Re: [Videolib] More on Pirate Bay & copyright

From: Chuck McCann <cmccann@fsu.edu>
Date: Thu Apr 23 2009 - 13:09:43 PDT

".major operation that did profit from stealing and got caught." made a 'scapegoat'might be more accurate.

 

They probably profited from advertising . I can't know for sure, but I doubt they profited from people stealing things, what people were doing with the URLs, I would venture to say or speak on 'The Bays' behave, was what people were doing was ''none of our business''.

 

Now Sweden may continue to prosecute this case as they have, but Sweden isn't a model of democracy in regards to the American tradition of free speech, we have Milton's, "Areopagitica" to Mill's, "On Liberty" where the "rights of the speaker to be heard and the rights of those who wish to hear" may be the summery - and which is a great tradition, we can't presume the intent of speech. If people are stealing then it's incumbent on the law to prosecute the thief, and not presume that the locksmith is in business to support the burglar.

 

From: videolib-bounces@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-bounces@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:05 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] More on Pirate Bay & copyright

 

You are correct that Pirate Bay is "middle man" but it is indeed a major operation that did profit from stealing and got caught. Operations like Pirate Bay are the ones on whom efforts should be concentrated especially if the operate in countries that actually enforce copyright laws.

 

For the record I don't download anything. I am not pure or anything I just don't want to watch movies that way ( I still try to see most things on film) . I have little technical knowledge on this stuff but I am still mystified that you would see net neutrality in this case where the evidence was pretty clear that it was set up for the purpose of helping people steal material. I am actually grateful for the whole thing because I did not really know the details of the Grokster decision and that paragraph from the Supreme Court decision makes clear there is for once in our discussions a clear legal precedent.

 

My last post too and off to my last Cub game in the series.

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Mark Kopp <mkopp@iu08.org> wrote:

".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, 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, 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-shocked-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.

 

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 13:10:18 2009

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