Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules Burning Porn = Making Porn
An anonymous reader writes "An appeals court has upheld the prosecution of a Michigan man who was charged with production of child pornography after downloading and burning pornographic pictures from the Internet. The pictures were created by a Russian website that the man was not affiliated with in any form. From the court decision (PDF): 'After reviewing the dictionary definition of
the word make, the circuit court stated that the bottom line was that, following the mechanical
and technical act of burning images onto the CD-Rs, something new was created or made that
did not previously exist.' Is this simply a court's overreaction to a scumbag pedophile? And how does this affect the lawsuits by the BSA, RIAA, and MPAA?"
If I understand this correclty I am an artist when I burn the music I illegally downloaded?
-- Cheers!
any more than we already do... provided we don't burn our illicit wares to CD or DVD.
No doubt those with iPods and other portable media devices with nonvolatile and erasable memory are safe from being liable under this ruling.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I didn't know I was making music all these years.
End transmission.
Please change the title.
Child Porn is classified completely differently from Adult Porn, for good reason.
1. This verdict is absolutely crap. COPYING child porn is not the same as CREATING NEW child porn. No children are harmed by such an act.
2. Submitter -- Why is he a *scumbag* pedophile? People generally don't choose what and who they're attracted to. It is not illegal to be attracted to children. It is only illegal to act on it. Provided that he doesn't, he can still be a good man in my book.
3. Laws against pedophiles (not against pedophiliac acts -- pedophiles) are counter-productive. For example, it is illegal to create computer-generated child pornography. Why!? Provided that it gives people who are into such things a release, and no children are harmed, I have no problem with it. Many of today's sex-related laws are based on some twisted idea of morality, and nothing more.
But your Honour... I didn't copy these Britney Spears albums, I made them!
This is already true in the UK. Someone who downloads child pornography over the internet is considered to be "making pornography" under the same laws that the photographer taking the pictures would be charged under.
This can lead to sentences for downloading or copying and distributing child pornography that approach those for making it in the first place, which is treating the two acts as equivalent, when they are not.
More relevant to the slashdot crowd, if one copies child pornography for any reason whatsoever one can be considered to be "making pornography". If one administers computers used by others and discovers child pornography in one way or another, and copies it aside as evidence, one is at risk of being accused of "making pornography". Therefore the general advice is that if one finds a computer with child porn, one should step away from the computer and call the police, not attempt to do any of the usual sort of evidence preservation, further investigation, etc, that one might if it was another sort of computer intrusion.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
After reviewing the dictionary definition of the word make
Is it just me or does consulting a dictionary sound like a really poor way of deciding an issue of law?
War isn't about who's right. It's about who's left.
The real reason for this ruling is to find a way to give child porn downloaders more jail time, reason or precident have no meaning. If prosecuters can finagle or subvert any method of logic to make J6P think that they are "protecting the children" TM then by god thats what they are going to do.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
If this court decision is the final say and starts a chain reaction in court decisions everywhere, then I'm going to sue RIAA and MPA for every cent they have. Because, technically according to the decision of this court, all 3000 mp3's I've burned and 250 movies (give or take) are new creations that I created that didn't exist before, and I had a hand in "making" them. So I want my damned money : recording fees, sales percentages, box office royalties, rental and DVD royalties. With interest. /. about us making it illegal to share your holodeck programs.
Seriously, I don't condone child porn in any way, shape, or form. But this ruling is a rediculous scare tactic, created by old, wrinkled retards who still think it's 1946 and that LCD and iPod are some kind of illegal drugs us punk kids are taking.
That has been and always will be the problem with court systems. They are generally full of old, outdated, disconnected duesche bags who go by a world view that is 50 years outdated. Thus we have stupid judgements, asanine laws, and the continued existence of paradoxical things like RIAA. Our generation (20's and 30's) will be these people in another 30 years or so, which means that in 2035, we will finally legalize file sharing and what not, but our children will be writing the same kind of rants on
Halitosis - (n.) Halle Berry's Camel Toe.
Regarding the counts related to the CD-Rs, the prosecutor argued that MCL 750.145c(2)
encompassed activity where an individual arranges for, produces, makes, or finances child
sexually abusive material, and when defendant took the blank CD-Rs and burned images on
them, he clearly created child sexually abusive material. The prosecutor noted that the statute
defines "child sexually abusive material" as including any reproduction, copy, or print of a
photograph depicting a child engaged in a sexual act. The prosecutor argued that, therefore, by
copying, reproducing, or burning the images onto a CD-R, defendant "made" or "produced"
child sexually abusive material.
Of course by reproducing the material, he knowingly became part of the chain, and therefore also part of the abuse.
Unless you mean by downloading...
He joined the chain at the time he downloaded the articles. Until or unless the material was pass on to another individual - thus creating another link in the chain - he had already become a member and the downloading was a moot point.
We're not arguing that what the guy did wasn't an illegal act, we're just argueing which parts of it are actually illegal vs the creation of new definitions of illegality.
So, out of curiosity, what's the difference between:
I'm all against exploiting children, but let's not destroy the law in the process, hmmm? Stretching (breaking, really) the law like this to go after a bad guy does more to harm the law--and thus society, and thus children--than the act this man was convicted of. If we want to make a law against duplicating child porn, that's one thing...this, however, is exactly what neocons should be upset about when they rant about ``legislating from the bench.''
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
is whether the court would have the same ruling had he photocopied the naked pictures and kept them in a pile under his bed. Or, indeed, tore out his faves from the magazines and "produced" a new work by stapling together a pile of old clippings. I seriously doubt the court would rule this way in such cases. Had he distributed the CD that would be another issue, but I fail to see how burning the cd is itself producing child porn. The fact is, the law treats producing child porn differently than possessing since production involves the direct exploitation of minors (whereas possession may exploit them but in a very different but less direct way). Another point is that burning the cd is no different from downloading the pics in the first place and keeping them in a folder, or even just looking at them in your browser, copying them to a cache. This is just a way of raising the penalties against someone who is without doubt a criminal but probably not a "producer" of kiddy porn. The problem is that it has implications far beyond the instant case, something a judge should have figured out before making such a ruling.
What if some scumbag sends me a link and I visit it and it's some sick shit like child porn. I immediately close it BUT THERE'S A COPY MADE IN MY BROWSER CACHE.
Have I just produced child pron? Dear god I hope not, but it seems like that could be argued based on this ruling...
scary
Why wasn't this guy just put in jail for possession of it. Posession of it is illegal and by burning it to a cd well.. he pretty much proved his guild, there.
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
I'm not condoning anything, but it's really getting out of hand. There are people dying by the thousands in this country and abroad, people in serious trouble with dope, women who aren't getting child support and who are getting beaten up, and yet with all these things going on, what America considers the most heinous crime is sex with children. I find it very bizarre that the same country that sobbed griveously over the death of Jon Benet Ramsey, who was dressed up like a hooker and paraded around in beauty contests before she turned 10, is chomping at the bit to put away pedophiles.
I don't know about anyone else, but if I see a little kid coming my way, I go the other direction. I would never address a child without his/her parent present, which is kind sad because when I was young, there were lots of adults who would talk to me. It would be kind of nice to be a buddy to some kid on the block, to find out what he/she is about, maybe even toss a ball around or something, but forget that. I don't need those problems.
As for the poor bastards who get themselves in a predicament with a kid, they might as well leave the country because their life is effectively over in this country.
Yuck.
If he burned for backup (meaning only one or two copies and he kept the CDs), then he's obviously not a producer or distributor. If he burned to give to others, then it would make sense to say he's "distributinng", if not "producing." Just looking at the definition of the word "make" is simply stupid when it comes to digital data.
Irrelevant, anyway. Child porn is a non-issue. Child abuse is another matter. Come up with a program to stop child abuse, you don't have a child porn issue any more.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I agree that this was an extremely bad ruling. Basically, because we don't like the defendent the court is willing to twist important legal definitions to get a harsher sentence. This is a prime example of the legal activism that Repuplicans are supposed to be against.
The difference between distribution and possession sits at the heart of the IP debates on Slashdot. Where is the line between our personal use of data and distribution? In a system of rule of law, we need a cleaner definition that not only suits porn cases but other activities.
We may hate the defendent in this case with all of our might. However the activist prosecutor with activist judges bending the distinction between distribution and possession does a great deal of harm to the integrity of the legal system.
BTW, if we feel that 4 years is too short of a time for the possession of child pornography, then we should change the law. This thing of bending meaning out of definitions ultimately has the effect of destroying the rule of law.
Unfortunately, I fear that the Republican defense of legal activism will end up only including liberal activism and will ignore conservative activism.
Why do you care about the message the punishment sends? Is the punishment a deterrent for the commission of the crime?
In this country we have a judicial system that is based on the prevention of crime, not retribution.
The question we should ask here is what punishment is the most effective in preventing future acts, not what is 'fair' in relation to other crimes.
Using a text editor of your choice, write the following in a file:
"LOVE"
save, and burn to a CD-R
You can now say you legally made love with your computer!
I heard the same kind of thing when some guys robbed a jewelry store a couple years back. Not only did they get charged with robbing the place, but with wearing a disguise (ski mask) while robbing a place. That charge can only exist in order to lay more charges on someone who you have already charged with commiting a crime. Wearing a ski mask is not a crime, but it is when you rob someone. So you have to be convicted of robbing someone to be convicted of wearing that ski mask. That's 2 charges for 1 act. It would be like having laws against murduring someone while wearing pants. If you wore pants when you murdered them, you'd get an extra 5 years.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
No matter how disgusted you are by their actions, the people that you're trying to discourage fro this behaviour are, in fact, human beings. They are capable of rational thought. And if you want to stand any chance of effectively altering their behaviour, you have to accept this and choose methods that will actually apply to them.
Our sexuality is generally something that's handed to us without any choice on our part. These people whom you're demonizing have been handed a very problematic sexuality, but in all other ways they're very much what you'd consider normal people leading normal lives. Sure, some of them might be murderous crack-fiends; about the same percentage of them as of people as a whole. Some others of them will be brilliant neurosurgeons who spend their careers saving others' lives; again, about the same percentage as of anyone else.
This assertion that anyone with any interest in child porn is doomed to commit "a more serious crime" later is certainly bunk. This is the worst kind of justification for irrational punishment: "even if he hadn't done anything bad yet, he would have at some point, I'm sure."
(Another great recent example of this type of failure was President Bush labelling anyone who acts against the US as "evil". "That's right folks, they're not human beings who are making choices that we'd like to change because of societal and economic factors! They're just pure unadulterated evil, which handily gets us out of having to do the hard work of actually understanding those societal and economic factors and addressing them directly!")