FBI charges Megaupload operators with piracy crimes

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

That's where this is heading. Forget ebook uploads though, even a comment posted on here could potentially be infringing on somebody's copyright somewhere. What's the minimum word/letter count to qualify for copyright status, it's fairly short isn't it?

Heck, with some of the topics that get discussed over and over on discussion forums all the time, it wouldn't surprise me if users are eventually infringing on each other's copyright.

Copyright only covers expression, not ideas and facts. Unless you are writing what other people have posted on a topic verbatim, you are not in danger of copyright infringement.

[HarryT]

Have you had a chance to look at the BBC story, Shaggy? What do you think the basis of the extradition request is?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

It is considered contributory (or authorizing) copyright infringement, and it has been upheld in court, such as with Gershwin Publishing Corp vs Columbia Artists Managment, Inc. It was a major factor in the Grokster case.

So how are google/etc not guilty?

What are we talking about when we say "linking" in this story? Just a web link?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

I think a better term is "cybertantrum."

That sounds more like it.

[HarryT]

The link I posted before. Here it is again:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-16544335

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No. That's not the case, and not what I said.

What's the difference between these people and any other site that allows public upload/storage?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

Unless you are writing what other people have posted on a topic verbatim, you are not in danger of copyright infringement.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Given a forum that has very similarly themed topics that come up in threads over and over, for years at a stretch. What do you think the odds are that two users will post the exact same comment eventually?

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

What do you think the odds are that two users will post the exact same comment eventually?

One in a quadrillion. Even if you do infringe, chances are the only action taken will be a request to the site moderators to remove the comment.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

One in a quadrillion.

I'd guess it's a lot more likely than that. I'd bet a lot of large forum sites have at least one instance of two identical comments over the course of the site's history. Especially ones that tend to have 100's of threads discussing the same topics. Now expand that to include the sum of the comments posted to all forums.

IE, two identical comments, each on a separate forum. Technically, wouldn't the latter infringe on the copyright of the former?

Even if you do infringe, chances are the only action taken will be a request to the site moderators to remove the comment.

Depends on who the copyright holder is, apparently.

You or me and it probably wouldn't even be taken seriously. Somebody with enough clout, and the FBI will start taking down the site.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What do you think the basis of the extradition request is?

No clue, that's why I was asking the question.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I'd guess it's a lot more likely than that. I'd bet a lot of large forum sites have at least one instance of two identical comments over the course of the site's history. Now expand that to include the sum of the comments posted to all forums.

My guess is that this has never unintentionally happened.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

IE, two identical comments, each on a separate forum. Technically, wouldn't the latter infringe on the copyright of the former?

I just don't see how a person could end up, word for word, posting the exact same comment as someone else did without intending to do it.

Originally Posted by shaggy

Depends on who the copyright holder is, apparently.

You or me and it probably wouldn't even be taken seriously. Somebody with enough clout, and the FBI will start taking down the site.

First off, copyright infringement is a a civil, not criminal, offense. Legislation like SOPA is really only geared towards commercial goods. Unless you are monetizing the comment, you are safe. Second, the only way you'd get caught is if the person was actively looking for identical comments. Who would do that? Do you think there are people out there routinely google searching every comment they ever made on the internet to make sure no one is copying them? It is possible, but I don't see it as a credible threat to anything.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

My guess is that this has never unintentionally happened.

I don't think intent matters.

I just don't see how a person could end up, word for word, posting the exact same comment as someone else did without intending to do it.

Given how short most of them are, I can easily see it. There just aren't that many ways to say the same thing over and over, without eventual duplication. You've never read a post in the plethora of pro/anti copyright discussions on here over the years and had deja-vu?

First off, copyright infringement is a a civil, not criminal, offense. Legislation like SOPA is really only geared towards commercial goods. Unless you are monetizing the comment, you are safe.

Have you seen what the civil penalties are for copyright infringement? Not to mention that many forums don't draw revenue from comments directly, but can be argued to do so indirectly via ad space, etc. That's how the pirate bay made their revenue, wasn't it?

Second, the only way you'd get caught is if the person was actively looking for identical comments. Who would do that?

If things "progress" to where the hosting site can be held liable, do you think sites would be willing to take the risk?

The only point I'm trying to make is this. If you really think about it, is there really all that much difference between sites that allow users to upload files and sites that allow users to post comments? Both are potentially at risk for the content they host to infringe on copyright.

The only obvious distinction I can find is that files (music/movies/ebooks) are much larger than comments. However, I'm not aware of any difference outlined in copyright law based on the size of the copyrighted work in question, is there?

[kiwipippa]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Have you had a chance to look at the BBC story, Shaggy? What do you think the basis of the extradition request is?

The extradition request for the 4 guys in New Zealand - a quote from the NZ Herald this morning:

"The FBI will now seek to extradite the men back to the United States to face charges of conspiring to commit racketeering, conspiring to commit money laundering, copyright infringement and aiding and abetting copyright infringement."

Doesn't sound like they were making cupcakes inside that mansion.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The only point I'm trying to make is this. If you really think about it, is there really all that much difference between sites that allow users to upload files and sites that allow users to post comments? Both are potentially at risk for the content they host to infringe on copyright.

In almost all cases for comments people upload comments that are their own work.
In almost all cases for these file hosting sites people upload files that are other people's work.

[azazel1024]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

So how are google/etc not guilty?

What are we talking about when we say "linking" in this story? Just a web link?

Web linking. However, he knew that the links he was posting (a lot were NOT user generated links, he actively posted the links himself) were to infringing material.

The difference is Google, Bing, etc aren't knowningly posting links to infringing content. If the gov't could show that the search engines were designing their web crawling engine to specifically look for infringing content and posting links to it, they would be very much guilty of copyright infringement.

However, they are not designed that way.

Intentionally linking to material you KNOW infringes copyright, or refusing to remove the link if you were previously unaware of the infringing status of the material, violates US copyright under established case law (as pointed out in the case cited above).