Re: [Videolib] More on Pirate Bay & copyright

From: Charles Mccann <cmccann@fsu.edu>
Date: Fri Apr 24 2009 - 15:23:38 PDT

Well ya--- if you see a cat with a mouse in her mouth ... ya the cat probably did it, ya probably did it.

--- Original Message -----
From: "Tiar, Marc" <MTiar@washoecounty.us>
Date: Friday, April 24, 2009 5:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Videolib] More on Pirate Bay & copyright
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu

> "Short of a confession of intent, I don't think it can presumed unless
> we read peoples minds..."
>
> I'm not sure if you were referring to the Pirate Bay specifically or
> legal prosecution in general. Referring to the latter, intent can
> definitely be presumed in legal proceedings. If a guy is dressed
> all in
> black, found lurking in bushes outside a residence with a crowbar,
> lockpicking tools, and a flashlight, he would be arrested; by
> definition, burglary is the entering of a place with the INTENT to
> steal. Even if the door is standing wide open, if someone enters with
> the intent of stealing something, they have committed burglary as soon
> as they enter, even if they never pick anything up or remove it
> from the
> premises. Of course, hard to prove that one, but the first example is
> definitely prosecutable. No mind reading needed.
>
> If you were referring to the Pirate Bay specifically, I still think
> intent can be presumed by the name PIRATE bay, as well as some other
> actions, but it's not quite as rock solid as the burglar example above
> and might be more easily defended by a good attorney.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: videolib-bounces@lists.berkeley.edu
> [mailto:videolib-bounces@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Charles
> MccannSent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:04 PM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Cc: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] More on Pirate Bay & copyright
>
> "This evidence alone would not justify an inference of unlawful
> intent,but its import is clear in the entire record's contex"
>
> Short of a confession of intent, I don't think it can presumed
> unless we
> read peoples minds, and the Grokster case is only the latest ruling on
> history of this issue, the case in Sweden is easier to prosecute
> becausethe U.S. tradition on free speech is much much stronger
> perhaps because
> we're predicated on the classical tradition or fight for free speech.
> This is not the end -- but this is the business of someone else s
> endeavor -- most importantly for me this illustrated the ocean of
> difference when it comes to educators delivering media to registered
> faculty and students -- the intent is granted under fair use and thus
> unquestionably crystal clear but as we know also is as of yet
> unresolved, on the latter the opposition is simply holding back
> progress.
>
> correction of previous post behave ** "behalf" ;\
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jessica Rosner <maddux2014@gmail.com>
> Date: Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:05 pm
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] More on Pirate Bay & copyright
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>
> > Cubs game going BADLY. Rather than respond to this myself I will
> > just add a
> > further quote from the Supreme Court in the Grokster case which
> I
> > think is
> > right on point to the idea that Pirate Bay was just some neutral
> > source of
> > links that got unfairly prosecuted
> >
> > On the record presented, [Grokster's] 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. MGM
> > argues persuasively that such a message is shown here. Three
> > features of the
> > evidence of intent are particularly notable. *First*, each of the
> > respondents showed itself to be aiming to satisfy a known source
> of
> > demandfor copyright infringement, the market comprising former
> > Napster users.
> > Respondents' efforts to supply services to former Napster users
> > indicate a
> > principal, if not exclusive, intent to bring about infringement.
> > *Second*,neither respondent attempted to develop filtering tools
> or
> > other mechanisms
> > to diminish the infringing activity using their software. While
> the
> > NinthCircuit treated that failure as irrelevant because
> respondents
> > lacked an
> > independent duty to monitor their users' activity, this evidence
> > underscorestheir intentional facilitation of their users'
> > infringement. *Third*,
> > respondents make money by selling advertising space, then by
> > directing ads
> > to the screens of computers employing their software. The more their
> > software is used, the more ads are sent out and the greater the
> > advertisingrevenue. Since the extent of the software's use
> > determines the gain to the
> > distributors, the commercial sense of their enterprise turns on
> > high-volume
> > use, which the record shows is infringing. This evidence alone
> > would not
> > justify an inference of unlawful intent, but its import is clear
> in
> > theentire record's contex
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Chuck McCann <cmccann@fsu.edu>
> wrote:>
> > > "...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<http://www.stlawrenceinstitute.org/vol14mit.html>>
> "
> > to Mill's, "On
> >
> Liberty<http://www.wsu.edu:8080/%7Ewldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_rea
> der_2/mill.html>> " 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<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-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.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of
> issues relating to the selection, evaluation,
> acquisition,bibliographiccontrol, preservation, and use of current
> and evolving video formats in
> libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will
> serveas 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 Fri Apr 24 15:24:07 2009

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