HERE in the Independent

Quote Gone To Lunch:

---

HERE in the Independent

---

Good for him

Good to see IP owners are beginning to get some protection from law (although I don't see any of the money in this case being confiscated and distributed amongst IP owners who's rights have been violated). But I still say we need legislative reform, if for nothing else but to make the law clear. This case looks more like 'handling stolen goods for a profit' but... I'm assuming it was heard in the UK? Who brought it? How did it manage to result in a custodial sentence? What's happening with all the money in Latvia? As "a landmark case that sends out a clear message to site owners that maintaining similar indexes to copyrighted material can, and likely will, lead to imprisonment" its a little confused.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Frisonic -

I don't know the answers to questions, but there was another article in the Guardian about the same case, and that might have some more details...

I expect in a wee while there will be some sort of comment in Music Week as well ?

The reason for the custodial sentence is that he was convicted for conspiracy to commit the offence rather than the offence itself.

A lone operator could not be convicted in this way. (E.g. Richard O'Dwyer).

I don't know if an offender being punished is the same as the victims being protected.

/ezza

Quote Frisonic:

---

I'm assuming it was heard in the UK? Who brought it? How did it manage to result in a custodial sentence?

---

Some of that answered here:

http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2012/august/website-operator-jailed-for -four-years-for-conspiring-to-defraud-copyright-owners/

I guess the criminal sanctions were invoked due to the significant amounts of money involved. Not sure whether to expect similar where not-for-profit infringing is occurring.

Thanks for those signposts guys.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Hah! Screw him, and his Latvian bank account. Bloody adverts.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

Hah! Screw him, and his Latvian bank account. Bloody adverts.

---

Quite!

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

He's still carping on about how "unfair" his conviction is from behind bars.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/aug/16/surfthechannel-attack-ant i-piracy-prosecution

Obviously the jury at his trial did not agree!

Quote:

---

The judge added that Vickerman showed no remorse but "I'm bound to say that in all the years I've worked in this court I have never encountered arrogance of the kind that you displayed during this trial."

---

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Any lawyers out there ?

I would like to know....

If this guy can be jailed for it, why not Google, for aiding and abetting or something ?

I mean, if say I won the lottery, ie had limitless funds for legal bills, could I take Google to court, and could it be one of the communal group actions like they have in the states ?

Quote Gone To Lunch:

---

Any lawyers out there ?

I would like to know....

If this guy can be jailed for it, why not Google, for aiding and abetting or something ?

I mean, if say I won the lottery, ie had limitless funds for legal bills, could I take Google to court, and could it be one of the communal group actions like they have in the states ?

---

Google is the bigger sinner here, but they have the clout. Eye watering amounts of money, huge influence over the internet, special meetings with the Tories directly influencing government policy...

Well GTL, you could try. But don't you rather think that Google, being extremely rich and full of clever people, and no doubt lawyered to the hilt, might not have already got a pretty good handle on their legal position? You might be better off spending your lottery winnings on Pepsi and fly-halfs, or something similar.

Quote Scramble:

---

Well GTL, you could try. But don't you rather think that Google, being extremely rich and full of clever people, and no doubt lawyered to the hilt, might not have already got a pretty good handle on their legal position? You might be better off spending your lottery winnings on Pepsi and fly-halfs, or something similar.

---

From what I can make out this prosecution, which was brought in the UK and NOT by the public prosecutor, resulted in a prison term because it was for fraud, rather than copyright infringement. It was probably the shock of realising he was going to get done under that law that caused the man to be so badly behaved in court (never a good idea if you are hoping for the most lenient sentence)! Like getting Al Capone for tax evasion rather than all the murders. He just didn't see it coming. Had the prosecution been for copyright infringement there was no recourse for the judge to hand down a jail term.

If an enterprising attorney in the US (there are lots of those) were to pull together a large enough number of aggrieved copyright infringement victims and bring a class action against Google or the like, the case probably wouldn't win. Because of the sheer legal fire power alluded to above and because the existing laws remains heavily biased against IP owners. On the other hand the adverse publicity would likely cause the Google's of this world take a more constructive approach to the legal reforms that were attempted in America earlier this year (SOPA & PIPA). Their problem is that not being able to sell advertising on the back of using other peoples content for free would seriously hurt their business model. I doubt they could afford to settle, for fear of precedent, but they would be concerned about that sort of noise causing them embarrassment and potentially harming revenues (for example by creating a perception that buying space on social media might be counter productive to certain brand values). Especially as old school media like newspapers and television news would be very happy to give the case prominence. They might even donate a few dollars to the fighting fund!

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

He'll have time to practice that captivating old melody 'Jailhouse Rock'

While I think the guy is in the right place, what bugs me is that it's for the wrong reasons.
More and more, we see moneyed and powerful organisations playing games with the law in order to get what they want at almost any price.

What hope is there for any of us ordinary people who may inexplicably get caught on the crosswires?

--------------------
It wasn't me!
(Well, actually, it probably was)

I hear you Fedorol but those weren't small amounts of money. Clearly enough for him as he was just about to 'cash in his chips' by selling the site. But yes, a bigger player might have been able to outgun the prosecution or bamboozle the judge into a fine because there wasn't any obvious individual to jail.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

Quote Scramble:

---

Well GTL, you could try. But don't you rather think that Google, being extremely rich and full of clever people, and no doubt lawyered to the hilt, might not have already got a pretty good handle on their legal position? You might be better off spending your lottery winnings on Pepsi and fly-halfs, or something similar.

---

From what I can make out this prosecution, which was brought in the UK and NOT by the public prosecutor, resulted in a prison term because it was for fraud, rather than copyright infringement. It was probably the shock of realising he was going to get done under that law that caused the man to be so badly behaved in court (never a good idea if you are hoping for the most lenient sentence)! Like getting Al Capone for tax evasion rather than all the murders. He just didn't see it coming. Had the prosecution been for copyright infringement there was no recourse for the judge to hand down a jail term.

If an enterprising attorney in the US (there are lots of those) were to pull together a large enough number of aggrieved copyright infringement victims and bring a class action against Google or the like, the case probably wouldn't win. Because of the sheer legal fire power alluded to above and because the existing laws remains heavily biased against IP owners. On the other hand the adverse publicity would likely cause the Google's of this world take a more constructive approach to the legal reforms that were attempted in America earlier this year (SOPA & PIPA). Their problem is that not being able to sell advertising on the back of using other peoples content for free would seriously hurt their business model. I doubt they could afford to settle, for fear of precedent, but they would be concerned about that sort of noise causing them embarrassment and potentially harming revenues (for example by creating a perception that buying space on social media might be counter productive to certain brand values). Especially as old school media like newspapers and television news would be very happy to give the case prominence. They might even donate a few dollars to the fighting fund!

---

A fascinating analysis, Friso.....

And therein lies a clue as to how we might yet confront some of the damage of piracy thus :

Quote:

---

Their problem is that not being able to sell advertising on the back of using other peoples content for free would seriously hurt their business model.

---

That's what we have to do!

When I do have the big euromillions win, that's what i'll do !

Quote Folderol:

---

While I think the guy is in the right place, what bugs me is that it's for the wrong reasons.
More and more, we see moneyed and powerful organisations playing games with the law in order to get what they want at almost any price.

What hope is there for any of us ordinary people who may inexplicably get caught on the crosswires?

---

Yeah, imagine you are making loads of money by giving links to pirated content. Easily done ..

Quote Folderol:

---

...we see moneyed and powerful organisations playing games with the law in order to get what they want at almost any price.

---

But surely that is why the legal system happened in the first place ?

The thing with Google is that they are still not breaking any laws. They post a signpost to every bit of content they can index and the ad's are contextural. Whilst you may feel it's morally wrong, they are not acturly doing anything that has has been ruled against in a court of law.

I'm all for this method of take down to be honest. It's not cheap to run a bittorrent searver and the legalitys of it all means it can be fairly complicated to set up and run due to having to work with hosts and organize offshore hosting. You can play whackamole with the users forever, but it's never going to make a dent, and in fact in those instances the only winners are the lawers and copywrite groups.

Take away the profit in running a server and you'll see everyone start to close sites. Nobody wants to spend hundreds/thousands a month running a server when they won't be able to recoup the cost. Send in the IRS/Treasury to audit anyone known to be involved with tracker sites, it's the cleanest most effective way by far with the least negitive impact on the rights of everyone else.

--------------------
ScanProAudio & 3XS Audio Systems
ScanProAudio Blog

Thanks PK, that was very interesting...

I never thought about how much it cost to run a server...a vulnerability I have never considered....