Hacker News Reader

Comment by snowwrestler | Hacker News Reader

Not to be pedantic, but Vevo would not face criminal charges for showing one stream to a few people at a bar. To create criminal liability they would need to be infringing on a commercial scale--like Frontrow.tv and TuTele.tv do by hosting the streams with ads next to them.

Vevo would be open to civil liability but it is up the copyright holder to decide whether it's worth pursuing.

View on HN

The first part "won't face charges" is right, but the second part to create criminal liability is wrong (in the USA).

(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.

Which section did VEVO break?

If A, what was the commercial advantage or private financial gain?

It was a business-hosted party thrown for marketing reasons. The free drinks served were almost certainly accounted for as business expenses. If they wanted to provide entertainment it would have been likewise categorized. Instead, they streamed an ESPN feed instead.

An industry party at an industry event is a commercial event. You can be sure it will look that way on their taxes.

I don't think this is correct. When you share/download torrents you aren't paying the user at the receiving end. Yet it is still illegal.

By your logic, I could stay in Times Square giving out copies of Avatar and Inception as long as I give it for free.

I (believe) the main issue with torrents has been the fact that you are also distributing when you download. This is why (AFAIK) very few people have been fined for streaming or downloading from services like Rapidshare.

It's not just a question of legal/illegal. Some things that are illegal are not criminal--they create civil liability instead. If you lose, you owe money but you don't go to jail or have a criminal record.

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:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

There is a whole bunch of legal jurisprudence in just about every country that deals with intentional infringement of copyrights.

In the US: Operation Gridlock, Operation D-Elite, etc., etc. Look it up.

What are you basing this on? It doesn't jibe with the laws, as I understand them.

I was talking about this story with a guy I know who is a lawyer specializing in IP. It didn't seem to me like it would rise to criminal prosecution and he agreed.

First, you determine the rule. Then you determine whether it ought to be enforced.

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.

Whether it arguably could be or not, I think we both know this is never going to be prosecuted, which is why I agree with grellas' take on it.

(edited to fix grammar)

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

I'm pretty sure legally they can be prosecuted, but it will never happen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com