

Channelsurfing.net owner arrested for linking to sharing sites - robterrell
http://act.demandprogress.org/act/channelsurfing/?referring_akid=329.23654.oWjuYc&source=typ-tw

======
jdp23
Yet another example of why doing a startup that involves sharing content
should seriously think of basing their business outside the US.

As JoeMullin says in the PaidContent article at
[http://paidcontent.org/article/419-feds-campaign-against-
pir...](http://paidcontent.org/article/419-feds-campaign-against-pirate-
websites-leads-to-an-arrest/)

"The ICE campaign against websites has caused controversy over whether ICE has
side-stepped due process. Compare the treatment of the creators of peer-to-
peer sites that were ultimately ruled to be illegal, like Grokster and now
Limewire. Entertainment companies had to engage in years of litigation to shut
down those sites, and the idea of putting the creators of those sites in
prison wasn’t even on the table. McCarthy, on the other hand, will have to
fight an uphill battle to keep himself out of prison—at no expense whatsoever
to the sports leagues who, according to court documents, helped the government
target his site. "

------
btipling
FUD. "Share a youtube video. go to jail." That didn't happen, the individual
in question _embedded_ copyrighted videos. He didn't just share links and he
didn't just embed YouTube videos. On top of that nobody that has written about
it seems to know exactly what he's being charged with so any conclusions about
sharing a link to a website = ending up in jail is not substantiated. Yet
someone went though all the effort to make some kind of reddit-worthy mob
enraging site. Maybe if the author of demandprogress.org knows they should
post the actual charges and some of the evidence and arguments. As it stands
none of this seems conclusive or convincing for people who will require more
than a big image of a clenched fist and large red type to get upset.

~~~
robterrell
There's definitely infringers in this story -- I just don't think it's him.

>That didn't happen, the individual in question embedded copyrighted videos

What's the difference between an embed and a link? It's just a semantic
difference in the HTML, right? Both point to external media not hosted by him.

As I recall from what I've seen of his site, he simply embedded the justin.tv
player on his pages (where he also placed ads). He would configure the
justin.tv player to show various channels that he knew would be showing a
particular game. Somebody else (or perhaps the same person, although if that's
what the government is alleging, I haven't heard it), using a TV capture card,
would encode the live video of some NCAA/NBA/NFL/whatever game and stream it
to a justin.tv channel. Anyone could log into this channel via the regular
justin.tv site and watch the same live video.

Channelsurfing.net just provided a quick link to a justin.tv channels that had
the sports content.

So in all this, who's infringing copyright? Definitely the guy with the
capture card. What about justin.tv? Maybe they're liable, or maybe they're
protected by the safe haven clause. But someone linking to that content on
justin.tv? No. Or even embedding the justin.tv player, pre-configured to show
that particular justin.tv channel? Again, I don't think so.

~~~
rprasad
Justin.tv is protected by the DMCA Service Provider exception b/c it did not
actively filter content hosted on/through its servers. Channelsurfing.net did
filter content -- indeed, it selected specific content for retransmission.
That is why Justin.tv is not liable but the channelsurfing guy is.

As to why he's being charged with a crime...we'll find out when they release
the charges against him. It may be as innocuous as tax evasion for not
reporting the income from the ads on his site.

~~~
wvenable
That's still a bit of a stretch. If I created a subreddit on reddit.com with
nothing but links to justin.tv copyrighted content, who's liable then? I'm
filtering content but I'm not hosting the content or even the links.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
piguy314 posted a [dead] reply that shouldn't have been killed:

> 1 point by piguy314 3 hours ago | link [dead]

> Would your sub-reddit be a commercial enterprise who's sole source of
> revenue was monetizing someone else's intellectual property illegally? Or
> would your sub-reddit be a user-curated (not reddit curated) site that
> engaged in substantial non-infringing uses subject to DMCA takedown rules...
> Here is reddit's DMCA agent filing if you are interested
> <http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/agents/a/advmp.pdf>

