20 ms·

VEVO Execs Must Face Criminal Charges For Copyright Infringement Criminal charges are a serious business and I don't think it promotes healthy debate to sling

by grellas 15y ago

VEVO Execs Must Face Criminal Charges For Copyright Infringement Criminal charges are a serious business and I don't think it promotes healthy debate to sling around loose statements suggesting that they be pursued recklessly by the authorities, no matter how unattractive the party involved in the wrongdoing. No self-respecting prosecutor would even consider bringing charges where only a one-time incident is involved and where the alleged perpetrator claims (as here) that the incident was inadvertent (however lacking in credibility this may be, it is a classic "plausible deniability" excuse). Do we really want our government devoting substantial resources toward trying to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in such a case? And does anyone seriously want this to be the standard by which criminal prosecutions for alleged copyright infringement are brought? Since I would assume the answer to these questions is no, then the only point of this piece is to use an absurdly overstated headline to draw attention to itself. I am against hypocrisy as much as the next guy, and I have no particular sympathy for the musical labels (or even for the sort of glitzy events at which this incident occurred), but it does not advance the cause of attaining sane copyright legislation to make "off with his head" demands that have no basis in reality. Music industry hypocrisy is fair game for advocating against draconian copyright enforcement and in itself makes for a potent argument. The effect is much diluted, however, when the argument cannot be taken seriously. If instead this is not intended to be taken seriously but is rather a form of street theater intended to dramatize a point, then it is (in my view) just lame and ineffective. This is a case of infringement by which the copyright holder can choose to take civil action or not as suits its purposes. If a cost-benefit legal analysis suggests that little damage in fact occurred and that the incident is non-recurring or plausibly explainable, then there is likely nothing worth pursuing. What the incident boils down to, then, is a horrible embarrassment for the music industry execs involved and, at the level, it does carry a sting. The rest is fluff.

sunchild 15y ago
Intentional infringement = criminal penalties. Sorry, but that's the rule of law, i.e., the very bed they made for themselves. Everyone knows the Superbowl is proprietary. The NFL says so during the broadcast.
- j_baker 15y ago
  That seems like an awfully arbitrary statement to make, especially when copyright infringement is largely a civil issue. Not to mention that grellas is an attorney, so I assume he knows what he's talking about. As I understand it, criminal charges are only warranted when the copyrighted material is sold commercially. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
  - barrkel 15y ago
    From what I recall, sunchild is an attorney too. Your reference doesn't back up what you say; it's not restricted to material sold commercially. Merely for "purposes of commercial advantage" is sufficient. Quoting from here: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01851.htm http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit... "Emphasis should be placed on the word "purpose," because it is not necessary to prove that any profit was realized. See United States v. Taxe, 380 F. Supp. 1010, 1018 (C.D.Cal. 1974), aff'd, 540 F.2d 961 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1040 (1977). The drafting committee's purpose in retaining this requirement has been to exclude from criminal liability those individuals who willfully infringe copyrights solely for their own personal use. H.R. Rep. No. 997, 102 Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (1992). Evidence of discrete monetary transactions (i.e., the selling of infringing goods for a particular price) provides the clearest evidence of financial gain, but such direct evidence should not be a prerequisite to prosecution. Such a stringent requirement would ignore the plain wording of the statute, which requires only the showing of commercial or financial purpose."
    - sunchild 15y ago
      For the record, I think criminal penalties for copyright infringement is bad policy. Whatever public interest there was in copyright protection has long since been overwhelmed by private interests that belong in civil courts.
  - njharman 15y ago
    It's not a civil issue at all (in the USA). It should be. But the IP industry has convinced government to do their policing and enforcement. One infringement is up to 5yrs and/or $250,000. It's, of course, up to judge to determine sentence. But, they should be prosecuted and forced to pay for defense just like all other IP industry victims.
bo1024 15y ago
> No self-respecting prosecutor would even consider bringing charges where only a one-time incident is involved and where the alleged perpetrator claims (as here) that the incident was inadvertent Do we live in the same United States?
neilparikh 15y ago
> where the alleged perpetrator claims (as here) that the incident was inadvertent This incident is similar to cases where people are accused of Copyright Infringement by the labels, because their Wifi was unsecured. So, if I leave my Wifi open, and someone pirates <insert popular song here>, that's illegal, but if VEVO leaves their computer open, (which in my opinion is worse than leaving your Wifi open, but this is just opinion) and someone streams the Superbowl (popular sports event), that's fine?
newman314 15y ago
I fail to see why Vevo should get a pass. If the RIAA/MPAA feel it to be valid to pursue people with unproven downloads or a single download, the same should apply to Vevo.
- res0nat0r 15y ago
  Because two wrongs don't make a right?
  - newman314 15y ago
    It's not about "two wrongs don't make a right". It's about equal treatment. If the precedent is set that the law is applied equally, there would be less incentive to pass stupid laws. That is one of the problems today where there is so much special interest at play that there is effectively now a system where "this applies to you but not me" is prevalent.

by grellas 15y ago

sunchild 15y ago

Intentional infringement = criminal penalties. Sorry, but that's the rule of law, i.e., the very bed they made for themselves. Everyone knows the Superbowl is proprietary. The NFL says so during the broadcast.

j_baker 15y ago
That seems like an awfully arbitrary statement to make, especially when copyright infringement is largely a civil issue. Not to mention that grellas is an attorney, so I assume he knows what he's talking about. As I understand it, criminal charges are only warranted when the copyrighted material is sold commercially. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
- barrkel 15y ago
  From what I recall, sunchild is an attorney too. Your reference doesn't back up what you say; it's not restricted to material sold commercially. Merely for "purposes of commercial advantage" is sufficient. Quoting from here: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01851.htm http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit... "Emphasis should be placed on the word "purpose," because it is not necessary to prove that any profit was realized. See United States v. Taxe, 380 F. Supp. 1010, 1018 (C.D.Cal. 1974), aff'd, 540 F.2d 961 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1040 (1977). The drafting committee's purpose in retaining this requirement has been to exclude from criminal liability those individuals who willfully infringe copyrights solely for their own personal use. H.R. Rep. No. 997, 102 Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (1992). Evidence of discrete monetary transactions (i.e., the selling of infringing goods for a particular price) provides the clearest evidence of financial gain, but such direct evidence should not be a prerequisite to prosecution. Such a stringent requirement would ignore the plain wording of the statute, which requires only the showing of commercial or financial purpose."
  - sunchild 15y ago
    For the record, I think criminal penalties for copyright infringement is bad policy. Whatever public interest there was in copyright protection has long since been overwhelmed by private interests that belong in civil courts.
- njharman 15y ago
  It's not a civil issue at all (in the USA). It should be. But the IP industry has convinced government to do their policing and enforcement. One infringement is up to 5yrs and/or $250,000. It's, of course, up to judge to determine sentence. But, they should be prosecuted and forced to pay for defense just like all other IP industry victims.

bo1024 15y ago

> No self-respecting prosecutor would even consider bringing charges where only a one-time incident is involved and where the alleged perpetrator claims (as here) that the incident was inadvertent Do we live in the same United States?

neilparikh 15y ago

> where the alleged perpetrator claims (as here) that the incident was inadvertent This incident is similar to cases where people are accused of Copyright Infringement by the labels, because their Wifi was unsecured. So, if I leave my Wifi open, and someone pirates <insert popular song here>, that's illegal, but if VEVO leaves their computer open, (which in my opinion is worse than leaving your Wifi open, but this is just opinion) and someone streams the Superbowl (popular sports event), that's fine?

newman314 15y ago

I fail to see why Vevo should get a pass. If the RIAA/MPAA feel it to be valid to pursue people with unproven downloads or a single download, the same should apply to Vevo.

res0nat0r 15y ago
Because two wrongs don't make a right?
- newman314 15y ago
  It's not about "two wrongs don't make a right". It's about equal treatment. If the precedent is set that the law is applied equally, there would be less incentive to pass stupid laws. That is one of the problems today where there is so much special interest at play that there is effectively now a system where "this applies to you but not me" is prevalent.