Banned for life

[Umbran]

In addition, the leaker could face theft charges.

I would expect that to be difficult, insofar as a recording made legally should then be the property of the person who made it, no? If she made the recording legally, and then handed it over of her free will, how is that theft?

Huh. Try this. They are his words, recorded. And say that recording was made legally. One legal recording does *not* imply license to reproduce or broadcast his "performance". He might have grounds for a copyright infringement suit!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I would expect that to be difficult, insofar as a recording made legally should then be the property of the person who made it, no? If she made the recording legally, and then handed it over of her free will, how is that theft?

Well, Sterling could argue:

1) they were made in the course of employment by one of his staff, therefore, the recordings belong to his company.

2) they were made by someone acting as his agent, and therefore, the recordings belong to Sterling.

Either would be sufficient to form the basis for a theft charge, as long as neither Sterling nor his company authorized their release.

Because, as I have often pointed out in IP threads, one of the definitions of theft is "exercising unauthorized control of the property of another." There, it's downloading/sharing without permission; here, unauthorized release of the recordings.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

FYI, an editorial comment about the initial taped conversation:

Bill Maher argues for privacy

I always hate it when I agree with him. I should probably reassess my disgust at this point.

Yeah, it's one of those areas in which a private organization with a lot of pull manipulates the political system (and voters) to pay for major investments so the money doesn't have to come out of their own pockets. They're basically large subsidies that the local governments hope will pay off by bringing in more money in economic activity (and associated taxes) than it costs in initial outlay. It may work in some markets (like Green Bay where the faithful flock to pray at the Lambeau altar every home game during the season) but not so well in others (like Miami - with respect to the Marlins anyway with their new, expensive park, terrible ownership, and weak fanbase). That, however, doesn't usually bring them (government officials) or the public any official power within the league organization - just unofficial and indirect influence.

For the record, the Green Bay Packers are a publicly owned team (the only one in the NFL).

Ye...err..well, again, if he ordered the recording, he's going to have an uphill battle winning in court against whomever did the recording.

But, like with celebrity sex tapes, he will have a suit against whomever released the tapes.

Which still has us in bloodless turnip territory, since, UNLIKE the celebrity sex tape scenarios, nobody involved in the leak seems to have monetized the recordings.

In addition, the leaker could face theft charges. Look at MLB today- they're now facing assertions that the documents they used to go after some of the people involved in the steroid/HGH etc. scandal may have been illegally obtained.

TMZ broke the story, I believe, and they're know for paying for dirt. We have to look at who released it and try to figure out why as well. The girl doesn't have her own massive stockpile of cash. Sterling bought her Ferraris - among other things. So my guess would be that this was gonna at least initially be about blackmail. If that fell through for some reason or she decided to change course, well, she'd likely want some sort of compensation for her 'efforts' anyway. The next step is selling the story to the highest bidder. In short, the odds that she got paid are pretty high. I wouldn't guess the amount to be a lot or anything but it is something she gained from harming him and that makes it something he could go after.

Also with how huge this is becoming there's the potential for future gains - talk show circuit, book deal, crappy movie, etc. This woman would be nothing without this story and she could potentially make a lot of money off of it.

 

[Umbran]

Because, as I have often pointed out in IP threads, one of the definitions of theft is "exercising unauthorized control of the property of another." There, it's downloading/sharing without permission; here, unauthorized release of the recordings.

I am curious - How often is downloading/sharing without permission prosecuted as theft, rather than as copyright infringement?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I am curious - How often is downloading/sharing without permission prosecuted as theft, rather than as copyright infringement?

"Theft" is the umbrella term -the genus, if you will- for crimes involving the unauthorized use, possession or destruction of property. There are many different crimes under the heading of theft*, and while they're often used synonymously in common conversation, each has its own distinct name & rules, distinguished by means and method. (In fairness, some of those distinctions have been erased in law as well.)

Tl, DR: It's not prosecuted under anything but IP statutes, AFAIK.






* embezzlement, larceny, robbery, conversion, burglary, and many more.

 

[pedr]

And the inclusion of "conversion" in the footnote indicates why an expansive use of the word "theft" can cause problems, blurring the line between acts society considers worthy of criminal sanction and that which is a matter between two parties. I remain to be convinced there's any benefit to using words developed by criminal law (like "theft" ) to describe civil disputes because it imputes a moral disapproval out of proportion to the legal classification.

Illegally obtained recordings are potentially subject to various restrictions but it stretches the terminology to call this theft, unless the physical tapes/disks/etc were removed, and is unnecessary to achieve the aim of restricting their further dissemination or use in court, if they are determined to have been obtained improperly.

Following up Umbran's question, I'd be interested to know if there have been any criminal prosecutions of downloaders or individual uploaders in common law jurisdictions that you know of, and what US law would support such. That's distinct from prosecution of organised commercial infringers, which is based on clear and well established statutes.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And the inclusion of "conversion" in the footnote indicates why an expansive use of the word "theft" can cause problems, blurring the line between acts society considers worthy of criminal sanction and that which is a matter between two parties. I remain to be convinced there's any benefit to using words developed by criminal law (like "theft" ) to describe civil disputes because it imputes a moral disapproval out of proportion to the legal classification.

Illegally obtained recordings are potentially subject to various restrictions but it stretches the terminology to call this theft, unless the physical tapes/disks/etc were removed, and is unnecessary to achieve the aim of restricting their further dissemination or use in court, if they are determined to have been obtained improperly.

"Conversion" as a subclass of "theft" is not an expansion- "theft" once had a specific and distinct definition, but eventually grew into an umbrella term for all kinds of unauthorized use of the property of another. Think of "Theft" like "Homicide"- a blanket term that covers a wide variety of acts that may be criminally of civilly liable...or not actionable under law at all.

From the same online legal dictionary:

Theft: the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use

And

Conversion: a civil wrong (tort) in which one converts another's property to his/her own use, which is a fancy way of saying "steals." Conversion includes treating another's goods as one's own, holding onto such property which accidently comes into the convertor's (taker's) hands, or purposely giving the impression the assets belong to him/her. This gives the true owner the right to sue for his/her own property or the value and loss of use of it, as well as going to law enforcement authorities since conversion usually includes the crime of theft. (See: theft)

(Emphasis mine)

And from Black's:

Black's Law Dictionary
Theft: is..the act of stealing. The taking of property without the owner's consent...the fraudulent taking of personal property belonging to another, from his possession, for from the possession of some person holding the same for him, without his consent, with intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same, and to appropriate it to the use or benefit of the person taking...Theft is any of the following acts done with the intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use, or benefit of his property: (a) Obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property; (b) Obtaining by deception control over property; or (c) Obtaining by threat control over property; or (d) Obtaining control over stolen property knowing the property to have been stolen by another.

(Emphasis mine)

Conversion's unique, distinguishing aspect is that conversion can, in certain cases, be legal and without intent in its initiation, such as when the property is lost then found. In those cases, the demand for return must first be made (and refused) before a civil or criminal case can be initiated. (Which is why the definition of conversion includes the qualifier "usually includes the crime of theft.")

 

[Janx]

FYI, an editorial comment about the initial taped conversation:

Bill Maher argues for privacy

As with most things in life, there are plenty of things that are true and correct but still disagreeable with.

bill's absolutely right that you should be free to say stuff in your own house.

On the other hand, how were we to learn that Donald Sterling was a racist, if the girl didn't have a recording. Was she going to go to the press with a "i was talking to Donald and he said..." with no proof?

If Donald only makes his racist plans in his house, then that's where the evidence is. I certainly believe that a rich, powerful guy like Donald could exert an evil agenda in a way that looks innocent or legal. As such, getting his words on tape may be the only way to prove it.

As I see it, there's valid points on whether to protect your privacy at home from unexpected disclosure, and there's reasons why that might be the only way to prove someone's a bad guy.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

On the other hand, how were we to learn that Donald Sterling was a racist, if the girl didn't have a recording.

By paying attention. Here's sworn testimony from one of his employees in one of the landlord/tenant cases he settled.

“Is she one of those black people that stink?” Sterling is quoted as asking. “Just evict the bitch.”

http://news.yahoo.com/killed-sterling-racism-094500807--politics.html

He really did have a pattern, one that should have kept him out of the NBA. But, things were different, then...

 

[tomBitonti]

Wait, does that make trespass theft? Is sneaking into a theater theft? It seems to be in two ways, if both trespass and unauthorized viewing are theft.

A similar example: Unauthorized creation of a drug which is under patent.

Something which is different, at a glance: If I steal a car, the car has a described value which I'm denying the person who owns the care. If I make batches of a drug, I haven't deprived the owner of the drug patent the value of their patent, except to the degree that I've limited their sales of the drug. But, if I give the drug to people with very little money, that limits the lose to the patent holder.

Thx!

TomB