Abandoned by British justice: Student faces 10 years in U.S. jail for setting up 'illegal' website, page 4

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra

---

So when I watch something from tv I'm violating someones rights? Or when I loan a dvd from the library. Yeah...

Of course not because the channel you are watching paid to run the show your watching and all of the commercials in between were placed their via agreement between the product controller and the network.

Loaning a dvd out is not against the law either. If you read my posts, where this example was used, we wouldn't need to rehash it. Inviting 50 people to our house to watch a movie is not illegal either. Now, if you charge money for people to come over to watch the video, then yes you can be charged with a crime because you are personally profiting.

All a person has to do is watch the beginning of any movie and you will see the copyright notice and terms.

reply to post by Xcathdra

---

But to reiterate again. Google makes money and also gives people links to the same pirating sites. What's the difference?

My bet is google has money for the top lawyers to squash this "piracy' BS. And the US gov knows it would lose.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
All a person has to do is watch the beginning of any movie and you will see the copyright notice and terms.

Actually, if you really read the copyright notice, it explains if you make money or not it is still infringement.

“Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000.”

www.fbi.gov...

To me....having the words "distribution" is the key. This means that, yes, loaning a dvd to anyone is copyright infringement. Or why would they include the word "distribution"?

reply to post by HandyDandy

---

Title 17 protects service providers, which is goofy if you ask me. I am assuming the logic behind it revolves around the "there are to many sites and therefore we can't check every single site using our services" argument.

Secondly Google is a search engine and not a dedicated site that solely offers links to copyright material. The UK guy had his own website that was specifically dedicated to directing people to sites that offered items covered by the copyright laws.

Im pretty sure the ad revenue is the crux of the allegations against him.

reply to post by HandyDandy

---

From what I have seen distribution in this case is the multiple copying / production of an item and then making it available to the general public / black market shops.

When you bought the dvd you purchased the right to view it. If you give it or sell it to someone else its nothing more than a transfer of a legally acquired item. Now if you make multiple copies of the dvd and sell it, then you would be personally profiting by that action after the initial sale.

reply to post by Xcathdra

---

Thanks for the explanation of the differences in both cases.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by daskakik

---

The above established the criminal action he committed. He was operating a private website which contained links for people to gain access to copyrighted material. Where he ran afoul was his website was generating up to $15,000 in ad revenue from the traffic on his site. That money was a profit, which is where the criminal aspect of the case entered, as you can see in section A above.] (private financial gain).

But copyright infringement as defined by Chapter 1 of Title 17 says nothing about providing information (in this case links) about the location of copyrighted material so regardless of how much money he made it is still not within the statutes definition of what constitutes copyright infringment.

He didn't make $15,000 from the copyrighted material or it's distribution, as defined in Title 17, he made it from ads.

It may very well be a crime according to some other law but not that one.

reply to post by daskakik

---

17 USC 506

(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;

His website was solely dedicated to providing links which led to the copyrighted material.

The money he received from ad revenue from people using his site to get to the material is where I think the case is coming from.

The ad revenues could be considered private financial gain and since those revenues are coming from the people using his site to gain access to the copyrighted material etc etc etc.

reply to post by Xcathdra

---

Yes but Chapter 1 defines infringment and providing links is not within that definition. So if it isn't even infringment how can it be criminal infringment?

Your making a leap when you say that his activity fell within the definition stated by the law and making another when you say the money earned makes it criminal infringment.

reply to post by daskakik

---

As I said its most likely going to revolve around the ad revenue. When people went to his dedicated site, it was for the sole purpose of gaining access to sites that are distributing items in violation of copyright laws / treaties. Because his site only focused on providing links for those sites violating copyright laws, just about every single person who visited his site helped contribute to his profiting via the ad revenues..

This info should hopefully clear some things up -
Richard O'Dwyer - wikipedia

He is being charged with -
18 USC 371 - Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement - 1 count
18 USC 2318 - Criminal Infringement of a Copyright - 1 count

The criminal infringement charge is what I posted, relating back to section 503 and personally profiting from his actions. The indictment should become a matter of public record at some point so we can see the governments evidence / justification. Ive poked around and so far I have not found a copy of it. Im guessing it may come out after Mr. O'Dwyer goes before a judge.

As a side note federal conspiracy charges have never made much sense to me, and it holds in this case with the conspiracy charge. That particular section of US code deals with the US Government being defrauded.

My guess, and if someone knows better please correct me, is since the US government is charged with enforcement of copyright violations, while also being the entity that grants the patents / copyright / intellectual property etc, that a copyright infringement could be seen as defrauding the US government.

The other thought I had revolves around the international treaties. Im thinking when it comes to international situations, the situation moves from the individual into the realm of government to government. If we made a movie, and it ends up on the black market in China, the US government will get a better response than if we contacted them on our own?

Thats just a guess on my part though...

reply to post by Xcathdra

---

Of course anyone could be charged with anything but whether it has legal merit is something else. You would be right about the copyright and extradition treaties but if the charge itself has no merit then why even bother.

I think it is more of a fear tactic than anything else. Even if he gets off others will be thinking that they may not be that lucky when in fact the case never had any merit. Kinda like the cease and desist letters that others have been posting about in another thread.

Now if the charges are based on some other law then that changes everything.

reply to post by LucidDreamer85

---

That was my thoughts as well...

The conspiracy charge doesnt make much sense unless there is more to the story.

reply to post by Pervius

---

What conviction?

There hasn't even been an initial appearance in front of a judge to enter his plea.

Alert: Possible Terror-related activity in NW Ohio
  Posted 12 days ago with 45 member flags

\'Bin Laden died of natural causes\'
  Posted 9 days ago with 17 member flags

Insider Information - Contractors in Iraq/Afghanistan, crimes against humanity
  Posted 15 days ago with 9 member flags

Was it a drone that almost caused mid-air over Denver?
  Posted 12 days ago with 9 member flags

U.S. government smear campaign against reporters exposing the drone wars
  Posted 15 days ago with 8 member flags

Chicago Hospitals Prepare for MAY 20-21 2012 NATO Summit \'Bomb\' Attack, Martial Law \'Red Zone\'
  Posted 13 days ago with 6 member flags

US shadow war in Horn of Africa revealed by blogger
  Posted 13 days ago with 6 member flags

This film is dedicated to "The gallant people of Afghanistan"
  Posted 19 days ago with 5 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: