Seeqpod gets sued for.. yeah for what actually ?

Martin Brinkmann
Jan 26, 2008
Updated • Dec 3, 2012
Music, Music and Video

Seeqpod is a mp3 search engine. You type in a song name, artist or any other information you got and Seeqpod displays results found on other Internet sites. Much like Google does but only for music and with the difference that a player is available on the result page that can play videos and music found that way.

Registered users can save the songs in playlists to play them again at a later time, there is no open way to download the music found directly.

Warner Bros. Records has decided to sue Seeqpod citing that it is an unlawful music service that directly engages in, encourages, and facilitates the mass infringement of Plaintiffs' and other intellectual property owners' copyrighted works.

Seeqpod on the other hand claims that they do not host files on their own server, merely linking to those files just like any other search engine which would mean that they would be protected under the DMCA's "safe harbor" provision.

If you perform a search on Seeqpod today you will only get search results from websites like Youtube and Wikipedia. It seems that they filter all other search results at the moment. The Podcrawler is still showing newly found mp3 files directly and those can be played, but the search is not finding them anymore.

What do you think, are they infringing copyright? If you think they do why? If you don't think they do, why?

Update: Seeqpod is no longer available as a service. The website is no longer available on the Internet. It is not clear if this is a consequence of the law suit or if something else has caused the closure of the site.



Tutorials & Tips

Previous Post: «
Next Post: «


  1. CG said on January 28, 2008 at 1:33 am

    Of course WMG’s claim is on shaky ground. Of their top complaints, maybe 1 could stick, but it tosses their claim deep into the grey area.

    You know, it’s worth reading the complaint to see exactly how WMG’s counsel is putting the case together.

    Email me if you can’t get to it and I’ll point you to my copy of the pdf.


  2. D3 said on January 27, 2008 at 2:15 am

    I can understand that if a show is linked somewhere the company which produced it is losing revenue cuz most likely the commercials have been ripped and there aren’t any links to the companies which sponsored them on the site. But on the flipside I can say confidently that i don’t really watch commercials, those are usually the times i get up and take a dump or refill my drink/food or snacks. Furthermore, I can confidently say that commercials are a huge waste of time, there isn’t one commercial which has influenced me to buy their product, when i need shit i just go to the store and compare prices and ingredients and then and only then do i spend my money. The companies that readily sue are the companies which are stuck in the “old” way of doing things and can’t adjust to the internet. As for clicking advertising links on the internet, I don’t ( sorry Martin) heh I try to keep my internet activity and money matters to a bare minimum.

  3. anonymous said on January 27, 2008 at 1:21 am

    As far as I am concerned it all comes back to the deep linking argument that all websites are eventually connected. i.e. if I publish their seeqpod address on my website can I be sued for the same thing as I would by definition fall under all the same things.

    In my opinion its stupid. The guys have done nothing illegal. The big companies are simply looking for an easy way out and haven’t caught onto to the fact that the number of these sites that pop up then get shut down is equal to and will eventually be more than the number of sites actually hosting the material. Its just stupid companies making stupid short term decisions.

  4. D3 said on January 27, 2008 at 1:04 am

    depending where seeqpod is hosted they might be successfully sued due to the precedent of all the guy did was link to tv shows etc and he got a jail sentence

  5. Joe Whitehead said on January 26, 2008 at 11:39 pm

    Of course what they’re doing is actually supplying you with the files since you HAVE to go to them. If they provided URLs and worked as a proxy like Google or Webarchive, then they’de more likely win this case. All they’de have to do, is honor take down notices on files that have been verified to be illegal.

    BTW How the hell can it be infringement to even mention the file’s names, yet alone the full URL?

Leave a Reply

Check the box to consent to your data being stored in line with the guidelines set out in our privacy policy

We love comments and welcome thoughtful and civilized discussion. Rudeness and personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please stay on-topic.
Please note that your comment may not appear immediately after you post it.