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.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.
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.
As a possible deal with Newser falls apart, the online news pioneer ramps up its cultural coverage. The result: an ailing stock price, but traffic’s on the rise.
Kerry Lauerman remembers the time, a decade ago, when he was Salon’s Washington bureau chief and the website had a budget three times larger than it subsists on today.
Now the Washington bureau is toast. “We’re leaner and meaner and we work a lot smarter,” says Lauerman, who took over in November as editor in chief.
Salon made its name as a politically aggressive, staunchly liberal online operation. But in recent months I’ve noticed a very different kind of story often leading the site. There was “Men: The New Romantics,” and “Literature’s Gender Gap.” There was “My Husband, the Convicted Murderer” and “My Son, The Pink Boy.” Not to mention “Grammys’ Most Memorable Red-Carpet Outfits” and “The Hardest Part About Quitting Drinking? Dating.”
So is there a personality transplant going on?
“The identity of Salon is as a political site,” Lauerman says, “but our entertainment coverage has always done pretty well.” Beyond politics, he says, “we are emphasizing everything else more. We’ve staffed up in entertainment. We listen to our readers.”
And are these stories about movies and marriages and sex designed to attract more advertising?
“I’d be lying if I said that wasn’t a consideration.”
Given Salon’s precarious financial state, it’s obviously a major consideration. The struggling site quietly put itself up for sale in recent months, and talks with Newser.com, an aggregation site founded by Michael Wolff, collapsed Monday. The New York Times Dealbook blog reported that Salon board members grew concerned that they might be selling for too low a price after AOL paid $315 million to buy The Huffington Post.
The publicly traded company reported a loss of $4.8 million in fiscal 2010, with two investors making up the gap through loans. Salon’s stock is trading for a dime, down from $1.30 in the summer of 2008.
“It’s not an easy space to make money in if you’re trying to do quality content,” says CEO Richard Gingras, who provided the original seed money for Salon’s launch. “We have beefed up the investment in culture and lifestyle… It is about growing the audience.”
The first duty of any website is survival, and most of the news business—from old-line newspapers and magazines to newer operations such as The Daily Beast—is grappling with how to turn a profit online. The overhauling of Salon’s editorial mix comes as its center of gravity has shifted from San Francisco, where it was born 15 years ago, to Midtown Manhattan. Founding editor David Talbot and Joan Walsh, who stepped down last year, ran the place from the Bay Area; Lauerman, 41, is the first editor to be based, with most of the staff, in New York.
“It’s not an easy space to make money in if you’re trying to do quality content,” says CEO Richard Gingras, who provided the original seed money for Salon’s launch. “We have beefed up the investment in culture and lifestyle… It is about growing the audience.”
Walsh, who had tapped Lauerman as her deputy, was part of the new direction before returning to reporting and a book project. “Our news team is as good as it’s ever been,” she says. “But the political cycle ebbs and flows, and people get more or less interested depending on whether it’s election season and what the crazy story of the week is… We’ve probably gotten deeper into the cultural realm.”
The Funniest Fox <b>News</b> FAILS (PICTURES)
News bloopers are some of the best ones, especially when the flub involves a hilariously erroneous chyron or graphic. Fox News has had some of the funniest FAILS the Internet was able to capture, and we've corralled all the best ones ...
Plutonium detected in soil at Fukushima nuke plant | Kyodo <b>News</b>
''We must control the water well so it won't ever go outside'' the complex, said Sakae Muto, vice president of TEPCO, at a news conference. TEPCO revealed the elevated radiation levels in trench water a day after it first detected them, ...
The Truth About Twitter: It's The Evening <b>News</b>
Twitter is a media platform, not a social network.
No comments:
Post a Comment