Re: [Videolib] More on Pirate Bay & copyright

From: Mark Kopp <mkopp@iu08.org>
Date: Thu Apr 23 2009 - 08:43:45 PDT

"...for once folks who profit off stealing the works of others got
caught..."

 

Nope...the ones that are stealing didn't get caught. You could claim
that one of their accomplices got caught, but the ones who are providing
the actual file did not get caught. If you compare it to the drug trade,
the cartel did not get caught...the importer did not get caught...the
wholesaler did not get caught...the street level dealer did not get
caught. It was the idiot accepting tips from buyers, standing on the
corner pointing to the dealer...that got caught.

 

I'm done with this. I should have known better and took heed from the
e-mails sent to me off-list. I don't know if I could have my point any
clearer. I wasn't talking about piracy, but of net neutrality.

 

*Shaking my head and rolling my eyes*

 

Hey Gary...how bout a Long Island Iced Tea??

 

Mark

 

 

Mark W. Kopp

Technology Assistant

IT Department

Appalachia Intermediate Unit 8

4500 6th Avenue

Altoona, PA 16602

P: 814-940-0223 ext. 1384

F: 814-949-0984

C: 814-937-2802

 

From: videolib-bounces@lists.berkeley.edu
[mailto:videolib-bounces@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 4:51 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] More on Pirate Bay & copyright

 

You were arguing as below that there was little difference between the
two. I think the

article I posted and the VERY specific quote from SCOTUS in the
Grokster decision made it abundantly clear that A. there was a big
difference and B if such a site were based in the US they would indeed
lose in a "slam dunk" ( going back to our original argument).

 

It is also highly disingenuous of you to claim you are not taking sides
when you clearly think Pirate Bay people should not have been convicted
and that you would be upset if such a service based in the US where
prosecuted. There is a huge difference between a general search engine
that picks up links to illegal downloads and a company set up
specifically for that purpose which both profits from it and ignores all
requests to remove the illegal links. I am stunned you can't see the
difference. I don't see any slippery slope in the convictions of
Pirate Bay, I see that for once folks who profit off stealing the works
of others got caught.

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Mark Kopp <mkopp@iu08.org> wrote:

Jessica, sometimes it appears that you just wish to argue...

 

Who the hell compared Google to thieves??? You object to the idea that
Pirate Bay was just like Google. Did you, or did you not, access the
Pirate Bay website? The website, itself, is Google-like (they even have
the same buttons). It is a quantified search engine. WHAT are you
objecting to? No one compared Google to thieves. I simply stated the
FACT that there isn't any information on Pirate Bay that you couldn't
glean from the Internet through Google. All Pirate Bay did was organize
it. And once again, my concern is the neutrality of the Internet. And
ONCE AGAIN, my point is that I don't want some agendized beaurocrat
determining the results of my Internet searches. Pirate Bay might have
questionable ethics and I'm not taking sides, but it isn't any different
than something like pricegrabber.com <http://pricegrabber.com/> ,
whereby they culled the results of specific searches around the net and
organized them in to one location. Even with Pirate Bay convicted, the
SOURCES of their links are still available!!!

 

With each conviction, the slippery slope gets steeper and steeper, and
the teeth at the bottom of the slope are hungry beaurocrats who will
determine what information you and I are allowed to view. Are there
things on the Internet that I feel shouldn't be there? YUP! TONS of
crap!!! But who determines what is crap and what is not?

 

Mark

 

 

Mark W. Kopp

Technology Assistant

IT Department

Appalachia Intermediate Unit 8

4500 6th Avenue

Altoona, PA 16602

P: 814-940-0223 ext. 1384

F: 814-949-0984

C: 814-937-2802

 

From: videolib-bounces@lists.berkeley.edu
[mailto:videolib-bounces@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 9:42 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: [Videolib] More on Pirate Bay & copyright

 

That thread seemed a bit crowded but left things dangling. I
particularly object to the idea that the Pirate was just like Google
and that to compare them to thieves was not justified. I think it might
help if folks googled some of the news articles on the trial. I found
this part of one particularly interesting

"These cases weren't decided by some local judge, either. The Grokster
case went all the way to the Supreme Court
<http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/06/5042.ars> , where the
seminal MGM v. Grokster decision said that sites could not avoid all
liability for copyright infringement simply by arguing that they have
some legal uses.

This was the famous Sony defense, from the case which legalized
Betamax/VCR sales. It survived both federal court and the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, but the Supremes found that a Sony defense did have
some limits:

        One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its
use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other
affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere
distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the
resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device,
regardless of the device's lawful uses...

        Nothing in Sony requires courts to ignore evidence of intent to
promote infringement if such evidence exists. It was never meant to
foreclose rules of fault-based liability derived from the common law.
Where evidence goes beyond a product's characteristics or the knowledge
that it may be put to infringing uses, and shows statements or actions
directed to promoting infringement, Sony's staple-article rule will not
preclude liability...

        On the record presented, respondents' unlawful objective is
unmistakable. The classic instance of inducement is by advertisement or
solicitation that broadcasts a message designed to stimulate others to
commit violations. "

        Whole article is here
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/why-no-one-should-be-sho
cked-by-the-pirate-bay-verdict.ars

        There are other articles which stress that Pirate Bay was
nothing like Google and was indeed set up for the purpose of helping
people illegally download material and ignored all requests from rights
holders to cease doing so.

 

VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of
issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic
control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in
libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve
as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel
of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video
producers and distributors.

 

VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and distributors.
Received on Thu Apr 23 08:45:32 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 20 2009 - 15:09:52 PDT