Private justice: How Hollywood money put a Brit behind bars • Hacker News Board

Re: Private justice: How Hollywood money put a Brit behind bars

#21

Post by Retric » Fri, Aug 17, 2012, 3:04 PM UTC

soult wrote: post #12

Retric wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For something like a movie they mostly consist of a hash list which is clearly a derivative work based on the original so probably. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrent_file EX: A 4GB file using 4MB pieces would have 1000pieces x 20 byte hashes or 20k of 100% derivative work. And ~2k for all other meta data.

By your logic a plot summary would be a derivative work. You can't recreate a movie from a plot summary, same way you can't recreate a movie from a torrent file.

A summary is not created though a purely mechanical process, but a torrent is.

PS: If you created a random file that happened to contain a movie's hash your free and clear. If you keep generating random files and comparing them to a movie until you get the one you want your not free and clear. Same bit's, different process different result.

Re: Private justice: How Hollywood money put a Brit behind bars

#22

Post by admg » Fri, Aug 17, 2012, 3:11 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #15

admg wrote: post #3

I can't believe what I've just read. A civil case yeah why not but criminal charges and imprisonment from a private entity after the CPS have basically said its not worth it? Scary.

English law has only partly transitioned to public prosecutions. Private prosecutions are still legally the norm, but CPS prosecuting a case is de-facto the norm, as they have the right to take over a private prosecution. In most cases, CPS either takes over a case and prosecutes it, or takes over a case and drops the charges (if evidence is wholly insufficient, or continuing prosecution is against public policy). Bu…

Thanks for the info, a quick google showing the rarity of private prosecutions in Scotland is definitely encouraging!

Re: Private justice: How Hollywood money put a Brit behind bars

#23

Post by _delirium » Fri, Aug 17, 2012, 3:15 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #17

objclxt wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what perspective you're writing from, but I think many people in the legal profession would disagree with you. Firstly, the UK has several distint judicial systems. I suspect in this case you're referring to the English legal system (Scotland having its own, entirely separate, process). There's then the civil and criminal courts. The former are held in high regard around the world - the English courts ar…

The UK has a criminal copyright infringement statute; like the US, infringement becomes criminal when you do it for money. It is news to me --- and, wow --- that private entities can prosecute crimes in the UK. Am I reading that right?

Well, only England & Wales (not Scotland), but yeah. Private prosecution used to be the norm, and was never abolished, just supplemented by Crown prosecution. The Crown can take over any private prosecution, either to prosecute it themselves, or to drop the charges, and now handles most cases. But sometimes the Crown doesn't care to intervene either way, and the case can go forward on the private party's dime. I can't seem to find any statistics on how common convictions are in those cases, e.g. if it's mostly private parties wasting their time on no-hope prosecutions, or if there are actually a substantial number of people convicted in cases that the Crown doesn't consider worth prosecuting.

Re: Private justice: How Hollywood money put a Brit behind bars

#24

Post by arethuza » Fri, Aug 17, 2012, 3:28 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #17

objclxt wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what perspective you're writing from, but I think many people in the legal profession would disagree with you. Firstly, the UK has several distint judicial systems. I suspect in this case you're referring to the English legal system (Scotland having its own, entirely separate, process). There's then the civil and criminal courts. The former are held in high regard around the world - the English courts ar…

The UK has a criminal copyright infringement statute; like the US, infringement becomes criminal when you do it for money. It is news to me --- and, wow --- that private entities can prosecute crimes in the UK. Am I reading that right?

It seems odd to me that in other countries individuals can't bring criminal cases - leaving everything to the "official" prosecutor (e.g the Procurator Fiscal here in Scotland).

Re: Private justice: How Hollywood money put a Brit behind bars

#25

Post by sadris » Fri, Aug 17, 2012, 3:55 PM UTC

I'm glad there is private-sector criminal prosecution in UK, wish it was here in the US as well. Then maybe cops would think twice before murdering citizens; they currently get off free every time because the DAs never prosecute one of their own.

Re: Private justice: How Hollywood money put a Brit behind bars

#26

Post by rprasad » Fri, Aug 17, 2012, 4:02 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #10

jrockway wrote: post #7

Especially ridiculous is that the judge complains that he has no remorse for "making available" content that "infringes copyright". But of course, he didn't make any such content available. (Do .torrent files "infringe copyright"?)

For something like a movie they mostly consist of a hash list which is clearly a derivative work based on the original so probably. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrent_file EX: A 4GB file using 4MB pieces would have 1000pieces x 20 byte hashes or 20k of 100% derivative work. And ~2k for all other meta data.

Retric's other comments explain why this is legally and factually accurate based on the current state of US and UK copyright law.

Basically, a "derivative" work product that is mechanically (i.e., algorithmically) created from another copyrighted work is infringing because there is no creativity in the second work and the torrent hash's sole use is distributive. The selection of algorithms or parameters generally is not sufficient "creativity" (but can be, in very limited circumstances).

Ergo, a torrent is an infringing derivative work.

A summary requires some creative thought, specifically, what plot elements to discuss and which to leave out, how to state the plot, etc. The summary generally also has a non-distributive use in its own right. Consequently, a summary is also a derivative work but is not infringing.

Re: Private justice: How Hollywood money put a Brit behind bars

#27

Post by njharman » Fri, Aug 17, 2012, 4:02 PM UTC

soult wrote: post #12

Retric wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For something like a movie they mostly consist of a hash list which is clearly a derivative work based on the original so probably. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrent_file EX: A 4GB file using 4MB pieces would have 1000pieces x 20 byte hashes or 20k of 100% derivative work. And ~2k for all other meta data.

By your logic a plot summary would be a derivative work. You can't recreate a movie from a plot summary, same way you can't recreate a movie from a torrent file.

Being able to recreate the original work is not a requirement of "derivative work" under U.S. Copyright law.

Re: Private justice: How Hollywood money put a Brit behind bars

#28

Post by tptacek » Fri, Aug 17, 2012, 4:02 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #24

tptacek wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK has a criminal copyright infringement statute; like the US, infringement becomes criminal when you do it for money. It is news to me --- and, wow --- that private entities can prosecute crimes in the UK. Am I reading that right?

It seems odd to me that in other countries individuals can't bring criminal cases - leaving everything to the "official" prosecutor (e.g the Procurator Fiscal here in Scotland).

How, exactly, do pleas and charge reductions work when the person conducting the prosecution has none of the incentives for leniency that the state does?

Re: Private justice: How Hollywood money put a Brit behind bars

#29

Post by rprasad » Fri, Aug 17, 2012, 4:08 PM UTC

lumberjack wrote: post #2

Somebody once pointed out that such link aggregation sites that operate outside the US seem to be getting in more legal trouble than similiar sites operating under a US domain and possibly on US soil. Is this true and if so, why?

U.S. copyright laws and enforcement are not as bad as nerdom make it out to be. Indeed, the U.S. is frequently the opposition to extending copyright durations and other copyright regimes (ACTA, etc., notwithstanding).

In the U.S., copyright infringement is only a crime if done for money (because there is an element of fraud, i.e., selling goods that you do not own). Outside of the U.S., copyright infringement can be a crime even if no money is involved. Furthermore, a lot of the "rights" in the criminal justice system are actually features of only the U.S. system (i.e,. right to a lawyer, right to a fair trial, right to a jury) and are not actually shared by most other legal systems.

Re: Private justice: How Hollywood money put a Brit behind bars

#30

Post by molo » Fri, Aug 17, 2012, 4:35 PM UTC

abend wrote: post #14

molo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, what is the private entity involved in Assange's case?

I think SAP is referring to an external entity having an influence on a government's judicial process, not necessarily strictly private. Whether it's the US Government or a special interest group. Assange's case included.

I don't think that is the intended statement at all. Please reread this sentence:

> There's several cases, most notably Assange and [...] that indicate that private entities are putting pressure on governments, who in turn put pressure on their peers in other countries.