Homeland Security's 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures Also Included Songs Sent By Labels
from the this-gets-worse-and-worse dept
We've already covered some of the serious problems with the "affidavit" filed by Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unit, highlighting confusion about both how the internet works and the law itself. The affidavit was written by a recent college grad who appears to have little experience in the subject matter. What we had seen so far was only a partial version of the affidavit, covering the reasons for seizing Torrent Finder's domain. It was full of both technical and legal inaccuracies, which are troubling. The NY Times apparently got its hands on the entire affidavit (though, oddly, doesn't appear to offer it for download, as far as I can tell), and showed part of it to the operator of dajaz1.com, one of the sites that was taken down. The operator of the site notes that many of the examples used in the affidavit of infringing content were sent by the record labels themselves, and he showed the NY Times reporter the emails from labels sending the songs that were named in the affidavit. Hopefully the guy who operates the site has lined up competent legal help, because the more evidence that comes out in this case, the worse and worse Homeland Security/ICE is looking.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blogs, domain names, first amendment, homeland security, ice, promotions, seizures
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Surly, you must allready know this right ?
Like its common sense, what you are trying to say is, as long as you have 'SOME' legal content on your web site, you should be forever immune from legal action for the rest of the content that is illegal.
Do you really think the world works like that ?
Do you think if you sold watches, as long as you also sold legal casio watches, you would be allowed to sell Rolex knockoffs ?
Police "we can arrest him for selling fake Roxes watches, because he also sells legal non-fake watches as well".
We cant bust that drug dealer, because he also sells used cars !!!.
Just because you do SOME things that are legal, that does not make what you do that is illegal, any more legal than before.
Mike, why dont you explain it, you know, how the law really works, instead of trying to create a army of people with just as little of a clue to reality as yourself..
Why cant you explain to them, that just because you do one thing legally, does not give you a pass to then do other things that are illegal..
We all know you hate the law, and want to promote people to break it, but do you honestly think that is the right thing to do.. to spend your life appoligising for criminals ?
Not liking a law is no excuse for breaking it, or for inciting other to break it.
Incitement is just as bad as the crime itself, and that is what you do Mike, you incite people to break the law, by providing 'justification' for their actions..
its sad really, especially when you complain about people who have real jobs, and how have made a bigger difference in a short time, than you appear to have done in your entire career.. talking about you Mike..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You do not get this list of charges;
money laundering
extortion
dry cleaning
selling detergent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What? Lawyers and jobs and freedom and shit.
Well, never mind then. I'm sure bickering about it on the internet will help, am I right, Darryl?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What illegal business were the hip-hop blogs running, exactly? And what judge presided over their trial?
Like its common sense, what you are trying to say is, as long as you have 'SOME' legal content on your web site, you should be forever immune from legal action for the rest of the content that is illegal.
No, what we're saying is that as long as you have content that's arguably speech, you deserve a trial. I realize that you're not American, and free speech rights don't mean the same thing elsewhere, but get a clue. Seriously.
Do you think if you sold watches, as long as you also sold legal casio watches, you would be allowed to sell Rolex knockoffs ?
I think that if you sold fake Rolexes, officers would have to show actual probable cause that a crime has been committed, get a warrant, serve the warrant (which means allowing the person being served to see it in it's entirety at the time of seizure), being charged with a crime, and then getting a trial.
Just because you do SOME things that are legal, that does not make what you do that is illegal, any more legal than before.
That's absolutely correct, and that's why it's so important for due process to be allowed. That's in our Bill of Rights, you know. It's kind of important.
Mike, why dont you explain it, you know, how the law really works, instead of trying to create a army of people with just as little of a clue to reality as yourself.. Why cant you explain to them, that just because you do one thing legally, does not give you a pass to then do other things that are illegal..
I explained, already. What law enforcement is doing isn't legal. And it's not right to ignore the illegal things that law enforcement is doing just because some of the things that they do are legal.
We all know you hate the law, and want to promote people to break it, but do you honestly think that is the right thing to do.. to spend your life appoligising for criminals ?
Which criminals are that, exactly? I don't see any criminals. Hell, I don't even see any charges.
Not liking a law is no excuse for breaking it, or for inciting other to break it.
What law is that, exactly? It's hard to tell, because this seizure occurred illegally.
Incitement is just as bad as the crime itself, and that is what you do Mike, you incite people to break the law, by providing 'justification' for their actions..
First, incitement is not 'just as bad'. Next, Mike has made it very clear, repeatedly, that he doesn't pirate and doesn't encourage anyone else to do so. Last, your description of Mike's 'incitement' doesn't meet the legal standard of incitement.
More importantly, this post has nothing to do with pirating. It has to do with an illegal seizure made upon people who weren't pirating.
its sad really, especially when you complain about people who have real jobs, and how have made a bigger difference in a short time, than you appear to have done in your entire career.. talking about you Mike..
Taking orders from Hollywood on the taxpayer's dime is a real job? I mean, you're right that it makes a difference, but... so did Hitler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You have much more patience than I do. Very nice post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, seriously, the point isn't to change Darryl (Never gonna happen.) but to refute Darryl's outraged statements for any other folks who wander by and happen to think a bit of what he says makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sure, they were doing something illegal (well depending on what your definition of illegal is) However that wasn't listed but what was listed were things sent TO THE SITE from the record companies.
So lets say I am dealing drugs. I deal drugs out of the back of my computer store. I am a certified HP reseller. HP sent me this new laptop to sell, I sell it to an undercover cop who buys the laptop HP asked me to sell. I get arrested for selling that laptop? That proves I was selling drugs in the back of the store? I can't wait to see how you try and argue this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So they put music out there for people to download, even send ti to some places to post specifically so other people can get it (the 'legal' thing), then they turn around and claim 'copyright infringement' on the legal material that they put out there in the first place.
I agree, the one minor 'legal' thing doesn't make all of their illegal underhanded extortion tactic valid or legal, and only makes them look like as much of an A$$ as their shills (yourself included).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP Thicket
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP Thicket - unfortunately...
dajaz1 will get a nice humble letter of apology from ICE, get their domain back, get their legal fees paid and that will be the end of it. It will be done quietly, on a late Friday afternoon and a host of non-disclosure agreements for all so that nobody can talk about it. We'll all just the dajaz1 come back online with no ICE banner pretending that nothing ever happened.
/cynical, but half believe it will happen that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IP Thicket - unfortunately...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IP Thicket - unfortunately...
Yeah, you're probably right, but there's a reason that I'm hopeful. The average person may not understand all of the intricacies of IP law, but what is happening dajaz1 can be exlained in very easy-to-understand terms. And once you understand it, you know it's wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IP Thicket - unfortunately...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IP Thicket - unfortunately...
This will get seriously slapped down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IP Thicket - unfortunately...
Yes, the RIAA will say that they listed those songs by accident, but that it doesn't matter since there was plenty of other content that they didn't send. Nothing will change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IP Thicket - unfortunately...
That's something I've never understood. If they were honestly wronged, why would dajaz1 (or anyone) sign an NDA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IP Thicket - unfortunately...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
Might be hugely complex for you, or Mike, or anyone else who does not understand simple things, but to say copyright is hugely complex apart from being personal opinion, and irrevalent, is not even true.
I can see alot of people here have a great deal of trouble understanding IP law, but complex it IS NOT.
Its even common sense..
maybe you would like to explain why you find it complex that you are not allowed to copy something, you do not have the legal right to copy ?
Is that 'hugely complex', does it even require any thinking ?
Do you have to think hard about paying at the shop when you buy a burger ? is that 'hugely complex' too ?
Is it hugely complex for you to understand that you pay for something like your burger, to pay the people who make that burger, who supply the shop, and who employ burget flippers and so on.
Is that, THAT HARD ?? or hugely complex ?
Then if that is not hard, how can you find it hard that even though you understand shoplifting is wrong, and you are supposed to pay for what you consume.
You can not work out that steal, in other forms is not illegal. yes, i know how 'some' of you could find that complex.. I guess some people are just stupid !!!
Something is "thick" there, but its not IP..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
Wow. I think you're clearly in the minority with this opinion. Even proponants of stronger IP laws don't assert that this system is simple.
maybe you would like to explain why you find it complex that you are not allowed to copy something, you do not have the legal right to copy ?
Perhaps you think the I and the rest of the readers are too stupid to notice how you conflated the complexity of overall IP laws with the concept of a "right to copy", but we're not. The two concepts are clearly distinct and it shows the weakness of your argument if you have to resort to rhetorical tricks.
As for the complexity of IP law, just do a search on "thicket" on TechDirt and you'll see quite a few examples of how complext IP law is. For a particular example with a graphical representation, look here...
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101007/22591311328/meet-the-patent-thick et-who-s-suing-who-for-smartphone-patents.shtml
Do you have to think hard about paying at the shop when you buy a burger ? is that 'hugely complex' too ?
Of course not, but in that case, you're dealing with a physical good. The complexity comes about when you're dealing with intangible goods. Obviously.
You can not work out that steal, in other forms is not illegal.
Of course theft should be illegal. But I thought we were talking about infringment, not theft.
yes, i know how 'some' of you could find that complex.. I guess some people are just stupid !!!
Ah, yes. The ad hominem attack. Another indicator of the soundness of your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
If I take a hamburger without paying you are out the cost of the item because it is now gone and cannot be sold to someone else. If I take a picture of your hamburger you lose nothing ever.
You can argue until you are blue in the face about potential revenue but there was nothing of value taken from you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
Judges, IP attorneys, content owners, and the general public disagree with you.
I can see alot of people here have a great deal of trouble understanding IP law, but complex it IS NOT.
Its even common sense..
maybe you would like to explain why you find it complex that you are not allowed to copy something, you do not have the legal right to copy ?
Maybe because we do have the legal right to copy? Expression generally trumps copyright, so parodies, fair use, and so on are all valid and legal reasons to copying.
Is that 'hugely complex', does it even require any thinking ?
Not from you, hon. Not from you.
I'd like to point out, however, that at the beginning of your post, you copied Hulser's words, which were copyrighted the moment that he pressed Submit. You are now a pirate in your own eyes.
Of course, in the eyes of the law, your copying was for the intent of commentary, which is a legal and valid reason to copy.
Do you have to think hard about paying at the shop when you buy a burger ? is that 'hugely complex' too ? Is it hugely complex for you to understand that you pay for something like your burger, to pay the people who make that burger, who supply the shop, and who employ burget flippers and so on. Is that, THAT HARD ?? or hugely complex ?
So I should pay before the use the name Burger King in a review of that burger then, right? Because to do otherwise is theft. Got it.
Wait, what?
Then if that is not hard, how can you find it hard that even though you understand shoplifting is wrong, and you are supposed to pay for what you consume.
You pay for what you consume because you literally consume it. It's gone. The seller no longer has it to sell. Can you explain how digital goods are 'consumed' by pirates, so that none are left for legitimate buyers?
If you can, I have a picture of a spider for you. It's worth $233.95, so it's very valuable.
You can not work out that steal, in other forms is not illegal.
What I can't work out is your sentence. Lolwut?
yes, i know how 'some' of you could find that complex.. I guess some people are just stupid !!!
Yes, some people are. Some people are, Darryl.
Something is "thick" there, but its not IP..
Agreed, Darryl. Agreed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This was clearly not followed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Hands At All
How can anyone expect one hand to talk to the other?
The RIAA and MPAA must be the biggest ponzi scheme of them all. Get your clients to sent content to websites in the hopes of promoting sales then argue there's piracy on the web robbing them of their revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Hands At All
No. I remember how YouTube removes videos when ANYBODY makes a claim. I'd love for them to at least require a properly formatted DMCA takedown notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can not be held for infringement if they own the copyright. It's a scam plain out and simple.
We'll sue you for a million over copyright and put the songs there ourselves.
This has been going on a long time. I'm surprised no one else has really beat the drum on this area of their operations and shined a long, hard, steady, look at the practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oceana
Ha ha! hahahahahahaha!
The "evidence" will be "classified" because it's about Homeland Security and it could aid the terrists, donchaknow?
1984 got here about 17 years late...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has anyone seen ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has anyone seen ....
TVShack was hit twice, Ninjavideo has its problems, and the other seven pretty much vanished as far as I know.
The other sites just up and disappeared. But since it's the same process and with more people involved, we'll now have more people contesting the DMCA/COICA takedowns.
I would be very interested in how these are clarified as legal when the affidavit has so much wrong in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has anyone seen ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The best news all day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And nice hack article, Ben. Sisario doesn't even bother to get a quote from ICE, just talks to the guys that had their sites shut down. No bias there...
And that Egyptian owner of torrent-finder is just a straight up sociopath:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/01190512310/homeland-security-presents-evidenc e-domain-seizures-proves-it-knows-little-about-internet---law.shtml#c1304
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is it because he's Egyptian? That sounds kind of racist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
BTW, no retraction from Masnick for the further f*cking up of this story?
You pirate apologists have a bit of a hair trigger, it seems...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wait till the facts come out. You'll be paying 500.00 to EFF.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
it's hilarious you think you know everything that was going on with those sites. Might want to do a little detective work, guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
it's hilarious you think you know everything that was going on with those sites. Might want to do a little detective work, guy."
Was that directed at me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Fuck you, asshat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So you either posted the wrong link, or you're trying to back up your stance with... your own stance. And incorrectly, at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That lying, sociopath that owns Torrent-Finder is guilty of massive contrubutory infringement; Masnick practically admits as much in a response in his other story on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And feel free to provide a link to the post where Mike 'admits' to the owner of TF's contributor infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The other link:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/01190512310/homeland-security-presents-evidence-dom ain-seizures-proves-it-knows-little-about-internet---law.shtml#c1601
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have not seen any such evidence. Please provide it. First of all, I have seen *nothing* indicating direct infringement at all on Torrent Finder. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
Separate, "contributory infringement" is something that is determined by the court, and requires numerous factors to prove. I am unaware of Torrent Finder being judged guilty of contributory infringement anywhere by a court, but if you have the ruling, please provide it, or admit that you are lying.
I'm guessing you're lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as the other link, Mike says he wasn't arguing against contributory infringement in that post because he was focusing on the legality of the takedown. That's a far cry from "admiting the contributory infringement". Are we grasping at straws now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a reason for going to court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is a reason for going to court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45705510/Operation-in-Our-Sites-2-0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
nah, nothin illegal goin on there, nope...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Likewise these same blogs "leaked" Eminem and Dr. Dre's Crack A Bottle. The version of the track leaked was unfinished but created such a buzz the artists and label decided to finish the song, include it on Eminem's Relapse album and release the song as a single. I was #1 on Billboard Hot 100 charts, built buzz for Eminem's Relapse album that sold 619k copies its first week, and won a Grammy.
Likewise these same blogs "leaked" Nicki Minaj's "Your Love" the buzz generated caused the song to be mastered and released officially and went on to be her first #1 on Billboard charts. Nicki had yet to release any album and the result of the publicity and buzz, new fans she generated because of that caused her album to sell over 300k units its first week.
If you do not know what you are speaking about.. Don't speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
Music industry, like every industry give away free samples, they do not give away the copyright to those samples.
So it does not matter how they got the content, they did not also get the copyright, rights to that conent, therefore they still broke the law.
Getting a song from a company, either purchased, stolen, or given, does not give you the copyright to that content..
Why do you think it does ? HOW can you think it does ?
how can you have such a deep misunderstanding of something that is so simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
Nice straw man argument. Nobody said that the record labels gave dajaz1.com the copyright to the song. Do you think that a radio station is giving its listeners the copyright to a song when they play it on the air?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
That's why on Amazon, I pay extra to have copyrights shipped at the same time as the music!
Your trolling is getting more moronic by the minute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
And umm they don't send copyright for the songs that would be absurd. Nobody is even claiming that. Please don't make assumptions about things you know nothing about.
Mike I'm trying to reach you, can you please email me at the email address in this comment? Thank You.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
That's right. They sent them a license, which they are now bring prosecuted for using.
So it does not matter how they got the content, they did not also get the copyright, rights to that conent, therefore they still broke the law.
It does matter how they got the content. You're right that they did not get the entire copyright, but they absolutely received rights to use those files.
Did they break the law? Maybe. But you can't prove it by this warrant, or at all if you don't change and try the domain owners.
Getting a song from a company, either purchased, stolen, or given, does not give you the copyright to that content..
Why do you think it does ? HOW can you think it does ?
Who said it does? You're the only one going on about copyright transference.
how can you have such a deep misunderstanding of something that is so simple.
Ditto.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
The facts remain the same, the music industry DID NOT LICENSE them to copy the music.
Show me where there is a license, giving them permission to copy as much as they like OR ANY copies of music they have acquired by ANY means.
Of course you cant, we all know that..
You can say they sent them a license, but do you actually believe that to be the case ?
It's the same old simple confusion that is always here, just because you buy a COPY of a song, or get a COPY of a song by any means, that is not an automatic license of copyright for that material.
Why cant you work that out !!!???????
So show me the license, where the music industry, or the OWNER of the copyright of those songs says it is OK for them to make and distribite further copies.
If they gave that web site the copyright, they would no longer have that copyright to that work..
Therefore the web site is within it's right to sue the record company for copyright breach..
Do you honestly think that is possible or going to happen..
Really, some of you people on this web page, need to get a little grip on reality.. To busy appoligising for criminals to think about what is really happening.
Who said it does? You're the only one going on about copyright transference
Mike, and the subject of this article for one, you for another, and most other people posting comment here for a corum.
That is EXACTLY what mike is trying to say, it is the subject of this article.
It is about, being sued for providing illegal copies of music, and the argument is that the music companies supplied the initial versions of the music..
Therefore somehow, by receiving copies of a song, they magically assume they have received the copyright to those works.
And we all know that is not the case, and if you get upset by me having to explain that to you, and/or if you are upset that the facts hurt you.. too bad.. get over it..
welcome to the real world... you might of heard about it, its the place where even if you do not like or agree with a law you have to follow it anyway.
Its the world, where you have to pay your way, and stealing is considered theft, and just because you are capable of theft, does not make the act ok, or legal, or moral, or ethical, or right.
And just because Mike tells you its ok to break the law, it still does not make it ok, it just makes Mike wrong, and willing and keen to incite criminal activity. For his own personal gains. (most criminal activity is for personal gains).
But of course if you can cloak your crimes in something high sounding, and talk of 'rights' and 'freedoms', it sounds all that much better. Especially for self delusion.
At least the industry, the law, the law enforcers, the politicians, the actual content creators, see you people exactly for what you are.
May be after 10,000 court ruling agaist your law breaking ways, you 'might' just work it out.. but I doubt it.
May be in your fantasy world you are winning this 'war' but back in the real world, you guys just look like a bunch of freaks. Spoiling it for everyone else.
Always trying to disprove studies, with what ??? oh yea, conjecture and guesswork.. but hay its better than a study..
This site is full of amusement, and dont worry I will continue to call FUD whenever I see it, (or as much as I can, there is ALOT here).. !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
Speaking of FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
Really? Please point out the words 'copyright transference'.
The facts remain the same, the music industry DID NOT LICENSE them to copy the music.
They didn't copy the music, idiot. The copyright owner gave the digital files to them to use. They used it as intended. Their sites were illegally seized, anyway.
Show me where there is a license, giving them permission to copy as much as they like OR ANY copies of music they have acquired by ANY means.
They didn't copy anything. They were in possession of digital files that were sent to them by the copyright owners. The copyright owners did the copying.
So show me the license, where the music industry, or the OWNER of the copyright of those songs says it is OK for them to make and distribite further copies.
Explain how they 'made' and distributed further copies.
It's the same old simple confusion that is always here, just because you buy a COPY of a song, or get a COPY of a song by any means, that is not an automatic license of copyright for that material.
It's certainly an automatic license to use that song, silly rabbit.
Why cant you work that out !!!??????? So show me the license, where the music industry, or the OWNER of the copyright of those songs says it is OK for them to make and distribite further copies.
Show me where they were making and distributing copies.
If they gave that web site the copyright, they would no longer have that copyright to that work.. Therefore the web site is within it's right to sue the record company for copyright breach..
Yes, if the blog owners violated their copyright by using the files that they were sent in an unauthorized way, the content owner would be within their rights to sue.
That's not what's happened here, in the slightest.
Do you honestly think that is possible or going to happen.. Really, some of you people on this web page, need to get a little grip on reality.. To busy appoligising for criminals to think about what is really happening.
What criminals? No one's been found guilty of anything. No one's even been charged with a crime.
...copyright transference... Mike, and the subject of this article for one, you for another, and most other people posting comment here for a corum. That is EXACTLY what mike is trying to say, it is the subject of this article.
I don't see the words 'copyright transference' anywhere in the title or post. This post isn't about copyright transference.
It is about, being sued for providing illegal copies of music, and the argument is that the music companies supplied the initial versions of the music..
No, it's not. It's about a speech-blocking illegal seizure of a site that's maybe guilty of a little civil infringement. Maybe.
Therefore somehow, by receiving copies of a song, they magically assume they have received the copyright to those works.
No one thinks that but you, Darryl.
And we all know that is not the case, and if you get upset by me having to explain that to you, and/or if you are upset that the facts hurt you.. too bad.. get over it..
You're the only one upset. Of course, we all know how much you detest being wrong. :)
welcome to the real world... you might of heard about it, its the place where even if you do not like or agree with a law you have to follow it anyway.
Yes, which is why we're upset that our own government officials did not follow the law.
Its the world, where you have to pay your way, and stealing is considered theft, and just because you are capable of theft, does not make the act ok, or legal, or moral, or ethical, or right.
I agree. Stealing is theft. What does that have to do with this post, though?
And just because Mike tells you its ok to break the law, it still does not make it ok, it just makes Mike wrong,
When did Mike ever condone copyright infringement?
...and willing and keen to incite criminal activity. For his own personal gains. (most criminal activity is for personal gains).
Again, when did he ever condone copyright infringement? When did his actions ever meet the legal standard of incitement? What does he gain if people choose to infringe?
But of course if you can cloak your crimes in something high sounding, and talk of 'rights' and 'freedoms', it sounds all that much better. Especially for self delusion.
At least the industry, the law, the law enforcers, the politicians, the actual content creators, see you people exactly for what you are.
Americans that can be milked for all their cash by their corporate overlords?
May be after 10,000 court ruling agaist your law breaking ways, you 'might' just work it out.. but I doubt it.
Whose law-breaking ways, Darryl? And what laws?
May be in your fantasy world you are winning this 'war' but back in the real world, you guys just look like a bunch of freaks. Spoiling it for everyone else.
Spoiling what, Darryl?
Always trying to disprove studies, with what ??? oh yea, conjecture and guesswork.. but hay its better than a study..
You have a problem with criticism of substandard study methodology? Really?
This site is full of amusement...
Yes, mostly provided by you. :)
...and dont worry I will continue to call FUD whenever I see it, (or as much as I can, there is ALOT here).. !!!
Please do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
You have a schizophrenic sense of justice, Darryl...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
Is it not my right to take apart my car and reproduce whatever parts I need on my own risk as long as I'm not selling 'em? (heck, that's actually how many businesses come to be. reverse engineering and improving!)
Is it not my right to hand those reproductions to my friends, at their own risk, to use in their own cars?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ESLMB - English as a Second Language MethBot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Simply stunning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
YES!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The affidavit.
Page 31 talks about his evidence against Torrent Finder which is hilarious to read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]