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!
I didn't know I was making music all these years.
End transmission.
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.
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?
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.
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.
It's precedent. Not precident. Though 'precident' could potentially make sense given the current administration.
Why not fork?
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.
By people downloading Child porn, does it give those that hurt the children more means to make child porn? I'm not trying to make a point with this question, I'm actually asking that question.
If you're seriously looking for an answer, then here it is:
No.
I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of all child porn on the internet is made available for free. It is, after all, highly illegal, and pursued a lot more vigorously than warez and other illegal data sharing. If the people who distribute it wanted to collect money for it, that would mean setting up a payment scheme, which would make it a lot easier to track them down and arrest them.
Therefore, the people who are only interested in distributing child porn for money will do it offline, where they can know exactly who they're dealing with to minimize their risk of being arrested. The people who are interested in sharing child porn with other pedophiles online will do it as anonymously as possible, which makes it difficult or impossible to charge for it.
I'll also answer a question you didn't ask, but which is implied as part of that one: Not all child pornography hurts children. Remember, the legal age limit for appearing in porn is 18 (AFAIK), even though in most states and countries, teenagers can legally consent to sex at age 16 or earlier. A video recording of teenagers having consensual sex would be considered child porn, even though the participants aren't children and haven't been forced into anything. The court decision explains that at least some of the illegal pictures in question were of teenagers (but who knows how willing they were to be photographed).
["Many of today's sex-related laws are based on some twisted idea of morality, and nothing more."]
I disagree with the 'nothing more' part; Also the 'twisted' part. It's far to say that the majority of people find the act of murder repugnant, so there's a law against it
If that were the only reason to outlaw murder, it wouldn't be a valid one. Luckily, there are perfectly good reasons to outlaw murder that don't boil down to "we think it's icky", such as respect for the victim's right to life or his right not to be attacked.
If you polled a group of random Americans, depending on which part of the country you pulled them from, you might find that a majority of them found homosexuality or Islam repugnant, but again, that wouldn't be a valid reason to outlaw homosexuality or Islam. In a civilized society, you have to be tolerant of your fellow man, even if what they're doing makes you uneasy - unless they're actually harming someone.
Forcing children to perform sex acts is harmful. But recording teenagers having consensual sex (with their permission) is not harmful, and neither is downloading a file or burning it to a CD-R.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Yes, there *is* a differnce even though you chose not to see it. Remove the kiddie porn because in the context of this discussion it is moot.
Drugs laws already make this distinction. Because if he burned the CD for his own use, the drug law equivilent is "Possession". If he burned the 500 or whatever number, he could be charged with "Possession with intent to distribute".
If we followed your logic, then the person who has one or two marijuana plants for their own use can be charged with Possession with intent to distribute when clearly one or otwo plants does not allow for that.
Simply burning the CD is not producing the content. It is transferring between media.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
Your protectiveness is understandable and admirable. And while I won't attempt to sway your opinion with a cogent argument (because, as you admit, it will do no good), I will at least attempt to make a point.
I am a convicted sex offender. In my late teens, I did some things with a 12-year-old that were unspeakably stupid. This behavior worked went unchecked for several years, and developed into attitudes, that in turn developed into further behaviors with another young girl. I convinced myself that so long as I had their consent, it couldn't be hurtful. I held this belief very strongly.
My stupidity caught up with me soon enough, and I was arrested. The arrest was a turning point of my life. It sent me a message that I wouldn't have otherwise gotten from logical arguments. In that way, I can certainly relate to you when you say that no rational argument will change your opinion (which is to "kill the fuckers"). There was no trial. I plead no contest. Although I could likely have avoided jail for various legal reasons, it would have meant pleading not guilty and effectively calling the children and their families liars. It would have meant putting them on the stand. Jail was far more preferable to me, even though I was terrified of it.
When I was released from prison I sought conselling. My fundamental attitude had already been changed by then: it didn't take much time after my arrest (but long before my conviction) to understand and believe that any sexual encounter with children is devastatingly hurtful -- and not just to the girls themselves, but also to their families, and to my own family as well. Counselling helped me to understand the psychology behind pedophilia, and how to manage it.
And it is perfectly manageable. What decision do I have? Hurt kids, or don't hurt kids. It's not even a question that requires considering. You hear about convicted sex offenders whose defense seems to be "I couldn't help myself." Ludicrous! They made a choice. I made a choice. I paid for it, I dealt with it, and now it's in my past. Still, I constantly worry about how the girls and their families turned out. As I should, in some respects.
Now, you would have me killed. (There was a time when I'd have obliged you, but those times are past.) Perhaps you would like to see a law passed that imposes mandatory death penalty on all sex offenders where children are involved. Even if this would solve a problem, is it feasible? Can society actually do this? Would this even happen?
No.
So what instead happens is that a large portion of the population carries the sort of rage and hate that you have, without understanding the nature of the crime and the psychology of the offender. What's very well known, however, is that high degrees of stress and concern increases the likely hood of recidivism. That is to say, the more people call us scum, wish us dead, insist we are hopeless, the greater the chance of relapse. This is true of any offender, incidentally.
I think there probably are those who are pretty much hopeless. But there are a large degree of those who are definitely not. It is a perfectly manageable problem. All I want is to live a normal life, within reasonable constraints. That is to say, I certainly don't expect I should be allowed to work at a daycare center, or teach in schools. If you knew about my past and you weren't concerned about me being around your children, I would be concerned about you. What I would like is for people to judge me for who I am now, not what ugliness exists in my past.
I owe a debt to the people I have hurt to live my life with honor and integrity, and when people at large insist that I am a worthless pariah and should be executed, there is a danger that I start to believe it. An
We care because we care about the victim. If I am going to get 20 years for looking at childporn or 20 years for actually raping the neighbor girl, I might as well rape the neighbor girl.
You see this problem a lot in crimes such as rape where the punishment is out of proportion to the actual crime. If the penality for rape is 20 years and the penality for murder is 20 years, I might as well rape and murder you rather than leave a witness alive to talk. I have a better chance of getting away with it and do the same time if caught (as most sentences are served concurently). If I break into your house and murder you (lets say you caught me in the act) I might as well murder the rest of your family while I am at it as I am doing life regardless. This is why we care about fair sentences and not criminalizing petty behavior.
De Oppresso Liber
Committing a murder during the course of a felony (the rape, in this case)--in some states--automatically bumps the murder up to 1st degree, which means, depending on where you're being tried, that you'll be looking at life without parole or the death penalty.
Similarly, if you break into someone's house and are caught, wind up killing the person who catches you and decide NOT to kill the rest of the family, and have a good lawyer, you can argue that the murder was accidental, demonstrate that you were only there for a little petty theft, you might be able to shake the 1st degree murder and work your way down to 3rd degree murder or even down to manslaughter. 20 years is certainly better than life without parole.
Not intended to be legal advice, use with caution, don't run with scissors, etc.
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!")