"i don't see how a prosecutor could hope to make a successful argument that he (bm) aided, or conspired, or abetted, or any of the psuedo legal terms being thrown around here, in that offense."
I think you've hit the crux of the matter there. I'm not really sure about how aiding and abetting etc. is determined, but everything I've read so far suggests to me that they have to prove the alleged accessory was aware a crime was being committed. Considering those suggesting a crime was committed don't seem to be able to give a clear explanation of what the crime was, I find it hard to believe the prosecution have any chance of proving the alleged accomplice was aware of the crime. Even if he was aware of the infringement, that is no where near the same as being aware that it was criminal infringement.
I had a family member recently try and work out why she should buy books for her newly gifted Kindle when she can get second-hand books cheap and then sell them again. It's not just "technologists" realising how bad high prices and restrictions are for eBooks, it's anyone who doesn't have more money than sense. She wanted to try and use this gift, but despite it's hefty price tag it still provides less value than second hand books.
'Seems that a single librarian and a "technologist" named Matthew Goins (the domain is registered to him) are leading the charge. Who is Matthew Goins?'
What?! A librarian teamed up with a technologist to create a website? How dare they!
"Because that is what defines him as the distributor."
By what standard? It's not any dictionary definition (legal or otherwise) that I've read and you haven't cited any case law or other reference to back up your claim.
"Because they do not affect the end result."
It's your burden to explain to us why they don't affect the end result. We've explained how the particulars mean that linking is not distributing. All you've done is told us that we're wrong, not why.
"Yes, of course something happens when they click the link. That's the problem for McCarthy, isn't it?"
Then why leave it out of your example and end with 'transaction complete', when what you really meant was 'user action complete'? It would seem to me that the actual distribution part of the scenario would be the most important part to include. Let's fix it:
The person goes the to website, the site registers the hit and whatever clicks it gets on its ads, the person clicks on a link to the material they want and their computer contacts a third party's server which then provides the material.
"However McCarthy did indeed discriminate in his search function, and that is likely to be his downfall."
Given your lack of explanation I have to assume that you're referring to the requirements of 512(k)(1)(A). But the section Karl referenced uses 512(k)(1)(B), which doesn't have such narrow requirements. If you meant something else then please explain further.
"Doesn't that case suggest that the defendant here can be held liable for aiding and abetting infringement without an actual court determination of the direct infringement by others?"
Yes, but as Mike keeps pointing out that would rely on them proving a criminal case, which would seem rather hard when those supporting the charge can't even seem to decide what the actual crime was.
"(and if there were an alternative to 'he' that didn't totally break the flow of communication or marke it sound like you are equivocating, I would gladly use it!)"
I've never had any trouble using 'they' as a singular. I find it sad that rather than accept 'they' as correct, or add an extra word, those influencing the language decided to stick with 'he' as the only official correct choice. Use of 'he' was actually mandated in an act of parliament in 1850.
Contrast that with today where women have taken advantage of the freedom to choose in identifying as Ms rather than Miss or Mrs. But still we're left with a legacy where even if everyone on the internet were a woman, it is quite possible that it would still seem to be dominated by men, for the apparent sake of grammar.
You maintain this after admitting earlier that you're unsure about the crime he's supposed to be aiding and abetting. Perhaps you mean 'his linking may make him an accomplice'.
"Mike's statement was that there is no inducement standard for criminal infringement. There is. He's wrong. It's simple."
Then why not tell us about the standard instead of referring to apparently irrelevant things?
'"Service provider" is defined in 17 U.S.C. 512(k), and that definition is examined in the case law.'
From In re Aimster: �A plain reading of [17 U.S.C. � 512(k)] reveals that �service provider� is defined so broadly that we have trouble imagining the existence of an online service that would not fall under the definitions�.�
Do you have an example that would suggest 512(k)(1)(B) wouldn't apply in this case?
"Don't ask me though. Ask Karl, the legal expert."
I hope you're not wondering why people may not be taking you seriously.
'Inducement of a crime is a crime under 18 U.S.C. 2. Mike stated that "there is no inducement standard in criminal infringement," and that is a lie.'
How does your statement disprove his statement? It seems like a bizzare non sequitur. He said there is no inducement standard, not that inducement isn't a crime.
'Really, you think McCarthy and his website are a "service provider" under Section 512? LOL! Try again.'
Care to share the reason why you think they aren't?
"he aided and abetted some people who didn't commit a crime (those who watched the stream), but didn't "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission"
the people who actually committed the crime. (those who copied and streamed the sporting events.)"
I think you're making an important distinction here. The people who watched the stream could arguably be committing civil infringement, but it would seem only the ones streaming could arguably be committing criminal infringement.
It seems to me a big stretch to say that they are aiding and abetting the streaming. That would seem like saying that someone helping another buy drugs is aiding and abetting the dealer, and thus prosecuting them for dealing.
"Imagine that we take a book. Now open it to page 200. On this page, there is a picture. Cut out that picture. Now hold that "window" over another book, or a tv. You have successfully "embedded" content into that book. Now imagine that that second book was infringing content, and yet you blame the author of the book with the cutout "window" instead. Okay: now you understand how ridiculous these charges are."
Lemme try and fix that a bit: Imagine that we take a book. Now open it to page 200. On this page, there is a space with instructions for where you can find a photocopy of a copyrighted picture.
Still doesn't seem like a perfect analogy, but I don't think the whole cutout window bit works at all.
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re:
I think you've hit the crux of the matter there. I'm not really sure about how aiding and abetting etc. is determined, but everything I've read so far suggests to me that they have to prove the alleged accessory was aware a crime was being committed. Considering those suggesting a crime was committed don't seem to be able to give a clear explanation of what the crime was, I find it hard to believe the prosecution have any chance of proving the alleged accomplice was aware of the crime. Even if he was aware of the infringement, that is no where near the same as being aware that it was criminal infringement.
On the post: Librarians And Readers Against DRM [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
AI talking about itself in the third person... I don't know what to make of that.
On the post: Librarians And Readers Against DRM [Updated]
eReaders
On the post: Librarians And Readers Against DRM [Updated]
Re: Re:
Great, now we get to listen to why they're really the same person.
On the post: Librarians And Readers Against DRM [Updated]
Re: Re: Re:
That sounds factual... More faux-librarian propaganda!
On the post: Librarians And Readers Against DRM [Updated]
Re: Re: Re:
For all it matters, why do you think that? Your previous post didn't really go into details on that aspect.
On the post: Music Publishers Settle With Limewire; Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't want to be caustic, you want to be mordacious. It's way cooler.
On the post: Librarians And Readers Against DRM [Updated]
Re:
What?! A librarian teamed up with a technologist to create a website? How dare they!
On the post: Lady Gaga Claiming Ownership Of 'Gaga'? Threatens Baby Gaga Ice Cream
Re: Re: Re:
You should see the stories about Courtney Love. It's a weird thing.
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By what standard? It's not any dictionary definition (legal or otherwise) that I've read and you haven't cited any case law or other reference to back up your claim.
"Because they do not affect the end result."
It's your burden to explain to us why they don't affect the end result. We've explained how the particulars mean that linking is not distributing. All you've done is told us that we're wrong, not why.
"Yes, of course something happens when they click the link. That's the problem for McCarthy, isn't it?"
Then why leave it out of your example and end with 'transaction complete', when what you really meant was 'user action complete'? It would seem to me that the actual distribution part of the scenario would be the most important part to include. Let's fix it:
The person goes the to website, the site registers the hit and whatever clicks it gets on its ads, the person clicks on a link to the material they want and their computer contacts a third party's server which then provides the material.
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Given your lack of explanation I have to assume that you're referring to the requirements of 512(k)(1)(A). But the section Karl referenced uses 512(k)(1)(B), which doesn't have such narrow requirements. If you meant something else then please explain further.
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but as Mike keeps pointing out that would rely on them proving a criminal case, which would seem rather hard when those supporting the charge can't even seem to decide what the actual crime was.
On the post: Data Says Money Might Buy Happiness, But Happiness Might Not Be What You Want
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
PS: I wonder if I'm guilty of aiding and abetting Google in infringing that book.
On the post: Data Says Money Might Buy Happiness, But Happiness Might Not Be What You Want
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've never had any trouble using 'they' as a singular. I find it sad that rather than accept 'they' as correct, or add an extra word, those influencing the language decided to stick with 'he' as the only official correct choice. Use of 'he' was actually mandated in an act of parliament in 1850.
Contrast that with today where women have taken advantage of the freedom to choose in identifying as Ms rather than Miss or Mrs. But still we're left with a legacy where even if everyone on the internet were a woman, it is quite possible that it would still seem to be dominated by men, for the apparent sake of grammar.
There's an interesting book with a section on the subject, with diagrams!
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re: Re: HTML = Not Direct Infringement
You maintain this after admitting earlier that you're unsure about the crime he's supposed to be aiding and abetting. Perhaps you mean 'his linking may make him an accomplice'.
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then why not tell us about the standard instead of referring to apparently irrelevant things?
'"Service provider" is defined in 17 U.S.C. 512(k), and that definition is examined in the case law.'
From In re Aimster: �A plain reading of [17 U.S.C. � 512(k)] reveals that �service provider� is defined so broadly that we have trouble imagining the existence of an online service that would not fall under the definitions�.�
Do you have an example that would suggest 512(k)(1)(B) wouldn't apply in this case?
"Don't ask me though. Ask Karl, the legal expert."
I hope you're not wondering why people may not be taking you seriously.
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re: Re: Re:
How does your statement disprove his statement? It seems like a bizzare non sequitur. He said there is no inducement standard, not that inducement isn't a crime.
'Really, you think McCarthy and his website are a "service provider" under Section 512? LOL! Try again.'
Care to share the reason why you think they aren't?
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure I understand what you're saying, I just don't understand what difference it is supposed to make.
"The end user is not required to go anywhere else after reaching this website"
What difference does that make to the issue?
"The particulars of how the offending distributor achieves delivery to the above person is completely immaterial"
Why are the particulars completely immaterial?
"the person clicks on the material they want, and that's it. End of the line, transaction complete."
What, nothing happens when they click the link? You seem to be leaving out the actual transaction bit for some reason.
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re:
the people who actually committed the crime. (those who copied and streamed the sporting events.)"
I think you're making an important distinction here. The people who watched the stream could arguably be committing civil infringement, but it would seem only the ones streaming could arguably be committing criminal infringement.
It seems to me a big stretch to say that they are aiding and abetting the streaming. That would seem like saying that someone helping another buy drugs is aiding and abetting the dealer, and thus prosecuting them for dealing.
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re:
Lemme try and fix that a bit: Imagine that we take a book. Now open it to page 200. On this page, there is a space with instructions for where you can find a photocopy of a copyrighted picture.
Still doesn't seem like a perfect analogy, but I don't think the whole cutout window bit works at all.
Next >>