Man Who Uploaded Deadpool To Facebook May Get Six Months In Prison (gizmodo.com) 215
A California court may soon sentence a man who posted the entirety of Deadpool on his Facebook page to six months in prison. Gizmodo reports: A week after Deadpool was released in theaters, millions of people watched the film on a viral Facebook post by the account Tre-Von M. King. The FBI found that the account belonged to Trevon Franklin, a 22-year-old in Fresno, California. Franklin had downloaded the movie from file-sharing platform Putlocker.is, then uploaded the movie to his Facebook page, where it garnered 6,386,456 views, according to court documents. He was indicted and arrested in June 2017. In May, Franklin made a plea agreement with the government. Franklin pled guilty in exchange for authorities agreeing to recommend a reduced sentenced. Last week, the government filed its sentencing recommendation. As TorrentFreak originally reported, authorities suggested a prison sentence of six months. The government argues that the sentencing "is both necessary and sufficient to address the nature of circumstances of the offense and to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense."
This is because Franklin publicly disregarded the law in a number of posts. In one such post he wrote: "I got the ultimate way out of this, yall might be surprised on how I won't go to jail but just become more famous." In another he wrote, "I'm just sitting back smoking out my bong laughing at these mfs who think they know what they talking I haven't sold shit to anyone, or made copies."
This is because Franklin publicly disregarded the law in a number of posts. In one such post he wrote: "I got the ultimate way out of this, yall might be surprised on how I won't go to jail but just become more famous." In another he wrote, "I'm just sitting back smoking out my bong laughing at these mfs who think they know what they talking I haven't sold shit to anyone, or made copies."
prison (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't they ask for their usual 6,386,456 * $250,000 = $1,596,614,000,000, call it $1.5 trillion, in fines?
That's the civil lawsuit (Score:1)
he'll be dealing with that for the rest of his life.
I wish the industry would just move back into the 21st century and publish movies online within a few weeks
because people like me don't visit movie theaters anymore.
Sitting in a cramped room with popcorn throwing noisy scum is not really something like a 'movie experience'.
Re: That's the civil lawsuit (Score:1)
Given that Europe just decreed that the 21st century must adapt to the 20th, I think asking for reasonability is too much.
Re: (Score:2)
Theaters:
- You need to go see the movie while it's still in theatres.
- You need time to go from your home to the theatre.
- You need to arrive way before the movie start in order to get a good seat.
- If you want snacks, you'll be forced to pay three to four times the normal price from an extremely limited selection compared to what you'd snack on if you were at home.
- If you arrived too late, you may be forced to sit too far to the left or right, or too close to the screen.
- You are forced to watch ads befor
Re: (Score:2)
Go on a weekday during the day, and you'll avoid all that.
I'm aware this advice does not work for wage slaves.
Re: (Score:2)
You will avoid some of the problems but not all.
Re: That's the civil lawsuit (Score:1)
I'm simply not buying anymore, nor do I download. If movie studios were to publish online I would consider paying a reasonable price.
Re: (Score:2)
I think what he's saying is that more and more people are not going to theatres anymore and are waiting to watch it on Netflix.
I think most theatres will be closed in a few decades.
Re: (Score:3)
Because he'd just declare bankruptcy and his assets won't even pay the lawyers fees.
Re: (Score:1)
Time served in prison instead won't pay the lawyers fees either. In fact, that'll actually cost more.
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't they ask for their usual 6,386,456 * $250,000 = $1,596,614,000,000, call it $1.5 trillion, in fines?
Because statutory damages are _per work_. How many works were copied? One. The number of copies doesn't matter. So statutory damages are up to $150,000.
Get off my Lawn (Score:2)
Re:prison (Score:5, Informative)
Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Copyright violations are a felony, and can carry fines of up to $250,000 or five years in prison for a first offense -- as you'd know if you've ever actually read the text that displays when you pop a DVD into a drive.
Now it's actually rare to pursue criminal charges against copyright infringers. Usually it's a civil suit. Fewer than two hundred criminal prosecutions are undertaken against all kinds of IP violators in the entire US each year. Given the frequency at which copyright infringement occurs, your chances of facing criminal prosecution at all is close to zero.
But it's not quite zero, and if you *do* end up facing prosecution, yes you can go to jail. In this case the reason is probably that the guy didn't make any money that could be recovered. He just did it to be a dick, and pretty much dared prosecutors to throw him in jail. That said, six months seems pretty excessive; that Stanford swim team rapist got six months in prison for three convictions on felony sexual assault.
Re: (Score:3)
But I thought the law stated that criminal copyright infringement requires distribution for financial gain, and I didn't see that mentioned here. There's also the exception that applies to distributing a work that hasn't yet been released yet, but since the movie had already been in theaters for a week, that wouldn't apply either.
What other cases can criminal copyright infringement be applied to that is actually applicable here? My guess is none, but I suppose that doesn't really matter if they just scared
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, it doesn't require financial gain on the part of the infringer. Felony copyright infringement requires distribution including by electronic means of works where the net retail value of all the copies distributed over a period of up to 180 days is at least $2500.
That said, given that this particular act is so common and its prosecution as a crime is so rare, you have to assume there's something capricious in the application of the law. For practical economic purposes nothing would change if this cri
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For practical economic purposes nothing would change if this crime were never prosecuted, so why have the law at all?
That is definitely NOT true. If the crime were never prosecuted, every shady business operator would be selling pirated copies of everything he could just to make an easy buck.
We know this because it's happened in the past with books. It's even easier to do now, so of course it would happen.
Prosecutions have to happen just often enough to keep the commercial operators in line.
This guy's mistake was being a defiant loud mouth. If he'd just shut up about it, the prosecutor's wouldn't have wanted to waste t
Re: (Score:3)
It *does* happen. In many countries, it's actually difficult to find an honest copy of a movie or software. They're massively outnumbered by the pirate sellers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Copying should not be a crime. Copying is a natural right, it does a great deal of good and the so-called harm it causes is a figment of delusional thinking
This is where you are wrong. When a person or company invests time (money) and effort (also money) into creating something, they should be compensated for their time and effort. That's how economics work, I do something, someone else gives money for my time and effort, so I can use that to buy other people's time and effort. Intellectual property is no different than anything else. It's tangible, and people have shown time and time again to be willing to trade some of their time and effort for such work
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"> Copying should not be a crime. Copying is a natural right, it does a great deal of good and the so-called harm it causes is a figment of delusional thinking
This is where you are wrong"
Not at all. He is, in fact, absolutely right. Copying is, in fact, a natural right: you need to exert violence to avoid it. Copy rights are in fact not rights but a privilege: you apply state violence against those that otherwise could freely copy/distribute what they know/they have, purportedly for the greater benefi
Re: (Score:2)
Copying is, in fact, a natural right: you need to exert violence to avoid it. Copy rights are in fact not rights but a privilege: you apply state violence against those that otherwise could freely copy/distribute what they know/they have
Found the libertarian.
By this definition, any law requires 'violence' to enforce it, as the penalty for breaking a law has to involve some form of constraint on property or person.
Re: (Score:2)
"Found the libertarian."
I'm not.
"By this definition, any law requires 'violence' to enforce it"
Not by that definition, it's simply a stated fact. Goverment retains the privilege of violence monopoly for a reason.
But, even then, here I'm not talking about the State violence to restore a legit state of affairs, i.e.: the implied violence required to put you in jail after you commit a felony, but violence to avoid the fact itself. A simple example: you own a rubber duck and I ask you to give me your rubber d
Re: (Score:2)
"You do realize Heinlein supported copyright and all his works are copyrighted, correct?"
So what? That his quote could be used even against him makes it more valuable if anything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Copying is stealing someone's time and effort, copying and giving it away is no different.
1. You keep using this word "steal". It doesn't mean what you think it does. The original author STILL has their effort.
2. FTFY: Copying is DUPLICATING someone's effort for almost zero time. Whether it is LEGAL or ILLEGAL depends.
3. /sarcasm Who knew that copying Linux was stealing Linus' time ! Oh wait, you meant "illegal copying", because LEGAL COPYING granted by GPL, BSD, Public Domain, etc. is perfectly fine
Re: (Score:2)
1. You keep using this word "steal". It doesn't mean what you think it does. The original author STILL has their effort.
Of course. But you did steal something from me, by copying and distributing my work without my permission. You stole the time and effort that I could have gotten from others by giving them my hard work to enjoy.
I'm sorry you can't seem to wrap your head around the value of intellectual property, and the time and effort that goes into creating content, like books, movies, television, games, or whatever other entertainment work you have decided shouldn't have value because you think I've done my work and now
Re: (Score:2)
now that I've finished it, I no longer deserve any further compensation
No one said that. You exaggerated.
I agree that artists deserve compensation. I would suppose that nearly everyone agrees with that. Where we disagree is the means, and the quantity. Copyright is a terrible system for compensating artists. There've been many cases in which copyright was used against the very artist it was supposed to help. A big media corporation has a lot more power than a lonely artist, and they use that power to dictate terms, terms which are extremely unfair. They know they have
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize the word 'steal' has no context in discussions about infringing copyright? Calling it stealing means you dont know what you are talking about, and have no place in this discussion. Infringement is never theft, its infringement. We make this distinction as to remind everyone that we are talking about ephemera, not actual tangible goods.
It's theft. It's theft of time and effort. When a person or company invests time, money and effort into creating something people will want to see, read, or play, they don't get compensated as their creation is created. They get compensated when the work is complete and they begin to sell copies of it to interested people. You stole that compensation I would have gotten if you hadn't stolen it. Doesn't matter if the person getting the copy could or couldn't actually purchase the copy. Every copy made
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't read past the OP's "Copying is a natural right". It appears you did, and you have my sympathy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If he does go to prison, I will regard him as a political prisoner, same as Phillip Danks and the founders of the Pirate Bay.
I'll regard him as a dumbass who openly broke the law, bragged about it, was arrested, indicted and will soon be sentenced for his troubles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: prison (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
But I thought the law stated that criminal copyright infringement requires distribution for financial gain,
Then your understanding if the opposite of what it is. Or at least what the warning states on any disks that I have. It specifically states that it's a violation even if not for financial gain.
Re: (Score:2)
But I thought the law stated that criminal copyright infringement requires distribution for financial gain
No. Copyright infringement only requires distribution of a copyrighted work without permission. However, there is an escape hatch: "Fair Use". If you can show that your distribution fell into this category, then it's legal. The category is kind of fuzzy, though. The law specifies four factors to be considered when Fair Use determination is made:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the cop
Re: (Score:2)
This used to be the case, before the DMCA was passed, attaching criminal sentencing to infringement, and more draconian measures (criminalizing education on the circumvention of copy protection). One could argue fair use as a defense, but I don't think that has been very successful in the last 18 years, on the rare occasion one can afford to plead innocent.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the bit about ... for financial gain
The only ones who profited from the distribution are Facebook
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently he was bragging about how it was going to make him famous. That statement may count as him pursuing financial gain for himself.
Re: (Score:3)
Uploading the movie to a public post on Facebook somehow doesn't count as distribution?
You only got through the first half of one sentence of the above comment?
Re:prison (Score:4, Funny)
You only got through the first half of one sentence of the above comment?
IMHO his getting past the post's title at all places him on the high side of the bell curve here on Slashdot.
Just sayin'...
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't Facebook the one doing the distribution? Shouldn't it be Zuckerberg going to prison?
Re: (Score:1)
If individuals can go to prison for copyright violations, then so can the people making, marketing, and distributing movies.
Think about that next time you see a movie where the hacker's laptop screen quickly flashes with all sorts of Python code.
Re:prison (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue isn't that people are all too willing to violate copyright. The issue is that technology has advanced to the point where copyright is all too easy to violate. This suggests that copyright is outgrowing its usefulness, and we need to sit down and consider replacing it with a different model. The reduction in cost of duplication and distribution to near zero means it's becoming more and more expensive to enforce copyright. Meanwhile, the benefit to the copyright holder has held steady, while the potential benefit to society from just giving everyone a free copy has grown. So as a whole, the cost of copyright is increasing while its benefit is holding steady. We may soon reach a point where the cost of copyright exceeds its benefit to society. So the role of copyright may be better served in the future by the way artistic works were created in the past.
Centuries ago since it was nearly impossible to enforce copyright. So a rich patron would hire artists to create works. That's how artists got paid, and works got created. Once created, there was no copyright so anyone could copy the work. You'll notice that wedding photography has already reverted to this model. In the 20th century, the photographer shot your wedding for free or for a token fee. You then paid for copies of the photos. The increasing quality of scanners and color printers forced wedding photographers to abandon this model. Nowadays, you hire the wedding photographer for a large enough fee to cover all their costs (the "patron" model). The prints (or digital copies) are given to you for a token sum, or even for free.
Re:prison (Score:5, Informative)
All this ignores the basis of copyright law. That is, creators are given an exclusive right to profit off of their works in exchange for it's eventual inclusion in the public domain. Society only enforces an exclusive license to distribute because culture benefits over the long term.
However the compact has been corrupted because creators have colluded with government to prevent any transfer of material to the public domain. Even now industry is attempting to extend the embargo on the transfer of material to the public domain yet again.
People can see that not only is industry preventing materials from going into the public domain they are also making those materials unavailable at any price. Try to find a legal source for a great amount of content produced in the past. Classic and not so classic movies, out of print books and so forth. Illegal to distribute and unavailable at any price legally.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, content creators reneged on their side of the bargain. Why should we still be expected to uphold ours?
Copyright law is null and void until such time as public domain is reinstated.
I feel no guilt at all about pirating.
Re:prison (Score:4, Insightful)
"None of your points are relevant to copying a brand-new movie."
Use your imagination.
The legal system spent millions of dollars tracking this guy down, trying him and imprisoning him. Why? To protect the profits of this movie.
Why are people compelled to pay taxes to enforce this business model?
Because "... creators are given an exclusive right to profit off of their works in exchange for it's eventual inclusion in the public domain"
Since Deadpool will NEVER in OUR LIVES enter the public domain, and likely never in our children's lives enter the public domain, the social contract is broken.
Disregard copyright and let the business die.
Re: (Score:2)
The legal system spent millions of dollars tracking this guy down, trying him and imprisoning him. Why? To protect the profits of this movie.
Use your imagination. Not only the profits, but cost recovery. Not only for this movie, but for other movies and art that are covered by copyright law. Hint: deterrent.
Why are people compelled to pay taxes to enforce this business model?
Because it isn't a "business model".
Since Deadpool will NEVER in OUR LIVES enter the public domain,
You don't know that, and it is irrelevant to begin with. If you don't value the work enough to pay the producer for his work and effort, then why are you so interested in watching it in the first place? I wouldn't pay anyone for a copy of Deadpool, but I also don't give a damn about watching it.
Disregard copyright and let the business die.
There are s
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is a virtual certainty. Every time Mickey Mouse ...
No, is not a certainty, neither real nor virtual. It is your prediction. Deadpool is not Micky Mouse.
Creators deserve to receive compensation for a reasonable period of time for their works, but not for perpetuity, which is what we effectively have now.
Deadpool is a current product. It has not reached even a 17 year lifespan. Pretending that Deadpool deserves no copyright protection at all because at some time in the far future it might not enter public domain is ridiculous rationalization. Claiming that IT deserves no copyright protection NOW because Disney has been able to get protection for Mickey Mouse is absurd.
Great, then the work has to enter the public domain within finite time.
So you would punish every creator NOW
Re: (Score:2)
He clearly knew what he was doing was wrong and it simply wasn't him downloading the movie to watch by himself at home.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll notice that wedding photography has already reverted to this model. In the 20th century, the photographer shot your wedding for free or for a token fee. You then paid for copies of the photos. The increasing quality of scanners and color printers forced wedding photographers to abandon this model. Nowadays, you hire the wedding photographer for a large enough fee to cover all their costs (the "patron" model). The prints (or digital copies) are given to you for a token sum, or even for free.
Yes, but what professional wedding photographers don't do is spend several hours of their own time at the wedding using equipment that they've had to pay for, then give you a copy of all the photos on a memory stick and rely on your goodwill to pay them for copies of any you like.
And in reality, there's no difference between paying (made up figures) five hundred quid for the photographer's time and getting 'free' prints, or paying him nothing and spending five hundred quid on a reasonable choice of photos
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. God have mercy on his still tender rectum.
Re: prison (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)d like to hear more about this please.
yes! (Score:5, Funny)
yes!-slippery slide. (Score:1)
Not as much as you'll feel when people completely disregard every law they can get their hands on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You make a decent point here, just not the one you meant to make.
When we make laws that are so hard to respect, and so blatantly against the spirit of what the original law was meant to "enshrine", it makes disrespecting the law a little more common-place. With enough silly not-respected laws on the books, people just stop respecting the law in general. This is bad for the overwhelming majority, but a non-issue for the very few.
The simple half of the solution is just to make laws that actually make sense. L
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Darn right. This is all about supporting the arts. That's why copyright laws cover works where the artist has been dead for half a century. You're not sarcastically suggesting that the laws are designed to line the coffers of the corporations who essentially wrote the laws, are you?
I might be ;)
hahahah (Score:1, Insightful)
Respect for law? We have sanctuary cities that hide criminals and politicians and corporate thugs get away with everything.
There is no respect for law. The United States is corrupt from top to bottom.
Death by torture (Score:2)
Not feeling the least bit sorry for him (Score:4, Funny)
Normally I'd be totally dead set against prison time for copyright violations (I still am), but it seriously sounds like this guy is so dumb he deserves the jail time. Not for copyright violations, but for being an idiot in general, flagrantly disregarding the law, being stupid enough to upload the whole movie to Facebook, not knowing at all how technology works, and again just for being an idiot. From the full article:
In one such post he wrote: "I got the ultimate way out of this, yall might be surprised on how I won't go to jail but just become more famous." In another he wrote, "I'm just sitting back smoking out my bong laughing at these mfs who think they know what they talking I haven't sold shit to anyone, or made copies." Franklin went on to create a Facebook group called “Bootleg Movies,” posted “EVERYBODY JOIN,” and told people he’d be posting more movies on the page.
You only have to see his name... (Score:1, Troll)
... to know that he's not going to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. I supposed we should be impressed he can actually operate a grown up computer, thats an einstein level ability down in da hood.
Re: (Score:2)
... to know that he's not going to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. I supposed we should be impressed he can actually operate a grown up computer, thats an einstein level ability down in da hood.
dude your racism isn't necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Racism? Just stating facts my friend. Not all of us live in a liberal fantasy world.
Re: (Score:2)
>"but it seriously sounds like this guy is so dumb he deserves the jail time."
+1 Bingo.
This is not a legal assessment but:
1) We are not talking about an obscure movie, but something very popular.
2) We are not talking about some old movie, or something that should have been public domain a decade ago, but something recent produced.
3) We are not talking about some secret or obscure site, but Facebook, which doesn't get more mainstream and visible.
4) We are not talking about damages that number in the hundr
Re: (Score:2)
4) We are not talking about damages that number in the hundreds or thousands of views, but over 6 million potential viewings.
I take issue with this. It's Deadpool one of the highest rated rated r movies or the recent era. There's no way the six million views on facebook seriously impacted this movie's ticket sales. There's no significant population who saw the movie and decided "ya know what I WAS going to see it in theatres, but now that I've seen it I'm not going."
You're using Hollywood logic. The one that states dedicated people who pirate movies and never go anywhere would totally have gone out to see Deadpool but darn it the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Tech geeks by and large totally ignore copyright laws, have no idea how they work, have wishy-washy hand-wavy ideas they'd never accept in a math proof about it being okay to copy stuff, and go so far as to casually commit felony conspiracy copyright infringement.
Actually it's more the other way around. Copyright laws and those who control them ignore technology and have no idea how it works. these people have wishy washy hand-wavy ideas they'd never accept in a math proof about it being ok to prosecute people for doing things that are perfectly reasonable^1 and go so far as to casually accused people of felony conspiracy copyright infringement.
[1] To be clear I'm talking about in general not in this case. In this case the guy is a moron.
Studio (Score:3)
And how much jail time will the studio get for creating the content?
Thank you, thank you. Wow, what a great audience!
What are you in jail for? (Score:5, Insightful)
"What are you in jail for?" they ask. "I made a facebook post."
Re: (Score:2)
"What are you in jail for?" they ask. "I made a facebook post."
Ask the guy in England about that ...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How about specific intent to distribute copyright law en mass.
He will find friends in jail among others who have been prosecuted for criminal copyright infringement.
Any banksters in jail yet?... (Score:1)
just saying...
Different culture, same result (Score:5, Funny)
Was never convicted (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The police took away any means he had to defend himself, threatened him with a ridiculous punishment and he accepted a plea bargain. There is only one country in the world that regularly pretends such a thing is a conviction. Of course going to federal court is also a 99.8% chance of being convicted of something. Some federal districts in the USA actually go more than a year without an innocent verdict. http://justicedenied.org/wordp... [justicedenied.org]
Uh, how can it be justice denied if he's guilty as sin?
I'm actually with you on procedural protections, but regarding justice, let's get real; the guy was literally bragging about his guilt.
If he was punished, then justice was done, albeit perhaps not done correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
The police took away any means he had to defend himself, threatened him with a ridiculous punishment and he accepted a plea bargain. There is only one country in the world that regularly pretends such a thing is a conviction. Of course going to federal court is also a 99.8% chance of being convicted of something. Some federal districts in the USA actually go more than a year without an innocent verdict. http://justicedenied.org/wordp... [justicedenied.org]
Uh, how can it be justice denied if he's guilty as sin?
I'm actually with you on procedural protections, but regarding justice, let's get real; the guy was literally bragging about his guilt.
If he was punished, then justice was done, albeit perhaps not done correctly.
And just to be clear, I support going back to the Founder's version of copyright (7 years, extendable to 14 max).
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, how can it be justice denied if he's guilty as sin?
It's justice denied because he self incriminated to remove himself from the process of justice. Plea bargains in the USA are horribly stacked in the favour of prosecutors. America has jails full of people who plead guilty for the sole purposes of not being dragged through the legal process all while being told when they do go through the process they will go away for life.
Re: (Score:3)
As a conservative, I'll just say the following, "If you can't do the time, then don't be accused of doing the crime."
FTFY. Because this same pressure appears whether you're guilty or not. Innocent people go to jail all the time. It's all fun and games until you're the one under the microscope.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't tell if you're being a smart Alec about your use of the word innocent, but the term "innocent" is rarely if ever used in US courts. The term is "not guilty". Only in cases of Perry mason style misidentification might you use the term innocent. But, furthermore, that website conveniently ignores that the vast majority of cases at this level is a result of plea bargaining. It counts as a conviction even if you plea bargain to time served. Does the prosecution push this for non violent offenders? Hell yes. Why would you the tax payer want a 2 month jury trial for a guy charged with felony weed possession during a traffic stop?
If he didn't get a lawyer, he's an idiot. You don't accept a bargain from anyone without representation. Know your rights.
can't tell if you're being pedantic or not about obsessing over the word innocent not being a legal term. That said plea bargains don't happen "to save the tax payers the expense of a 2 month jury trial" they happen because the prosecution is allowed to throw all the charges at someone until something sticks via a plea bargain regardless of whether or not there's a reasonable suspicion that they are guilty a LOT of convictions arise from the prosecutors being able to levy charges that there's no way they sh
Should have lied about conspiring against the US i (Score:1)
14 days beats 6 months.
Start of a Trend? (Score:2)
I am excited to see this continue, and the FBI start investigating freebooting (companies who cut/copy popular videos from youtube to facebook for ad revenue) and start sending their arses to jail too!
Re: (Score:2)
and repast get kicked out early to make room.
He only made two copies, Facebook made the rest (Score:3)
So he downloaded it (copy on his computer) and posted it on Facebook (copy on Facebook). Also he's a total idiot. But Facebook made millions of copies, and they aren't a common carrier.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Facebook also made some good money on ads for those 6,386,456 views.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook also made some good money on ads for those 6,386,456 views.
Facebook filtering algorithms can manage to find and ban a breastfeeding clip in about 2 millseconds, but somehow a two-hour full-blown Hollywood production was viewed over 6 million times, and was never caught? Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that one. You're right. Facebook enjoyed the shit out of that revenue.
QFT. They have custom nipple based algorithms alright they can spot the nipple on a titmouse 2 seconds before you hit submit but can't spot a Hollywood watermark until they get that sweet advertiser friendly revenue
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So he downloaded it (copy on his computer) and posted it on Facebook (copy on Facebook). Also he's a total idiot. But Facebook made millions of copies, and they aren't a common carrier.
Yeah, if the movie had proposed tax cuts or immigration restrictions, that would be different. Facebook woulda had that thing gone in nothing flat ...
Safe Harbor (Score:2)
So he downloaded it (copy on his computer) and posted it on Facebook (copy on Facebook). Also he's a total idiot. But Facebook made millions of copies, and they aren't a common carrier.
The DMCA's Safe Harbor provision (one of the few parts of the DMCA that makes sense, IMO), protects site operators from prosecution for infringement for content posted on their sites by users, as long as they take it down promptly upon receipt of a takedown notice. If this didn't exist, basically no site could host user-provided content.
However, it might be possible to argue that he only made two copies, and should only be prosecuted for those, not for the 6M. That doesn't help him much, though, since th
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous lawyer? Worth exactly nothing.
An AC lawyer in this case is probably better; his legal strategy according to his own posting was "sitting back smoking out my bong laughing".
Re: (Score:2)
The 6 million views include all the auto-plays that people scroll straight past on their feed.
That would require Facebook approve all your posts (Score:2)
If you want social platforms like Facebook and Slashdot to be RESPONSIBLE for what people post, they aren't going to be responsible for stuff they haven't screened and approved. In the US, we don't want Slashdot to only show comments that have been approved by their staff. Thus, they aren't responsible for the content.
A middle ground we're seeing now I when a forum / platform is informed that a particular person has a pattern and practice of posting unlawful or patently offensive content, they can choose n
Re: (Score:2)
Is Facebook expected to manually vet every video uploaded to it before it is allowed to be viewed by anyone else?
Re: (Score:2)
So every video uploaded by every semi-popular news outlet would need to be vetted before people can watch the news?
Re: (Score:2)
It might be a sufficient defense against an *alleged* enabling of a crime.
Destruction of evidence is a crime... should the company that makes the software that deletes contents of devices be charged with a crime if someone uses it to erase evidence of another crime they committed?
Re: (Score:2)
then FaceBook should be at least partially responsible
As should Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc. Not being 'telecommunications carriers', but 'information services', they are in part responsible for providing access to that ill-gotten information.
Vestberg, Stephenson and Roberts get cells next to Franklin. Or perhaps they could get Pai to serve their sentences as a stand-in.
Re: (Score:2)
You can Kill someone in some states and get less then 5 years.
let that sink in.
Um... while that's interesting.. this dude only got six months. Not sure how germane that observation is to the topic at hand
Re: (Score:3)
Can someone confirm if this was actually "uploaded" to Facebook or was it just a Facebook post with embedded video linking to elsewhere?
Facebook allowed 4gig uploads back then? What kind of connection did this guy have?
He said he didn't make any copies so it would seem like he just embedded a link... hm.
the real questions.