Re: [Videolib] More on Pirate Bay & copyright

From: McGinty Dylan <>
Date: Fri Apr 24 2009 - 16:12:35 PDT

I think the point was that "intent" is indeed an important and universally recognised factor in both civil and criminal law. Intent determines if a crime has been committed, or the severity/type of a crime, or, in civil procedure, where responsibility lays in a given dispute. In verdicts and decisions, juries and judges determine intent, based on the evidence, without reading minds.

In the Pirate Bay case, any idiot can see what their intent was. It would be easily established in court.
------Original Message------
From: Charles Mccann
Subject: Re: [Videolib] More on Pirate Bay & copyright
Sent: Apr 24, 2009 6:23 PM

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" <>
Date: Friday, April 24, 2009 5:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Videolib] More on Pirate Bay & copyright

> "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:
> [] On Behalf Of Charles
> MccannSent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:04 PM
> To:
> Cc:
> 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 <>
> Date: Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:05 pm
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] More on Pirate Bay & copyright
> To:
> > 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*,

------Original Message Truncated------

Dylan Maddox McGinty

Agent, ventes institutionnelles - Ā√Čtats-Unis | Officer, Institutional Sales - United States

Direction de la Distribution | Distribution Branch

Office national du film du Canada | National Film Board of Canada

311 Baltic Street
Apartment 3D
Brooklyn NY 11201

T 718 855 1702
F 718 855 1791
M 347 873 5160

Gouvernement du Canada | Government of Canada |
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 16:20:38 2009

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