8 ms·
Private justice: How Hollywood money put a Brit behind bars
- lumberjack 14y agoSomebody once pointed out that such link aggregation sites that operate outside the US seem to be getting in more legal trouble than similiar sites operating under a US domain and possibly on US soil. Is this true and if so, why?
- metatronscube 14y agoThe UK 'Government' is just a lapdog for US interests and they are scared of pissing them off. So they can get away with it. The English courts in particular are weak compared to others in the UK as well. I think they need a change of Government.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y agoThat's not true. Certain politicians have been "lapdogs", though. You think we voted for the Iraq war?
- hahainternet 14y agoTony Blair was re-elected, so I'm not even sure that this argument has merit.
- rprasad 14y agoU.S. copyright laws and enforcement are not as bad as nerdom make it out to be. Indeed, the U.S. is frequently the opposition to extending copyright durations and other copyright regimes (ACTA, etc., notwithstanding). In the U.S., copyright infringement is only a crime if done for money (because there is an element of fraud, i.e., selling goods that you do not own). Outside of the U.S., copyright infringement can be a crime even if no money is involved. Furthermore, a lot of the "rights" in the criminal justice system are actually features of only the U.S. system (i.e,. right to a lawyer, right to a fair trial, right to a jury) and are not actually shared by most other legal systems.
- Ralith 14y ago> the U.S. is frequently the opposition to extending copyright durations Except when Mickey Mouse comes up for expiration.
- admg 14y agoI can't believe what I've just read. A civil case yeah why not but criminal charges and imprisonment from a private entity after the CPS have basically said its not worth it? Scary.
- wheaties 14y agoAh but in an ironic twist, I'm sure some film maker will create a movie about this. Oh wait, I think they have...
- _delirium 14y agoEnglish law has only partly transitioned to public prosecutions. Private prosecutions are still legally the norm, but CPS prosecuting a case is de-facto the norm, as they have the right to take over a private prosecution. In most cases, CPS either takes over a case and prosecutes it, or takes over a case and drops the charges (if evidence is wholly insufficient, or continuing prosecution is against public policy). But this leaves the awkward vestigial category: cases that CPS chooses neither to intervene to prosecute nor to intervene to drop, which can go forward at a private party's own expense. (Note: Only true of English/Welsh law; Scots law makes it much harder to bring a private prosecution.)
- admg 14y agoThanks for the info, a quick google showing the rarity of private prosecutions in Scotland is definitely encouraging!
- S_A_P 14y agoThat is bizarre. The government is, in theory at least, non biased towards any particular private interests. The fact that a private entity can launch its own investigation using its own methodology and then use said evidence to take away someones freedom is downright terrifying.
- sdfjkl 14y agoIt's increasingly becoming clear that the practice is very different. There's several cases, most notably Assange and the current Megaupload trial that indicate that private entities are putting pressure on governments, who in turn put pressure on their peers in other countries. And it can't all be written off as conspiracy theories anymore.
- molo 14y agoI'm sorry, what is the private entity involved in Assange's case?
- abend 14y agoI think SAP is referring to an external entity having an influence on a government's judicial process, not necessarily strictly private. Whether it's the US Government or a special interest group. Assange's case included.
- molo 14y agoI don't think that is the intended statement at all. Please reread this sentence: > There's several cases, most notably Assange and [...] that indicate that private entities are putting pressure on governments, who in turn put pressure on their peers in other countries.
- gcb 14y ago"government unbiased" "half the people vote on their interested and elect officials for those interests" Pick one.
- 14y ago
- jrockway 14y agoEspecially ridiculous is that the judge complains that he has no remorse for "making available" content that "infringes copyright". But of course, he didn't make any such content available. (Do .torrent files "infringe copyright"?)
- Retric 14y agoFor something like a movie they mostly consist of a hash list which is clearly a derivative work based on the original so probably. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrent_file http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrent_file EX: A 4GB file using 4MB pieces would have 1000pieces x 20 byte hashes or 20k of 100% derivative work. And ~2k for all other meta data.
- soult 14y agoBy your logic a plot summary would be a derivative work. You can't recreate a movie from a plot summary, same way you can't recreate a movie from a torrent file.
- Retric 14y agoA summary is not created though a purely mechanical process, but a torrent is. PS: If you created a random file that happened to contain a movie's hash your free and clear. If you keep generating random files and comparing them to a movie until you get the one you want your not free and clear. Same bit's, different process different result.
- njharman 14y agoBeing able to recreate the original work is not a requirement of "derivative work" under U.S. Copyright law.
- uxp 14y agoA Torrent file's hash is representative of the movie or music's binary data, much like a synopsis or summary is representative of the plot line. You can't recreate a movie 100% from a summary, and it's even more difficult to recreate a movie from a hash. The only infringement would come from downloading the movie itself (as a separate action) and comparing it to the hash or summary to ensure you have the correct movie.
- drucken 14y agoThe UK has a spectacularly weak judicial system for an industrialized country. From the lack of judicial review of primary legislation ([1]) through a huge abundance of archaic haphazard laws, to lack of representative judges, to the ease with each political, police, partisan and private organisations can influence the judiciary, the UK system is ripe for abuse and disruption by any industry. It is also fertile ground at this time due to the dual US/UK government focus around issues of "Intellectual Property". From a general perspective, the only saving grace, which is a relatively minor one in practice (by volume not significance), is that EU laws normally have precedence and judges are therefore unable to act completely unilaterally without risking being overturned. Just think: what other industrial country permits unilateral criminal prosecution from private entities with explicit support from one of its judges? [1] Yes, I am aware that without an arms-length written constitution, this would potentially make things even worse.
- objclxt 14y agoI'm not sure what perspective you're writing from, but I think many people in the legal profession would disagree with you. Firstly, the UK has several distint judicial systems. I suspect in this case you're referring to the English legal system (Scotland having its own, entirely separate, process). There's then the civil and criminal courts. The former are held in high regard around the world - the English courts are often the venue of choice for impartially resolving international disputes and litigation. You can argue it is a discrepancy that private prosecutions are still allowed - at some point in the past they did actually serve a purpose - however, under the English system it is up to the government, rather than the judiciary, to correct that. I am not pretending it is a perfect system: far from it. I think in this case the judge behaved inappropriately, and the logic being used to force a copyright claim (which is a tort, i.e, purely a civil matter) into a criminal one (conspiracy to defraud) is potentially very spurious. However, this is also why an appeals system exists. What I'm basically trying to say in a round-about way is that I don't think the English courts are 'spectacularly weak' - they have their problems, but what judicial system doesn't?
- tptacek 14y agoThe UK has a criminal copyright infringement statute; like the US, infringement becomes criminal when you do it for money. It is news to me --- and, wow --- that private entities can prosecute crimes in the UK. Am I reading that right?
- sadris 14y agoI'm glad there is private-sector criminal prosecution in UK, wish it was here in the US as well. Then maybe cops would think twice before murdering citizens; they currently get off free every time because the DAs never prosecute one of their own.
- epo 14y agoA thought experiment: What if he was facilitating access to child pornography rather than Hollywood films would people be as outraged? More so? Less so? If the suggestion of an income of up to £50,000 per month is even in the correct ballpark then this character was in the business of profiting hugely from copyright infringment and the jail time is appropriate. The outrage about this is just windbaggery from thieves bemoaning the fact that they can't steal with impunity. And yes, depriving people of income is theft. Don't want to pay for a movie? Then watch something else.
- derekp7 14y ago"depriving people of income is theft" So if someone comes out with a competing product to mine, and splits the market in half, I lose (was deprived of) half my income. Was that theft? I think a more appropriate phrasing is "a government granted exclusive monopoly is a property right -- anyone violating that exclusivity is devaluing that property" which itself may be just as bad as theft (or more likely vandalism -- if someone takes my car, or destroys it on site, the damage is the same).
- vacri 14y agoToo much of this debate is around how to define 'theft'. Really the issue is that folks are accessing a service providing entertainment (movie, tv show, game, music) without paying the requested fee by those who provided it. Whether or not it fits into the various definitions of theft people throw around is largely immaterial.
- pdx 14y agoOff Topic At the site's peak in mid-2009, STC attracted hundreds of thousands of users per day, earning Vickerman up to £50,000 ($78,500) per month in advertising revenue. Let's say he did 999,000 users/day (to stay in the hundreds of thousands). That's still only $30K per month, if we assume a CPM of $1.00, which seems reasonable for a site like this.
- adrr 14y agoCPM is by viewed ad and not unique visitor. Probably each user has 4 or 5 page views, then each page view counts for 3 or 4 ad views.