Internet user arrested for linking to other websites

http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/mccarthy

by tjr • 15 years ago

27 22 15 years ago

tptacek6• 15 years ago

Federal officials charged 32-year-old Bryan McCarthy of Texas with one count of criminal infringement of a copyright. He allegedly posted illegal streams of the UFC, NFL, NBA, WWE and other sports programming.

According to today's release, McCarthy made more than $90,000 in profits from online merchants who paid him to advertise on the site. Since it was seized on Feb. 1, the site has received 1.3 million hits.

He wasn't indicted simply for linking to other websites. You, upon passing around a link to a copyrighted Youtube video, are not a potential felon. Here's the issue:

  § 506. Criminal offenses
    (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;

Note last sentence.

It is still perfectly reasonable to disagree with the prosecution (I don't, but I respect your right to). But it's still incumbent on the FSF not to be deceptive.

blhack• 15 years ago

What about facebook, reddit, twitter, etc? One of my favorite subreddits /r/listentothis is mostly links to youtube videos of copyrighted music. Reddit is definitely profiting from this, so is facebook (I used to share youtube links to music videos on my facebook page all the time.)

Obviously, the purpose of the website this guy was running was pretty specific, but according to what you posted, facebook would be liable as well.

hugh34• 15 years ago

Obviously, the purpose of the website this guy was running was pretty specific, but according to what you posted, facebook would be liable as well.

If such a case ever actually got to court, it would no doubt come down to an issue of whether facebook was itself posting links to copyrighted content, or whether facebook was merely providing a forum in which others posted such things.

It's the old geeks-trying-to-understand-law problem. The geek says "Well if A is illegal then B must also be illegal. And if B is illegal then C must also be illegal." And so on until you've reducito-ad-absurdumed your way to the conclusion that Z must be illegal, but nobody would ever think Z is illegal, therefore A can't be illegal. Since nobody ever gets fined for travelling 0.01 mph above the speed limit, it must be okay to drive at 120mph down Main Street.

The courts don't work that way, however. They apply fuzzy tests and arbitrarily declare that A through D are illegal but E and onwards are okay.

sdkmvx• 15 years ago

Not a lawyer, but:

Facebook is not profiting off the YouTube links. They profit primarily off your desire to see what your friends post. A few of your friends posting YouTube videos is incidental.

The subreddit mentioned does seem more like direct profit. Even then I'm sure they could argue their way out of it (they profit off the community, not the 'stuff'), but it's harder.

This is why (hopefully competent) courts are necessary to interpret this stuff.

mikecane• 15 years ago

Was he the originator of the streams, though? If not, the $90K made is not relevant because he was not the originator of the copy. If I understand correctly, weren't these links? Even if they were embeds, ala YouTube, I don't see the infringement he did.

hugh34• 15 years ago

Where does it say you need to be the originator of the copy in order to be guilty of copyright infringement?

For instance, if you make copies of DVDs and give them to me and I sell them in my store, then we're both breaking the law, right?

tptacek6• 15 years ago

That argument didn't work so well for Napster, did it? If he had nothing whatsoever to do with posting the links --- and I think that's a fact in dispute, but, who cares? --- he's still a contributory infringer of the work if he set up a scheme where he benefited by willfully promoting infringing work.

aaronsw• 15 years ago

You leave out (B) and (C) of that paragraph:

    (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by 
        electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 
        or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more 
        copyrighted works, which have a total retail value 
        of more than $1,000; or

    (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for 
        commercial distribution, by making it available on 
        a computer network accessible to members of the 
        public, if such person knew or should have known 
        that the work was intended for commercial 
        distribution.

Not the "or".

benologist• 15 years ago

How does it matter? The retail value of the UFC/NFL live broadcasts would be several orders of magnitude more than $1,000 to the networks/stations licensing them, and even if you let that slide based on what the end viewer is paying instead of the licensees the guy still hits C face-first.

So he's matching either ABC, or AC, either of which put him in the running for a free vacation at club fed.

tptacek6• 15 years ago

You're right. I misread it. And I note further that (B) and (C) were deliberately added to address people copying software electronically without profiting from it.

But we're quibbling over how I (mis)represented the law. The fact remains: this guy got busted for taking $90,000+ out of his infringement scheme. He hit (A), not (B) or (C). That, I think, is a pretty salient detail for the FSF to have provided. Don't you agree with that?

VladRussian2• 15 years ago

Note previous sentence: "if the infringement was committed" The last sentence (A) is applicable only when infringement is present. Mere presence of financial gain doesn't necessarily means infringement.

tptacek6• 15 years ago

No, it just very likely to mean infringement. Contributory and vicarious copyright infringement liability is a topic that Wikipedia unsurprisingly covers very well; go check it out.

Settling out whether or not it's a crime to run a for-profit online directory of pirated sports feeds is what we have courts for. All we have now is an allegation.

ile• 15 years ago

These were my thoughts too. I don't see how that law (§ 506. Criminal offenses) defines an infringement?

Internet user arrested for linking to other websites

Related Stories