Court rules that burning porn to CDs = producing porn

[MKTerra]

Can't find a really good article for it, but:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/01/28/1819222.shtml

Short version: A guy who backed up downloaded child porn to CD-Rs is being prosecuted for not just possession, but also production.

I support punishing the guy for possession, but production seems like a nonsensical stretch; What's the practical difference between keeping downloaded stuff on the hard drive, backing up to a portable hard drive, backing up to CDs, or even printing it out? Now compare those to actual primary production...

[Spike-X]

If it's just for back up purposes, charging him with production would be reaching just a tad.

The sick fuck.

[Yoda]

Well if he was trading or selling those CD's i don't see it as that much of a strecth. It depends on what the statute defines as "production." Applying common sense definitions to words in a statute really doesn't work in a lot of cases.

[Valmore]

If it's just for back up purposes, charging him with production would be reaching just a tad.

The sick fuck.

But I'm not exactly crying a river for them adding the charge to the sick bastard's charges.

[MKTerra]

Well if he was trading or selling those CD's i don't see it as that much of a strecth. It depends on what the statute defines as "production." Applying common sense definitions to words in a statute really doesn't work in a lot of cases.AFAIK he wasn't distributing them, no. Seems they were just backups.

[Chiasm]

Most pedophiles get child porn from other pedophiles. The "backing up to a CD" is likely just an excuse and the real reason was to have something to trade with some other sicko out there.

[Yoda]

AFAIK he wasn't distributing them, no. Seems they were just backups.

Well then it falls on what the statute in question defines as "production" if there is no intent element, the act of burning child porn onto a cd could very well qualify as "producing" it.

[ocelotrevs]

Chiasm condemns
Most pedophiles get child porn from other pedophiles. The "backing up to a CD" is likely just an excuse and the real reason was to have something to trade with some other sicko out there.

But I think the main concern is the wider scope that this could cover, such as people with adult films back ups getting done for production of porn as well.

Again, it's one of the times that it depends on the situation, if this person was just using it incase his hard drive got fucked and shit, then yeah, I can see the reason for backing it up and stuff.

[Spike-X]

But I'm not exactly crying a river for them adding the charge to the sick bastard's charges.
So if we don't like somebody, it's okay to charge them with whatever bullshit we can think of?

That's not a legal system I really want any part of, thanks.

[howyadoin]

This part sounds like complete bullshit to me:
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.You'd have to be very computer-illiterate to believe that.

[Leslie Lee III]

Wait, so can I sue movie studios for not paying me royalties for all the movies I've produced?

[Dan Apodaca]

Wait, so can I sue movie studios for not paying me royalties for all the movies I've produced?

As long as your prepared for them to sue you for ripping off all their ideas.

[Spike-X]

Movie studios have ideas? Since when?

[Valmore]

So if we don't like somebody, it's okay to charge them with whatever bullshit we can think of?

That's not a legal system I really want any part of, thanks.

If you want to spin it that way:

Child pornography, in the first place, is illegal. Hence, even the process of backing it up would be illegal, since it's illegal to even have it in the first place. Thus, you're making a production of something that's illegal, even if it's for your own purpose. Since, after all, there's no license on an illegal product. Unlike, say, a music CD you bought, which is legal and gives you a limited license to create backups.

So I'm not crying a river over adding the charge.

[Emerald Ghost]

Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things what he's charged with?

Castrate him, send him on his way, and all is well. Simple. :)

[MKTerra]

Child pornography, in the first place, is illegal. Hence, even the process of backing it up would be illegal, since it's illegal to even have it in the first place. Thus, you're making a production of something that's illegal, even if it's for your own purpose. Since, after all, there's no license on an illegal product. Unlike, say, a music CD you bought, which is legal and gives you a limited license to create backups.What's bothering me is that the act of backing up the child porn on CDs really isn't any worse than saving it to the hard drive in the first place. It makes no sense to punish one more or less severely than the other.

[Valmore]

What's bothering me is that the act of backing up the child porn on CDs really isn't any worse than saving it to the hard drive in the first place. It makes no sense to punish one more or less severely than the other.

Actually, backing it up is probably worse, since a CD-Rom is much more transportable than an internal hard drive. Hence, if he wanted to distribute it, the CD-Rom is probably what's going to be used - unless he just reposts it to the internet.

Either way, it's just sick.

[MKTerra]

Actually, backing it up is probably worse, since a CD-Rom is much more transportable than an internal hard drive. Hence, if he wanted to distribute it, the CD-Rom is probably what's going to be used - unless he just reposts it to the internet.In that regard, I think it'd make more sense to have an extra penalty for "distribution" in the law books.
Either way, it's just sick.Won't argue with you there.

[taintedlunch]

Can't find a really good article for it, but:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/01/28/1819222.shtml

Short version: A guy who backed up downloaded child porn to CD-Rs is being prosecuted for not just possession, but also production.

I support punishing the guy for possession, but production seems like a nonsensical stretch; What's the practical difference between keeping downloaded stuff on the hard drive, backing up to a portable hard drive, backing up to CDs, or even printing it out? Now compare those to actual primary production...

The prosecutor is adding as many charges as he/she can to increase the sentence so the sick fuck can be kept of the streets as long as possible. Bravo!

[Dan Apodaca]

The prosecutor is adding as many charges as he/she can to increase the sentence so the sick fuck can be kept of the streets as long as possible. Bravo!

I disagree. What if the tables were turned and someone decided to label you a "sick fuck" for reading comic books? What if a large part of society agreed with them? Should they be allowed to tack on superflous charges?

Make the system fair and justice will be carried out.

[taintedlunch]

I disagree. What if the tables were turned and someone decided to label you a "sick fuck" for reading comic books? What if a large part of society agreed with them? Should they be allowed to tack on superflous charges?

Make the system fair and justice will be carried out.

Hmm, I don't imagine that you have a sex offender living in your neighborhood then.

Giving this guy extra time is perfectly fair and just.

And if loving comic books is wrong, I don't wanna be right!

[Spike-X]

Giving this guy extra time is perfectly fair and just.


Only if he's done something to actually deserve it.

[Spike-X]

Either way, it's just sick.

Yes, yes, we've established that.

What we haven't established is whether copying illegal computer files from one storage medium to another should be a separately prosecutable act.

[Valmore]

Yes, yes, we've established that.

What we haven't established is whether copying illegal computer files from one storage medium to another should be a separately prosecutable act.

Maybe this case will establish that, but the only way for that to happen is to stick the charge on. If the judge doesn't feel it's a prosecutable act, he or she will toss it out. Otherwise, he or she will let the jury decide.

[Spike-X]

Maybe this case will establish that, but the only way for that to happen is to stick the charge on. If the judge doesn't feel it's a prosecutable act, he or she will toss it out. Otherwise, he or she will let the jury decide.
From reading one of the (very sketchy) articles about this case, I get the impression that the court has already decided that this is a prosecutable offense. Which, in my oh-so-humble opinion, is bullshit.

The article I read refers to this decision as "giving prosecutors another tool..." something something. To do what? Effectively punish a person twice for the same offense?

[Valmore]

From reading one of the (very sketchy) articles about this case, I get the impression that the court has already decided that this is a prosecutable offense. Which, in my oh-so-humble opinion, is bullshit.

The article I read refers to this decision as "giving prosecutors another tool..." something something. To do what? Effectively punish a person twice for the same offense?

Frankly, I'm not sure what sort of level of bullshit the charge is. It's an illegal product, and he transferred the illegal product from one source to another, thus producing the off chance that it could be distributed, even if there's an absence of intent.

We'll have to see how a jury handles it.

[MKTerra]

From reading one of the (very sketchy) articles about this case, I get the impression that the court has already decided that this is a prosecutable offense.Yeah, that seems to be what's happened so far. AFAICT the guy hasn't been convicted, but they rejected his appeal to throw out the "production" charges.

[Trystenn]

From reading one of the (very sketchy) articles about this case, I get the impression that the court has already decided that this is a prosecutable offense. Which, in my oh-so-humble opinion, is bullshit.

The article I read refers to this decision as "giving prosecutors another tool..." something something. To do what? Effectively punish a person twice for the same offense?
Imn guessing your against distribution charges when a person gets caught with alot of drugs right?

[thehod]

The prosecutor is adding as many charges as he/she can to increase the sentence so the sick fuck can be kept of the streets as long as possible. Bravo!

But the legal system shouldn't allow a prosecuter to do that, regardless of how we feel about an offender. Where does it stop?

"M'laud, the defendant stepped on a dogs paw on the way to the trial here today, so we would like charges of animal cruelty to be taken into consideration."

Yes the man is a sick fuck, but get the sentance for child pornography increased, not tag on any jumped up charges that strech the point on tangability.

[Spike-X]

Imn guessing your against distribution charges when a person gets caught with alot of drugs right?
That depends on whether they were, y'know, distributing drugs.

[Trystenn]

That depends on whether they were, y'know, distributing drugs.
All im saying is that i think thats what they were aiming for here, the guy was most likely going to spread the things around, and they wanted to also charge him for that.

[howyadoin]

For a country that bills it self as "the home of the free", you guys are awfully quick to sacrifice those freedoms whenever it's convenient.

[Trystenn]

For a country that bills it self as "the home of the free", you guys are awfully quick to sacrifice those freedoms whenever it's convenient.
Its our freedom to sacrfices stuff aint it?


And what are we sacrficising?

[Noah Johnson]

Its our freedom to sacrfices stuff aint it?


And what are we sacrficising?
Well, let me connect a couple dots for you.

The Bush administration is cracking down on pornography, because they don't have anything more important to do. This means, among other things, that they've redefined ALL porn as hardcore porn unless it can be proven otherwise, which puts it in a more dubious legal status.

And they require all producers of porn to have on file extensive records proving the legal status of every person who appears in porn.

And they now have a legal precedent saying that recording a pornographic image to a computer storage medium makes you a porn producer.

Which means that if YOU have ever saved a picture of titties onto a CD-R, a floppy, a thumb drive, or god forbid, an internet server where it could be downloaded by others, you could be looking at criminal charges. And they've been very enthusiastic about prosecuting those lately.

It's easy to write off people's rights when it's just "one of those bad people", you know, somebody else. But history teaches that it never stays somebody else for very long.

[howyadoin]

It's easy to write off people's rights when it's just "one of those bad people", you know, somebody else. But history teaches that it never stays somebody else for very long.Much more eloquent than what I was thinking.

Thanks.

[Tom]

No two words will get an American to give up their rights faster than "pedophile" and "terrorist."

[Loren]

No two words will get an American to give up their rights faster than "pedophile" and "terrorist."

Don't forget "social security."

[Boldido]

Here is the statute. This is usually a good place to start when you want to bitch about what a court is doing. When reading it, also keep in mind that courts are required to abide by the "plain meaning" of the statute.

MCL 750.145c(2) provides:
A person who persuades, induces, entices, coerces, causes, or knowingly
allows a child to engage in a child sexually abusive activity for the purpose of
producing any child sexually abusive material, or a person who arranges for,
produces, makes, or finances, or a person who attempts or prepares or conspires to arrange for, produce, make, or finance any child sexually abusive activity or child sexually abusive material is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or a fine of not more than $100,000.00, or both, if that person knows, has reason to know, or should reasonably be expected to know that the child is a child or that the child sexually abusive material includes a child or that the depiction constituting the child sexually abusive material appears to include a child, or that person has not taken reasonable precautions to determine the age of the child

MCL 750.145c(1)(m) defines “child sexually abusive material” as follows:
"Child sexually abusive material" means any depiction, whether made or
produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, including a developed or
undeveloped photograph, picture, film, slide, video, electronic visual image,
computer diskette, computer or computer-generated image, or picture, or sound
recording which is of a child or appears to include a child engaging in a listed
sexual act; a book, magazine, computer, computer storage device, or other visual
or print or printable medium containing such a photograph, picture, film, slide,
video, electronic visual image, computer, or computer-generated image, or
picture, or sound recording; or any reproduction, copy, or print of such a
photograph, picture, film, slide, video, electronic visual image, book, magazine,
computer, or computer-generated image, or picture, other visual or print or
printable medium, or sound recording.

In the present case, the defendant made a reproduction of sexually explicit material containing children. Clearly the statute contemplates this type of activity. When you examine the plain language of the document, the prosecutor was within his rights to charge as he did. Further, the appellate court was bound to interpret this case in the light of the plain language of the statute. When the defendant took a blank medium and imprinted it with pornagraphic images he made a reproduction which fits the definition in the statute.

And while I enjoy as much George Bush bashing as the next guy, this was a state case and had nothing to do with the Feds. If anyone has a beef, it should be with the legislature.

[Johnny_Storm]

And they require all producers of porn to have on file extensive records proving the legal status of every person who appears in porn.

And they now have a legal precedent saying that recording a pornographic image to a computer storage medium makes you a porn producer.

Which means that if YOU have ever saved a picture of titties onto a CD-R, a floppy, a thumb drive, or god forbid, an internet server where it could be downloaded by others, you could be looking at criminal charges. And they've been very enthusiastic about prosecuting those lately.


I don't see any problem with statutes requiring that porn producers have official records verifying the age of people in video's or photo's. As for the saving copies of media I don't see any problem with it, unless it can be established that you are or plan to distribute the media for free or profit. If someone else wants the product they should buy it themselves, otherwise it's stealing and the creators are getting hosed. By placing media on a server where it can be publicly downloaded definantly counstitutes distribution.

[Chevan]

Imn guessing your against distribution charges when a person gets caught with alot of drugs right?

There's a pretty important difference between your example and this case. You can't have a reproduction of drugs, you can only have the drugs themselves. That's not the case with digital files.

If you're caught with a large amount of drugs (and you DID you have intent to distribute it), I'm okay with distribution charges being applied.

What's worrying me about this case is whether this instance of reproducing a digital whatever getting you hit with production charges is going to be slippery-sloped and apply to all forms of pornography because of the somewhat loose definition of 'child pornography' that's used in the statute (I can imagine it's worrying other people, but I can't speak for them). I'm hesitantly okay with this ruling applying to child porn, both on the "I don't like it" and the "whether I like it or not this is in the law-books" levels, but I think there's definite potential for it to be mis-used.

[Calybos]

When the government wants to take away your rights, they always start with someone most people would be willing to condemn anyway. That makes it easier to chip away at them incrementally, without anyone kicking up a fuss.

Anyone who values their freedoms should be VERY concerned about the practice of "tacking on extra charges" for the heck of it.

[Boldido]

When the government wants to take away your rights, they always start with someone most people would be willing to condemn anyway. That makes it easier to chip away at them incrementally, without anyone kicking up a fuss.

Anyone who values their freedoms should be VERY concerned about the practice of "tacking on extra charges" for the heck of it.

What rights have been violated? What are the extra charges being tacked on? Where the individual once had one image, he now has two, one on his hard drive and one on a CD-R. The CD-R can be easily transported and given to anyone he chooses. Would we be this up in arms if instead he printed a hard copy from a printer? What if he printed ten copies?

[Mike Smith]

It serves the guy right that he gets hit with a ridiculous stretch of definitions.

My question is if someone say, downloads music and copies to a cd-r, can the put "Music Producer" on their resume. Or if I do the same for Hollywood movies, which I don't condone, but let's say I do, can I apply for the Hollywood movie producers guild...being a movie producer and all.

[howyadoin]

Where the individual once had one image, he now has two, one on his hard drive and one on a CD-R.I'm not buyin' that argument. If you have two copies of, say, "Sweet Home Alabama", you've still only got one song.

[Boldido]

I'm not buyin' that argument. If you have two copies of, say, "Sweet Home Alabama", you've still only got one song.

So if I buy a poster, say...oh...this one...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/howyadoin/serenity.jpg

and the proceed to make numerous copies of it for various rooms of my many homes, its just one image right?

[howyadoin]

So if I buy a poster, say...oh...this one...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/howyadoin/serenity.jpg

and the proceed to make numerous copies of it for various rooms of my many homes, its just one image right?Well first off, you can't buy it in digital form. And secondly, if I were selling it in that format and you wanted to make a backup copy on another disk, I wouldn't charge you twice for it.

(Although that does sound potentially lucrative for me.)

[Night]

Can't find a really good article for it, but:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/01/28/1819222.shtml

Short version: A guy who backed up downloaded child porn to CD-Rs is being prosecuted for not just possession, but also production.

I support punishing the guy for possession, but production seems like a nonsensical stretch; What's the practical difference between keeping downloaded stuff on the hard drive, backing up to a portable hard drive, backing up to CDs, or even printing it out? Now compare those to actual primary production... Read the PDF from the thread on the case itself....

He was charged with installation of a video camera to record exchange students w/o their knowledge. One student bore witness to CD-R's made of him w/o knowledge.

---

All that being said. Charging him with intent to reproduce the material for selling to others might be a little bit of a stretch unless he had a bunch of copies of the same thing or some evidence of money transactions. Like others said, this law could be misused to undermine the rights of the innocent.

Say you're responsible for making backups of hard drive that someone else has been surfing on. You make a mistake in not clearing the internet cache before starting the process. *BANG* you're a pedophile and a pornographer. Some officer quasi-legally confiscates you backup on some other trumped up charge and you're labeled for life. So are you going to risk the label by standing up to the illegal seizure knowing that even the allegations of child porn could ruin your life, or do you make a deal hoping for the mercy of the DA.

It’s easy to shout sick when it’s someone else. However, the person in question hasn’t even been convicted as of the PDF. You see, whether he did it or not, his life as he knew it is already over. In the eyes of the country, he’s guilty before his day in court. And something like that could happen to anyone.

[MKTerra]

Read the PDF from the thread on the case itself....

He was charged with installation of a video camera to record exchange students w/o their knowledge. One student bore witness to CD-R's made of him w/o knowledge.Oh really? I thought it said toward the front that there wasn't evidence of any original material on the CD-Rs. Hmm...

On the second page:
Detective Lohman explained that a CD-R is a blank compact disc that an individual can
purchase, and upon which pictures, movie or video files, and various other digital images,
information, and data can be “burned” or saved through the use of a computer. According to
Lohman, defendant told him that the CD-Rs contained pornographic pictures of minors, pre-
teens, and teenagers. The detective further testified that defendant admitted that he had
downloaded the child pornography, including pictures and videos of mostly male individuals,
from Russian websites and then made or compiled the CD-Rs. Lohman agreed that police had
no information or evidence that defendant took any of the original pictures or made any of the
original videos found on the CD-Rs.That said, he was videotaping students. And yet they're using that for "installation of a device for observing in a private place" charges, while basing the "production" charges on the CD-Rs. Weird.

[Spike-X]

Where the individual once had one image, he now has two...

Wrong. He now has two copies of the same image.

Sure, it's splitting hairs, but isn't that what you guys charge a hundred bucks an hour to do?

[Night]

Oh really? I thought it said toward the front that there wasn't evidence of any original material on the CD-Rs. Hmm...

On the second page:
That said, he was videotaping students. And yet they're using that for "installation of a device for observing in a private place" charges, while basing the "production" charges on the CD-Rs. Weird. You're right it said that the witness ID'd video "Tapes" not CD's sorry.

[Bloopinator]

I don't care if he has to many charges as long as he gets the shit beat out of him in prison. And although it's not gonna happen the death penalty would be nice. Or they should just torture him for years and years to teach him a lesson...they could cut him and make him go crazy. No wait! They could make him swallow leeches!!!

[Noah Johnson]

I don't care if he has to many charges as long as he gets the shit beat out of him in prison. And although it's not gonna happen the death penalty would be nice. Or they should just torture him for years and years to teach him a lesson...they could cut him and make him go crazy. No wait! They could make him swallow leeches!!!
Yes, we get it, you're very bloodthirsty. What do you want, a cookie?

[Grazzt]

Yes, we get it, you're very bloodthirsty. What do you want, a cookie?

Who doesn't want a cookie? I mean really.

[howyadoin]

What do you want, a cookie?A seat at the grownup table?

[Paradox]

I'm pretty sure this is all coming down to one word..."make". Apparantly, the courts have decided that copying something qualifies as "making" it. Like others, I'm not that upset about it being applied to this particular case, but application in other areas I find...troublesome.

It's not about distribution. He wasn't even charged with that.