California AG Pretends Copyright Infringement Is Theft; Charges Streaming Site With Grand Theft

from the hmm... dept

I was a bit confused to see California Attorney General Kamala Harris announce that she, with the help of the MPAA, had broken up an "online piracy ring" that was streaming movies online. That's because Harris has no authority when it comes to copyright issues. Copyright is a federal, not state law, and copyright cases need to be in federal court. But that's not what happened here. Instead, she rounded up a trio of brothers, Hop, Tony and Huynh Hoang... and charged them with grand theft, conspiracy and receiving stolen property. I was wondering if there was any actual "theft" going on here, or if Harris is simply redefining theft to get around federal preemption rules for copyright infringement. From her statements, it sounds like a blatant attempt to get around federal preemption as a favor to the MPAA.
“Digital piracy is theft. It is a serious crime that harms one of California’s most important economic engines – our entertainment industry,” said Attorney General Harris. “This case sends a clear message that the California Department of Justice will investigate digital piracy and prosecute violators to the fullest extent of the law.”
Except that infringement and theft are two very different issues, which are taken care of under two very different laws. I know that the MPAA loves to call infringement "theft" but it does not make it legally "theft."

Separately, it's worth pointing out that the details of this case, once again show that the claims of people that various "pirate" sites are making tons of money doesn't have much support:
Over the 18 months of the website’s operation, the brothers earned approximately $150,000 in advertising revenue.
So, 18 months, 3 brothers, $150,000. That's $50,000 per brother. Or, about $33,000 per year, per person, not counting expenses. If the sites were even remotely popular, most of that money went towards hosting. So, not exactly a huge moneymaker.

Either way, the bigger issue here appears to be the attempt by the MPAA and AG Harris to redefine copyright law as "theft" to avoid a federal case concerning copyright. That's an incredible attempt to change the meaning of the law, which one hopes a judge will toss out on preemption grounds. If these brothers actually did what they're accused of, why not go after them on copyright infringement grounds? It seems likely that the MPAA has been just waiting for a case like this to try to circumvent the basic tenets of copyright law, to pretend that laws on theft apply.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 2:52pm

    Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 2:55pm

    Unfortunately for the piracy-loving Mike Masnick, the US Supreme Court itself already stated that digital piracy was "no different than garden-variety theft."

    That really sucks for you, doesn't it Mike?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 2:56pm

    “Digital piracy is theft. It is a serious crime that harms one of California’s most important economic engines – our entertainment industry,” Harris said. “This case sends a clear message that the California Department of Justice will investigate digital piracy and prosecute violators to the fullest extent of the law.”


    LoL... fortunately, at some point, someone involved here is going to have to actually read said law.

    Nigel

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 2:58pm

    Re:

    Suck it Lowery!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:00pm

    Re:

    Copyright law is a crutch for those that cannot create anything of value.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Nigel (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:00pm

    hmph

    http://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/120012/kamala-harris#.UbuSPJwiwRE

    Not at all surprising she got a years salary to most folks from the rubes in the entertainment industry.

    Nigel

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:01pm

    Re:

    They aren't using copyright law. Try again next article!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:01pm

    "most of that money went to hosting"

    So of course that's why they went to the trouble of running the sites, right Mike? They wanted to donate their time?

    Actually the reality is you don't know for a fact what their hosting fees were. And you didn't try to find out. Because you're a blatantly dishonest slime ball that is under the delusion that people actually believe your bullshit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:03pm

    Re:

    0 for 2. Maybe stop before you make it worse?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:04pm

    Re: Re:

    What a hilarious and obvious lie.

    You pirate propagandists really aren't even trying anymore, are you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:06pm

    Re:

    when copyright law is enforced.

    If copyright law were being enforced, you might have a point. But since they weren't actually charged with copyright infringement, what's your point?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    AC Unknown, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:07pm

    Re: Re:

    He's not gonna stop.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:07pm

    Re:

    Unfortunately for the piracy-loving Mike Masnick, the US Supreme Court itself already stated that digital piracy was "no different than garden-variety theft."

    They have NEVER said that you can charge someone under traditional regulations regarding theft rather than copyright...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    AC Unknown, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:08pm

    Re:

    The only slimeball is you. Frankly, if I were Mike, you would have been banned on the spot with the first attack.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Kilabit, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:09pm

    Re: Re:

    Looks like you're the real idiot here. The case your cited clearly says:

    " The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud"

    Thanks for finding that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Internet Zen Master (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:12pm

    Re:

    No kidding.

    Sure, it is possible for someone to get tossed in jail for several years for a certain amount level of "criminal" copyright infringement. However, it is not, nor should it ever be equated/confused with, theft.

    No matter how badly the MPAA et al want to call it stealing in order to confuse Joe Public...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:13pm

    I am sorry for the 3 brothers there, but this really put a smile on my face.

    People in law enforcement are really getting desperate.

    One can only hope that the law is followed and this nonsense gets thrown out of court.

    Also copyright infringement a serious crime?

    LooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooL

    Is it a bigger crime than tax evasion?
    Creative accounting?
    Lying to congress?

    California AG really has its priorities straight.

    She should be careful though, both actors that played the Joker died already, that role is cursed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:13pm

    Re: Re:

    Nice try. Nobody loves to attempt to use weasel words more than you Mike.

    Did your little blog take a hit with all your NSA articles this week?

    Throwing out some Friday red meat for your pirate devotees?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:15pm

    Let it go to trial. The state will have to prove specific losses. Not theft of services, but actual losses. That should be interesting.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Rapnel (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:15pm

    Re:

    Awe, what's the matter? Your cow don't got no more milk?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Internet Zen Master (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:15pm

    Re: Re:

    That's a bit extreme. Copyright law does have its uses.

    However, copyright law has become so perverted by those who use it just to make a free buck off other people's hard work (Hi RIAA!), that it's impossible to tell what it was supposed to be used for.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:16pm

    Re: Re:

    Of course you would. I speak the truth on a pirate blog. I should be banned, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    AC Unknown, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:17pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You speak naught but lies, slimeball.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Nigel (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:18pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    No, you are simply rude, fact free and a complete pussy because you are unwilling to stand behind what you say. Use your real name and someone might bother to actually read your nonsense.

    Until then, STFU.

    Nigel

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:20pm

    Except that infringement and theft are two very different issues, which are taken care of under two very different laws. I know that the MPAA loves to call infringement "theft" but it does not make it legally "theft."

    Oh look, conclusory statements by the wannabe-pirate-lawyer Mike Milkman Masnick. Run us through the analysis, counselor. Does theft under California law have an extra element that would make it not preempted? Don't you think the California AG has some knowledge of how preemption works? Have you bothered to read the indictment? Do you even know what section they are charged under? Of course not.

    Separately, it's worth pointing out that the details of this case, once again show that the claims of people that various "pirate" sites are making tons of money doesn't have much support: Over the 18 months of the website’s operation, the brothers earned approximately $150,000 in advertising revenue.

    I love how Pirate Mike protects his kin by pretending that $150,000 over 18 months is not a lot of money. That's probably more than anyone in your fan club makes. Hilarious!

    Either way, the bigger issue here appears to be the attempt by the MPAA and AG Harris to redefine copyright law as "theft" to avoid a federal case concerning copyright. That's an incredible attempt to change the meaning of the law, which one hopes a judge will toss out on preemption grounds. If these brothers actually did what they're accused of, why not go after them on copyright infringement grounds? It seems likely that the MPAA has been just waiting for a case like this to try to circumvent the basic tenets of copyright law, to pretend that laws on theft apply.

    Give us the actual legal analysis, Counselor Mike.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    AC Unknown, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:21pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    My Steam library and collection of CDs begs to differ, Troll.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    TC, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:21pm

    Criminal copyright infringement may not be preempted

    Actually, although the US copyright law very clearly preempts most state copyright law (other than pre-1972 sound recordings) in a civil context, it is not at all settled that it applies in a criminal context, as here. The text of the law is "no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State"; and whether that applies to criminal law is an unsettled issue.

    In New Hampshire v. Nelson, a 2004 NH state case and the most recent case I know in this area, a criminal conviction was upheld for "receiving stolen property" where the stolen property was a scan made of a photo.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    AC Unknown, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:26pm

    Re:

    Enough with the attacks. Maybe you'll get Mike to listen to you if you got rid of the name calling and acted a bit more mature.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:27pm

    no doubt. and a dollar says they will miraculously find a judge who is sympathetic to the cause, just as one was miraculously found in Sweden for the Spectrial of TPB4. he will rule in favour of the MPAA, rewriting the law as he goes, just as the entertainment industries have changed 'innocent until PROVEN guilty' to 'guilty unless you can afford to be defended' so the crime becomes grand theft, just like the AG (a person who is supposed to know, respect and obey the law, remember!!) wants the charge to be, because he hasn't got the balls to do otherwise and upsetting them would mean a longer trial and no golf at the weekend! when the appeal goes through, it will be delayed intentionally so that the brothers run out of the $ millions the MPAA state they are certain was received for the infringing activities and when no defense is left, they will be fined an incredible amount which is greater than all the wealth in the world and a50years in prison, as copyright infringement, file sharing is no so heinous a crime, that civilization as we know it will cease to exist if any shorter a sentence is even thought of! i appreciate that laws are made to be broken, but that shouldn't be done by those that are supposed to be the greatest upholders of the law. they're not supposed to rewrite them to become what they want them to be at the time, just because they want to go through the revolving door from government employee to entertainment industries bitch!i mean, come on!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    AC Unknown, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:29pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You brought piracy upon yourself by not listening to the customer like the rest of the industries.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:31pm

    Yes, Mike, infringement IS a form of theft.

    From the Pirate Paster above: "Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud" -- And so? Mugging is less complex than wire fraud, but both are still theft.

    Evidently that a variety of acts exist which can all be called "theft" is too complex for Mike and the pirates.

    This is all laid out in the IsoHunt case, which I thought Mike understood as HUGE defeat for the notion that infringement or even hosting infringed files IS a form of theft, but he simply doesn't learn.
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130321/12104822407/isohunt-still-guilty-contributory-infr ingement.shtml
    (Note that at comment #4, I, ah, don't go into extraneous detail, just do some crowing. The fanboys can't stand it.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    Rapnel (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:31pm

    Re: Re:

    Unfortunately he's as mature as his champion industry is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:40pm

    Re: Re:

    They have NEVER said that you can charge someone under traditional regulations regarding theft rather than copyright...

    And one of the many, many points that you will never address is the fact that intangibles can be the object of theft. Typically, the claims would be preempted, and we would call it by the specific name of infringement. But the fact remains that it's still a type of theft since theft is a very broad term. You, of course, can never discuss this on the merits. For some reason, you're too scared to admit even obvious truths if they cut against your mindless rhetoric. Total fake, Mikey.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:42pm

    Re:

    the US Supreme Court itself already stated that digital piracy was "no different than garden-variety theft."

    No, they didn't.

    The quote you're referring to is this one: "And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 2319 (criminal copyright infringement); §1961(1)(B) (copyright infringement can be a predicate act under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); §1956(c)(7)(D) (money laundering includes the receipt of proceeds from copyright infringement)."

    That was from a concurring opinion by Justice Breyer - not the opinion of the court.

    Furthermore, the statutes he quoted to support his (dicta) claim were all copyright infringement statutes. Not a one was a statute dealing with theft, conversion, or fraud.

    On the other hand, the Supreme Court, when it decided exactly this issue, said explicitly that copyright infringment was not theft, and that people who engage in piracy cannot be charged under Federal theft laws:
    In contrast, the Government's theory here would make theft, conversion, or fraud equivalent to wrongful appropriation of statutorily protected rights in copyright. The copyright owner, however, holds no ordinary chattel. A copyright, like other intellectual property, comprises a series of carefully defined and carefully delimited interests to which the law affords correspondingly exact protections. [...] Thus, the property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, or merchandise," for the copyright holder's dominion is subjected to precisely defined limits.

    It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. [...] The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially like infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

    Dowling's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2314 was overturned.

    So, you're 100% wrong: the Supreme Court said no such thing, and in fact explicitly said that the government cannot do exactly what the California A.G. is attempting to do in this case.

    That really sucks for you, doesn't it, asshole A.C.?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Janey, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:42pm

    Another example of how California has been bought off by special interests. Harris was a lousy choice for AG, and she proved this in her time in San Francisco.

    Another Dem bought off by Hollywood.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:45pm

    Re: Re: Re:


    Did your little blog take a hit with all your NSA articles this week?

    Throwing out some Friday red meat for your pirate devotees?


    He wouldn't be milking that NSA story so much unless he was getting the clicks. It's all about the clicks for Mikey. Truth be damned. But you're right, he throws in the occasional anti-copyright hate/FUD pieces to keep the pirates flocking. He caters to the pirates and he knows it, and he's too dishonest to ever discuss any of it without a bunch of weasel words. What a fake.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    TheLastCzarnian (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:47pm

    And so it ends...

    So the MPAA and the AG have become so desperate that they would try to charge a copyright infringer with grand theft.
    Pathetic. This is, however, the kind of thing that happens right before a massive change. The backlash from this will probably be extreme, if it gets to the media as it should.

    Sorry, trolls, but AG's do not get to make up new definitions for old crimes for which they have no jurisdiction.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Seems like you need a vacation. Why don't you go to the middle of the forest where no one can hear you and yell.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:49pm

    Re: Yes, Mike, infringement IS a form of theft.

    This is all laid out in the IsoHunt case

    IsoHunt was never found guilty of theft. (Nor even charged with theft.)

    They were found guilty of civil copyright infringement.

    They are not the same thing at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:51pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Concrete is hard let him crash and burn :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:51pm

    Re: Re:

    Enough with the attacks. Maybe you'll get Mike to listen to you if you got rid of the name calling and acted a bit more mature.

    Nope. I've tried that hundreds if not thousands of times. Mike has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he has no intention of discussing the stuff he writes about on the merits. All he gets now is my deepest contempt. If he wants me to stop attacking him, he needs to show me that there is even one honest cell in his body. I see no evidence of that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    He wouldn't be milking that NSA story so much unless he was getting the clicks.

    I'd think that if all Mike wanted was clicks, he'd be writing about celebrity nipslips and the like. Writing about the NSA and copyright law doesn't seem like the sort of thing one writes about if you're just a traffic whore.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    PRMan, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:52pm

    Re: Re:

    Hope the Hoangs' lawyer knows about this Supreme Court case...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:52pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    citation required.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:58pm

    Re: Re: @ "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft"

    Well, now law and gadgets have both evolved to where it DOES! The surrounding circumstances of promoting infringed content and getting advertising revenue with infringing content tip it well over the line.

    That's pretty explicit in the IsoHunt decision, even as minimized here by Mike:
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130321/12104822407/isohunt-still-guilty-contributory-infri ngem

    And in ANY event, I think CA AG actions are soundly based in common law and morality. These grifters were diverting income that they had no part in creating and does not belong to them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    HoneyBadgerPiratey, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:58pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Trying what?
    Not to pirate anything?

    I am sorry but I can't stop breathing because it infringes some law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    AC Unknown, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:58pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    That's because you're always attacking him. Respect is a two-way street.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    AC Unknown, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 3:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I call shenanigans on your "citation required".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    TheLastCzarnian (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 4:01pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    No, having a debate with you is like playing chess with a pigeon.

    "it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, struts around, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

    - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 4:01pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    As a spittoon perhaps?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 4:05pm

    Re: Re: Yes, Mike, infringement IS a form of theft.

    @ IsoHunt was never found guilty of theft. (Nor even charged with theft.)

    They were found guilty of civil copyright infringement."


    Certainly they are guilty of theft! Commercial infringement is a FORM of theft. They're gaining off someone else's intellectual property, which is DEFINED by ALL of copyright to BE theft!

    You're just splitting hairs. Common law, in my opinion, directly equates commercial scale infringement under these circumstances with theft. Copyright exists precisely to prevent THIS specific TYPE of theft! -- I'm afraid YOU will never get that point, but it's perfectly obvious to anyone not trained in how to dodge the law, or seeking to steal what's clearly not theirs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 4:08pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I've tried that hundreds if not thousands of times.

    Not once have you interacted with Mike, where you didn't insult him and lie about him.

    Not once.

    As usual, you're the only one here who doesn't have "even one honest cell in his body." You've proved this over and over and over again.

    Enjoy your delusion that refusing to interact with a lying, petulant asshole is the same as refusing to discuss something "on the merits." I'm sure it helps you sleep at night.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 4:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: @ "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft"

    blue your parachute has a hole.

    ISOHunt was found guilty of copyright infringement not theft.

    We all want to see how the CA AG will spin that to make copyright infringement magically become theft.

    The clear message here is that the CA AG is and idiot, trying to please its masters.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 4:14pm

    Re:

    what about

    If these brothers actually did what they're accused of, why not go after them on copyright infringement grounds?

    do you not understand

    he is objecting to trying to shoe horn copyright infringement into theft statutes in direct violation to supreme court ruling.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 4:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Yes, Mike, infringement IS a form of theft.

    Splitting hairs or not the letter of the law is different for the two, have you read it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 4:18pm

    LoL

    Creative accounting, imaginary property, imaginary harm, imaginary numbers, imaginary theft, and now creative prosecution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 4:19pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Concrete is hard and cold, let him crash and burn.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 4:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Yes, Mike, infringement IS a form of theft.

    Commercial infringement is a FORM of theft.

    Not according to either the Federal statutes or the Supreme Court, it's not.

    Common law, in my opinion, directly equates commercial scale infringement under these circumstances with theft.

    Your opinion is wrong.

    First, copyright law is not based on common law, as I've already made very clear to you:
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130412/16073622693/julie-samuels-favorite-techdirt-posts-we ek.shtml#c618

    Second, even if you consider state statutes to be "common law," no state has ever equated copyright infringement with theft. They've always been considered two separate things.

    One major difference is that theft laws are always criminal (either misdemeanors or felonies). Copyright infringement has always been primarily a civil infraction.

    That's why IsoHunt was never found guilty of any criminal act. They only faced civil liability.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 4:24pm

    How did I know the idiots would be out in force on this one?

    You know what is really theft? Copyright is theft. Theft of culture. Theft from the public domain.

    Copyright is a very 20th century concept, a government granted monopoly that gives control of culture to a small group of people. It goes against everything that culture is about.

    Music/literature/art was all created, enjoyed and shared freely for millennia before copyright came to be. We need some serious scaling back of copyright terms and we need massive expansion of fair use.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 4:32pm

    I could see this as boosting VPN sales for California users. The "receiving stolen property" count could make it a criminal offence in California to view streams. This could cause viewers of streams to use a VPN to avoid being nicked in California.

    Even Klobuchar's felony streaming bill never went that far. She was very careful to write her bill to where viewers of streams would not be committing a felony.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    fucking right, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 4:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: @ "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft"

    Common law an morality?? You're a fucking tool...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 4:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'd think that if all Mike wanted was clicks, he'd be writing about celebrity nipslips and the like. Writing about the NSA and copyright law doesn't seem like the sort of thing one writes about if you're just a traffic whore.

    His writing is aimed at the broad anti-IP, anti-government, lives-in-mom's-basement types. Seems clear enough to me that he caters to a broad audience and tweaks his style/subject matter to increase traffic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 4:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: @ "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft"

    I think CA AG actions are soundly based in common law and morality.


    Even if they are (and I think they are not), it doesn't matter -- the courts rule on the basis of written law, not "common law" or morality.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    btr1701, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 4:43pm

    Re:

    > Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is
    > enforced.

    Too bad that didn't actually happen in this case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 4:46pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Nope. I've tried that hundreds if not thousands of times.


    You have??? I've never seen you try that even once. OK, I'll be fair, maybe once or twice a long time ago...

    ...but then, Mike did indeed try having a rational discussion with you of the very sort you claim that you can't get, but you rapidly devolved into your usual vitriol.

    I'm pretty sure that's why Mike ignores you. You are incapable of have a rational discussion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    btr1701, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 4:50pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    > I speak the truth on a pirate blog. I should be banned, right?

    You apparently wouldn't know the truth if it ran up to you, twisted your nipple, and called you Sally.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 4:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sorry no. The RIAA boogeyman is a a copout from the pirates who have no problem with a giant evil multi-billion dollar corporation like Google.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 4:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And he's paid by Google to do it.

    Maybe sometime he can explain how Techdirt gets favored status in Google search results...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 4:58pm

    Re: Re:

    Oh look, it's Karl the Village Idiot again.

    Dowling is from 1985.

    Supreme Court Justice Breyer said "unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft." Just like the OP wrote.

    And in 2005.

    Twenty years later.

    You're a fucking idiot, Karl.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 5:01pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Actually he's way more mature than Masnick, who runs and hides every time the facts start rolling in and show what a joke his statements are.

    Runs and hides.

    Every single time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 5:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're such a lying douchebag, Karl,

    Masnick immediately runs away like a little girl as soon as he's confronted with real legal analysis. Every time.

    And you know it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    AC Unknown, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 5:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Citation required

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    AC Unknown, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 5:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This nonsense? You really are desperate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    AC Unknown, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 5:11pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Oh look, here's a shilltroll who gets off on ad-hom attacks against the regulars.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 5:30pm

    Feeble

    I am sure even the MPAA are laughing at her. "Wow what a stupid woman" they all think.

    Sure enough this case will soon crash and burn the moment it is pointed out in Court that Copyright Infringement is not actually Theft. As a result trial in state Court is therefore denied being a Federal law.

    Still the MPAA would be happy when their goal is to destroy where this case well highlights how well their propaganda works to fool the weak minded.

    California may well need a new Attorney General when Kamala Harris clearly does not know her laws. Her and VP Joe Biden now have something in common... lack of brain cells.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 5:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    His writing is aimed at the broad anti-IP, anti-government, lives-in-mom's-basement types.

    Yeah, because that's where the money is. Are you insane?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 5:56pm

    Re: Feeble

    What's the difference between this case and the Megaupload case if any. If this case is on similar charges to Megaupload then this case will no doubt be around for quite a while being as Megaupload's case is still on going with the US court without discharge.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 6:02pm

    Re: And so it ends...

    Yes we are deep in prohibition where the Government actively fights against the mass will of the population. Their attempts to maintain control become ever more desperate as the World changes around them.

    The truth about streaming can be seen in the

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 6:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It's not a boogeyman if it's already been known to sue dead grandmothers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 6:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You think the stereotypical nerd who lives in his mother's basement constitutes a majority?

    That's funny, because the usual response heard is that the general public wants tougher copyright laws and pirates are a mere minority. So which is it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 6:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And that's somehow less mature than "Bawk bawk bawk".

    You're delusional.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 6:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, Mike, infringement IS a form of theft.

    out_of_the_blue just hates it when due process is enforced.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    icon
    velox (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 6:18pm

    Re:

    You can bet the AG will really enjoy those great seats she has earned at the Oscars next March.
    Bonus: Partying with the glitterati afterward.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 6:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Dissociative disorders may explain while vast numbers of pirates support tougher copyright laws :)

    Do not ever underestimate the ignorance of the public in such matters.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 6:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    They should just Google about how Google search works, you know, through links and linking, er, I mean . . .

    BIG GOOGLE AND BIG MIKE ARE IN CAHOOTS!!! THE SEARCH RESULTS DON'T LIE!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 6:37pm

    Re: Re:

    With some luck she overdose and gets an early retirement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 6:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You should dump a bucket of real legal analysis on Mike's head and watch him melt. Then you would win, because you're a winner.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 6:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No he plays a winner, it is all make belief in his world, including but not limited to, the property that he purports to protect :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 7:13pm

    In the meanwhile Kickass Torrents domain kat.ph was seized and they just shifted to http://kickass.to/.

    Every pirate operator appears to have realized how important LLC's are, even the Prenda Dream Team are aware of that because they use the same legal gimmicks to stay in business, but the similarities end there, while nobody knows who the operators of Kickass torrents are everyone is clued as to who Prenda and their sudo names are.

    Piracy it seems is unstoppable, will ootb and AJ put an end to this shameful state of affairs?
    Do not miss the next episode on the Piracy Wars 6900 (read it like 69 double ohw)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    horse with no name, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 7:18pm

    Come on

    What, $150,000 for hosting, but they don't host the content, right? Or wait, do they host the content?

    Seeing this tried as grand theft will be very interesting, and in California which is movie land, it's possible it might actually make it through the courts.

    Can you imagine the egg on everyone's face around here when a court does find copyright violation to be theft? Damn, you guys would really tie yourselves in knots trying to get out of that one.

    I cheer this case on, just to see Mike try to get out of the logical hole.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 7:21pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Supreme Court Justice Breyer

    I already covered Breyer's comment, dipshit.

    Are you seriously suggesting that Breyer's intent was to overturn Dowling?

    And I'm the fucking idiot?

    Just like the OP wrote.

    No, he didn't. He said that copyright infringement was "no different than garden-variety theft." Not that it was "no less" than garden-variety theft, but that they were one and the same thing under the law.

    And he was doing it to justify the California A.G. bringing theft charges, not copyright infringement charges, against the site owners.

    He is wrong, and an entire Supreme Court case that focused only on this specific issue showed that he is wrong.

    Assuming "he" is not you, of course.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 7:23pm

    most of that money went towards hosting.


    Whotf is paying $8000 a month for hosting?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 7:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    ayahyay, really? ever heard of search algorithms? what tinfoil covered hell hole did you come up from.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 7:37pm

    Re: Re: Feeble

    What's the difference between this case and the Megaupload case if any.

    Megaupload was not charged with theft.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    identicon
    MrWilson, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 7:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: @ "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft"

    I saw the article in my RSS feed. I clicked the title link to come to Techdirt. I hit ctrl+f when the page loaded. And I typed the keywords "common law."

    I knew I wouldn't be disappointed. My reliable source of comic relief after a long day of work never fails me.

    It's just unfortunate that "common law" is now essentially the center square of everyone's out_of_the_blue's absurd statement bingo card. You can only claim it once regardless of how many times it comes up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 9:01pm

    Isn't CA in massive debt and having to cut back on all sorts of things for citizens?

    Maybe that engine needs a tune up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 9:33pm

    Re:

    Whotf is paying $8000 a month for hosting?

    I suspect most of the large companies pay that or more a month. Amazon likely pays that much or more for the cost of the electricity to run their servers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    icon
    Coyote (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 9:49pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I don't know if 'propagandists' is the correct term. Perhaphs realists is a better term, since all you seem to do is sprout ignorance and continue allowing yourself to be deflowered by these 'companies' while yet being unpaid.

    I can respect a paid shill; they do their job and get paid for it, and get paid for saying the dumbest arguments so long as it's flavored correctly. I have no respect for unpaid shills, like you, OOTB and HWNN. You essentially argue and flail about uselessly against someone like Mike, Timothy, Leigh and others , who actually do know how to debate, to argue, for what amounts to zero pay.

    Now, I'm not suggesting you cannot defend something for zero pay -- I do as much quite a bit, but it's mostly limited to video games, books or even TV shows -- but when that company is so blatantly anti-consumer, so blatantly trying desperately to curb people's rights, and trying SOOO desperately to save their dying business model by sacrificing to Baphomet, I have to ask you.

    Why do you settle for less?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 9:49pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Nope. You should banned under a general policy that does not allow 5-year-olds to comment on websites.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 9:51pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    News Flash: If you have tried "thousands of times" without success, perhaps it is time rethink your strategy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 14th, 2013 @ 9:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You are a liar, and not even a good one. Everyone knows it except you. You may never realize it, but no one particularly cares.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 10:42pm

    Re:

    Isn't CA in massive debt and having to cut back on all sorts of things for citizens?


    Believe it or not: no. We're currently rolling in money.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/us/californias-new-problem-too-much-money.html?_r=0

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103.  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 10:48pm

    Re: Re: And so it ends...

    Damned system lost most of my posting so let me type it all again...

    Yes we are deep in prohibition where the Government actively fights against the mass will of the population. Their attempts to maintain control become ever more desperate as the World changes around them.

    The truth about streaming can be seen in the RojaDirecta case when after 3 strikes they are still not out. The DoJ losing against them in US Court sure removes the "willful" aspect in any US business that follows RojaDirecta's lawful streaming example.

    So now they try anything to censor and to contain people sharing media. They obviously cannot win against public demand for long.

    The World is soon to change. Most people realise that Copyright has gone too far where it needs to be curtailed to prevent such abuses. Evidence shows that sharing is not economically harmful so why try to stop people's chosen freedom to enjoy entertainment?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 11:00pm

    Re: Re:

    Gosh, it's almost too easy to disprove those anonymous morons.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 11:03pm

    Re: Re:

    Gosh, it's almost too easy to disprove those anonymous morons.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 11:05pm

    Re:

    You mad, bro?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Jun 14th, 2013 @ 11:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You mad, bro?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Jun 15th, 2013 @ 3:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Runs and hides.

    Every single time."


    So Mike, who posts under his real name every day, is "hiding", says his anonymous accuser.

    Irony, thy name is AC...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Jun 15th, 2013 @ 4:27am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yet, they will still harp on about Mike not engaging in 'honest discussions' with them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110.  
    icon
    Bergman (profile), Jun 15th, 2013 @ 7:52am

    Re: Re: Re: @ "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft"

    The only way I can think of that would make a copyright infringement actually BE theft is if you somehow hacked the owner's computer and deleted all of his copies, then broke into his house and destroyed all of his hard copies as well. THEN an unauthorized copying would be theft.

    Problem is, the only individual or group that has ever done anything remotely like that is the MAFIAA itself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111.  
    icon
    RonKaminsky (profile), Jun 15th, 2013 @ 8:34am

    Great new video game concept

    Instead of GTA: GTIP!

    Use your (in-game) hacking skillz to create botnets capable of sending SWAT teams to innocent family's houses (or for an extra special achievement, to the houses of relatives of IP trolls)!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 15th, 2013 @ 8:43am

    Re: Re: Re:

    you'll note that this isn't a pirate blog, and not even the report button prevents your posts from being read.

    IF you speak the truth on a strongly pro copyright blog and it doesn't fit into the MPAA/RIAA narritive your comment isn't seen AT ALL

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 15th, 2013 @ 9:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I've tried that hundreds if not thousands of times."

    Not once have you interacted with Mike, where you didn't insult him and lie about him.

    Not once.

    As usual, you're the only one here who doesn't have "even one honest cell in his body." You've proved this over and over and over again.

    Enjoy your delusion that refusing to interact with a lying, petulant asshole is the same as refusing to discuss something "on the merits." I'm sure it helps you sleep at night.


    Oh, look. Marcus has a rival for the title of Head Suck-up. What an unctuous salad tosser you are Karl.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  114. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 15th, 2013 @ 9:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And that's somehow less mature than "Bawk bawk bawk".

    I'm not being mature when I taunt Mikey-Poo. I'm shitting on him in his own house and he's too scared to even defend himself. It's awesome fun for me, but it's certainly not me being mature. Mike doesn't deserve maturity. He deserves ridicule and lots of it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  115.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 15th, 2013 @ 10:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "The RIAA boogeyman is a a copout from the pirates who have no problem with a giant evil multi-billion dollar corporation like Google."

    What about giant evil multi-billion dollar corporation like Disney?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  116.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 15th, 2013 @ 11:07am

    Re: Re:

    How they achieved those numbers is more towards the point I was attempting to make.

    Cuts in staff, services, etc. while this all important engine plays bookkeeping games to appear to be making nothing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  117.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jun 15th, 2013 @ 11:22am

    Re: Re: Re:

    since theft is a very broad term.


    In law, "theft" is a very specific term. And copyright infringement isn't legally "theft". It's copyright infringement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  118.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jun 15th, 2013 @ 11:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft"

    No, even then it wouldn't be "theft". It would be unauthorized use of a computer, breaking and entering, and vandalism.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  119.  
    identicon
    Dave, Jun 15th, 2013 @ 11:54am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Reminds me - I must go out and get the milk.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  120.  
    icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), Jun 15th, 2013 @ 12:36pm

    And when they came for me...

    So once again the police are now hired thugs for Big Content.

    Except it's happening right here in my town.

    This is a whole new level of terrifying.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  121.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 15th, 2013 @ 12:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're projecting yourself onto Mike again. The only one being covered in your shit is yourself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  122.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 15th, 2013 @ 2:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    JESUS H. CRIST, you have some serious mental issues man, get help FAST. I mean it, or we'll have to call the cops to check in on you, you may have killed somebody already.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  123.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 15th, 2013 @ 2:20pm

    Re: Feeble

    I am sure even the MPAA are laughing at her. "Wow what a stupid woman" they all think.

    Either that, or they have bought their own propaganda and really do think it is theft. They would certainly like it to be, as enforcement then becomes a matter for the police.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  124.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 15th, 2013 @ 3:18pm

    Re: Come on

    Apparently you don't understand what preemption is. The feds don't like it when the states try to take their power from them and call it their own. Supreme Court is the final arbiter, and they've already spoken to this exact thing back in 1985. Good luck trying to explain that away.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  125.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2013 @ 12:20am

    You know what should be illegal? The MPAA. We need to make laws that make those assholes illegal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  126. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    horse with no name, Jun 16th, 2013 @ 6:01am

    Re: Re: Come on

    O'Rly? The supreme court ruled on online piracy in 1985?

    Damn, Al Gore will be mad. They invented the internet before he did!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  127.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Jun 16th, 2013 @ 6:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Come on

    The supreme court ruled on online piracy in 1985?

    The Supreme Court ruled on all piracy in 1985, whether online or not.

    And they ruled that copyright infringement is not "theft, conversion, or fraud," and that you can't be charged with any of those things for copyright violations.

    They didn't have to rule on preemption, since Federal copyright laws have preempted state copyright laws since 1976. Meaning that if you infringed on any work that is covered by Federal copyright law, you can only be charged under the Federal copyright statutes.

    But, of course, the California D.A. doesn't want to do that, because it would probably turn out like the myVidster case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  128.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jun 16th, 2013 @ 6:51am

    Re:

    Most people who run an operation of any substantial size.

    The company I work for pays roughly £10,000 (around $16,000) per month for hosting around 30 dedicated servers on a colocated basis. A quick check on a randomly selected hosting site (Rackspace) shows one option of $1249 for a managed dedicated service with 2TB bandwidth included. It would be quite easy to top $8000 if you need beefy multiple servers with high bandwidth usage. Given that the site in question is a streaming site, that's certainly the case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  129.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2013 @ 7:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Come on

    Dowling was not a "preemption" case since Dowling was being prosecuted under a federal criminal statute. The court did not rule that copyright infringement was not "theft" as a normative matter. What it did rule is that for purposes of the specific statute before the court the word "theft" as used in the statute was not intended, and should not be interpreted, to encompass copyright infringement. Had the statute been worded differently, the outcome may very well have been that such actions comprised theft and could be prosecuted under the statute. A word of caution regarding "preemption". Congress has certainly invoked preemption in civil cases, vesting exclusive jurisdiction with the federal courts, but with stated caveats. Criminal matters are not explicitly limited. Thus, there must be more to any preemption analysis associated with criminal law than attempting to extrapolate same from the civil law provisions. This analysis must start with the specific provision of California law that is being asserted, which provision as yet remains unstated.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  130.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Jun 16th, 2013 @ 10:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Come on

    Dowling was not a "preemption" case

    I meant that the Supreme Court didn't have to decide it in any case, since it is a matter of black-letter law.

    The court did not rule that copyright infringement was not "theft" as a normative matter.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "normative matter" in this instance, since criminal acts must be explicitly defined by statute.

    Criminal matters are not explicitly limited.

    Where do you get that? Here is the relevant text from 17 USC 301:
    On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State.

    There's no distinction made between civil and criminal laws. The only rights and remedies that are allowed, as a matter of black-letter law, are the ones granted in Title 17.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  131.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2013 @ 10:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Come on

    See: 28 USC 1338

    17 USC 301 addresses the scope/type of rights that may be associated with state law, but it is not a jurisdictional statute. This is where 28 USC 1338 comes in with respect to civil actions.

    Criminal matters are left dangling by the terms of the statute. There is case law out of the 11th Circuit (Crow v. Wainwright) that deals with a state's entitlement to prosecute matters that may be associated with materials secured by copyright law. Clearly 17 USC 301 presents a formidable hurdle based upon interpretive case law as represented by the Crow decision, but the scope of 301 is sufficiently "fuzzy" that states may be deemed to have some (currently unidentified) retained role.

    Here we do not have any way of analyzing what the state is attempting to do without having in hand a reference to the state statute being asserted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  132.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 16th, 2013 @ 12:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You forgot to mention RIAA has gone after inkjet printers also ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  133.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Jun 16th, 2013 @ 1:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Come on

    17 USC 301 addresses the scope/type of rights that may be associated with state law, but it is not a jurisdictional statute.

    I don't see how you could say it is not a "jurisdictional statute" when, quite clearly, its entire reason for existing is to preempt state actions. Every court that mentions it calls it "an explicit preemption provision" (or something along those lines).

    There is case law out of the 11th Circuit (Crow v. Wainwright) that deals with a state's entitlement to prosecute matters that may be associated with materials secured by copyright law.

    Wait... the case that ends with this quote?
    The proper method of analysis is to examine whether the elements of a cause of action for the tort of copyright infringement are equivalent to the elements of the crime of dealing in stolen property as it applies in this case. Despite the name given the offense, the elements essential to establish a violation of the Florida statute in this case correspond almost exactly to those of the tort of copyright infringement. [...]

    Section 301 clearly prohibits Florida from prosecuting Crow in this case, and we conclude that Crow's conviction is null and void. We therefore REVERSE this case and REMAND it to the district court with instructions to grant the writ of habeas corpus.

    Seems pretty clear-cut to me. I could hunt down other cases that said the same thing, if you want.

    Can you find even one court that said that the State could prosecute for actions that were covered entirely under Federal copyright law? I've never heard of one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  134.  
    identicon
    Jonathan O, Jun 16th, 2013 @ 2:49pm

    RE: NH v. Nelson

    The facts in that case are an oddity. Nelson trespassed and physically removed photos from his employer's property, took them home and scanned them.

    Not sure the same outcome would have occurred if the "trespass" had been digital, for example if he had simply forwarded photos to his home email.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  135.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2013 @ 4:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Show me where you have once stated a verifiable fact

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  136.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2013 @ 7:23pm

    Re:

    You sir, are an idiot.
    The article is about some-one being charged with a crime they have not commited, because the AG doesn't have the power to charge them with what they ~may~ have commited.
    This is not about copyright law being enforced, as it hasn't been, no charges of copyright violation have been laid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  137.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2013 @ 7:32pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    It is not about weasel words fool.
    An AG is meant to KNOW the law, they aren't meant to reinterpret it to suit their political ambitions or to help their friends. If they are infringing copyright the owners should charge them, but instead an AG who should know better has charged them with a crime they have not committed as a favour to his friends.

    I hope this backfires and the AG gets the boot.
    (I actually don't care either way on the three brothers, assuming they are eventually charged with the crime they are beleived to have committed - copyright infringement)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  138.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2013 @ 5:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sorry, no. The Google boogeyman is a copout from the suits who have no problem with a giant evil multi-billion dollar corporation like the RIAA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  139.  
    identicon
    Pragmatic, Jun 17th, 2013 @ 5:28am

    Re:

    Learn to read, troll. Copyright law was not being enforced here, it was being disregarded in favor of an invalid interpretation of an unrelated law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  140.  
    identicon
    Milton Freewater, Jun 17th, 2013 @ 11:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Come on

    "Had the statute been worded differently, the outcome may very well have been that such actions comprised theft "

    Had the statute been worded differently, the outcome may very well have been that such actions comprised murder, rape or illegal dumping.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  141.  
    identicon
    Milton Freewater, Jun 17th, 2013 @ 11:42am

    Maybe it was grand theft ...

    Did the brothers steal the movies, or have the movies stolen for them, before they streamed them?

    It's possible these charges are not for the (possible) copyright infringment part of their activities.


    Could be this is similar to the old "bust Al Capone for tax evasion" technique.

    The article doesn't identify what actions were labeled "grand theft." Certainly Dodd does his best to imply that the infringement was the theft they're being charged with, but maybe he's just lying as usual.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  142.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 18th, 2013 @ 8:29am

    Re: Maybe it was grand theft ...

    So right!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  143.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Jun 19th, 2013 @ 5:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft"

    He would use Russian or Chinese 'law' as a premise if he could!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  144.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Jun 19th, 2013 @ 5:24am

    Re:

    Jack Nicholson is dead?

    Nope. He may not be looking great, but he's a hale and hearty 76.

    But you're right in all else!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This