4 ms·

Internet user arrested for linking to other websites

27 points by tjr 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago
Federal officials charged 32-year-old Bryan McCarthy of Texas with one count of criminal infringement of a copyright. He allegedly posted illegal streams of the UFC, NFL, NBA, WWE and other sports programming. 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: § 506. Criminal offenses (a) Criminal Infringement. — (1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed — (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; 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.
- blhack 16y ago
  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.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    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.
  - sdkmvx 16y ago
    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.
- mikecane 16y ago
  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.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    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?
    - VladRussian 16y ago
      He wasn't selling the DVDs. He was publishing the directory of stores and DVDs they sell.
    - tassl 16y ago
      He was not selling nor streaming (copying) anything, he was directing you to the "store" where you could watch streaming video.
      - hugh3 16y ago
        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?
        tassl 16y ago
        a) You're still talking about physical copies, which is not the case. b) He is not selling anything.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    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.
- aaronsw 16y ago
  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. Not the "or".
  - benologist 16y ago
    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.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      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.
      - hugh3 16y ago
        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.
  - tptacek 16y ago
- VladRussian 16y ago
  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.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    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.
  - ile 16y ago
    These were my thoughts too. I don't see how that law (§ 506. Criminal offenses) defines an infringement?

27 points by tjr 16y ago

Federal officials charged 32-year-old Bryan McCarthy of Texas with one count of criminal infringement of a copyright. He allegedly posted illegal streams of the UFC, NFL, NBA, WWE and other sports programming. 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: § 506. Criminal offenses (a) Criminal Infringement. — (1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed — (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; 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.

blhack 16y ago
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.
- hugh3 16y ago
  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.
- sdkmvx 16y ago
  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.
mikecane 16y ago
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.
- hugh3 16y ago
  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?
  - VladRussian 16y ago
    He wasn't selling the DVDs. He was publishing the directory of stores and DVDs they sell.
  - tassl 16y ago
    He was not selling nor streaming (copying) anything, he was directing you to the "store" where you could watch streaming video.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      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?
      - tassl 16y ago
        a) You're still talking about physical copies, which is not the case. b) He is not selling anything.
- tptacek 16y ago
  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.
aaronsw 16y ago
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. Not the "or".
- benologist 16y ago
  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.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    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.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      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.
- tptacek 16y ago
VladRussian 16y ago
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.
- tptacek 16y ago
  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.
- ile 16y ago
  These were my thoughts too. I don't see how that law (§ 506. Criminal offenses) defines an infringement?