US Gov't Continues Indicting People For File Sharing; 5 Indicted For NinjaVideo
from the best-use-of-resources? dept
As lots of people have been submitting, the Justice Department, in coordination with Homeland Security's ICE group, have indicted five people associated with the site NinjaVideo.net, claiming that together they represented a "conspiracy" to commit criminal copyright infringement. I will say this: compared to the laughable Rojadirecta case, in which the government fails to even show any actual criminal copyright infringement, the indictment here seems a lot stronger -- and unless they got something in the indictment totally wrong, I would predict that these five people are going to lose and lose badly in court.Unlike the Rojadirecta case, the indictment suggests that NinjaVideo hosted content itself. It also suggests that these admins were very much directly involved in seeking out and distributing infringing content, and profiting from it. The fact that the feds are charging admins and uploaders together as "a conspiracy," is an interesting move, and one that is probably intended to get around the huge problem in the Rojadirecta case: which is that they show users sharing content, but not making money from it, and they show the site admins making money, but not uploading content. You have to show both by a single party for criminal copyright infringement to have happened. So, in this case, they're trying to link the five people together as a conspiracy. From the indictment, which is obviously one-sided, they make it appear that the two major uploaders were closely aligned with the admins. Whether or not that's actually true may be a big part of determining whether or not this case works. Also, it's not clear from the indictment how the hosting setup worked, and if NinjaVideo itself really hosted the material, but that also will be a key point in the case. Assuming that what's in the indictment is accurate, and not taken out of context, however, I just don't see NinjaVideo standing much of a chance in court.
One really interesting factoid in the indictment for all the Google-haters, who insist that Google is the major supporter of these kinds of sites: Google pretty quickly killed the AdSense account that the NinjaVideo folks had opened, telling them that it was because the site appeared to be distributing infringing works. Google-haters keep insisting that Google never shuts down such accounts, but this appears to be a case where they spotted the site pretty quickly and shut down the account.
TorrentFreak also points to a video made by Hana Amal Beshara, an admin for NinjaVideo who went by the name Phara. The video suggests that she and the others had some serious problems communicating with their lawyers, but that's really not going to matter much.
I still think it's a bit silly for the Justice Department and Homeland Security to be doing this -- as it really should be a civil issue. It seems like Neil MacBride -- the former "anti-piracy" VP for the BSA, and now a US Attorney who was heavily involved in the indictment -- is paying back some favors to the copyright industry he came from. But, this way Hollywood gets taxpayers to pay for these kinds of lawsuits, instead of having to cut back on their own excesses. I also still question the legality of the original seizure of the domain name prior to any adversarial hearing. But, on the whole, these actual charges appear to have a lot more meat to them than what we've seen before in some of the other cases. It won't stop people from infringing, of course. And it won't stop similar communities -- though they'll probably drive those groups a bit further underground, making it more difficult for MacBride and his friends to track them down. But I guess as long as they feel they're "making a difference...."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: criminal copyright infringement, dhs, doj, ice, indictment, ninjavideo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
you FREETARDS are not only his loyal SERVANTS and BRAINWASHED sheeple, you are his spawn, the sorriest, laziest freeloadin' SCUM there is, bunch of kitten killing BASTARDS trying to STEAL my children's pudding! can you not think of the CHILDREN!?!?
... and ... uh... damn i can't think like a copyright troll, all i can do is spot loads of outrageous hyperbole & ridiculous claims even a 5 year old would roll their eyes at & capitalize IMPORTANT words for EMPHASIS
...close enough to the real thing, i suppose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Feeling safer everyday
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They created kajillions in losses and were responsible for the entire downfall of the global economy.
It is good indepth investigation into these sleazy activities that help keep us protected.
*looks off camera... what do you mean this isn't a story about the banks screwing us with the mortgage market?!*
Some kids shared some movies, and face more issues than the people who destroyed the world economy... *blink*
How the *BLEEP* does this make the homeland more secure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I enjoy you calling them criminals before there is an actual trial, innocent until proven guilty.
While both allegedly broke the law, the zealous prosecution of those with less money than others seems to show an amazing bias in the law that is not supposed to be there.
Everyone is a criminal, there are thousands of silly laws. The punishment and prosecution of those things are supposed to be based on how badly society was damaged by them.
Waiting to see a single bank on trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not that I disagree with you but fixed that for you to point out your hypocrisy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is plenty of evidence out there of wrong doing on the part of the bankers and traders, but there seems to be little motion towards having trials and determining guilt or innocence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now there are a lot of people who were more instrumental in popping the bubble that are laughing at you while fucking a hooker on a pile of money knowing that they will never get brought to trial but a lot of shady bank administrators are getting dragged over the coals by the FDIC, and the FDIC will make back a fraction of the money it spent keeping these fucked up banks afloat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
*sigh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ugh. i was gonna just spout off a "no u" and be on my way but the irony was so intense my irony-detector had a supernova
so... yeah... just gonna walk away now.. real slowly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're diagnosing her with sociopathy because she pirates movies and doesn't see anything wrong with it?
"In other news, half of the world's population was diagnosed as having sociopathic tendencies this Monday. Experts say that an anonymous commenter made the striking discovery, which had evaded psychiatrists for over a decade."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninjas > Pirates
I don't know if the world is ready for Pirate Ninjas...
Let me be the first to say...
but...but...but...Ninjas...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ninjas > Pirates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My take
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So how much..
Of course with DOJ hiring attorneys from the copyright industry, it's not surprising that DOJ suddenly is on the side of copyright people.
You would think that DOJ and HS have better things to do than kiss the a** of copyright executives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So how much..
The copyright industry is running the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"they'll probably drive those groups a bit further underground"
File-sharing is not freedom. Wrong battle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "they'll probably drive those groups a bit further underground"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "they'll probably drive those groups a bit further underground"
Nice equation there, can't unscramble it because senseless, so just: WRONG.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "they'll probably drive those groups a bit further underground"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "they'll probably drive those groups a bit further underground"
God.... the irony. Hey Professor try this instead: "Nope, YOU'RE still just AN idiot". Meanwhile you owe me a new keyboard and this one is awash with the iced tea I sprayed through my nose. +1 funny!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "they'll probably drive those groups a bit further underground"
+1 usage of term freetard
+1 establishing a strawman
+1 generalizing a whole group of people as criminals without evidence
+1 generalizing the motives of a whole group of people without evidence
Congratulations! You've won 4 internets!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "they'll probably drive those groups a bit further underground"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "they'll probably drive those groups a bit further underground"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "they'll probably drive those groups a bit further underground"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "they'll probably drive those groups a bit further underground"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "they'll probably drive those groups a bit further underground"
We all know some people will get a stay in the big house, but since the economy is so bad that may not be a bad thing at, as an inmate you get 2 squares a day, clean clothes, TV, access to education programs, a roof over you head, and complete healthcare plan.
I think I know where I can find a lot of recruits for the cause, the government will love to put all of those homeless in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "they'll probably drive those groups a bit further underground"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"[Google] spotted the site pretty quickly and shut down the account."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "[Google] spotted the site pretty quickly and shut down the account."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "[Google] spotted the site pretty quickly and shut down the account."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "[Google] spotted the site pretty quickly and shut down the account."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'admins and uploaders together as "a conspiracy,"'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'admins and uploaders together as "a conspiracy,"'
Event hough I don't like Rapidshare that much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'admins and uploaders together as "a conspiracy,"'
Oh wait...I think I have it now. I remember that some cyberlockers, I think Rapidshare is one of them, give premium accounts to those whose files are downloaded a certain number of times. Downloading is different than uploading.
However, they do police their links rigorously, and at least 8 times out of 10, if I click a Rapidshare link, its been deleted for copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'admins and uploaders together as "a conspiracy,"'
Which you've made abundantly clear is that you simply don't. No surprise there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can hardly wait to hear from those who hang their hat on the First Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I really don't know if there is a 1st Amendment issue with this case or not, but I would like to point out one simple fact:
Whether or not there is another avenue available for restrained speech (ie: different domain name) has no bearing on whether restraining the speech on the initial avenue violates the 1st Amendment.
I am starting to get annoyed with people stating: "Such and such site popped back up with a new domain name, so there is no prior restraint", because that is simply wrong as far as I know (IANAL).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I believe you're misunderstanding the First Amendment argument. No one has argued they have a right to be involved in copyright infringement. The concern is in the seizure of the *non-infringing* speech. But you know that. Because we've told you in the past. And you ignore it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The "new" site has none of this. Nevertheless, I wonder how many will actually visit the site before weighing in with a First Amendment argument. Having reviewed many third party comments here concerning earlier seizures, in my opinion very few have taken the time to actually look at the sites to see what the fuss is all about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Amazing... Brilliant. Just one problem...
How can *anyone* look at the site when it's been seized?
You can't judge the old site based on the new one that had to be started from scratch. I find it quite stunning that you take this tact, knowing full well that no one can review the site, especially given that it's just been forfeited.
With no adversarial hearing...
Just the government's word while they utilized stall tactics.
Truly disgusting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't look at NV's new site and say "oh, it's just the same as the old one". They set up that domain outside of the US without the same features.
So how can our AC say "look at the site for 1st Amendment issues" when we can't even do that? It boggles my mind how they came up with their logic train.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To anybody who thinks that still thinks that downloading movies and TV shows is ok..... it's stealing, go out to movie theater once in a while, pay for a ticket and have a great time watching it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hard to take the pro IP guys seriously when they are calling someone a pirate for something they already purchased.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
TV is starting to happen, books you have thousands of years worth of them.
Not counting the obvious other channels already mentioned like radio and TV that are legal to record and impossible to track.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have paid to see maybe 3 movies in a theater in the last 3 years... they still sux, so i will keep voting with my wallet. And the Movie Apologist and Movie Industry will keep calling me a pirate and thief (because they didn't make the money they thought they should). I made the choice not to watch the crap sammiches they keep calling good movies and going to overpriced room with sticky floors and uncomfortable seats and you call it a good experience.
I have broken no law, yet you call me a criminal.
I have spoken nothing but truth, yet you call me a liar.
I have downloaded nothing, but I am a thief.
Here is a hint, if you want my MONEY for your WORK, don't treat me like shit, or use extortion (Government Guns)....
Actually try work in why your customers say you fail (they are voting with their wallets and their downloads)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No shit Sherlock? Nobody is arguing that point.
"To anybody who thinks that still thinks that downloading movies and TV shows is ok..... it's stealing"
And that's where you are so astronomically wrong. It is not stealing. I know, it makes for a strong sounding argument, but it doesn't fit the colloquial nor the legal definition. This is something I've explained over and over again.
Stealing is an act that the law defines as taking of property which removes it from the possession of the rightful owner. In other words, it causes loss of property. Copyright infringement does not remove what one person has and transfers possession to another, nor does it cause a loss. It actually leaves more where there was less. You can't label something stealing if it doesn't take anything away from the owner and actually creates more of it. And no, "potential" profits don't count. You can't claim a loss of something you never had.
Call it what it is, a violation of a government granted privilege to restrict copying, or copyright infringement for short. Only someone with the mind of a child would equate the copying of information to "stealing", but idiots like you enjoy trying to boil down definitions to their most broad and over-simplified levels so as to capture the act under the term of "stealing".
What you paytards fail to realize every time, is that all art, be it music, movies, books, etc, are all forms of communication, thus speech. When you lock up speech behind copyright, you're censoring speech. This goes against the First Amendment. Your precious profits shouldn't even figure into my civil liberties to say what I want, where I want, and when I want. The internet is the greatest tool ever created for promoting truly free speech and communication. You're just going to have to adapt your business model to accept that fact.
"Thinking about what hurts and doesn’t hurt sales misses the point entirely. A corporation’s profits must never be at the center of policymaking, much less the center of determining what fundamental civil liberties we have as free citizens." - Rick Falkvinge
http://torrentfreak.com/i-dont-care-about-your-profits-and-it-enrages-me-that-you-think -i-should-110911/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now can you get me?
I will not make a video crying, I promissed I will show some balls and say fock you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No.
That is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
Lets break this definition down so we can see it clearly:
Theft is impossible since any item downloaded off the internet doesn't really exist. It is impossible to "steal" an idea and it is impossible to steal via copyright infringment. Calling it theft is intellectually dishonest
You can talk about being deprived of income by infringement but it can never be "theft". The failure of content industries to adapt to a changing market should never be a criminal issue, especially when study after study has shown that people will use money on things THEY FEEL ARE WORHT IT and strangely enough treating your customers as thieving bastards doesn't help in this.
And all this posits that people will always buy everything they download, completely ignoring that a big part of culture is sharing, and modern copyright laws are all about locking content up. It is no wonder that people don't respect these laws, they treat something intangible (1 and 0 on the internet) as if they have an actual value (in the same way that an apple will always have an actual value) when people know that they don't have any inherent value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And water is wet. What does this have to do with copyright infringement?
"To anybody who thinks that still thinks that downloading movies and TV shows is ok..."
I recently downloaded the entire TV series "The Secret Life of Machines". Via a bittorrent I found on The Pirate Bay. What was wrong with that?
"...it's stealing..."
This subject has been covered so many times it's died of asphyxiation. Copyright infringement is not theft.
"...go out to movie theater once in a while, pay for a ticket and have a great time watching it."
No number of theater tickets will allow me to watch "The Secret Life of Machines". So how does this work again?
You seem to have a really simplistic view of the world. You might want to withhold comment until you've picked up a bit more understanding of the subject and come up with some better arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Uh, it's early Monday and I haven't had my tea yet. Yeah, that's it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if you are an American living in the US, and you have a server/website in a country where you are not breaking the law in their country, if you can be arrested here.
hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Odd...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
H.S Sargent sorry boss all our men are busy catching file sharers. maybe next week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Stealing" Content
How about taxes then? All taxes would be stealing under that definition. Allowing a copyright to exist would be stealing from every single person who does not get that copyright.
I'm not speaking about morality at all here, thats a totally separate issue, I'm speaking specifically and narrowly about the economic impact. Explain to me, without using 'right' or 'wrong' how "copyright" is different economically than a "tax" from the perspective of demanding money for services without truly asking the consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overstock.com
Over the weekend I heard about Overstock.com rebranding to O.co and it made me wonder if the US Government claiming to have legal jurisdiction over the .com Tld played any part in their decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Overstock.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. It seems that anyone who is even slightly associated to piracy is guilty (no matter if its taken out of context). When has it shifted that we assume people are guilty first before assuming they are innocence? Everyone needs to get a chance to prove their innocence but its also not fair to immediately lump someone in the guilty pile.
2. Most of the time the ones pirating (I am talking about games/cams in cinemas etc) are going to be the best customers. They are the ones going out and actually buying the games and going to movies to share. Now I am not saying this is right by any means but its a point most people overlook.
3. How is it any different recording a show on your dvr, vcr (heck even your computer) than downloading a tv show? I have cable (no dvr) but I am never around when most of my shows are showing. I love outside the US so even online things are blocked for me most of the times. So either I do not watch my show or I find another means. People may argue I have a sense of entitlement and I partially agree with you, I should probably get a dvr and record my show and watch it later or don't bother. So my question is what do the tv producers prefer? Because I will happily not watch my show and they will still lose a customer.
4. I don't like piracy but it has its place in the world. I tend to stay away from it as much as I can but there has to be an easier way to get your product (whatever that may be) to a customer (like myself) without me choosing not to bother. In the end of the day ask yourself is someone who pirates and someone who chooses not to bother considered a lost sale?
Finally I do not agree with Ninja Video or the stance they took etc. I think people should be punished for the crime they commit. However the punishment should fit the crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course, this is a difficult matter of US law as a necessary requirement is that the US Courts must be able to establish in personam (over the person) or in rem (over the property) jurisdiction to have the authority to adjudicate the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have no problem paying for things that I like. I regularly do that to support the people. But my overwhelming point is that I am a customer who is willing to get it by legit means but can't in some scenarios.
In the end of the day I would choose to not have something over pirating it but in both instances is that considered a lost sale? Piracy seems to be "apparently" cause companies to lose money since they did not buy it legitimately (I really don't agree with this as it makes no sense). But if I choose not to pirate and just not bother wouldn't that be cause for a lost sale too??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry Mike, you fail again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is the sound of people not caring LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because they provided access to links and things, they were selling access not the material directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Note that in Section 512 the subject of linking is specifically addressed. It the prima facie elements are believed to be met, the DOJ is authorized by law to proceed under Title 28. Note, though, that the prima facie elements are quite constrained.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
$100 bucks per year over 16 years would be enough to satisfy the financial constraints imposed by the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sad
"...but, but, but think of the JAILED children!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]