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.
Jirbo is launching a new ad network today called AdColony that promises to give mobile developers a new way to make money from high-definition video ads on mobile devices.
Advertisers want to find mobile consumers who will engage with compelling ads. AdColony says its high-quality, high impact HD video ads can hold the attention of mobile consumers; and it is betting that advertisers are willing to pay higher prices to reach those consumers. In turn, that can generate more money for developers. If it works, then mobile content will become more profitable and companies will be able to better support their businesses with ads.
Basically, AdColony can be used to monetize apps and games using the free-to-play business model. In such content, users can play for free but pay real money for virtual goods. If they don’t have money, an advertiser can subsidize the transaction. They do so by getting the user to fulfill some kind of special offer. In this case, the user watches an HD video ad.
The offer business is not unlike what Tapjoy announced recently as a way for advertisers to pay for engagement in mobile games. Tapjoy and its partner can measure how far a user gets into a game and then make a special offer to that person for reaching certain achievements. It’s important because while many developers are getting lots of users on mobile devices, they’re not necessarily making money from those users. With AdColony, users aren’t redirected to another web site or app to interact with the video or to claim their reward. They can do it inside the app.
Some current mobile ad solutions are based on streaming and buffering (loading a bunch of the video into memory so that it can play smoothly). They also suffer from graininess and muffled sound. With AdColony, Jirbo uses a proprietary technology to produce sharp video playback with no load times, good sound and no graininess. Once the app is on the App Store, AdColony directs high-value video ads to the app as users engage with it. Publishers can see the usage through live analytics and can ensure that ads for adults won’t be seen by kids. The publishers get paid every month.
The company already has a lot of traction. Jirbo has used the ad network on more than 200 of its own internally developed apps for the past year. It has drawn advertisers such as 20th Century Fox, ESPN, CBS Interactive, Microsoft and others. One of the apps, Type n Talk, has had more than 4.8 million downloads to date. Full told, Jirbo apps have been downloaded 30 million times. Jirbo is now offering the AdColony solution to third-party developers. Jirbo calls the system “video for virtual currency.”
Jirbo was founded in 2008 and has 35 employees. Rivals include game publishers such as Zynga and ad networks such as Greystripe. Jirbo says its solution is simple, favors developers, and has superior video ad delivery. Jirbo says its software development kit can be integrated into a game in as little as 20 minutes. Once integrated, the developer has to submit their app to Apple and all the instant-load video campaigns are dynamically allocated to them.
Jirbo has raised $2 million from Insight Venture Partners. The founder and president is Jonathan Zweig. The company is not currently seeking funding.
Next Story: PayPal’s latest developer challenge is all about Android Previous Story: RIM bringing BlackBerry Messenger to Android and iOS?
Pawlenty Announces His Money Team - FoxNews.com
Republican Tim Pawlenty's exploratory committee has announced the key players who will make up Pawlenty's national finance team. The announcement comes as Pawlenty's team gears up for a major-donor fundraising effort.
American Apparel “Shake Down” Continues: Internet Smear Campaign <b>...</b>
According to the Daily News, Irene Morales' suit says that Charney “forced her to go down on her knees just inside the front door and perform fellatio upon him,” and “[s]he was then, to all intents and purposes, held prisoner in the ...
How To Install Managing <b>News</b> On Ubuntu | HowtoForge - Linux Howtos <b>...</b>
How To Install Managing News On Ubuntu. Managing News is an RSS/Atom based news tracker with search, republishing and mapping. This tutorial shows how to install Managing News on an Ubuntu server. ...
No comments:
Post a Comment