Seeqpod is a web site that pulls together music from a lot of different music sources and streams that music to users. Which of course means they’re being sued. First by Warner Music and now by EMI. But the EMI suit, which is making news today, has an interesting wrinkle to it (the bolding below is mine)…
It’s no secret that the record industry hates Seeqpod
, a music site that lets users stream songs for free. Last year the company was sued by Warner Music Group (the outcome of the suit is still pending). Now, the company has just been slapped with a complaint from EMI. But the new complaint goes one step further, personally naming some of the Seeqpod executives, and in a move that may well raise the ire of countless developers, a developer named Ryan Sit who happened to tap into the Seeqpod API.
On Seeqpod I don’t have much to say. They seem like a small fish in the big pond of piracy so I don’t know why the labels are going to so much trouble but it is their right. The real issue though is Favtape (the API user). Again from TechCrunch…
If EMI does win, it would set a precedent that the usage of an API puts the developer at risk of a lawsuit should the service they’re tapping into ever get sued. Such a decision would have huge ramifications for developers, who could become weary of using any service that could conceivably be considered illegal. It would stifle innovation. And frankly, it’s ridiculous.
This is one of the most important points I’ve seen in a long time (and one I really hadn’t thought of until now). As someone using another website’s API you become responsible for the legality of that information.
That’s black letter law. If whatever is being distributed is illegal and you are part of that distribution chain than you are legally as liable as any other part of the distribution chain.
So if the label’s legal argument against Seeqpod is valid than the API user (Ryan Sit of Favtape) is also liable. Which in turn means that same legal argument would apply to any API using developer.
The reason this is important to point out is because, to me, it’s an easy fix. Companies that offer APIs simply need to indemnify their users against legal threats. There needs to be a clause in each company’s user agreement that says they believe their data to be legal.
At that point the API users can claim to have a good faith belief that the data is legal. A claim that can’t realistically be disproven. Because even if a site was offering illegal material the API user would have no way to know it hadn’t been legally licensed.
This deserves more attention and I hope more developers take note of it and start demanding protection from the companies providing this data.