4 ms·

If he's not convicted in the Magaupload case, it will be ENTIRELY due to procedural errors on the part of the prosecution. That, and the fact that it isn't ent

by ktizo 14y ago

If he's not convicted in the Magaupload case, it will be ENTIRELY due to procedural errors on the part of the prosecution. That, and the fact that it isn't entirely clear how enabling copyright infringement is anything other than a civil matter.

DrStalker 14y ago
And that pesky thing about not having jurisdiction over all the computers in the world.
tptacek 14y ago
Pretty clear, actually: the law in the US, in the UK, and in New Zealand says there's criminal copyright infringement. The difference between civil infringement and criminal infringement tends to be "you tried to make a business out of it". Hope that helps.
- ktizo 14y ago
  Yep, that is true, but there is no crime of enabling copyright infringement for profit in either the US or New Zealand, as far as I am aware.
  - chii 14y ago
    Yep. In my mind, its the same argument as the gunsmith. They aren't responsible for the crime/infringements committed by their customers.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    This is an article of faith among advocacy groups but I'm not sure (I'm not a lawyer) that's actually true. People have been held criminally vicariously liable for other criminal actions despite the lack of clear statutory language to that effect. They've then argued to appeals courts, "but there's no statute that clearly says I can be held criminally liable vicariously", and lost. "Vicarious liability" is not some crazy idea invented by the copyright cartels; it's a basic principle of common law.
    - ktizo 14y ago
      I am just basing this view on the Sony vs Universal and Grokster vs MGM trials, which were both civil. Admittedly there is a legal argument that could be made for criminal vicarious liability, however from my understanding, that is usually only used for situations that could endanger the general public, where the lack of direct criminal action is deemed to be outweighed by the need to protect people, and that does not seem to apply in this instance. However, that said, I am also not a lawyer, so I could well be misunderstanding the issues completely.

by ktizo 14y ago

DrStalker 14y ago

And that pesky thing about not having jurisdiction over all the computers in the world.

tptacek 14y ago

Pretty clear, actually: the law in the US, in the UK, and in New Zealand says there's criminal copyright infringement. The difference between civil infringement and criminal infringement tends to be "you tried to make a business out of it". Hope that helps.

ktizo 14y ago
Yep, that is true, but there is no crime of enabling copyright infringement for profit in either the US or New Zealand, as far as I am aware.
- chii 14y ago
  Yep. In my mind, its the same argument as the gunsmith. They aren't responsible for the crime/infringements committed by their customers.
- tptacek 14y ago
  This is an article of faith among advocacy groups but I'm not sure (I'm not a lawyer) that's actually true. People have been held criminally vicariously liable for other criminal actions despite the lack of clear statutory language to that effect. They've then argued to appeals courts, "but there's no statute that clearly says I can be held criminally liable vicariously", and lost. "Vicarious liability" is not some crazy idea invented by the copyright cartels; it's a basic principle of common law.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    I am just basing this view on the Sony vs Universal and Grokster vs MGM trials, which were both civil. Admittedly there is a legal argument that could be made for criminal vicarious liability, however from my understanding, that is usually only used for situations that could endanger the general public, where the lack of direct criminal action is deemed to be outweighed by the need to protect people, and that does not seem to apply in this instance. However, that said, I am also not a lawyer, so I could well be misunderstanding the issues completely.