90K over 5 years is:
$18000 per year
$346.15 per week
$8.65 per hour (assuming a 40 hour work week)
Minimum wage is $8.50 here in California.
So he was barely making minimum wage. No wonder he still lived with his father.

reckless disregard (important expression here)

1850 Copyright Infringement?Third Element — Willfulness
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01850.htm
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01841.htm
http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Willfulness

The government can’t prove direct infringement that much is very clear, so they will go for the contributory or vicarious liability so they need to prove intent or reckeless disregard.

Is there anything that can prove willfulness on the part of that man? or something that shows he was reckless?

All of this is leading us down a road to “guilty until proven innocent”. It’s been happening for a while, but it’s gotten really bad lately with the IP/Copyright and TM legal challanges (but what do you expect? We’ve been churning out lawyers at a VERY impressive rate for the last 10 years, and lawyers, if they can’t “find” a job, will “make” one).

Basically it’s become this: If you are an individual, accused by a corporation or a large organization, it’s assumed you are guilty and due process no longer, or is given lip-service (kind of like being a terrorist).

If you’re a corporation/organization who’s accused by an individual, you are assumed innocent until proven guilty, and the individual is considered suspect, in motive, intent and character (see Bradley Manning).

Basically all the rights rest with the money (i.e. the corps), and all the burden of proof lies with the individual. Since the corps can ALWAYS afford more legal help then 99% of the individuals, they will usually lose, thus setting even more precedent and example that this way is “right”, “proper” and “legal”.

Further and further down the rabbit hole we go.

“One nation, under incorporation”

Does it not beg the question of arresting freedom of speech?
Unless one knowingly commits a criminal act, one should be free from governmental harrassment in posing their views, reposting the views of others they agree with and/or their podcast’s – videos. Is it not legal to “quote” another person, magazine article, advertisement etc.
Where is the ACLU when you need them? Going after a money suit they can win, that’s where.

You don’t know that, you admittedly didn’t read any documents, for all you know his e-mails could show that he had no clue about the law and his intent was not make money but share with others his passion for sports, it could also come to light that he was thinking about money and used he new he was breaking some law and still continued.

So you can stop the FUD now, you are ignorant of the facts as everybody in here and are just making shit up.

Well he could be, since all that is needed is to prove brakeless disregard for the rights of the copyright owner, in other words since everything should be assumed to be copyrighted he could be found liable, it depends on judges though.

That is the absurdity of copyright in action.

I don’t think you understand the underlying tech, people will not just rollover, if they can’t get it for free from one source they will find a legal free source, the music industry just spawned free labels to appear all over the place, the same thing will happen to others.

How are you going to combat that?

Are you going to seize Jamendo assets?

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

Wikipedia surprisingly(not really) explains the law in a clear way.

The thing to remember is that the prosecution must prove intent, just being present at the scene of a crime is not the same as being instrumental to that crime, for that you need to have a) acted(inaction is also an action) b) demonstrated intent.

To him to have contributory liability he needs to act in this case he provided the links and he must have known it was infringing, if it ever comes out on emails that were seized by ICE that he made any comment saying he knew or suspected it was infringing he is screwed.

Quote:

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

Specific and general intent crimes

Quote:

What Is a Specific Intent Crime?
If you are accused of a specific intent crime, the prosecution must prove that when you committed the crime you had the requisite intent or purpose. This intent will be listed in the statute that defines the crime. If you didn’t act with this intent or purpose, then you cannot be convicted of the crime.

Quote:

Hypothetical.

I intend to sell rock salt as cocaine..
The undercover law officer knows that I intend to sell it as cocaine but also knows it is actually rock salt.(He just needs a way to prove it)
they purchase it.(He needs some way to show that you was selling a drug doesn’t matter if it is salt, if he records you saying this is the good shit and give indications it is a drug he is screwed)
I get arrested and charged.

Who’s at fault.(don’t know what you mean by that)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_defense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_impossibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Thomas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Lee_Kong

The real question here is not if the guy broke some law, but if the law is just.

He certainly is at grave risk of being punished severely, but should he?

I don’t think those laws are just, they are putting good people in jail for an absurd imaginary crime, for imaginary harm that no one could prove.

Isn’t the law beautiful?

You are accusing a man of criminal copyright infringement and you opened yourself to the same accusations and if anyone would like to try and go after you they probably succeed if people take the law to the letter.

Good thing you are anonymous right?

That part seems fair.

I find that most things in law are fair if you look at the big picture and not just one side’s interests.

How do you know that are you an insider have you seen the evidence?

I went to his website, and I used my common sense. Check it out yourself: http://channelsurf.eu/

I’m not alleging to know any facts that I can’t know. Of course it’s my opinion on the matter. Duh.

I don’t think his emails will save him. After ICE seized his first domain name, http://channelsurfing.net/ he replaced it with the second.

It’s kind of hard to pretend like he wasn’t on notice that maybe he was doing something wrong after the feds seized his domain name.

This appears to me to be a person who enjoyed thumbing his nose at the law. Perhaps a few years in a federal penitentiary will cure him of that.

Oh good, I was hoping someone would actually want to talk about the law rather than just unilaterally claim that “the standard for aiding and abetting are much, much higher.”

For example >> ?joined the venture, shared in it, and that his efforts contributed towards its success,? This suggests to me that you have to know enough details to know that a crime is in progress.

He knows the details of the crime in progress. In fact, his site is facilitating that very crime by design.

>> To show specific intent the prosecution must prove the defendant knew of the proposed crime-suspicion that it might occur is not enough So I think you are ignoring these court decisions.

He not only knew of the proposed crime, he went out of his way to ensure that it occurred. And while he profited from it, no less. He had more than suspicion. The very fact that the crime was working as planned was verified each time he received monies from the advertising on that site.

Keep in mind that you can’t possibly know if those going to your site have gotten a license or permission or if they are leveraging fair use. You can’t possibly know if a crime is being committed (and “suspicion that it might occur is not enough”).

Possible licensing and fair use are not going to get this guy off the hook. He can’t reasonably of thought that all of those first-run movies, sporting events, and pay-per-views were all legally licensed by others, much less licensed to him, or have thought that the millions of page views he was receiving were all fair use. Those are all just hollow rationalizations, and I can’t imagine a jury ever would buy that.

Do you want to try again?

Nope. Don’t need to. Do you?

Who, them? I’m curious how they think he committed direct infringement by linking and embedding. Perhaps there’s more to it than that. We don’t really know.

I thought I’d toss out this quote from Judge Posner, since I like it so much, and it mentions aiding and abetting in a copyright sense:

There are analogies in the law of aiding and abetting, the criminal counterpart to contributory infringement. A retailer of slinky dresses is not guilty of aiding and abetting prostitution even if he knows that some of his customers are prostitutes-he may even know which ones are. See United States v. Giovannetti, supra, 919 F.2d at 1227; People v. Lauria, 251 Cal.App.2d 471, 59 Cal.Rptr. 628 (1967); Rollin M. Perkins & Ronald N. Boyce, Criminal Law 746-47 (3d ed.1982). The extent to which his activities and those of similar sellers actually promote prostitution is likely to be slight relative to the social costs of imposing a risk of prosecution on him. But the owner of a massage parlor who employs women who are capable of giving massages, but in fact as he knows sell only sex and never massages to their customers, is an aider and abettor of prostitution (as well as being guilty of pimping or operating a brothel). See United States v. Sigalow, 812 F.2d 783, 784, 785 (2d Cir.1987); State v. Carpenter, 122 Ohio App.3d 16, 701 N.E.2d 10, 13, 18-19 (1997); cf. United States v. Luciano-Mosquera, 63 F.3d 1142, 1149-50 (1st Cir.1995). The slinky-dress case corresponds to Sony, and, like Sony, is not inconsistent with imposing liability on the seller of a product or service that, as in the massage-parlor case, is capable of noninfringing uses but in fact is used only to infringe.

In re Aimster Copyright Litig., 334 F.3d 643, 651 (7th Cir. 2003).

To use Judge Posner’s analogy, McCarthy and his channelsurfing.net website are the massage-parlor case, not the slinky-dress case.

No, you’re just spreading it as usual. Good job AJ.

Anyone else find it hilarious that there’s a “link to this” at the bottom of all our comments?

There is no TOS plainly visible about the comment I’m submitting becoming property of techdirt, which means it’s still my intellectual property as its my own work (all 45 seconds of it…)

so…ZOMG ICE ARREST THESE B*&$%#S FOR LETTING PEOPLE INFRINGING ON MEEEEE AND MY COMMENT!

Criminal copyright infringement (like all copyright infringement) is also in 17 USC, specifically 17 USC 506. 18 USC 2323 deals with civil forfeiture proceedings (for both copyright and trademark infringement).

The rest of your post I agree with.

Criminal copyright infringement is addressed in 17 U.S.C. 506 and 18 U.S.C. 2319.

Obeying takedown notices is not sufficient to avoid criminal liability. Imagine if I set up a website 100% devoted to piracy. All I do is put pirated movies, music, pay-per-views, etc. on this website. But, I also have a registered DMCA agent, and I always immediately takedown material when notified. Does the fact that I follow the DMCA takedown procedures negative the fact that I intentionally set up a website devoted to piracy? Of course not. That makes no sense whatsoever, and I’m surprised you don’t realize this.

Whether McCarthy complied with takedown notices is completely irrelevant since he devoted his website to piracy.

Fair enough. We all have our views. Personally, I don’t care if this guy goes to jail if the allegations are true. He thumbed his nose at the law and was stupid enough to get caught. Just deserts, if you ask me.

your a fucking douche bag i hope someone shoots you in the fucking face,go kill your self asshole

you fucking corporate sicophant peice of shit
you must work for the riaa or mpaa

its fucking assholes like you,that think(and i use that term loosly)like you that are going to get all of our rights taken away,and the internet completely owned and controled by big multinational corporations and government,go fucking move to communist china,oh nevermind that would be too free for you as well you fucking nazi scum

Umm, map and flashlight?

The content was embedded into his site. Not a link to another site, but actually as part of his pages. He was seeking to profit by including copyright violating material on his pages.

It’s not hard to see.

no way ,there is no way this asshole is an artist,artists dont talk like that nor do they intently rally for peoples freedoms to be taken away,not at all,and especially not so vehemently as this corpratist scumfuck does ,he must be a lawyer for either the riaa or mpaa
most artists dont care about copyright,not true artists ,they freely distribute their own work for free most of the time anyway,its only greedy talentless sellout hacks that dont,and care about copyright,they have no reason to care,well unless they have their own independent label ,cause if they dont they have already signed away all of their profit to the record label ,so it doesnt matter ,they are already getting raped ,they are already making a fixed amount,an enormously low percentage of how much money they actually bring in,they get like 3% while the record company takes the 97% of the money they make off of someone elses talent for themselves,but even still ,people like brittney spears are going out and buying 25 million dollar mansions,so if there making that kind of money only seeing a small % of what their bringing in,then the record company must be bringing in obscene money off of just 1 “artist” alone,
this asshole troll needs to go crawl back under his rock and fucking die,the fucking corporate sicophant that he is
of course he had some vested interest in the matter ,could it be any more fucking obvious,either that or he is just one of the many brainwashed american sheeple drinking the corporate kool-aid,sorry but no artist tals like that ,not even the ones who are sellouts ,ok maybe fucking douche bag lars ulrich ,(but i would hardly call him an artist)
only lawyers and corporate douche bag scumfucks like this peice of shit here

Check out U.S. v. Schmidt, 15 F.Supp. 804 (M.D.Penn. 1936).

The court there denied a motion to quash an indictment that included aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement.

Not far off the mark. The government has had enough of this freedom of the internet thing and is now, in it’s usual hamhanded way, attempting to show people that they’d better watch out cause Big Brother is always watching. The only freedom you have is what the nanny state allows so stay in line or you’ll be sent to bed without your happy meal.

Umm, map and flashlight?

It’s not hard to see.

Embedding is the same as linking in that the infringing work never technically crosses the server of the one doing the embedding or the linking. The Ninth Circuit refers to this as the “server test” in Perfect 10 v. Google. This way, one who embeds or links is not a direct infringer because they don’t actually reproduce or distribute a work. Instead, they are helping others to infringe. In the civil law context, this leads to secondary infringement liability, and in the criminal law context, it leads to aiding and abetting.

nice

Excellent. I found links to the cases so that everyone here can read them. Let’s go through them:

Yes, let’s go through them.

U.S. v. Schmidt, 15 F.Supp. 804 A case from 1936, that references a section of copyright law (17 USC 28) that no longer exists. As an aside, that section made “aiding and abetting” a misdemeanor; today it’s a felony. However, the court does also reference 18 USC 2, the “aiding and abetting” clause.

Yes, it references a section of copyright law that no longer exists. The point was that aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement was the crime, no matter what statutory designation it was given. You don’t seem to understand the purpose of citing case law at times.

U.S. v. Sachs, 801 F.2d 839 The charge was not “aiding and abetting” infringement, it was conspiracy to infringe. From the USAM Criminal Resource Manual, 2482, “Conspiracy to commit a crime and aiding and abetting in the commission are distinct offenses.” The general conspiracy statute is in 18 USC 371, not 18 USC 2. Conspiracy requires an even greater degree of participation than aiding and abetting. In layman’s terms, it’s used against people who are partners in crime. Defendants in these cases are typically charged with both conspiracy and aiding and abetting, probably so that the prosecuters can get a conviction as a principal, even if juries are uncertain about their status as a partner. I doubt any jury would even consider a conspiracy charge in this case, since the defendant did not actively participate in the primary infringement.

Total reading comprehension failure. The first sentence of the case says: “Defendant-Appellant Lee William Sachs appeals from a jury verdict finding him guilty of aiding and abetting in the infringement of copyrights . . . we affirm the convictions.” Conspiracy was a separate charge, and it’s irrelevant to the point I was making.

U.S. v. Blanton, 531 F.2d 442 Conspiracy again.

Total reading comprehension failure, again. He was acquitted of the conspiracy charges, but he was convicted of the aiding and abetting charges. The Tenth Circuit affirmed. Exactly as I indicated above.

U.S. v. Bodin, 375 F.Supp. 1265 Conspiracy again. Also relies on a part of copyright law that does not exist anymore (17 USC 104, previously dealing with aiding and abetting, is now about foreign copyrights). However, again, the court does also reference 18 USC 2.

Yes, conspiracy is mentioned, but I was pointing out that case for its discussion of aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement. The court states that it is “an offense not only to infringe a copyright wilfully and for profit but as well to knowingly and wilfully aid and abet such an infringement.”

U.S. v. Dove, 2008 (PDF) This case is more relevant than the others, because it involves internet infringement. Here, the defendant was “a high-level member of an Internet piracy organization known as ‘Elite Torrents [… who] had participated in the reproduction and distribution of pirated copyrighted movies, software programs, and video games.” (Emphasis mine.) In other words, he was a direct infringer. Accordingly, this was also a conspiracy charge – for which he was convicted.

Just because the context is the internet doesn’t make it “more relevant.” Aiding and abetting is aiding and abetting. The fundamentals don’t change depending on the context. The reason I pointed out that case, Karl, was because the jury was given instruction on–you guessed it–aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement. The jury found him guilty.

Marx v. U.S., 96 F.2d 204 Again, referred to copyright law that no longer exists. Again, the “criminal infringement” was a midemeanor – the Marx Brothers did not serve any jail time (they were fined $1000, and also settled the civil suit). Furthermore, this involved a case where the Marx Brothers themselves were involved in negotiations with the defendants; they were direct participants.

But, they were convicted of aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, just as I indicated.

Notice a trend here?

Yes, aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement has been around a long time. In fact, since 1909 as I indicated. The fact that conspiracy pops up in those cases is completely irrelevant.

Either the defendants are direct consiprators, or they were charged under “aiding and abetting” statutes that were taken out of Title 17 long ago.]

No, every single one of those cases I cited had someone charged and/or convicted of aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement. Yes, statutes change. That doesn’t mean the crime of aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement does not exist. It does. It’s a combination of 17 U.S.C. 506 and 18 U.S.C. 2, just like Brian McCarthy is charged with.

It’s certainly conceivable that McCarthy will be found guilty under 18 USC 2. But I doubt that a jury would return a felony conviction absent a conspiracy charge. It’s certainly not a “no-brainer.”

There is no conspiracy charge for the jury to look at, nor will anybody bring up the absence of such a charge because it’s irrelevant. The no-brainer, Karl, is that aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement exists.

So I stand by my lay opinion that the charges will be dead in the water. But we’ll see.

Dead in the water in that the jury won’t convict, or dead in the water like the aiding and abetting charge isn’t even a real thing? You’re wrong either way.

Let’s look at the jury instruction in the Dove case. Keep in mind that this was a judge’s instructions to the jury in 2008:

A person may violate the law even though he or she does not personally do each and every act constituting the offense if that person ?aided and abetted? the commission of the offense. Before a defendant may be held responsible for aiding and abetting others in the commission of a crime, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly and deliberately associated himself in some way with the crime charged and participated in it with the intent to commit the crime.

In order to be found guilty of aiding and abetting the commission of the crime of criminal copyright infringement charged in Count Two, the government must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that the defendant Daniel Dove knew that the willful copyright infringement charged was to be committed or was being committed;

Second, that the defendant knowingly and willfully did some act for the purpose of aiding the commission of the copyright infringement; and

Third, that the defendant acted with the intention of causing the copyright infringement to be committed.
The government need not prove that the defendant Daniel Dove participated at every stage of an illegal venture, only that he participated at some stage accompanied by knowledge of the result and intent to bring about that result.

Before Defendant Daniel Dove may be found guilty as an aider or an abettor to the crime of criminal copyright infringement, the government must also prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that some person or persons committed each of the essential elements of copyright infringement as detailed for you in Instruction No. 20.

Merely being present at the scene of the crime or merely knowing that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed is not sufficient conduct for the jury to find that a defendant aided and abetted the commission of that crime.

The government must prove that the defendant knowingly and deliberately associated himself with the crime in some way as a participant-someone who wanted the crime to be committed-not as a mere spectator.

So as recently as 2008, a jury was instructed on aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement, and that jury came back with a resounding “guilty.” 18 months for Mr. Dove. Sounds about right for Mr. McCarthy, IMO.

ICE is Immigration and Customs Enforcement, not Immigration and Copyright Enforcement. Since when has ICE gotten into the business of copyright enforcement? I find advertisers who embed content and mislead people so they’ll visit a “shell” website for advertising purposes to be VERY annoying and would be most glad to see those kinds of sites vanish altogether. However, I think ICE’s actions are more questionable than the persons involved. Why is ICE interested in this type of thing rather than customs and immigration, which are its areas of responsibility? Also, the site owner did not copy anything – he embedded. Is this now illegal? (News to me). I think ICE has overstepped its bounds, not that this is anything new.

But no matter what a rightsholder has to say about an embedded file, it has to be proven to be infringing FIRST.

Infringement, civil or criminal, does not occur just because a rightsholder says so. A court has to determine it.

This case, the domain seizures, anything Mike or any other blogger links or embeds, anything disabled by Youtube filters – they are ALL putting the cart before the horse.

Whether or not a conspiracy charge is called for is irrelevant to whether or not an aiding and abetting charge is warranted. The inquiries for each are different, and different fact patterns will yield different results. It is a completely irrelevant point.

“I think it’s quite easy to make a case on an accomplice theory, and that’s PURE FUD.”

You said it yourself.

I could easily prove this point with case law, but I’ll just let you keep on looking silly while you pretend to play lawyer.

hahahahaha!!! I could prove you wrong, but I don’t feel like it right now! Nice!

So long as..

1 – a crime was comitted and/or
2 – he had reason to believe a crime was comitted

Without that how was it willfull? Perhaps a rephrase would help?
“The idea is that by embedding the videos” (that he should have reasonably believed were very likely infringing) “, he’s willfully aiding and abetting others to infringe.”

It’s common knowledge that the safe harbors in Section 512 only limit third-party liability for innocent providers. In other words, it protects a service provider for the infringement done by its users. Section 512 provides no safe harbor to those who themselves willfully infringe, nor does it protect those who willfully facilitate infringement.

That’s not really true. It’s exactly like saying “Whether or not a murder charge is called for, is irrelevant to whether a manslaughter charge is warranted.” Either way, you have to prove that the defendant actually killed someone.

Ah, but it doesn’t work that way. You cannot be convicted of manslaughter and murder for the same killing. You CAN be convicted of conspiracy and aiding and abetting for the same act. Aiding and abetting is not a “lesser included charge” of conspiracy. It’s a separate crime that stands on its own.

The case law that you cited shows a general guideline for when “aiding and abetting” copyright infringement is warranted. In all the cases you cited, it is warranted when, under the circumstances, the defendants’ conduct is so extreme that they can also be charged with conspiracy (even if they’re not found guilty of conspiracy). In order to pass the “aiding and abetting” standard, they must also pass the “conspiracy” standard (albeit presumptively). In other words, it shows that the “aiding and abetting” standard is far higher than what is applicable in this case.

In the case law I cited, the facts just so happened to be that charges for conspiracy and aiding and abetting were warranted. That does not mean that that is always the case. It depends on the facts. It’s not a matter of “extremity” as you put it. You can be charged with conspiracy but not aiding and abetting, aiding and abetting but not conspiracy, or both. They are separate crimes.

The jury instructions from the Dove case are instructive on what’s necessary to find aiding and abetting:

First, that the defendant Daniel Dove knew that the willful copyright infringement charged was to be committed or was being committed;

Second, that the defendant knowingly and willfully did some act for the purpose of aiding the commission of the copyright infringement; and

Third, that the defendant acted with the intention of causing the copyright infringement to be committed.

So all the prosecutor has to prove in McCarthy’s case is: (1) that he knew that willful copyright infringement was being committed or was to be committed, (2) that he knowingly and willfully did some act to aid in that infringement, and (3) that he acted with the intent of causing the copyright infringement.

I don’t think it’s that hard to prove all three. He knew that infringement was being committed by others. He set up his whole website to aid in that infringement. And he acted with the intent to cause that infringement.

But I’m sure you won’t accept this argument. Perhaps you shouldn’t; I am merely a layman. So, I’ll ask you this: show me even one case where a defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting, but was not even charged with conspiracy. If you do that, maybe we can find some common ground for discussion.

I know you’re just a layman, Karl. That’s why it strikes me as strange that you’re always so sure of your interpretation of legal things even though time and again you make so many huge fundamental mistakes.

Here’s an example for you, but it’s not in the copyright context. The context doesn’t matter, as aiding and abetting is fundamental to all criminal law. Here’s a case where the defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting but not charged with conspiracy: U.S. v. Moses, 122 F. Supp. 523 (E.D.Pa. 1954). That case isn’t anything special. It’s just the first hit I got in the database when I looked.

One thing to keep in mind is that aiding and abetting is fundamental to criminal law. In the Dove case, Mr. Dove was NOT EVEN CHARGED with aiding and abetting, but the judge allowed the jury instruction on the charge. Why? Because it doesn’t matter if you commit the crime yourself or if you only aid and abet the criminal–either way, you are guilty as if you had committed the crime yourself.

There have been LOTS of videos removed from YouTube because of infringement claims.

Wouldn’t that increase the expectation that the remaining videos are not infringing?

but as we discussed recently, there’s simply no such thing as criminal contributory infringement,

I think the AC has demonstrated that this is patently untrue. If Mike, like he says, regularly admits when he’s wrong, he should print a retraction. Karl, do you agree?

This is the problem with stating unequivocally that there is no other argument on these issues (e.g., the seizures ARE prior restraint, there is NO such thing as criminal copyright infringement). It’s hyperbole for the sake of readership, I get it. It’s just intellectually dishonest.

Karl and Mike have yet to provide any indication that they might be wrong in the face of case law that directly contradicts their position. And I doubt they’ll start now.

“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws.” ~Ayn Rand

And besides, if illegal immigration doesn’t pan out, the inmates of our already-overflowing prisons will be even cheaper labor for govt-connected businesses.

It was an analogy, and you missed the key point. Either way, you have to prove that the defendant actually killed someone. You have to at least prove that death occurred as a result of the defendant’s actions. That’s the key point here. McCarthy didn’t help cause the infringement itself. The principals in this case are the original users who made the videos available on other websites, and McCarthy didn’t assist them in any way:

That’s not correct. The infringers are not just the people who made the videos. The infringers are also every single person who uses the website McCarthy set up to watch infringing videos. Every transfer of a file from one person to another is actually two infringements. The person sending the file violates the distribution right, and the person receiving the file violates the reproduction right. McCarthy’s website, by design, helps to cause BOTH of these infringements. That’s his website’s PURPOSE.

General knowledge is not sufficient.

True, but completely irrelevant. McCarthy has specific knowledge of every single file he embeds since he’s the one updating his website with the latest links to the latest infringing works. His knowledge is as specific as you could ever get.

His website did not aid in the initial infringement. He did not give the material to the primary infringers to upload. He did not assist the primary infringers in uploading the material. He did not reward the primary infringers for their infringement. He did not instruct the primary infringers on how to infringe. In fact, if you are a primary infringer, you can’t use his site to infringe. If you wanted infringing material to appear on his site, the best you could do is upload it somewhere else, and pray he noticed.

All completely irrelevant to the aiding and abetting charges. If he had participated in those activities, he’d be facing a conspiracy charge as well, though.

You’re saying his site existed to intentionally cause others to infringe. That’s going to be a hard thing to prove, especially since it’s not true.

On the contrary, the intent was his own intent to help others infringe. That intent is unmistakable. You don’t really think a jury is going to believe he set up that site without any intent to help others infringe, do you?

These are the reasons I think the “aiding and abetting” charges are dead in the water.

And every single reason demonstrates a lack of understanding of fundamental issues on your part.

Now, I’m just going by what I can see on the site. Perhaps, behind the scenes, he did some of these things, and I’m simply not aware of them. If so, that’s a different story. But judging solely from the site’s content, there’s no “aiding and abetting” there.

Again, since you don’t even grasp the fundamentals, your opinion is less than convincing. Let’s just say that.

it shouldnt be up to the governemt to go after people hosting the content,the idea of criminal copyright is ridiculous on its face ,it should be up to the copyright holder to hire a private attourney to do something if they feel like they are loosing enough money and they think that hiring a lawyer would be worth it,but the fact is that they arent loosing any money and it would never work out financially ,it will always cost more for lawyers and legal fees to go after peoplr hostind disputer content than they could ever loose,why should tax payers foot the bill for multi billion dollar corporations to fight some trivial legal battle for them and pay for there legal costs,its not at all in the public interest ,its ridiculous,these laws(dmca,super dmca,coica,etc..) serve to help nobody but special interests and huge media conglomerates ,they shouldnt even have a right to hold these copyrights to even sue people civilly ,this should be considered fair use ,untill it goes into the realm of selling mass physical copies for a profit it shouldnt even be contestable,these corporations have bought and made so many ridiculous laws that dont benefit anyone except themselves,and only serve to screw consumers and remove the rights and freedoms of consumers and citizens,they have much toomuch say and way too much power and control over the system,if not for their money and influence and the corupt system we call a government, these unfair laws would not even exist ,ever notice its always the richest guy in the room crying poor mouth and bitching about money?

I agree! Google, you have been infringing on the rights of these stars who have all borrowed ideas from other people and avenues to create such “uniqueness”. The funny part is, no one stops to realize, he was advertising their sites for free, not infringing! They should be PAYING him, not sueing him! You get paid to have a banner on your site link to another site, right? That is essentially what he was doing. The average person may not have gone to the “infringed upon” website had they not heard of Bryan’s website. Then they would have lost the revenues brought in from that new traffic. SO, instead of thinking of news ways to make an example out of the common person, to teach us a lesson that no one stands up against big corporations.. they should be thankful for the traffic he brought them, pay him for it, shut up and sit down.
*steps off soap box*

Clearly you are a lapdog to some corporate empire and/or absolutely love the law and the arbitrary excessive nature of it in the USA today! Go you!

Plain and simple, and here’s the FUD for you ‘anonymous coward’, if the USA continues to strengthen its absurd resolve in these situations, seizing domains without warrants, and slapping lawsuits on embedding sites, they are stifling and killing the internet within their borders. Watch as more and more web properties move outside of their ‘so called’ jurisdiction bs buddy buddy with verisign and .com .net etc…

It’s up to you USA, either attack DIRECTLY the source sites of the videos properly, not the embeders, and do it with a proper due process, otherwise we’re all moving out.

I’m not going to discuss what I do, but I have 200+ domains engaged in various activites, and I’m switching them all off .com to various European and Asian registrars. At least I know if someone in the bloody USA has a prob with me, they will have to jump through hoops to get anywhere…. working online in the usa is a lost cause at this point.

There’s your FUD, anonymous!

By this standard, “The infringers are not just the people who made the videos. The infringers are also every single person who uses the website” YouTube “set up to watch infringing videos.”

This is not just horrifying, it’s legally false. Seriously, where do you get this crap?

It’s not “crap,” it’s the law. If YouTube’s actions were criminal, then yes, they could face criminal liability.

We all know you don’t get the law, Karl. You don’t have to keep proving that.

I don’t understand exactly how linking to a website that hosts the content is illegal.

I’m not a proud American citizen, or a patriot, I’m fucking disgusted at the state of this “amazing union”.

Our country is so desperate to snuff out any single person’s creative flame it’s like a god damn plague. Because in America, equality doesn’t mean a fucking thing, the only thing that matters is who has the biggest gun, and the most expensive lawyer. Corporate criminals get away with stealing billions of dollars a year, tax payer dollars, our money, and after getting our money taken, they sue us for watching the album/film/tv show we want to watch for free, or for taking masses of samples and making an entirely new song. As much as creativity is sold in a school format, anyone with half a brain knows that being creative or different is a death sentence in this country.

I just don’t see how the US government is going to file a suit against anyone who has ever watched a video on youtube or listened to a song on project playlist.

no you cant, its llike if you say to to some stranger on the street ,”hey i think that black guy over there yelling “jum mums jums for sale get your jummy jum jums””is a crack dealer and then the stranger on the street that you tell that you think the black guy standing at the corner is a crack dealer
just so happens to jonesin to smoke soe rock ,and goes up to said black guy and purchases 10 dime bags from him,then gets arrested in the process,so can he say to the police “oh well that guy over there said be though that the guy i bought from was a crack dealer”so does that make you an accessory?or if the black guy happened to be undercover and entraping peolple and then tried to drag you you into it by sayin that you pointed him out ,or like the whole craigslist issue ,they post ads for “escorts” and “massuses” but most turn out to be prostitutes and abducted teenages of underage girls sold into sexual slavery ,its well known and documented and got alot of media attention when that slut got murdered in boston last year,but you dont see craigslist facing any charges do you?why ?,its because nobody gives a flying fuck about some busted fuck slut peddling her ass on the internet even if she does get shot and left in a dumpster,she or her family “if they even have one” dont have enough money to influence the system,but huge media companies do have money to influence the system,maybe their pimps make a good profit ,but nowhere near what kind of money we are talking about here,its totaly fucking out rageous ,not that i care about that busted fuck slut peddling her ass and selling access to her clownhole to the highest bidder on craigslist getting murdered,oh well she got what she deserved,her parent should stfu and stop making her out to be som angel who was just minding her own bussniess,thats what happens to people who get involved in that sort of thing,they should understan that thats the risk there taking when they decide to do that sort of thing,but if it were legal that shit wouldnt happen ,but back on topic ,why do you think the system would care more about prosecuting someone like this guy who has done nothing and whos action have not resulted in any consequences for the companies holding the copyrights ,not even a 1/18% of a penny drop in their stock price over the net 100yrs,but craigs list does something that could be considered similar according to the arguments people here are trying to make ,but listing on their site where to find prostitutes ,and in whcih their actions most indirectly esulted in a murder,and im not saying they should be held responsible or liable in anyway ,but you would think that if the law was really there to “protect people.the public”then they would care more about someting that results in murder albeit very indirectly,than something that results in nothing except some ceo paranoid delusion about some nonexistent trivial loss of un measureable profits,but they dont ,you know why?because the police ,the courts ,the prosecuters,the judges,DONT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOU,YOUR FAMILY,YOUR WELL BEING OR ANYTHING,except for making money ,bringing in revenu for the state and advancing their own careers and their political aspirations ,they dont give a shit about the public or justice or fairness or anything that is not in theor own narcicistic and monetary interest ,courts,police ,judges,lawyers,prosecutors,legislators,are not needed,they are all just bottom feeding leeches and a drain on society,so think about that all you douche bag law students here thinking you are doing something ,if i want to feel safe i will buy a gun,thank,i dont need government to protect me ,im more afraind of them than being a victim of crime

Hey there, Mr. Anonymous Jerk :

Did it ever occur to you that entities such as the U.S. ICE don’t have either the legal or moral authority to “seize” domain names outside of the U.S.?

The over-reach here is not only breathtaking but also is a slap on the face to non-Americans everywhere else on the Internet. Whatever the (meagre) case that can be made by the U.S. government against this poor individual — who is guilty of nothing more nor less than linking as undertaken by Google, Yahoo, etc. on a daily basis — the U.S. has no authority whatsoever to try to (sneakily) export its terrible, one-sided “copyright” enforcement procedures OUTSIDE its domestic jurisdiction.

In other words — if I am (say) in Spain and I host a streaming content site that the U.S. authorities disagree with, the U.S. has NO AUTHORITY to tell people that they can’t link to my site. Needless to say, both the mechanism and the “rationale” for this kind of censorship are precisely the same as are routinely used by repressive regimes all over the world, such as China, Iran, pre-revolution (Mubarak) Egypt, and so on.

But then I guess Americans are happy to be in that kind of company… aren’t they?

ha yes i asked myself the same think,but i guess i knew the answer all along,i guess if you have enough money and influence you can the government to do your dirty work for you,and i guess they chose to let ice handle if since there not doing much of anything else there days,we already know how corrupt this agency is,i mean obviously there huge corporations are already in their pocket anyways because they want all these illegals here so that they can exploit them for cheap labor ,to do the jobs and fill the positions that cant be outsourced to cheap forign labor markets,funny when they do ,do raids,like the one a couple years ago ,they raid all these small time mom and pop businesses,and round up and prosecute and deport their employees,small businesses that have had to hire cheap illegal labor in order to compete with the big business and huge corporations,just to stay alive,but the big corporations that set the standard of hiring illegals ,not to stay viable ,or alive but just to save more money,dont get touched,you dont see them ever get raided in these raids ,do you?companies like cargill,tyson and odwalla dont get touched and they employ many many times more illegals than the small businesses that were raided,so why is that?,why only small businesses get raided and NEVER the big corporation that are the biggest offenders? ,hmmm,could it be that these corporate scum bags have ICE in their pocket?noooo,its like killing two birds with one stone for them too,not only do they not get touched and get to employ and exploit all the illegals they want,and for shit money,but at the same time ,the last of their competition (if you could even call it competition,not like anyone can really compete when things are skewed in favor of these huge monopolistic corporations)gets eliminated in the process,its a 2for they get double the benefit for their “protection” money,so while there out paying protection for hiring illegals to ICE why not have them get involved with crap like this copyright enforcement too,

can you read the article? he never copied anything, he only LINKED to sites, basically all the Government did was to arrest a person who was NOT violating ANY laws and then send him to (up to) 5 YEARS pf jail.

so then you have a guilty mind? after all you are acting in secret. you have used the internet to hide everything but your opinion from sight. therefore according to your statement you have a guilty mind due to you acting in secret.