VEVO Execs Must Face Criminal Charges For Copyright Infringement
uncrunched.com
uncrunched.com
Criminal charges are a serious business and I don't think it promotes healthy debate to sling around loose statements suggesting that they be pursued recklessly by the authorities, no matter how unattractive the party involved in the wrongdoing. No self-respecting prosecutor would even consider bringing charges where only a one-time incident is involved and where the alleged perpetrator claims (as here) that the incident was inadvertent (however lacking in credibility this may be, it is a classic "plausible deniability" excuse). Do we really want our government devoting substantial resources toward trying to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in such a case? And does anyone seriously want this to be the standard by which criminal prosecutions for alleged copyright infringement are brought?
Since I would assume the answer to these questions is no, then the only point of this piece is to use an absurdly overstated headline to draw attention to itself.
I am against hypocrisy as much as the next guy, and I have no particular sympathy for the musical labels (or even for the sort of glitzy events at which this incident occurred), but it does not advance the cause of attaining sane copyright legislation to make "off with his head" demands that have no basis in reality.
Music industry hypocrisy is fair game for advocating against draconian copyright enforcement and in itself makes for a potent argument. The effect is much diluted, however, when the argument cannot be taken seriously. If instead this is not intended to be taken seriously but is rather a form of street theater intended to dramatize a point, then it is (in my view) just lame and ineffective.
This is a case of infringement by which the copyright holder can choose to take civil action or not as suits its purposes. If a cost-benefit legal analysis suggests that little damage in fact occurred and that the incident is non-recurring or plausibly explainable, then there is likely nothing worth pursuing. What the incident boils down to, then, is a horrible embarrassment for the music industry execs involved and, at the level, it does carry a sting. The rest is fluff.
Quoting from here: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...
"Emphasis should be placed on the word "purpose," because it is not necessary to prove that any profit was realized. See United States v. Taxe, 380 F. Supp. 1010, 1018 (C.D.Cal. 1974), aff'd, 540 F.2d 961 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1040 (1977). The drafting committee's purpose in retaining this requirement has been to exclude from criminal liability those individuals who willfully infringe copyrights solely for their own personal use. H.R. Rep. No. 997, 102 Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (1992). Evidence of discrete monetary transactions (i.e., the selling of infringing goods for a particular price) provides the clearest evidence of financial gain, but such direct evidence should not be a prerequisite to prosecution. Such a stringent requirement would ignore the plain wording of the statute, which requires only the showing of commercial or financial purpose."
Section 506 doesn't say "sold commercially". It says for commercial or private gain. Any lawyer worth his salt could argue that showing the game at a private promotional event for a company falls under the statute. Much more spurious arguments have been made.
Oddly enough, that would seem to capture broadcasting a stream, even though they probably were thinking of file sharing when they added that language. Equally odd is that if the broadcast had been in an analog format, it wouldn't seem to pass that test.
Apologies if I came off as snippy yesterday. The strident tone of the uncrunched.com link didn't sit well with me, so I read the thread with a rather jaundiced eye.
Do we live in the same United States?
This incident is similar to cases where people are accused of Copyright Infringement by the labels, because their Wifi was unsecured. So, if I leave my Wifi open, and someone pirates <insert popular song here>, that's illegal, but if VEVO leaves their computer open, (which in my opinion is worse than leaving your Wifi open, but this is just opinion) and someone streams the Superbowl (popular sports event), that's fine?
If the precedent is set that the law is applied equally, there would be less incentive to pass stupid laws. That is one of the problems today where there is so much special interest at play that there is effectively now a system where "this applies to you but not me" is prevalent.
Apparently said by Lincoln, though I remembered the attribution going to Theodore Roosevelt.
Because we will be watching. If they manage to criminalize what they're doing themselves, then they must reap what they sow. And they will.
We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget.
What laws are those? Be as specific as you can. (Anti-trust doesn't apply here.)
But I disagree with the way the content industries have tried to pursue an agenda of making it illegal to use things you've bought and paid for however you'd like.
That being said, I sure hope we do forgive and forget as a matter of policy. Being abrasive (like Michael Arrington is trying to be) isn't going to teach these people a lesson anymore than it teaches those who continue to get access to music and other content through piracy. The way to sway public policy is the same way things worked when SOPA was tabled a few weeks ago: through public action, using the legislative process.
Lawrence Lessig's Remix is a great intellectual treatise on why we should consider changing our copyright laws to reinforce the fair use rights we should have; sending copies of it to these people and asking them to read it seems like it might do a whole lot more good than some kind of draconian punishment regime.
if hey can fine joe for everything he has becavuse he downloaded some movies, and seize entire domainsfor merely linking, why SHOULDNT there be some backlash when they are caught doing the same thing.
oh, they didntknow, the tech guy did it? didnt work with all those lawsuits did it, so eat it i say.
I never got this. It sounds catchy, but, holding a grudge forever sounds like a horrific way to live.
Target of an anon raid? Ignore them completely. They will go away.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..."
Regardless of its actual effectiveness, it's a useful deterrent, along the lines of massive retaliation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_retaliation).
Update, 2/10:: ESPN says it will not be pursuing legal action. A spokesperson gave us the following statement:
“We’re disappointed the exhibitor took this route, especially at a festival for an industry whose jobs are most at risk if we are not able to curtail stolen content.”
The injured party can influence the DA's decision of course, but ultimately it's his/her call.
This can't just "go away".
Update, 2/10:: ESPN says it will not be pursuing legal action. A spokesperson gave us the following statement:
“We’re disappointed the exhibitor took this route, especially at a festival for an industry whose jobs are most at risk if we are not able to curtail stolen content.”
The headline over there is different and the first sentence calls Vevo a "music label joint venture."
EDIT: Also, what is YouTube's involvement, exactly? It appears to be run mostly by ex-big label guys (and one person from MySpace), then they host on YouTube and share advertising revenue. Or something like that. There are few details about this on Wikipedia[2], but you're the kind of person who probably knows more about them than most of us.
[1] http://www.vevo.com/About/OurTeam [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vevo
Vevo would be open to civil liability but it is up the copyright holder to decide whether it's worth pursuing.
By your logic, I could stay in Times Square giving out copies of Avatar and Inception as long as I give it for free.
Have any individuals been criminally prosecuted for their personal BitTorrent use? I've read a lot of stories of people being sued, but I can't remember a story of criminal prosecution. I guess it would be possible if the prosecutor could make the case that BitTorrent is a form of distribution, and the amount meets the criteria in the law:
In the US: Operation Gridlock, Operation D-Elite, etc., etc. Look it up.
While you might be right that the authorities won't take on the criminal case, you and your friend are wrong about the question of whether this is a criminal offense under the law. It's at least a colorable case of intentional infringement in a commercial setting.
(edited to fix grammar)
I'm pretty sure legally they can be prosecuted, but it will never happen.
(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;
(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.
If A, what was the commercial advantage or private financial gain?