Here We Go Again: Operation In Our Sites Round 4 Kicks Off With More Domains Illegally Seized
from the ice:-where-free-speech-is-for-suckers dept
It had been a while since Homeland Security's ICE group stomped on anyone's free speech and due process rights, so it seems they had to just run out and illegally seize a bunch more websites this weekend, once again without any notice or adversarial hearings as required by the Constitution and the case law on the matter. What's truly bizarre is that the folks at ICE are fully aware that these actions are unconstitutional and they are still moving forward with them. Having spoken to numerous people involved on all sides of these seizures (more on that soon), the picture that's becoming clear is that many of the ICE agents are uncomfortable with these seizure procedures, feeling (as many of us have suggested) that their considerable resources and time should be focused on stopping actual crimes, not people putting up blogs and forums online. At the same time, there is tremendous pressure from the top, driven by an almost fever pitch of lobbying efforts by the RIAA and MPAA to shut down parts of the internet that they can't figure out how to compete with.TorrentFreak is keeping a list of the seized domains for now, and once again, it appears to be a mix of linking sites and some that are involved in trademark infringement. In fact, some of the sites seem to just link to other streaming sites. This seems incredibly problematic, in that they seem to involve a gross expansion of what the law actually says concerning indirect infringement and criminal liability. But, even if you could read the law in the extreme manner suggested by ICE and the Justice Department, it doesn't change the fact that these seizures are improper under the Constitution. It's pretty sad, because Homeland Security and the Justice Department are supposed to be about defending the Constitution, not ignoring it.
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: copyright, domain seizures, due process, free speech, homeland security, ice, operation in our sites
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sad to see that the land of the free is turning into Fallout: New Vegas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I play fer realz, yo. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
... You must have the PS3 version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I consider these flaws part of its charm. Except getting stuck. Then I had to reload and shoot those damn radscorpions all over again. Of course, I played Fallout 3 on the PS3 so I'm kind of used to a somewhat out-of-sync virtual world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIxvpjREwyI
(Survival Tip: Don't be "Brad", and you should be OK.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Soviet US...err... I mean Russia....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In Soviet US...err... I mean Russia....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It didn't under bush, and it's most certainly not under obama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yep, that's right people: the fact is that CONSERVATIVE judges are more likely than liberal judges to allow power grabs by the federal government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please!
Oh for the love of pete here we go ... With all due respect considered, I can't keep my lips zipped this time 'round but before I unload just please do note that I respect your right to feel that way and state as such; however, I will now take my right to express a resounding "BUT".
Every discussion has someone who just HAS to start in on this crap i.e., "Conservative vs. Liberal", "Bush vs. Obummer" - when the heck are we going to LET IT GO and understand this is no longer about party politics?
All you accomplish when you start that rant is more division amongst what would otherwise be people who by and large agree on something far, FAR bigger than party politics - OUR COLLECTIVE FREEDOM.
Can we ever let go of all that petty nonsense and pull together to focus on the larger picture? The fact is, the current administration and the previous - one on each side of the "fence" - continue to trample on our freedoms. That should be the main concern. Personally, it's my opinion the current uber liberal/progressive admin is far, FAR worse but both are at fault.
IMHO, it has now come down to We, the People vs. Tyrannical Government, period. And tyranny is just another form of terrorism.
Off soapbox...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please!
It's the team sports mentality: my team versus yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please!
I'm sure you've heard that old quote about when the gov't fears the people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please!
This is about the people of the nation standing up to OUR GOVERNMENT and saying, "NO, you cannot take my rights and freedoms away. As the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, BY the people, FOR the people, and OF the people, you will tell ANYONE who wants to infringe on those RIGHTS and FREEDOMS to TAKE A HIKE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Please!
Now that added WHAT to the conversation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please!
So, in other words : Another bunch of Fakes and Frauds, who are just trying to stay in power any way they can.
Politician punch-ups in Taiwan are 'staged to make MPs look tough'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-455587/Politician-punch-ups-Taiwan-staged-make-MPs-l ook-tough.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.icefilms.info/index
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://i.imgur.com/zJJ81.jpg
Well done ICE, great job. You showed those pirates a thing or two didn't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, just linking to other streaming sites? If I link to a legitimate video on youtube (or another site of the same flavor), but youtube (or the other site) has other, illegitimate content that gets taken down, would that fall under ICE's naughty list?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I guess we know how far they are willing to go to prop up a business model. Hopefully the public will balk around the time they make it legal to shoot people who might have seen a few seconds of a movie they haven't paid to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the end...
The president is ultimately responsible for the actions of these departments, he should be reigning them in.
Unless he's so firmly in the pockets of the entertainment industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In the end...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whats next...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whats next...
Several years ago I had a YouTube account/channel - whatever. I had oh, a couple dozen self made videos on there. So one day I upload one that had a clip from a song that from my own PURCHASED CD I had made a mp3 out of.
I was told my content was illegal. At first I couldn't figure out what the heck was wrong with my video - then I researched.
So, I walked away from YouTube and never looked back but that is what enlightened me to this whole music battle - and I don't even get into music file sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
however, regardless of the amount of financial clout the industries have, i dont understand why so much efforet is being put into everything RIAA and MAFIAA etc wants and why so much notice is taken of what they say. there are other industries that have more money and do as much, if not more lobbying, but virtually no notice is taken by governments and no new/updated laws come into being either. i an still of the opinion that there is much more to what is going on than just trying to protect a dying/ refuse to change industry and that complete control of the Internet is the actual goal. trouble is, what will they do with it when, and i dont mean if, they get it? even giving it to the government, what the hell are they going to do with it? use it for world domination and put the rest back into the stone age?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's cheesy to say "first they came for the pornographers...", but it's also true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Complete control of the populace is the actual goal, and that starts with controlling their speech, which means the big, bad internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
IP is the new religion. Just like the Catholic church was the real power during the middle ages, with even kings bowing down and passing whatever laws the church wanted, the corporations are now the ones in charge and the governments of the world bow down and pass whatever laws the entertainment industry wants.
Welcome to the Inquisition 2.0, just substitute "copyright infringer" for "heretic".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
Even if you don't support file sharing - or linking to file sharing - the chilling effects of carte blanche government censorship has to be terrifying people!
Sure... it starts small... "To protect you from terrorism..." or "But think of the children..." but what's next? Nazi style book burning because the current administration doesn't like the content? China style government control of the news? What about protests? Are we going to see Lybia style firing into crowds of demonstraters?
It's a slippery slope we started down... and I don't trust anyone in the government to know HOW... let alone WHEN to brake...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laws...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The guys at ICE cant say no to the bosses, so we need to put pressure on them (congress).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love how you pretend that it's a foregone conclusion that these seizures are unconstitutional. You full well know that it's not so black-and-white and that no court has ever ruled either way. Yet you continue to assert that it's all perfectly clear. Strange that. I'd say I don't get it, but I think I do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd hope that erring on the side of caution when it comes to constitutional rights would be best practice, but...sigh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I would bet that ICE is getting their legal advice from TSA's "Blogger Bob", who seems to be saying, "It's not illegal if the government does it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd hope that erring on the side of caution when it comes to constitutional rights would be best practice, but...sigh.
You bring up an interesting point. Congress enacted a statute allowing for the instrumentalities of criminal copyright infringement to be seized. ICE is exercising the power that Congress gave them. How could ICE know whether or not seizing domain names is constitutional? The courts typically don't give advisory opinions. Sometimes the only way to find out is to do it, thus creating an actual case that a court could look at.
I hope somebody challenges these seizures soon, and I hope they have excellent lawyers making their case. I'd love to see the courts address this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all shades of gray
I find that it is sometimes the favorite shade of gray of people who argue that things are not black and white.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's all shades of gray
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Six months before a complaint is filed. Immediate loss of income and disorganization of fans of a site. The rules continue to insist this goes against most parts of the Constitution. And while we know you have a problem with Karl's write up, it's still damn accurate.
The reactions are also well known in the reestablishment of a website, the overall expensiveness of a lawsuit or a complaint, the inaccessibility to tools to reestablish your website among other provisions.
It should be pretty clear that if it's not unconstitutional, it's truly authoritarian, where all the cards are in the government's favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I love how you pretend that it's a foregone conclusion that these seizures are unconstitutional. You full well know that it's not so black-and-white and that no court has ever ruled either way.
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. Your post is the very definition of the later two, as you are spreading uncertainty and doubt. As for the fear part, I think ICE already has that covered.
It's funny how the 'pirates' seem to understand the constitution better than the ICE.
1. The Government Seizes The Domains Without Prior Notice And Hearing.
2. Seizures of Protected Speech Without a Hearing Violates The First Amendment.
3. There Is No Concern That The Accused Will Flee With Their Domains.
4. There Is An Unacceptable Risk Of Wrongful Seizure.
5. Targeted Sites Are Not Given An Immediate Opportunity To Reclaim Their Domain.
Any of these items would indicate that the seizures are not lawful, but taken all together, ICE seems to be skating on thin, well. Ice.
In depth reasoning on each point here: http://torrentfreak.com/5-reasons-why-the-us-domain-seizures-are-unconstitutional-110312/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. The Government Seizes The Domains Without Prior Notice And Hearing.
2. Seizures of Protected Speech Without a Hearing Violates The First Amendment.
3. There Is No Concern That The Accused Will Flee With Their Domains.
4. There Is An Unacceptable Risk Of Wrongful Seizure.
5. Targeted Sites Are Not Given An Immediate Opportunity To Reclaim Their Domain.
Any of these items would indicate that the seizures are not lawful, but taken all together, ICE seems to be skating on thin, well. Ice.
In depth reasoning on each point here: http://torrentfreak.com/5-reasons-why-the-us-domain-seizures-are-unconstitutional-110312/"
This is all very pretty and nice. So if it's a laydown as you suggest, where is the litigation from the Google-funded professional apologist groups like EFF, PK, CDT?
Where's the ACLU? Where are the website owners that have been harmed? Where's Techdirts lawsuit? How about torrentfreak?
You can jerk yourselves off all you like with assertions of Constitutional violations, but until a court says it- it just doesn't matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nice. Control the courts, and you control the law. That's the precise thinking of King George III and how he treated the Colonies in the Americas. Any history buff of the American Revolutionary War can tell you how well that turned out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Dude. You have weird proclivities if you associate constitution discussions with sexual arousal, even if it's indirectly.
Anyway, you're argument is: "It's not unconstitutional unless a court says it is." I'm going to give your analysis all the attention it deserves. Wow. That's dumb. Read your statement yourself and see if you can find out where you went wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
On a related note, I'm going into the business of making tinfoil hats. I think you'd be interested. They're guaranteed to keep you safe from space aliens, microwave weaponry, and the radio transmitters in your teeth. A bargain at any price, but I'll let you have one for just $100, or three easy payments of $35! Call now, operators are standing by.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When the courts don't support you will you go away? no you will push for legislation because "Obviously they got it wrong"... And will keep pushing and pushing until you get your way... cause yea that's how it is supposed to work, or only for the piss ass record and movie companies?
Personally, while the RIAA and others exist, i have not bought 1 CD (cheap plastic crap) or seen 1 movie, other than netflicks and You-tube, please please have your cronies take them down... because that will be the day your house of cards falls and we win... until then I still win because i get to keep my money, and the internet routes around you... So basically your Screwed!
Have a nice day, i will knowing the "starving artist, and actors" are in such bad bad condition LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mafiaafire is already redirecting
For many, it's like nothing happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Update
http://torrentfreak.com/ice-seizes-more-domains-today-admin-says-well-be-back-110522/
The quotes from "PiraCee," admin at Re1ease.net, are particularly revealing:
"We have only ever had two DMCA takedown requests – for Source Code and Hobo With a Shotgun," PiraCee told us. "We removed both."
To sum up:
- They did not host any infringing content.
- They did not stream any infringing content from sites that did.
- They apparently obeyed every single DMCA notice that they received (all two of them).
In other words, this particular site was a poster child for 17 USC 512 compliance. Even if not, they were possibly not guilty even of civil infringement, under the Google v. Perfect 10 ruling. The notion that their actions are "criminal" is simply absurd.
On a related subject - Mike, do you know what's happening with the sites that are contesting the seizures? I don't know any of the players involved, and they're being (understandably) mum about ongoing litigation. Any news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Update
Yes. I'll have a post later today or tomorrow. Waiting to hear back from one more source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The constitutional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The constitutional
In fact, that is exactly what they are arguing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The constitutional
So how can you bring about a case of censorship or against piracy when the deck is severely stacked against you, the individual?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The constitutional
This case has absolutely nothing to do with torrents, so that's a bit of a red herring.
Instead, what the site did was post links to "file lockers" that hosted infringing content. They also embedded video streams from third parties (what Perfect 10 v. Google called "inline linking").
As an aside, that ruling also determined that the "server test" is the correct test for direct infringement. That is, if the content is not hosted on your servers, you cannot be guilty of direct infringement - though contributory or vicarious infringement can apply.
However, neither contributory nor vicarious infringement has ever been considered a criminal violation. Specifically, they are neither "reproducing" nor "distributing" the content for the purposes of copyright law (the "file lockers" and streaming sites are). One or both of those are required under 17 USC 506.
Which means that none of these sites committed anything that any court has determined to be a criminal act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The constitutional
Regardless, I wonder what this means for all of the caselaw when COICA seems to proceed right over it.
Will judges be more likely to interpret based on the precedents of say, Perfect 10 v Google, or use the applied and rather stringent dictation of COICA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The constitutional
It's the judges' job to interpret the law as written by Congress and the Constitution.
So, they'd be duty-bound to follow COICA/PROTECT-IP if it's passed. Unless they find that it's unconstitutional... which is not unlikely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The constitutional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The constitutional
That would be like saying if I linked to a prison pen pal site I'm party to every criminal's crimes. That's preposterous. You are presuming that a link to something that SOME call illegal means a person is guilty of criminal behavior. How do you prove such a thing?
You can't just up and accuse people of a crime because they make a statement of fact.
You can say, "Hey look. xyz.com has this that or the other thing" on a web page. That's not a criminal act, nor is it being party to one. Saying something is there doesn't mean a thing other than that - well, 'it's there'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The constitutional
It's an interesting argument. The main flaw that I see (and I hope that someone in authority to make these determinations sees it too) is that there is no law suggesting that linking is a crime. At least not yet. So no crime has been committed by the domains that have been seized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The constitutional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The constitutional
that is precisely the legal (constitutionally permissible) theory that ICE has acted under. These are analogous to the arrest of a person, which also requires no prior notification. I am unaware that an sites subjected to these actions by ICE have challenged the legality which is also telling- particularly if it's such a slamdunk as some suggest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The constitutional
You think that hundreds of people arrested for no reason would make the nightly news?
Could those responsible for the arrest of innocent people be held accountable in civil court?
Might the tax paying public be concerned about wasting their hard earned money?
I doubt these questions will be answered by the silly apologist who passes the buck in a lateral fashion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The constitutional
Epic. Fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps they could take to the next level ....
Now guess what they would do with those sites and bandwidth a few months down the road....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps they could take to the next level ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Perhaps they could take to the next level ....
I wish ICE would do it.
Yes, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps they could take to the next level ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...Not subject to liability under this act ,..
"Poking sticks at rats and bunnies is safe and fun, poking at lions and elephants will get you killed" - Jim Westendorf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps they could take to the next level ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Perhaps they could take to the next level ....
What if, here in the comments, I spam a million web links. Does that mean techdirt has to come down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Perhaps they could take to the next level ....
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/protect-act/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Civil Forfeiture
The point, I guess I was trying to make was that with civil asset forfeiture, the idea is that the asset is used in the commission of a crime. So, the basic gist is that the website was used in the commission of the act of piracy. Now, you might say that the owner of the web domain didn't commit the crime and the linking to sites is not a crime, but that doesn't matter. The decision in Bennis v. Michigan was about a woman whose car was seized because her husband used the car to have sex with a prostitute. She committed no crime, but she was penalized because someone used her asset (the car) to commit a crime. ICE would use the same argument here (I'm not sure what, if any, legal arguments they've presented), saying that since some person used a website to link to another website where they pirated content, the first website was used in the commission of a crime and is thus open to civil forfeiture.
Now, it doesn't take too much thought to see that the implications of such an argument would be huge, suddenly google and youtube and a whole bunch of other legit sites are now up to be seized (in fact, the whole point of DMCA was to prevent that problem with its system of takedown notices that would define third party liability). You'd thus have to circumscribe your argument to define what exactly makes the sites seized different from other sites that are sometimes used in the process of piracy, probably by arguing that certain sites are primarily used for piracy. The rationale usually used to defend civil forfeiture is that it takes the profit out of illegal activities, so if they can show that these sites profit from the piracy, that might also bolster the case.
Additionally, you might try to deflect free speech arguments by claiming that links are not a form of expression, but merely a service or a tool. Namely, you'd say that when you provide a link you're not stating an opinion or presenting a fact, you're merely pointing somewhere, like opening the door for someone. So, if you've got a site like atdhe.net, which was seized just before the superbowl, which was purely links, you might be able to claim the site really isn't protected speech, it's just a set of instructions your browser uses to get to infringing content.
As I said before, I wouldn't advocate such arguments. The whole idea of civil forfeiture is completely against the 4th amendment, and end all IP law if I could. But considering these are the arguments that might be presented, it's worth thinking about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Civil Forfeiture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Civil Forfeiture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Civil Forfeiture
This whole thing is a slippery slope that needs to be nipped post haste. If this revolting IP act is allowed, there simply is no telling where they will go next.
There is also a statement in there that refers to anything "bad for public health" - that's not verbatim, but something to that effect. That is very vague and can lead to more murky waters that could have a profound negative effect on any number of web site owners that have nothing to do with copyright so-called "infringement".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Civil Forfeiture
So if Joe-Blo walks up to me while I'm outside and asks where the nearest bank is and I give him directions, then he goes there and robs the bank, suddenly I'm a bank robber
No, because you don't know what his intent is and you're not directing him to anything illegal.
If you told him exactly how to rob that bank, you're an accessory and guilty of bank robbery.
That would be like saying if I linked to a prison pen pal site I'm party to every criminal's crimes.
This analogy is even worse; the criminal isn't in prison for having a penpal site.
This consistent inability to come up with valid analogies proves how incredibly weak the pirate "argument" is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Civil Forfeiture
No, but what if he lies? What if he says I said something I didn't? Criminals are notorious for lying. Also, how does anyone who posts a link to what you consider "infringing" material know exactly what others are going to do if they decide to visit the link? How do you even know every visitor WILL visit the link, much less take advantage of whatever is on said link?
You are taking innocent, unknown people and determining them guilty of a crime when in truth you have no clue what anyone is going to actually DO (or has done) when they visit these links.
As for the prison pen pal site, guess I have to help you think deeper. What if a girl sees that link, finds a prisoner, writes to him, he gets out and brutally harms her in some unthinkable fashion and she tells authorities, "But I found the link on so-and-so's web site, it's all her fault! I never would have wrote if I hadn't found that link!" Is it then MY fault she decided to write a prisoner?
BAM. Under the ILLogic of this bill then I'm guilty? Which again I'll say, is preposterous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Civil Forfeiture
Those sites know something illegal is going on. It's called willful ignorance and it fails in court. Sorry.
Your penpal analogy is still bizarrely and illogically wrong and irrelevant.
But I suspect you know that already...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Civil Forfeiture
I have a three-PC license of Windows 7. I use two of those up on my own cimputer, through upgrading components. I call microsoft to request another license and am refused; as I need those two licenses for my notebook and my little girl's desktop, what am I meant to do.
(and no, this isn't a hypothetical. This is a real issue.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Civil Forfeiture
"I've built a PC for every member of my family. My family has 50 people in it. Do you really expect me to buy multiple licenses for Windows?"
Yes, you greedy tightwad. Yes I do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Civil Forfeiture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Civil Forfeiture
P.S. No need to respond anymore to this AC, "it" has shown its true colors by not responding to what you have specifically said, but instead attempted to change the subject onto something it thinks it has a better chance at winning. As the saying goes, "Nothing to see here, move along... move along."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Civil Forfeiture
The bank analogy is to point out that no, in no way, should be held responsible to any degree or in any fashion whatsoever for the actions of another human being. You simply cannot "shoot the messenger" as the old saying goes. There's another old saying that applies, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" - something like that, anyway.
I'm 52 years old and apologize for "old sayings" but as you get older and experience more of life and the craziness of human nature, you understand why these old sayings stick around - they're spot on.
Personal responsibility is what it's all about. If I find every file sharing network I can and stick links to them on a web page, that does not make me any more guilty of a crime or of using the sites as it does the next guy/gal who may happen to lay eyes on the web page I put those links on. Which, in turn, makes me devoid of any criminal act unless it's proven I've "infringed copyright" - which merely linking to a site simply DOES. NOT. DO.
People make their own decisions in this life - others can't do that for them, not with a link, not with words.
As for my pen pal analogy - if you don't get it by now, never mind. I tried. I'll just agree to disagree on that one as I do believe it's very relevant. I was threatened with arrest for linking to a police station on a business web site for crying all night. I know what's possible from dictator wanna-be's so my sentiments come from experience, I just tried to keep the "me-ism" factor out of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Civil Forfeiture
They're called banksters for some reason, what do you suppose that would be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Civil Forfeiture
It's the pirates that want the US internet to look like China's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks ICE!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ICE =Customs
"It's pretty sad, because Homeland Security and the Justice Department are supposed to be about defending the Constitution, not ignoring it."
You should have a much better understanding of Customs history that I do. Customs since Roman times has always been about collecting the taxes and tariffs. Most of the time, the tariffs were supporting protectionist policies. In merry olde England, the tariffs didn't even need approval of Parliament. Although they are supposed to follow the constitution, Customs primary duty has not been protecting it but enforcing protectionist policies and collecting taxes
The Customs Service doing the bidding of commercial interests is entirely consistent with 2000 years of tradition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, your analogy is most certainly preposterous.
Anyone have a valid legal opinion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It may not be a bad idea to consider the points made rather than attempt a slam dunk just because you don't care for one or it doesn't suit your agenda or message, whichever applies.
Please don't ever run for office if you're in the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And yet another problem. People seem to look at the law to solve everything.
Why is no one looking at the ramifications of said law? Great, Hadopi passed the legislation. How's it holding up in stopping piracy?
Someone once said "for every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction". Maybe, just maybe, the domain seizures, horribad laws, and overall ineptitude of our politicians will make that opposite reaction appear as people look at the ramification of becoming a criminal for nothing more than a download.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And "stopping" piracy is a strawman; there will always be the dedicated sociopaths. Just like there will always be blogs like techdirt and torrentfreak obsessed with the culture of piracy.
Rebelling via ripping off musicians is the ultimate in pussy anarchism, btw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And would you also please define this "pussy anarchism" you speak of?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re1ease is back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re1ease is back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]