Internet user arrested for linking to other websites
fsf.org
fsf.org
According to today's release, McCarthy made more than $90,000 in profits from online merchants who paid him to advertise on the site. Since it was seized on Feb. 1, the site has received 1.3 million hits.
He wasn't indicted simply for linking to other websites. You, upon passing around a link to a copyrighted Youtube video, are not a potential felon. Here's the issue:
§ 506. Criminal offenses
(a) Criminal Infringement. —
(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18,
if the infringement was committed —
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or
private financial gain;
It is still perfectly reasonable to disagree with the prosecution (I don't, but I respect your right to). But it's still incumbent on the FSF not to be deceptive.
Obviously, the purpose of the website this guy was running was pretty specific, but according to what you posted, facebook would be liable as well.
If such a case ever actually got to court, it would no doubt come down to an issue of whether facebook was itself posting links to copyrighted content, or whether facebook was merely providing a forum in which others posted such things.
It's the old geeks-trying-to-understand-law problem. The geek says "Well if A is illegal then B must also be illegal. And if B is illegal then C must also be illegal." And so on until you've reducito-ad-absurdumed your way to the conclusion that Z must be illegal, but nobody would ever think Z is illegal, therefore A can't be illegal. Since nobody ever gets fined for travelling 0.01 mph above the speed limit, it must be okay to drive at 120mph down Main Street.
The courts don't work that way, however. They apply fuzzy tests and arbitrarily declare that A through D are illegal but E and onwards are okay.
Facebook is not profiting off the YouTube links. They profit primarily off your desire to see what your friends post. A few of your friends posting YouTube videos is incidental.
The subreddit mentioned does seem more like direct profit. Even then I'm sure they could argue their way out of it (they profit off the community, not the 'stuff'), but it's harder.
This is why (hopefully competent) courts are necessary to interpret this stuff.
For instance, if you make copies of DVDs and give them to me and I sell them in my store, then we're both breaking the law, right?
How about I'm making copies of DVDs and burying them in the desert at random locations, and telling you the locations, and you're selling the coordinates at which I've buried my DVDs?
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by
electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1
or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more
copyrighted works, which have a total retail value
of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for
commercial distribution, by making it available on
a computer network accessible to members of the
public, if such person knew or should have known
that the work was intended for commercial
distribution.
So he's matching either ABC, or AC, either of which put him in the running for a free vacation at club fed.
And that's an argument I have a lot of sympathy for, even if it isn't germane to this guy's situation.
But we're quibbling over how I (mis)represented the law. The fact remains: this guy got busted for taking $90,000+ out of his infringement scheme. He hit (A), not (B) or (C). That, I think, is a pretty salient detail for the FSF to have provided. Don't you agree with that?
Settling out whether or not it's a crime to run a for-profit online directory of pirated sports feeds is what we have courts for. All we have now is an allegation.