Channelsurfing.net owner arrested for linking to sharing sites

http://act.demandprogress.org/act/channelsurfing/?referring_akid=329.23654.oWjuYc&source=typ-tw

by robterrell • 15 years ago

71 10 15 years ago

act.demandprogress.org

btipling• 15 years ago

FUD. "Share a youtube video. go to jail." That didn't happen, the individual in question embedded copyrighted videos. He didn't just share links and he didn't just embed YouTube videos. On top of that nobody that has written about it seems to know exactly what he's being charged with so any conclusions about sharing a link to a website = ending up in jail is not substantiated. Yet someone went though all the effort to make some kind of reddit-worthy mob enraging site. Maybe if the author of demandprogress.org knows they should post the actual charges and some of the evidence and arguments. As it stands none of this seems conclusive or convincing for people who will require more than a big image of a clenched fist and large red type to get upset.

dangero• 15 years ago

I agree it will be interesting to see what he's being charged with. I'm familiar with the site, and yes, it did embed players into windows that would pop up when you selected what you wanted to watch. I think the interesting part is that the embedded players were things like youtube videos or justin.tv embedded players, so the site was never really streaming anything or hosting anything. I wonder if there is a line in legality between a link and an embedded player.

joe_the_user2• 15 years ago

Uh,

There is no line aside from line the state is able to draw in the public mind...

The story with every "linking is a crime, sharing is a crime, enabling is a crime" case is that the outcome depends on how much sun light is cast on the skeevy dealings of opportunistic public prosecuters deeply embedded in the fly-over-states of Christanistan.

robterrell• 15 years ago

There's definitely infringers in this story -- I just don't think it's him.

>That didn't happen, the individual in question embedded copyrighted videos

What's the difference between an embed and a link? It's just a semantic difference in the HTML, right? Both point to external media not hosted by him.

As I recall from what I've seen of his site, he simply embedded the justin.tv player on his pages (where he also placed ads). He would configure the justin.tv player to show various channels that he knew would be showing a particular game. Somebody else (or perhaps the same person, although if that's what the government is alleging, I haven't heard it), using a TV capture card, would encode the live video of some NCAA/NBA/NFL/whatever game and stream it to a justin.tv channel. Anyone could log into this channel via the regular justin.tv site and watch the same live video.

Channelsurfing.net just provided a quick link to a justin.tv channels that had the sports content.

So in all this, who's infringing copyright? Definitely the guy with the capture card. What about justin.tv? Maybe they're liable, or maybe they're protected by the safe haven clause. But someone linking to that content on justin.tv? No. Or even embedding the justin.tv player, pre-configured to show that particular justin.tv channel? Again, I don't think so.

joe_the_user2• 15 years ago

First they came for the embedders, and I was not an embedder, so I did nothing...

rprasad• 15 years ago

Justin.tv is protected by the DMCA Service Provider exception b/c it did not actively filter content hosted on/through its servers. Channelsurfing.net did filter content -- indeed, it selected specific content for retransmission. That is why Justin.tv is not liable but the channelsurfing guy is.

As to why he's being charged with a crime...we'll find out when they release the charges against him. It may be as innocuous as tax evasion for not reporting the income from the ads on his site.

jdp23• 15 years ago

Yet another example of why doing a startup that involves sharing content should seriously think of basing their business outside the US.

As JoeMullin says in the PaidContent article at http://paidcontent.org/article/419-feds-campaign-against-pir...

"The ICE campaign against websites has caused controversy over whether ICE has side-stepped due process. Compare the treatment of the creators of peer-to-peer sites that were ultimately ruled to be illegal, like Grokster and now Limewire. Entertainment companies had to engage in years of litigation to shut down those sites, and the idea of putting the creators of those sites in prison wasn’t even on the table. McCarthy, on the other hand, will have to fight an uphill battle to keep himself out of prison—at no expense whatsoever to the sports leagues who, according to court documents, helped the government target his site. "

Channelsurfing.net owner arrested for linking to sharing sites

Related Stories