<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;guilty&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:58:12 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Guilty Until Proven Licensed: FACT Shuts Down Torrent Tracker Despite Cooperation</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120827/07532220168/guilty-until-proven-licensed-fact-shuts-down-torrent-tracker-despite-cooperation.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120827/07532220168/guilty-until-proven-licensed-fact-shuts-down-torrent-tracker-despite-cooperation.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Another day, another overreach by the legacy players in the entertainment industry.  Hot off its <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120820/01553920095/horrifying-surfthechannel-criminal-conviction-driven-hollywood-money-not-government.shtml">highly questionable</a> win in the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/08323320046/surfthechannel-owner-anton-vickerman-sentenced-to-four-years-jail-conspiracy.shtml">SurfTheChannel</a> case, the "Federation Against Copyright Theft" (FACT) has <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/leading-ethical-tv-show-bittorrent-tracker-shut-down-by-fact-120827/" target="_blank">forced torrent tracker UKNova to shut down</a>.  Now, some people will assume that this is just another torrent tracker, but the details raise some serious questions. 
<br /><br />
First of all, UKNova appears to have vigorously policed its listings, and was quick to take down content when it was shown to be infringing.  The site also had strict rules about what could be listed, stating that it would not allow anything that was available commercially.  So if it's available on DVD or on pay TV, it wasn't allowed and was blocked on the site.  When FACT contacted them about some content, UKNova immediately removed the links.  While this is the UK, rather than the US, this seems to follow the type of "good practices" found under the DMCA's safe harbors that indicate a site willing to act in good faith to prevent infringement.  But... not according to FACT.  With FACT, you're guilty until proven innocent:
<blockquote><i>
&#8220;We immediately removed the alleged offending links to content that could be [connected to] the two companies and replied to FACT assuring them of our cooperation in the matter, but asking them to point out examples of potentially offending links,&#8221; a UKNova admin told us.
<br /><br />
&#8220;ALL links or access to content provided by UKNova are infringing, unless you can prove that you have obtained explicit permission from the copyright holder for that content,&#8221; was FACT&#8217;s response.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, under such rules, pretty much no user generated content sites could exist.  And, given who backs FACT, perhaps that really is their goal...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120827/07532220168/guilty-until-proven-licensed-fact-shuts-down-torrent-tracker-despite-cooperation.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120827/07532220168/guilty-until-proven-licensed-fact-shuts-down-torrent-tracker-despite-cooperation.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120827/07532220168/guilty-until-proven-licensed-fact-shuts-down-torrent-tracker-despite-cooperation.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wow</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120827/07532220168</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 4 Oct 2011 12:07:39 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Amanda Knox Is Guilty... Of Making Newspapers Jump The Gun On Guilty Headlines</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111004/04314816195/amanda-knox-is-guilty-making-newspapers-jump-gun-guilty-headlines.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111004/04314816195/amanda-knox-is-guilty-making-newspapers-jump-gun-guilty-headlines.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Almost certainly the most famous case of incorrect headlines by a newspaper trying to rush to press early goes to the infamous <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman" target="_blank">Dewey Defeats Truman</a> headline in the Chicago Tribune, published on November 3, 1948... which was, of course, actually the day that Truman defeated Dewey.
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Lx11K.jpg" />
</center>
In our more "real time" news world, the quest to be "first" with a breaking news story can lead newspapers to do interesting things.  It's no secret, of course, that many news organizations will pre-write certain stories, but it appears that a bunch of UK papers, in getting ready for the verdict over Amanda Knox, were so desperate to get the scoop out first, that they must have loaded up two versions of the story with their fingers poised right over the publish button as the verdict came out.  Unfortunately for "the press," the court first noted that Knox was "guilty" of <i>defamation</i>, and then <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/03/world/europe/italy-knox-appeal/index.html" target="_blank">cleared her on the murder charges</a>.
<br /><br />
But it appears that the eager button pushers in various newsrooms simply heard "guilty" and <a href="http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/daily-mail-guuilt/" target="_blank">hit "publish" on the "guilty" versions of the story</a>.  Malcolm Coles' blog presented a bunch of evidence of various newspapers going live with the "guilty version."
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/RvSC0.png" />
<br /><br />
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/6KMP6.png" />
</center>
He notes that the Daily Mail version of the story had all sorts of totally falsified details:
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/1teYG.png" />
</center>
Of course, that opening sentence didn't happen.  The story also included other made up details:
<blockquote><i>
As Knox realized the enormity of what judge Hellman was saying she sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears.
<br /><br />
A few feet away Meredith's mother Arline, her sister Stephanie and brother Lyle, who had flown in especially for the verdict remained expressionless, staring straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family.
<br /><br />
Prosecutors were delighted with the verdict and said that 'justice has been done' although they said on a 'human factor it was sad two young people would be spending years in jail'.
<br /><br />
Following the verdict Knox and Sollecito were taken out of court escorted by prison guards and into a waiting van which took her back to her cell at Capanne jail near Perugia and him to Terni jail, 60 miles away.
</i></blockquote>
The various newspapers that published the "wrong" story quickly updated to the "correct" one -- almost certainly also pre-written with similar details of "reactions" that hadn't actually happened at the time of writing.  But that also resulted in some interesting juxtaposition while Google News had competing headlines from the same sources:
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/vDQNf.png" />
<br />
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/hJEj5.png" />
</center>
Nice to see that getting the story right is very much secondary to getting the story first.  Nice work by Coles to catch all of this and highlight it on his blog.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111004/04314816195/amanda-knox-is-guilty-making-newspapers-jump-gun-guilty-headlines.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111004/04314816195/amanda-knox-is-guilty-making-newspapers-jump-gun-guilty-headlines.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111004/04314816195/amanda-knox-is-guilty-making-newspapers-jump-gun-guilty-headlines.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>dewey-beats-truman</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111004/04314816195</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:28:30 PST</pubDate>
<title>Can You Guilt Someone Into Not Pirating Software?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081217/1745213157.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081217/1745213157.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A bunch of folks have been submitting this story about USB Overdrive X's <a href="http://thepiratesdilemma.com/changing-the-game-theory/one-way-to-take-on-piracy" target="_new">response to anyone who uses a pirated key to use their software</a>.  Basically, the company allows you to go ahead, but tells you (in a very human voice) that it knows it's a pirated code, and you should be ashamed of yourself:
<center>
<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3270/3117295242_d83b02a0f7.jpg" width="500" height="368" alt="usb-overdrive-x" />
</center>
It's definitely a <i>much better</i> strategy than annoying plenty of users (even legit ones) or threatening to sue or anything.  And, I have no doubt that it's probably even effective on the margins among a few folks who appreciate being treated at least somewhat as a human, rather than a criminal.  But, the company is still going to face this issue long term, and it seems like a better solution is to figure out <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml">business models</a> that don't view such sharing as piracy, but a way to further extend a business.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081217/1745213157.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081217/1745213157.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081217/1745213157.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>probably-worth-a-shot</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081217/1745213157</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 02:11:30 PST</pubDate>
<title>Blogger Who Uploaded GNR Album Pleads Guilty, Accepts Deal</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081110/1939572792.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081110/1939572792.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The blogger who uploaded the latest Guns N' Roses album, <i>Chinese Democracy</i>, and who was then <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080827/1934562113.shtml">arrested</a> has apparently <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/guns-n-roses-up.html" target="_new">agreed to a plea bargain in the case</a>.  Prosecutors had already dropped the charges from a felony to a misdemeanor, and the plea deal probably means he'll get off without too much punishment -- but the whole thing still seems fairly ridiculous.  It's not at all clear why the FBI <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080625/0111221510.shtml">wasted taxpayer money</a> chasing down a <i>fan</i> who simply <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080907/1650382188.shtml">helped promote</a> the music.  In the end, it seems like GNR basically got tax-payer funded promotion for its latest album, while causing significant stress in the life of the guy who was in the middle of all of this.  What a joke.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081110/1939572792.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081110/1939572792.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081110/1939572792.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>still-ridiculous</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081110/1939572792</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:40:04 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Top Spammer Pleads Guilty, But Spam Still Going Strong</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080316/212058558.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080316/212058558.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last May, we noted that spammer Robert Alan Soloway had been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070530/232149.shtml">arrested</a> and the book was being thrown at him: mail fraud, wire fraud, e-mail fraud, aggravated identity theft, tax fraud and money laundering were included in the charges.  On Friday <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/03/10/daily39.html?jst=b_ln_hl" target="_new">he pleaded guilty to three of the charges</a>: mail fraud, wire fraud and failure to file a tax return.  The rest of the charges were dropped, and he now faces up to 26 years in jail.  It's not like he didn't know everyone was on to him.  He had previously lost civil lawsuits from Microsoft and some others.  Still, when he was arrested last May federal authorities actually claimed that the arrest might lead to a decrease in spam.  How did that work out?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080316/212058558.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080316/212058558.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080316/212058558.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>significant-blows...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080316/212058558</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>