

Internet user arrested for linking to other websites  - tjr
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/mccarthy

======
tptacek
_Federal officials charged 32-year-old Bryan McCarthy of Texas with one count
of criminal infringement of a copyright. He allegedly posted illegal streams
of the UFC, NFL, NBA, WWE and other sports programming._

 _According to today's release, McCarthy made more than $90,000 in profits
from online merchants who paid him to advertise on the site. Since it was
seized on Feb. 1, the site has received 1.3 million hits._

He wasn't indicted simply for linking to other websites. You, upon passing
around a link to a copyrighted Youtube video, are not a potential felon.
Here's the issue:

    
    
      § 506. Criminal offenses
        (a) Criminal Infringement. —
          (1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright 
          shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, 
          if the infringement was committed —
            (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or 
            private financial gain;
    

Note last sentence.

It is still perfectly reasonable to disagree with the prosecution (I don't,
but I respect your right to). But it's still incumbent on the FSF not to be
deceptive.

~~~
aaronsw
You leave out (B) and (C) of that paragraph:

    
    
        (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by 
            electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 
            or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more 
            copyrighted works, which have a total retail value 
            of more than $1,000; or
    
        (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for 
            commercial distribution, by making it available on 
            a computer network accessible to members of the 
            public, if such person knew or should have known 
            that the work was intended for commercial 
            distribution.
    

Not the "or".

~~~
benologist
How does it matter? The retail value of the UFC/NFL live broadcasts would be
several orders of magnitude more than $1,000 to the networks/stations
licensing them, and even if you let that slide based on what the end viewer is
paying instead of the licensees the guy still hits C face-first.

So he's matching either ABC, or AC, either of which put him in the running for
a free vacation at club fed.

~~~
tptacek
It matters to the extent that one might want to build a case against the law
by suggesting it could ensnare innocuous (or even accidental) infringement;
the argument being, "look how easy it is to run afoul of (B) or (C)".

And that's an argument I have a lot of sympathy for, even if it isn't germane
to this guy's situation.

~~~
hugh3
Well I dunno. Part C seems to only apply to works being "being prepared for
production", which most folks wouldn't even have access to. Part B would be
the easiest for your casual pirate to run afoul of, but if you're pirating
$1000 worth of stuff within a year then... yeah, you're moving out of
"occasional vice" territory and into the "just watching lots of stuff without
paying for it" territory.

