
VEVO Execs Must Face Criminal Charges For Copyright Infringement - ed
http://uncrunched.com/2012/02/09/vevo-execs-must-face-criminal-charges-for-copyright-infringement/2012/02/09/vevo-execs-must-face-criminal-charges-for-copyright-infringement/
======
grellas
_VEVO Execs Must Face Criminal Charges For Copyright Infringement_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
barrkel
From what I recall, sunchild is an attorney too. Your reference doesn't back
up what you say; it's not restricted to material sold commercially. Merely for
"purposes of commercial advantage" is sufficient.

Quoting from here:
[http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...](http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01851.htm)

"Emphasis should be placed on the word "purpose," because it is not necessary
to prove that any profit was realized. See United States v. Taxe, 380 F. Supp.
1010, 1018 (C.D.Cal. 1974), aff'd, 540 F.2d 961 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied,
429 U.S. 1040 (1977). The drafting committee's purpose in retaining this
requirement has been to exclude from criminal liability those individuals who
willfully infringe copyrights solely for their own personal use. H.R. Rep. No.
997, 102 Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (1992). Evidence of discrete monetary transactions
(i.e., the selling of infringing goods for a particular price) provides the
clearest evidence of financial gain, but such direct evidence should not be a
prerequisite to prosecution. Such a stringent requirement would ignore the
plain wording of the statute, which requires only the showing of commercial or
financial purpose."

~~~
sunchild
For the record, I think criminal penalties for copyright infringement is bad
policy. Whatever public interest there was in copyright protection has long
since been overwhelmed by private interests that belong in civil courts.

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
Zev
_We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget._

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

~~~
tux1968
Agreed. It also sounds juvenile and a bit detached from reality.

~~~
Karunamon
And also completely wrong. Anonymous being a hivemind, they "forget" the
moment they stop being entertained by the actions of their target.

Target of an anon raid? Ignore them completely. They will go away.

------
naner
[http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/09/music-labels-joint-
venture-...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/09/music-labels-joint-venture-vevo-
shows-pirated-espn-game-at-sundance/)

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

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

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

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

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

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

This can't just "go away".

~~~
waiwai933
Private prosecution in the US only appears to be permitted in the state of
Virginia, and although IANAL, I think that even there, it would only apply to
state statues and not federal ones. But you could petition the Attorney
General's office to prosecute, and/or write to your Senators/Representative to
ask them to advocate for a criminal prosecution.

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

------
za
Original Article: [http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/09/music-labels-joint-
venture-...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/09/music-labels-joint-venture-vevo-
shows-pirated-espn-game-at-sundance/)

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

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

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

~~~
Natsu
Has the article been edited?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
sunchild
There is a whole bunch of legal jurisprudence in just about every country that
deals with intentional infringement of copyrights.

In the US: Operation Gridlock, Operation D-Elite, etc., etc. Look it up.

