Internet user arrested for linking to other websites(fsf.org)
fsf.org
Internet user arrested for linking to other websites
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/mccarthy
1 comments
You leave out (B) and (C) of that paragraph:
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by
electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1
or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more
copyrighted works, which have a total retail value
of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for
commercial distribution, by making it available on
a computer network accessible to members of the
public, if such person knew or should have known
that the work was intended for commercial
distribution.
You're right. I misread it. And I note further that (B) and (C) were deliberately added to address people copying software electronically without profiting from it.
But we're quibbling over how I (mis)represented the law. The fact remains: this guy got busted for taking $90,000+ out of his infringement scheme. He hit (A), not (B) or (C). That, I think, is a pretty salient detail for the FSF to have provided. Don't you agree with that?
But we're quibbling over how I (mis)represented the law. The fact remains: this guy got busted for taking $90,000+ out of his infringement scheme. He hit (A), not (B) or (C). That, I think, is a pretty salient detail for the FSF to have provided. Don't you agree with that?
How does it matter? The retail value of the UFC/NFL live broadcasts would be several orders of magnitude more than $1,000 to the networks/stations licensing them, and even if you let that slide based on what the end viewer is paying instead of the licensees the guy still hits C face-first.
So he's matching either ABC, or AC, either of which put him in the running for a free vacation at club fed.
So he's matching either ABC, or AC, either of which put him in the running for a free vacation at club fed.
It matters to the extent that one might want to build a case against the law by suggesting it could ensnare innocuous (or even accidental) infringement; the argument being, "look how easy it is to run afoul of (B) or (C)".
And that's an argument I have a lot of sympathy for, even if it isn't germane to this guy's situation.
And that's an argument I have a lot of sympathy for, even if it isn't germane to this guy's situation.
Well I dunno. Part C seems to only apply to works being "being prepared for production", which most folks wouldn't even have access to. Part B would be the easiest for your casual pirate to run afoul of, but if you're pirating $1000 worth of stuff within a year then... yeah, you're moving out of "occasional vice" territory and into the "just watching lots of stuff without paying for it" territory.
What about facebook, reddit, twitter, etc? One of my favorite subreddits /r/listentothis is mostly links to youtube videos of copyrighted music. Reddit is definitely profiting from this, so is facebook (I used to share youtube links to music videos on my facebook page all the time.)
Obviously, the purpose of the website this guy was running was pretty specific, but according to what you posted, facebook would be liable as well.
Obviously, the purpose of the website this guy was running was pretty specific, but according to what you posted, facebook would be liable as well.
Obviously, the purpose of the website this guy was running was pretty specific, but according to what you posted, facebook would be liable as well.
If such a case ever actually got to court, it would no doubt come down to an issue of whether facebook was itself posting links to copyrighted content, or whether facebook was merely providing a forum in which others posted such things.
It's the old geeks-trying-to-understand-law problem. The geek says "Well if A is illegal then B must also be illegal. And if B is illegal then C must also be illegal." And so on until you've reducito-ad-absurdumed your way to the conclusion that Z must be illegal, but nobody would ever think Z is illegal, therefore A can't be illegal. Since nobody ever gets fined for travelling 0.01 mph above the speed limit, it must be okay to drive at 120mph down Main Street.
The courts don't work that way, however. They apply fuzzy tests and arbitrarily declare that A through D are illegal but E and onwards are okay.
If such a case ever actually got to court, it would no doubt come down to an issue of whether facebook was itself posting links to copyrighted content, or whether facebook was merely providing a forum in which others posted such things.
It's the old geeks-trying-to-understand-law problem. The geek says "Well if A is illegal then B must also be illegal. And if B is illegal then C must also be illegal." And so on until you've reducito-ad-absurdumed your way to the conclusion that Z must be illegal, but nobody would ever think Z is illegal, therefore A can't be illegal. Since nobody ever gets fined for travelling 0.01 mph above the speed limit, it must be okay to drive at 120mph down Main Street.
The courts don't work that way, however. They apply fuzzy tests and arbitrarily declare that A through D are illegal but E and onwards are okay.
Not a lawyer, but:
Facebook is not profiting off the YouTube links. They profit primarily off your desire to see what your friends post. A few of your friends posting YouTube videos is incidental.
The subreddit mentioned does seem more like direct profit. Even then I'm sure they could argue their way out of it (they profit off the community, not the 'stuff'), but it's harder.
This is why (hopefully competent) courts are necessary to interpret this stuff.
Facebook is not profiting off the YouTube links. They profit primarily off your desire to see what your friends post. A few of your friends posting YouTube videos is incidental.
The subreddit mentioned does seem more like direct profit. Even then I'm sure they could argue their way out of it (they profit off the community, not the 'stuff'), but it's harder.
This is why (hopefully competent) courts are necessary to interpret this stuff.
Was he the originator of the streams, though? If not, the $90K made is not relevant because he was not the originator of the copy. If I understand correctly, weren't these links? Even if they were embeds, ala YouTube, I don't see the infringement he did.
That argument didn't work so well for Napster, did it? If he had nothing whatsoever to do with posting the links --- and I think that's a fact in dispute, but, who cares? --- he's still a contributory infringer of the work if he set up a scheme where he benefited by willfully promoting infringing work.
Dispute indeed. Napster failed legally because had a central datastore that aided in transferring the music. They just weren't passing around links, they were passing around files, too.
Where does it say you need to be the originator of the copy in order to be guilty of copyright infringement?
For instance, if you make copies of DVDs and give them to me and I sell them in my store, then we're both breaking the law, right?
For instance, if you make copies of DVDs and give them to me and I sell them in my store, then we're both breaking the law, right?
He was not selling nor streaming (copying) anything, he was directing you to the "store" where you could watch streaming video.
Welcome to Rapidly Breaking Down Analogy City, population: you and me.
How about I'm making copies of DVDs and burying them in the desert at random locations, and telling you the locations, and you're selling the coordinates at which I've buried my DVDs?
How about I'm making copies of DVDs and burying them in the desert at random locations, and telling you the locations, and you're selling the coordinates at which I've buried my DVDs?
a) You're still talking about physical copies, which is not the case.
b) He is not selling anything.
He wasn't selling the DVDs. He was publishing the directory of stores and DVDs they sell.
Note previous sentence: "if the infringement was committed"
The last sentence (A) is applicable only when infringement is present. Mere presence of financial gain doesn't necessarily means infringement.
No, it just very likely to mean infringement. Contributory and vicarious copyright infringement liability is a topic that Wikipedia unsurprisingly covers very well; go check it out.
Settling out whether or not it's a crime to run a for-profit online directory of pirated sports feeds is what we have courts for. All we have now is an allegation.
Settling out whether or not it's a crime to run a for-profit online directory of pirated sports feeds is what we have courts for. All we have now is an allegation.
These were my thoughts too. I don't see how that law (§ 506. Criminal offenses) defines an infringement?
According to today's release, McCarthy made more than $90,000 in profits from online merchants who paid him to advertise on the site. Since it was seized on Feb. 1, the site has received 1.3 million hits.
He wasn't indicted simply for linking to other websites. You, upon passing around a link to a copyrighted Youtube video, are not a potential felon. Here's the issue:
Note last sentence.
It is still perfectly reasonable to disagree with the prosecution (I don't, but I respect your right to). But it's still incumbent on the FSF not to be deceptive.