VEVO Execs Must Face Criminal Charges For Copyright Infringement

http://uncrunched.com/2012/02/09/vevo-execs-must-face-criminal-charges-for-copyright-infringement/2012/02/09/vevo-execs-must-face-criminal-charges-for-copyright-infringement/

by ed • 14 years ago

162 56 14 years ago

uncrunched.com

PeterisP• 14 years ago

The message is very simple - if the content industry does manage to push their legislation wishlist through congress, then every single one of the content middlemen guys should better watch out for all their personal actions every single second for the remainder of their lives.

Because we will be watching. If they manage to criminalize what they're doing themselves, then they must reap what they sow. And they will.

We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget.

vijayr• 14 years ago

what prevents the labels from having a secret agreement, that will exclude their employees/execs/subsidiaries etc from these lawsuits? "If you get caught playing my music, I'll make sure you don't get punished. you do the same for me. but let's sue everyone else" kinda thing?

rcfox• 14 years ago

Stories like this, and laws against collusion?

dedward2• 14 years ago

perhaps nothing? perhaps the artists wont sign such acontract? if it were anentire industry doing it it would be anantitrust issue......

phuff• 14 years ago

I try really hard to make sure all my music is bought and paid for, or obtained for free legally (promotional CDs, etc.). I don't download movies illegally (a really great public library makes that easy).

But I disagree with the way the content industries have tried to pursue an agenda of making it illegal to use things you've bought and paid for however you'd like.

That being said, I sure hope we do forgive and forget as a matter of policy. Being abrasive (like Michael Arrington is trying to be) isn't going to teach these people a lesson anymore than it teaches those who continue to get access to music and other content through piracy. The way to sway public policy is the same way things worked when SOPA was tabled a few weeks ago: through public action, using the legislative process.

Lawrence Lessig's Remix is a great intellectual treatise on why we should consider changing our copyright laws to reinforce the fair use rights we should have; sending copies of it to these people and asking them to read it seems like it might do a whole lot more good than some kind of draconian punishment regime.

dedward2• 14 years ago

pointing out that the people lobbying the hardest and spendingthe most resources against joe average, throwing grandma in jail for using a torrent can just as easily break the same laws and be obviously guilty of the same crimes is great.

if hey can fine joe for everything he has becavuse he downloaded some movies, and seize entire domainsfor merely linking, why SHOULDNT there be some backlash when they are caught doing the same thing.

oh, they didntknow, the tech guy did it? didnt work with all those lawsuits did it, so eat it i say.

Zev• 14 years ago

We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget.

I never got this. It sounds catchy, but, holding a grudge forever sounds like a horrific way to live.

tux1968• 14 years ago

Agreed. It also sounds juvenile and a bit detached from reality.

reinhardt• 14 years ago

I don't take this to imply "forever" necessarily. The grudge can end when the (alleged) wrongdoer pays for his deeds.

Regardless of its actual effectiveness, it's a useful deterrent, along the lines of massive retaliation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_retaliation).

icebraining• 14 years ago

"We" means the collective consciousness/memory, not any single person. As long as some number of members remembers the event, Anonymous doesn't forget, even if those members change with time.

gcb• 14 years ago

This is about millions of bored people. One individual will forget 2days later. But the online mob will carry on

cookiecaper• 14 years ago

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."

Apparently said by Lincoln, though I remembered the attribution going to Theodore Roosevelt.

ethank• 14 years ago

Vevo is not a label. It is a JV that includes YouTube among labels.

Natsu• 14 years ago

Has the article been edited?

The headline over there is different and the first sentence calls Vevo a "music label joint venture."

EDIT: Also, what is YouTube's involvement, exactly? It appears to be run mostly by ex-big label guys (and one person from MySpace), then they host on YouTube and share advertising revenue. Or something like that. There are few details about this on Wikipedia[2], but you're the kind of person who probably knows more about them than most of us.

[1] http://www.vevo.com/About/OurTeam [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vevo

mitchellhislop• 14 years ago

I remember some recent rumors that Vevo was thinking of moving to Facebook for the hosting part of their venture.

za• 14 years ago

Original Article: http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/09/music-labels-joint-venture-...

Update, 2/10:: ESPN says it will not be pursuing legal action. A spokesperson gave us the following statement:

“We’re disappointed the exhibitor took this route, especially at a festival for an industry whose jobs are most at risk if we are not able to curtail stolen content.”

naner• 14 years ago

http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/09/music-labels-joint-venture-...

Update, 2/10:: ESPN says it will not be pursuing legal action. A spokesperson gave us the following statement:

“We’re disappointed the exhibitor took this route, especially at a festival for an industry whose jobs are most at risk if we are not able to curtail stolen content.”

schiffern• 14 years ago

Correct me if I'm wrong (and IANAL), but I believe it doesn't matter if the injured party does or does not want to pursue criminal charges. That matters for civil charges, but not criminal charges. Those are made at the discretion of the District Attorney.

The injured party can influence the DA's decision of course, but ultimately it's his/her call.

jakeonthemove• 14 years ago

These guys probably have no idea what piracy is... They must've been very surprised when they learned that streaming a game is pirating content. Hopefully, they'll start thinking about it more and come up with better solutions (like, you know, making the damn paid content available anytime, anywhere, for anyone)...

darxius2• 14 years ago

Can a citizen seek legal action in regards to an event which didn't directly involve them? For example, you saw a crime and want to sue because no one else will?

This can't just "go away".

waiwai933• 14 years ago

Private prosecution in the US only appears to be permitted in the state of Virginia, and although IANAL, I think that even there, it would only apply to state statues and not federal ones. But you could petition the Attorney General's office to prosecute, and/or write to your Senators/Representative to ask them to advocate for a criminal prosecution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution

snowwrestler4• 14 years ago

Not to be pedantic, but Vevo would not face criminal charges for showing one stream to a few people at a bar. To create criminal liability they would need to be infringing on a commercial scale--like Frontrow.tv and TuTele.tv do by hosting the streams with ads next to them.

Vevo would be open to civil liability but it is up the copyright holder to decide whether it's worth pursuing.

darxius2• 14 years ago

I don't think this is correct. When you share/download torrents you aren't paying the user at the receiving end. Yet it is still illegal.

By your logic, I could stay in Times Square giving out copies of Avatar and Inception as long as I give it for free.

ljf• 14 years ago

I (believe) the main issue with torrents has been the fact that you are also distributing when you download. This is why (AFAIK) very few people have been fined for streaming or downloading from services like Rapidshare.

snowwrestler4• 14 years ago

It's not just a question of legal/illegal. Some things that are illegal are not criminal--they create civil liability instead. If you lose, you owe money but you don't go to jail or have a criminal record.

Have any individuals been criminally prosecuted for their personal BitTorrent use? I've read a lot of stories of people being sued, but I can't remember a story of criminal prosecution. I guess it would be possible if the prosecutor could make the case that BitTorrent is a form of distribution, and the amount meets the criteria in the law:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

sunchild8• 14 years ago

What are you basing this on? It doesn't jibe with the laws, as I understand them.

snowwrestler4• 14 years ago

I was talking about this story with a guy I know who is a lawyer specializing in IP. It didn't seem to me like it would rise to criminal prosecution and he agreed.

waterlesscloud• 14 years ago

An industry party at an industry event is a commercial event. You can be sure it will look that way on their taxes.

rorrr• 14 years ago

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

I'm pretty sure legally they can be prosecuted, but it will never happen.

njharman2• 14 years ago

The first part "won't face charges" is right, but the second part to create criminal liability is wrong (in the USA).

(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;

(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.

DanBC• 14 years ago

Which section did VEVO break?

If A, what was the commercial advantage or private financial gain?

grellas• 14 years ago

VEVO Execs Must Face Criminal Charges For Copyright Infringement

Criminal charges are a serious business and I don't think it promotes healthy debate to sling around loose statements suggesting that they be pursued recklessly by the authorities, no matter how unattractive the party involved in the wrongdoing. No self-respecting prosecutor would even consider bringing charges where only a one-time incident is involved and where the alleged perpetrator claims (as here) that the incident was inadvertent (however lacking in credibility this may be, it is a classic "plausible deniability" excuse). Do we really want our government devoting substantial resources toward trying to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in such a case? And does anyone seriously want this to be the standard by which criminal prosecutions for alleged copyright infringement are brought?

Since I would assume the answer to these questions is no, then the only point of this piece is to use an absurdly overstated headline to draw attention to itself.

I am against hypocrisy as much as the next guy, and I have no particular sympathy for the musical labels (or even for the sort of glitzy events at which this incident occurred), but it does not advance the cause of attaining sane copyright legislation to make "off with his head" demands that have no basis in reality.

Music industry hypocrisy is fair game for advocating against draconian copyright enforcement and in itself makes for a potent argument. The effect is much diluted, however, when the argument cannot be taken seriously. If instead this is not intended to be taken seriously but is rather a form of street theater intended to dramatize a point, then it is (in my view) just lame and ineffective.

This is a case of infringement by which the copyright holder can choose to take civil action or not as suits its purposes. If a cost-benefit legal analysis suggests that little damage in fact occurred and that the incident is non-recurring or plausibly explainable, then there is likely nothing worth pursuing. What the incident boils down to, then, is a horrible embarrassment for the music industry execs involved and, at the level, it does carry a sting. The rest is fluff.

sunchild8• 14 years ago

Intentional infringement = criminal penalties. Sorry, but that's the rule of law, i.e., the very bed they made for themselves. Everyone knows the Superbowl is proprietary. The NFL says so during the broadcast.

j_baker• 14 years ago

That seems like an awfully arbitrary statement to make, especially when copyright infringement is largely a civil issue. Not to mention that grellas is an attorney, so I assume he knows what he's talking about. As I understand it, criminal charges are only warranted when the copyrighted material is sold commercially.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

anigbrowl3• 14 years ago

I would like you to explain your rationale for respondeat superior in a case like this, ie the idea that the executives should be charged because of the misdeeds of a subcontractor or junior staffer. It seems to me that the problem here is the difficulty of establishing that Vevo execs said 'throw a party, and make sure it has the superbowl but not in a way we have to pay for, heh heh.' How would you show, as a prosecutor, that it wasn't simply corner-cutting by the event services firm? (I don't know for sure if the event services were contracted out, but that's how these things are usually done.)

bo1024• 14 years ago

> No self-respecting prosecutor would even consider bringing charges where only a one-time incident is involved and where the alleged perpetrator claims (as here) that the incident was inadvertent

Do we live in the same United States?

neilparikh• 14 years ago

> where the alleged perpetrator claims (as here) that the incident was inadvertent

This incident is similar to cases where people are accused of Copyright Infringement by the labels, because their Wifi was unsecured. So, if I leave my Wifi open, and someone pirates <insert popular song here>, that's illegal, but if VEVO leaves their computer open, (which in my opinion is worse than leaving your Wifi open, but this is just opinion) and someone streams the Superbowl (popular sports event), that's fine?

newman3142• 14 years ago

I fail to see why Vevo should get a pass. If the RIAA/MPAA feel it to be valid to pursue people with unproven downloads or a single download, the same should apply to Vevo.

res0nat0r• 14 years ago

Because two wrongs don't make a right?

VEVO Execs Must Face Criminal Charges For Copyright Infringement

Related Stories