

[coldtea]

Not to mention that even having it doesn't mean anything at all.

Or, well, it make not make it "willingly infringement", but it still makes it infringement.