Police Arrest A Bunch Of Folks In Europe For Linking To Infringing Content

from the linking-=-crime dept

Thu, Jun 9th 2011 6:59pm — Mike Masnick

After the US lobbyists complained about Kino.to, an online site that linked to (but did not store, copy, reproduce, transmit, etc.) infringing works, apparently European law enforcement decided to "do something." Working off of a Dresden-based warrant, police raided homes in Germany, Spain, France and the Netherlands and arrested 13 people, with a 14th still being sought. The site was apparently quite popular in Germany, and with other German-speaking people around the globe. What I'm having trouble understanding is why this is a criminal operation, rather than a civil operation. Anyone who felt they were wronged by the site could have filed a civil suit. Furthermore, despite a number of similar operations, it's still immensely troubling to see people arrested for linking, rather than for violating any of the specific rights prescribed to copyright holders. I recognize, of course, that copyright holders are upset about sites that link to unauthorized versions of their works, but shouldn't the targets be those who actually are uploading the works, rather than those who are linking?

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: arrests, europe, kino.to, linking

140 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 7:18pm

More confused than thou
What I'm having trouble understanding is why this is a criminal operation, rather than a civil operation.

I don't even get why it'd be a civil operation. The people in question made no copies. How is that a violation of copyright?

In fact, they made it easier to find people who actually did make copies, so you'd think the rightsholders would be thanking them. I understand that they pay people to do this sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2011 @ 7:25pm

Though I'm not certain, they probably were profiteering from facilitating piracy by receiving ad revenues. You could make the same argument that people who link to child porn sites shouldn't be arrested. But you're not saying that, are you Masnick?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kaden (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 7:51pm
  
  Re:
  Your need to talk about child porn at any opportunity is deeply disturbing. I urge you to seek professional treatment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 6:20am
  
  Re:
  you could make the same argument that people who link to child porn sites shouldn't be arrested.
  
  So you think that people who link to child porn sites are stealing from the child porn industry and should b arrested for damaging the interests of child porn producers?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - D. Hope-Ross (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'd like to see Mr. Coward's response to this.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 7:05am
  
  Re:
  I would make that argument. Links on the internet are soft, and can change at any time. You shouldn't hold people liable for what's behind their links to others' pages. The people actually responsible for the content, not the finding of it, should be held responsible.
  
  Case in point: I don't think Google should ever be liable for child porn if it turns up in search results. If notified, they should probably de-index it, but they certainly shouldn't be arrested.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 7:42am
  
  Re:
  By making that argument, you seem to be implying the mere possession of any copyrighted work is illegal, since that's the case with C.P.
  
  I won't even disagree with you. This seem like the perfect way to get rid of copyright altogether - make it illegal to possess.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
6, 9 Jun 2011 @ 8:01pm

"What I'm having trouble understanding is why this is a criminal operation, rather than a civil operation."

Nazis?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael Lockyear, 10 Jun 2011 @ 3:02am
  
  ...the police were probably just following orders...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2011 @ 8:04pm

Nice dodge. Challenge remains. What's the difference? Reading the words of Masnick I infer that linking to anything is OK with him, because it's only linking not the actual offense. I used an extreme example and put him in a box. He (like you) has no place to go. Checkmate!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Poster, 9 Jun 2011 @ 8:10pm
  
  Re:
  Let's say that I link to a video someone else uploaded on YouTube that is violating an MPAA copyright.
  
  How am I liable for infringement of copyright if I neither uploaded the video nor made a copy of the video by posting the link?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 9 Jun 2011 @ 8:38pm
  
  Re:
  The act of linking to a different site that hosts copyrighted content is substantially different than linking to a site that hosts content involving the sexual abuse of minors.
  
  Any person who has ever been sexually abused would take significant offense that you would equate the two.
  
  Feel free to elaborate why these are equivalent issues that should be dealt with in the same manner.
  
  Dig that hole, copyright troll!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Interesting Masnick is absent from the discussion. I think that linking to child porn, infringing content or anything else prohibited under the law should likewise illegal. Apparently you believe that linking to child porn should be illegal but to infringing content not. The issue he raised is whether the act of linking to illegal content should itself be illegal. I say yes, he says no. But he can't say no without also acknowledging that decriminalizing sites that link to illegal content has some pretty serious consequences.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Casey Bouch (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The issue is that child porn is a criminal matter while infringement is a civil matter. Websites should be given notice that the material is infringing and be allowed the opportunity to take it down. It's not the responsibility of the website to determine what is infringing material either, as it's been discussed before, it can be very difficult to determine what constitutes infringement.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - R.H. (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 11:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      OK, I'll step up and get flamed if need be. I DON'T believe that simply linking to an illegal thing should be illegal. As far as infringing content is concerned if I don't host it or distribute it then I haven't done anything wrong. A hyperlink for example is a bunch of text. If that particular hyperlink text violates someones copyright, patent, or trademark then I've done something actionable.
      
      Copyright is, as a bit of an over-simplification, the RIGHT to make COPIES. Hyperlinks don't copy anything so a linker isn't breaking any laws as I see it.
      
      The same thing goes for your rather extreme child pornography example. I've seen some interesting and complex ASCII art in my time but I doubt that I can formulate a valid hyperlink that would qualify as child porn.
      
      Now I believe that there is a special place in hell for people who abuse children however I can't personally make the logical leap between the producers of that sort of material and a person typing out a hyperlink like I just did above.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 11:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think
      
      Sure bout that? Choose your words carefully.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rabbit80, 10 Jun 2011 @ 1:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      For someone to have linked to images of child porn, it is a fairly safe bet that they have visited that website and viewed or downloaded it. As such, their computer will contain copies of said CP - which is a criminal offense (in the UK it is considered an offense of making indecent images) - unlike making a copy of something which is copyright protected which is a civil offense.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - BeeAitch (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 12:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "For someone to have linked to images of child porn, it is a fairly safe bet that they have visited that website and viewed or downloaded it."
        
        Wrong. Consider the case where one person creates a link to legal, non-fringing material and then the source is replaced with infringing or illegal content.
        
        Should the linker be held responsible for checking his links 24/7 to make sure they still point to what was originally linked? Seems impossible for the linker.
        
        In order to stay out of jail, one would have to not link at all. This would break the internet as we know it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2011 @ 12:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That is simply untrue unless all or most of the websites that the link site lists somehow magically replace their legit content with illegal content. Read the bill and stop spreading lies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DandonTRJ (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 1:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Not all illegal things are equivalent. When we discuss copyright law, we talk about the trade-off it needs to maintain between incentivizing authors and not chilling speech/expression/progress. You can infringe copyright accidentally, thinking you're using a work fairly or that the act is somehow authorized. I don't believe there is any similar "out" when you've linked to child porn.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Spaceboy (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 3:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      @Anonymous Coward
      
      You're an idiot. Child porn itself is illegal. Movies and music are not, unless of course they are child porn. Are you saying that people that link to child porn should be arrested for copyright infringement?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Michael Lockyear, 10 Jun 2011 @ 3:23am
      
      If I link to a webpage (the actual content does not matter as most content is subject to copyright), how I am I to know whether or not it has been copied without the permission of the copyright holder?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 11 Jun 2011 @ 10:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      think that linking to child porn, infringing content or anything else prohibited under the law should likewise illegal.
      
      Thus proving beyond doubt that you are an idiot.
      
      You see there is nothing to stop the website that you link to from changing the target from something legal to something illegal after you set up the link. How anyone can be held responsible for that is beyond me.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2011 @ 12:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You see there is nothing to stop the website that you link to from changing the target from something legal to something illegal after you set up the link. How anyone can be held responsible for that is beyond me.
        
        Was just going to mention that. So many people pop off about stuff they don't know about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeni (profile), 12 Jun 2011 @ 5:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well exactly. And no one is "forced" to follow any link.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris, 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I think you missed his point. He wasn't equating copyright infringement with distribution of child pornography. He was merely remarking on where the line of guilt falls in the two scenarios. Mike was saying that if someone doesn't host a file, just links to it, then they should not be liable for people connecting to the content. But if someone links to a site with child porn, they are not the ones hosting it, they are not the ones in possession of it. How are they aiding in distribution any more than people linking to copyrighted content? Not saying I think the people in this article are guilty, but I think it's an important question to be able to answer, not just brush off. I know we all have our minds made up already, but it's only prudent to be able to see both sides.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - taoareyou, 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Do we have arrests and prosecutions on record for someone only linking to child porn sites but not actually transmitting or storing the images?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - FuzzyDuck, 10 Jun 2011 @ 12:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Probably not.
        
        Judging by how often they arrest child abusers vs. how often they arrest copyright "infringers" it's clear that the police cares more about protecting revenue for big business than it does about little children.
        
        There was recently a case in Holland, where several parents had complained to police over several years about their suspicions but police did nothing, they didn't even investigate just brushed it off. Dozens of babies and small children where abused by that a*hole over those years - which could have been stopped a lot earlier where it not for police inaction.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 3:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In the UK at least, making available child porn is a criminal offense, even if only linking to it (quite rightly so)
        
        The difference to infringing copyright is the Hollywood movies themselves are not actually illegal (although maybe some should be ;) ), just the way they`ve been reproduced, so you`re not linking to outright illegal content, as you would be if you linked to child porn.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        taoareyou, 10 Jun 2011 @ 8:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Although one could argue that an unauthorized copy of content is in fact illegal.
        
        Personally, I agree that linking to something is not a violation of law. If I drive around town and locate all the best places to find prostitutes then I put this information on the Internet, I am technically pointing people to something illegal. I'm not a lawyer, but that information I provided is publicly available, I'm just compiling it.
        
        Some people may visit my site and go visit the prostitutes, which would be illegal (at least in my town). But I am not responsible for their actions.
        
        Linking to websites that offer illegal things is really the same in my eyes. The information is publicly available. I am not telling anyone to do anything illegal. I am just compiling the information. Each person is responsible for their actions. But as far as I know, giving directions to prostitutes or naming websites isn't against the law in the US.
        
        I also agree with those who point out that such websites are free research for those people looking to find illegal content online. I'm sure the police could use my theoretical prostitute site to set up stings.
        
        On the subject of the child porn links site. I think it would make a difference if it was a list of direct links set up by the website owner. That could infer that the site owner has visited and viewed these sites and that, from what I understand is quite illegal.
        
        The owner of a torrent site is unlikely to have personally visited, downloaded and viewed/listened to the unauthorized content.
        
        In one case, the site owner is committing a crime certainly, in the other case, maybe not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 11 Jun 2011 @ 10:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In the UK at least, making available child porn is a criminal offense, even if only linking to it (quite rightly so)
        
        Citation needed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chillienet (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 8:51pm
  
  I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
  Legally created digital media is, well, legal. Child porn is not. Finding free digital media online and linking to it to show others where to find it is legal. Finding child porn online and linking to it is sick (and also [probably though IANAL] illegal.)
  
  Do you see the difference yet?
  
  No? I didn't think you would (troll handbook rule 1: never understand the other sides arguments.)
  
  How about this then. It has been shown time and time again how difficult it is to know what is infringing on someones copyright, what is not infringing, and what the rights holder have, themselves, put online for free (youtube - viacom anyone?). It is easy to tell that an image of naked little children getting it on is sick, disturbing, and illegal.
  
  Regardless of if the site hosting the links knows the copyright status of the media it is linking to, the removal of the linking site does absolutely nothing to remove the infringing material from the Internet. Where as if the rights holders went directly to the source of the infringing material and had it taken down then the (perceived) problem of the linking site will be solved at the same time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - chillienet (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:10pm
    
    Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
    I would just like to add to the end of my above post that rights holders should actually be thanking the linking sites for showing them where the infringing media is actually being hosted.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chris, 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:12pm
      
      Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
      chillienet, that's just silly. That's like saying that a bank should thank a bank robber for breaking into their vault and showing them that they need a better door.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Matt Jones (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 4:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
        It's a lot more like a guy walking into a bank, telling them there is a hole in the wall leading directly from outside into the vault, and being arrested for breaking into the bank.
        
        (Copyright is not equal to theft, so both analogies break down obviously)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Matt Jones (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 4:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
        ...Copyright *infringement* is not equal to theft...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 10 Jun 2011 @ 8:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
        I'm glad you corrected that. I would argue that copyright is equal to theft these days, theft from the public domain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:14pm
    
    Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
    Infringing content is illegal as is pornographic images of children. And certainly the latter is far more grave and sickening than the former. If Site A links to child porn and site B links to infringing content and neither host infringing material or child porn under the theory advanced in Masnick's article neither should be subject to the sorts of arrests that took place. I disagree. Sites that primarily exist to serve as directories to other sites engaged in illegal activity bear some liability too. The problem for Masnick and other apologists is that the specious free speech arguments fall apart when applied to examples like child porn and illegal drugs are substituted.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:23pm
      
      Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
      Infringement can only be found in a court, usually during a civil action. Child porn is illegal without question. Do you see the difference?
      
      Substituting something that is an infringement of civil law for something that is an infringement of criminal law breaks your arguments, but anyone that points that out is an apologist, right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chris, 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
        You've explained how the offenses are different, but you have yet to explain why that changes the issue. Assuming that the content on the website in question was found, in a court, to be infringing, would that then make those linking to it responsible? In both scenarios, the content they are linking to is illegal without question.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        martyburns (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 2:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
        You hit the nail on the head..
        
        content on the website in question was found, in a court, to be infringing
        
        it has to be found by a COURT to be infringing. So the linker is in no state to decide if what he is linking to is illegal (in the case of copyright material). If it was KP though then he would be expected to know. See the difference? IF not then you are deluding yourself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
        I'm no expert on European criminal law, but I'd bet that if the law enabled authorities to arrest those linking to infringing sites that the operators of infringing sites are likewise subject to arrest under those same laws. That seems to me that the case is criminal, not civil. But I'm happy to listen to your explanation of how people are placed under arrest in four European countries for violations of civil rather than criminal law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 10:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
        'What I'm having trouble understanding is why this is a criminal operation, rather than a civil operation. Anyone who felt they were wronged by the site could have filed a civil suit. '
        
        How is it a criminal offense? That hasn't been explained, either. I believe that question was posed, first, so you're still at bat, sir.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 11:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
        Because, in certain countries, it was forced on them by TRiPS. All the changes to change it from a civil to a criminal action came into effect after TRiPs. For example, here in the UK it is a civil offense, unless combined with another criminal offense. In Finland, IIRC, it is a criminal matter.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - chillienet (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:49pm
      
      Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
      I was halfway through a reply continuing with the site A/site B, child porn/infringement comparisons but decided that playing by your rules isn't going to benefit anyone. You see your analogy falls apart when you have a look at the differences between child porn and copyright infringement.
      
      Firstly, child porn is classed as a criminal matter where as copyright infringement, in most cases, is a civil matter.
      
      Secondly, child porn is child porn regardless of how you look at it. Digital media may or may not be infringing on someones copyright and it is very difficult for someone who is not the rights holder to know which it is. I notice that you skipped over my reference to youtube/viacom.
      
      The problem for copyright maximalist and other apologists is that the specious copyright arguments fall apart when applied to examples like real life. (You can ignore this sentence, it's just me having a dig at you and feeding the trolls [ie. you.]) :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2011 @ 10:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
        ".... where as copyright infringement, in most cases, is a civil matter."
        
        The guys weren't arrested for jaywalking.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 11:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
        The guys weren't arrested for jaywalking.
        
        Of course not, that could actually harm people.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Atkray (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 11:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
        Arrested on trumped up or false charges is not the same as a guilty conviction.
        
        If you wish to supply us with your real name I'm confident that it could be arranged for you to be arrested.
        
        Why it could even be arranged for you to be arrested for both infringement and child porn.
        
        Perhaps that would help you understand.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - FuzzyDuck, 10 Jun 2011 @ 12:34am
      
      Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
      > Infringing content is illegal as is pornographic images of children.
      
      No it's not "as illegal".
      
      Childporn images are always illegal. There is no legal way to acquire them ever.
      
      With infringing files it's a question of how the files were obtained. But the files themselves do not contain illegal material.
      
      Big difference. And in any case copying for personal use is not illegal in all countries, for instance Holland.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- FuzzyDuck, 9 Jun 2011 @ 11:59pm
  
  Re:
  Only a sick mind would use the issue of childporn for his own benefit. I think it's quite telling that MAFIAA shills do that.
  
  With childporn the material itself is illegal, it's even evidence of a crime. Possession is a criminal offense.
  
  This is an entirely different ballgame.
  
  However even with links to childporn there are issues. What for instance if someone linked to a porn site that later added childporn?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 3:39am
  
  Re: Check, mate
  as someone who was abused as a kid by a monk (he went to jail eventually), i don't understand your argument. Linking is not illegal, or shouldn't be. It may be morally wrong to link to child porn - though not always - as in 'look cops, heres a child porn site' - but it should not be illegal. Just like linking to torrents or catholic websites should not be illegal (even though the Catholic church seem to encourage child porn (pet annoyance: molesting priests get moved on to pastures fresh, but catholic priestesses get excommunication).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeni (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 3:43am
  
  Re:
  "Checkmate!!!"
  
  Nope, not even close...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 6:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    So which is it? Should the operation of a website that exists for the purpose of linking to other sites containing illegal content be legal or illegal? Child porn, disseminating copyrighted content, selling bogus prescription medication and narcotics are all illegal. Masnick says the mere act of linking shouldn't be illegal. I disagree. So either he has to say that the act of linking to illegal sites containing infringing content is OK, but not linking to child porn, narcotics, etc. That would blow up his whole argument that linking per se shouldn't be illegal. Or he can say that operating a site that merely links others to other websites containing illegal content like child porn, narcotics and bogus medications which would be really troubling. Don't expect him to come out and defend his position. He knows it's checkmate and will cower until this thread dies out.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jason, 10 Jun 2011 @ 8:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Should the operation of a website that exists for the purpose of linking to other sites containing illegal content be legal or illegal? "
      
      The initial question was not about a site "existing for the purpose of" but for sites that "link to." You've got to realize that as you keep shifting the degree of involvement to insinuate greater guilt you're also shifting the burden of proof.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- beckerist, 10 Jun 2011 @ 7:17am
  
  wrong
  The difference is that child pornography is a disgusting crime with victims that can be not only affected for the rest of their lives, but perpetrators that are clinically sick.
  
  There is no comparison.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Stuart, 10 Jun 2011 @ 8:34am
  
  Re:
  There is no difference.
  
  Child porn is an abomination and because of the way it makes people feel and the fact that defense of CP in anyway somehow feels as if it makes you a pedo. People over react and do away with basic rights and protections under the law when it comes to child porn.
  
  In fact the 2 are very similar. In both cases the governments spend much more effort going after the person linking to or downloading or possessing "Infringing Content" or "Images of CP" than they do those who are actually doing the harm. The uploaders and those creating the CP.
  
  At least with the CP it is because of the horror of being affiliated in any way with CP. With file sharing it is only because the governments have been bought and paid for by those who have the IP.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2011 @ 12:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    The only thing worse that a child molester is a homosexual, with a child molesting homosexual being the worse type.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 9 Jun 2011 @ 8:22pm

Except the "extreme example", as you put it, has nothing to do with the issue at hand. You're purposefully introducing a subject that people feel strongly about emotionally in order to cloud a rational debate.

Also, if you wouldn't mind, please call him "Mr. Masnick" if you must address him by his last name. I've never met the man, and probably never will, but let's be polite at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2011 @ 8:43pm
  
  Re:
  "Except the "extreme example", as you put it, has nothing to do with the issue at hand. You're purposefully introducing a subject that people feel strongly about emotionally in order to cloud a rational debate."
  
  It has everything to do with the issue at hand. Masnick contends that the mere acting of linking is not wrong. So either it's OK or it's not OK. Pick one.
  
  "Also, if you wouldn't mind, please call him "Mr. Masnick" if you must address him by his last name. I've never met the man, and probably never will, but let's be polite at least."
  
  I do mind. I give him all the respect his zealotry earns him.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Any Mouse (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:26pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Anyone who holds a passionate position opposing your own is a zealot, too, then? Natch.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - taoareyou, 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Those unable to give respect to their opponent deserve none in return. Being disrespectful to people you disagree with is not a strength.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws.org (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 11:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Pick one.
    
    Or simply ignore the obvious troll. Checkmate.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 12:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    And thus, the obsidian pot gets stirred.
    
    Mere linking to a copyrighted work is not criminal. Linking to something illegal (such as al-Mujihadeen's website - Terrorist links, or to child porn, where there is actual, provable harm) is different.
    
    The fact that you would argue otherwise implies that you, too, are a zealot of a higher order than Mike.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 6:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      eejit, I assume that must be a bastardized spelling of the word "idiot". What does "actual, provable harm" mean? Whose standard is that, yours? The law defines what's illegal or not. Who do you suppose is the arbiter of actual, provable harm? Lawmakers, judges, individuals? Masnick is in a box on this. That's why he hasn't said a word. He knows it and is smart enough to hide.
      
      And apparently it is criminal as Masnick points out in the article, people were arrested. So that argument is a pile of shit too.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 7:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When I say, actual provable harm, I actually mean that it must result in harm (either physical or psychologiacal in nature) to the person. ID theft has actual, provable harm. Theft has actual, provable harm. Copyright infringement does not have the provable or the actual component of harm.
        
        The fact that you, repeatedly, do not get this distinguishment is completely beyond me. It was forced criminality on the nations involved by TRiPS, then the whining by the IFPI et al.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jason, 10 Jun 2011 @ 8:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "And apparently it is criminal as Masnick points out in the article, people were arrested. So that argument is a pile of shit too."
        
        Well I'm no expert on piles of shit, but I do know that begging the question is a logical fallacy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2011 @ 8:36pm

"Let's say that I link to a video someone else uploaded on YouTube that is violating an MPAA copyright.

How am I liable for infringement of copyright if I neither uploaded the video nor made a copy of the video by posting the link?"

I don't know what the european laws are on the subject. Under Protect IP in order to be actionable the linking site would have to be both dedicated to infringing activities AND have no other significant commercial purpose. So using your example, I'd say the answer is no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chillienet (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:05pm
  
  Re:
  "Under Protect IP in order to be actionable the linking site would have to be both dedicated to infringing activities AND have no other significant commercial purpose."
  
  So does this mean that The Pirate Bay would be fine under PIPA? It is a website that is dedicated to the free sharing of digital files, regardless of the copyright status of those files. It has been used by thousands of artists to promote themselves and to connect with their fans. It is also a treasure trove of public domain and creative commons works.
  
  So the Pirate Bay is not "dedicated to infringing activities" (it just does not care...) and it has "other significant commercial purpose." So it's fine, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:16pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You'll have to check with the U.S. Attorney's office on that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - chillienet (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Strange, you seemed so sure of yourself when talking about child porn, I just assumed you would continue to be sure of yourself when talking about PIPA.....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2011 @ 10:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "So does this mean that The Pirate Bay would be fine under PIPA?"
        
        Didn't you ask about Pirate Bay? I don't go to Pirate Bay, so I don't know about Pirate Bay. Under Protect IP a rights holder or US Attorney would have to analyze the site and present evidence to a judge who would in turn render a decision on whether it meets the criteria to be deemed a rogue site.
        
        But you knew this already didn't you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nicedoggy, 9 Jun 2011 @ 11:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Translation:
        
        The judge will decide what constitutes a rogue site without having to explain himself to anybody.
        
        Wonderful, that is why I don't respect the "law".
        
        That is also why when I transcoded all my DVD's to the android format so my wife could watch them at her launch and trade those movies with her friends I felt no guilt about it.
        
        If sharing music and movies is a crime, I'm hardcore man!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 5:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The judge will decide what constitutes a rogue site without having to explain himself to anybody"
        
        What do you think judges do? If a judge finds you at fault in an auto accident, exactly who do you think he owes an explanation to?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Still love moving the goalposts with bad analogies I see.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 11:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Didn't you ask about Pirate Bay? I don't go to Pirate Bay, so I don't know about Pirate Bay.
        
        But to sites hosting child porn? Or why keep you going on about it like a self-proclaimed expert?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 9 Jun 2011 @ 8:57pm

Then be assured, we will give you the respect you deserve in return.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:18pm
  
  Re:
  Dave, do your worst. I won't get my feeling hurt if you don't call me mister.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 12:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    Well, Dolores, How about a little fun trip down the road we call The Yellow Brick?
    
    Because that's what we're living in - an age where people are strying from the Yellow Brick Road, and would much rather do things their way than yours. They like playing in the Forbidden Forest of copying. Copying is an act of sharing, not always an act of harming.
    
    Children have not had the development to consent to sexual acts, thus they are protected by the rule of law.
    
    You cannto see the difference between the two, because you choose not to. And that bothsaddens and sickens me, expecially seeing as you think that only "experts in the field" can comment on the situation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 6:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Well, Dolores, How about a little fun trip down the road we call The Yellow Brick?"
      
      Umm, it's Dorothy idiot. Go steal a copy of the Wizard of Oz.
      
      "Because that's what we're living in - an age where people are strying from the Yellow Brick Road, and would much rather do things their way than yours. They like playing in the Forbidden Forest of copying. Copying is an act of sharing, not always an act of harming."
      
      The law says that copying copyrighted works is illegal, not sharing. Sorry that you disagree with what the law says.
      
      "Children have not had the development to consent to sexual acts, thus they are protected by the rule of law."
      
      Agreed. And the rule of law likewise protects copyright owners.
      
      "You cannto see the difference between the two, because you choose not to. And that bothsaddens and sickens me, expecially seeing as you think that only "experts in the field" can comment on the situation.""
      
      I do see the difference in degrees of harm, but both equally violate the law. And feel free to comment away, Masnick is no expert in the field and he feels free to blather away, why shouldn't you?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 6:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I do see the difference in degrees of harm, but both equally violate the law.
        
        Not all laws are equal. South Africa, (pre 1990) had laws against theft, murder etc. It also had apartheid laws you cannot equate the violation of different laws that simply and some laws cannot be defended morally.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 7:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And why shouldn't you? Apparently, you're an eexpert in sexually abusing children, because you comment about it, and claim you're in a position to do so, by your own logic.
        
        Moreover, how can you own a copyright? A copyright is granted, not sold. There's a big difference.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ron Rezendes (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 8:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So according to you copyright infringement and child pornography are equal. You are a deeply disturbed individual, at best.
        
        It really is a sick and twisted little world you live in. One that I will be sure to keep my children away from since you are a self proclaimed expert in these two fields. I was curious about whether you have spent your "10,000 hours" becoming an expert on both of these subjects but then THAT thought sickens me even more...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jay (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        " And the rule of law likewise protects copyright owners."
        
        HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA
        
        Oh wait, hold on... HAHAHAHA!
        
        How does copyright actually protect an owner from bad publicity of copyright enforcement, loss of income when a movie is crap, or someone else posting up a new link to new content.
        
        Face it, the idea that copyright protects you along with the very idea of "intellectual property" have the same thing in common.
        
        It's all in your head.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:44pm

May be more to this than simply linking
According to a number of people over on Slashdot they were also involved with and profiting from the sites they linked to. (And not just profiting from ad-revenue).

Apparently the German press has more details, but I don't speak German so I couldn't find a link easily.

There's probably more to it than in the linked article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:58pm

Not for infringing
This quote from the article, which Mike doesn't seem to have even read is more indicative of why these people were arrested.

Commenting on the raids the German Federation Against Copyright Theft (GVU) claims that Kino.to made �significant revenue� through a �parasitic business model.� GVU states that Kino.to was working closely with the sites that hosted the copyrighted films, and that they profited from commercial partnerships with these companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:59pm
  
  Re: Not for infringing
  Subject should be not for linking**.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Any Mouse (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 10:08pm
  
  Re: Not for infringing
  We're to take the word of an industry mouthpiece, then. Right. We want to see the filing against them, actually.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- LyleD, 9 Jun 2011 @ 10:21pm
  
  Re: Not for infringing
  Isn't that what the Mafiaa have said about every site they've targeted? Just look at the results for the UK raids and arrests.. They've consistently failed to prosecute anyone because IFACT and their like have basically lied and overstated the facts every time..
  
  That statements worth nothing and make you look like an industry shill trying to prove a bad point.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nicedoggy, 9 Jun 2011 @ 11:20pm
  
  Re: Not for infringing
  Yep, that is standard boiler plate allegations that probably won't hold in court, in Europe they like to jail people but when they get to court judges set those people free is just hilarious how the law enforcement in Europe manages to be more stupid than their U.S. counterparts.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 11:42pm
  
  LOL GVU!
  GVU is hardly impartial, they have an agenda since they earn a lot of money hunting "pirates" and they are often stupid enough to mess it up.
  
  Also the GVU is pulling numbers out of their asses on a regular basis. Kino.to is said to have made millions in revenue (by alledgedly also running some file hosters) but anyone not a total fool takes this with a grain of salt as they do with the alledged damage claimed to be in the seven figures range. Yeah, right.
  
  BTW, to know where those guys come from you just need to savor this notion by the VAP's (the GVU's Austrian equivalent) manager from before the raids: "Despite all of that - even if kino.to continues to operate from the digital Abbottabad - the rightsholder will win eventually just because they are in the right."
  
  Equating file sharing with terrorism and mass murder. You gotta love it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jun 2011 @ 11:48pm
  
  Re: Not for infringing
  Silly, facts don't matter to Masnick.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 2:02am
    
    Re: Re: Not for infringing
    Silly, facts don't matter to Masnick.
    
    Too bad these are not facts but simply allegations (by the GVU, no less). Troll harder.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- FuzzyDuck, 10 Jun 2011 @ 12:17am
  
  Re: Not for infringing
  Copyright Theft?
  
  If I steal someone's copyrights, doesn't that mean that I own the copyrights after that? Kind of like what the MAFIAA does when they force artists to hand over copyrights to them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sssbbb, 9 Jun 2011 @ 11:18pm

dumb gov
day after day, civil/people get less and less power to the already powerful entity, that powerful inclined to suck in more power. The powerful in the hand of the dumb just have no job to do, no place to go, so it break all barrier, eat the rights of human. Civil with no rights became things, locked animals. All lights will be blocked, dark loomed, crashes are surely waiting to sink human down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
darryl, 10 Jun 2011 @ 12:05am

Criminal Vs Civil - do you understand the difference ?
What I'm having trouble understanding is why this is a criminal operation, rather than a civil operation

That is because you appear to have a total lack of understanding the difference between Civil law and Criminal Law.

If you understood those two simple concepts then you would have far less trouble in your "understanding" of 'things'..

you see copyright is LAW, its set out in your GOVERNMENTS LAWS statutes.

If it is a law and you break that law if is a criminal action (you commited a crime).

Copyright is NOT a "civil" Rule, IT IS A LAW.

It is a law enforeced by the Government to protect it's citizens.

It is no different to the Law against murder, if you murder someone you may consider it a 'civil' crime, (after all you did not kill the Government) but you did break a LAW.

You committed a crime, therefore you are acted on under CRIMINAL LAW..

The only difference between Civil action and criminal action is about WHO takes the action.

I citizen takes civil action, the legal system takes out criminal action.

If you are robbed, and you know who stole from you, and you inform the police and they state they cannot do anything about it. you have a right to "prosacute" them on your own behelf, and not get the police to do it for you.

OJ Simpson, was charged with Criminal Murder, he 'got off' he was then charged IN CIVIL court, by the victums family with "wrongfull death" he was found GUILTY....

Does being "civil" or "criminal" make the act any better or worse ?

The lady is still DEAD, but is it "not as bad" because he was 'only' charged and convicted under "civil" law and not criminal law ?

Or is it that you just dont want to know Mike ? because it makes you look rather silly, when you state you "dont understand things"..

That fact we are allready well aware of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 12:16am
  
  Re: Criminal Vs Civil - do you understand the difference ?
  "Wisest is he who knows he does not know"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 2:05am
  
  Re: Criminal Vs Civil - do you understand the difference ?
  Darryl fails again. No surprise there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeni (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 3:58am
    
    Re: Re: Criminal Vs Civil - do you understand the difference ?
    No kidding. Comparing copyright to murder? Are you kidding me?
    
    Who IS this "darryl" person? From what planet is s/he?
    
    What an odd one.
    
    Anyway, it's a sad state of affairs when someone is arrested for a hyperlink, no matter what it's too. I continue to stand by that belief. If something is "so horrible" go after the "so horrible", not the link to it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 5:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Criminal Vs Civil - do you understand the difference ?
      You may not like it, but Darryl and his other brother Darryl actually have it right. A law is a law is a law, there is no way around it. The difference is only that some laws have different methods for remedy, depending on circumstance.
      
      US Copyright law is interesting because there are civil remedies, but there are also criminal aspects as well. Understanding that both exist is important for those seeking to understand the legal implications of breaking copyright law.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 6:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Criminal Vs Civil - do you understand the difference ?
        No, he has it wrong. He said that you are liable for criminal prosecution for breaking ANY law. This is simply untrue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DogBreath, 10 Jun 2011 @ 9:00am
  
  Re: Criminal Vs Civil - do you understand the difference ?
  Copyright is NOT a "civil" Rule, IT IS A LAW.
  
  It is a law enforeced by the Government to protect it's citizens.
  
  It is a law enforced by the Government to protect it's "corporations/companies".
  
  There, fixed it for you.:)
  
  The "citizens" don't stand a chance in hell when the deck keeps getting reshuffled in the dealers(companies/corporations/governments) favor.
  
  A political difference when it comes to LAW?:
  
  Capitalism: A government that is owned by all the companies.
  
  Communism: A government that owns the all the companies.
  
  No matter what "ism" is chosen or the intentions, the end result is always the same. Everything is done in the "best interest of the people", but only the governments/companies/corporations get to really decide what is "best" and in "their interest".
  
  This is the ultimate reason why governments fall. Rot from within.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 5:46am

From The-Silence-Is-Deafening-Department
Where's Masnick? I see his army of lickspittles desperately trying to dig him out of the ridiculous hole he dug, but not Masnick himself. C'mon Mike. You have posted other articles since you dropped this turd of an assertion on the floor.

So what is it Masnick? Should a website merely linking to other sites that containing illegal content, whether copyright infringing, child porn, narcotics, bogus prescription drugs. etc. be legal and held harmless? That's what you seem to be advocating. I just want figure out whether you are a hypocrite who believes that the act of linking to illegal content is OK for some sites but not others; or if you actually believe that it's OK to operate a site that directs others to child porn, narcotics, etc.

I suspect the former, because the latter is really indefensible, even for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pixelation, 10 Jun 2011 @ 6:19am
  
  Re: From The-Silence-Is-Deafening-Department
  Mike didn't discuss the legality of linking. What he said was...
  "shouldn't the targets be those who actually are uploading the works, rather than those who are linking?"
  
  I'm against child porn. That said, I think just linking to it shouldn't be a crime. If anything, as has been pointed out before, it will help law enforcement find the creeps.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 6:35am
  
  Re: From The-Silence-Is-Deafening-Department
  . I just want figure out whether you are a hypocrite who believes that the act of linking to illegal content is OK for some sites but not others; or if you actually believe that it's OK to operate a site that directs others to child porn, narcotics, etc.
  
  You don't seem to understand what linking actually is. Linking is telling people where something is.
  
  Linking to the activities of regular criminals simply helps the police to find them. There is no sensible reason for making it illegal. You don't make it illegal to shout "stop thief" if you witness a street robbery.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 6:48am
  
  Re: From The-Silence-Is-Deafening-Department
  That's what you seem to be advocating.
  
  Dumb troll is dumb. What a surprise.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:29am
    
    Re: Re: From The-Silence-Is-Deafening-Department
    No, Buck seems to enjoy conflating porn, rape, and copyright laws. Sad that he's taken such a low road but I guess desperate times cause for desperate measures.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 3:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: From The-Silence-Is-Deafening-Department
      MAybe we should show him the newly-uncertified Human Centipede: Second Sequence. He can get all of his kinks out in one go.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeni (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 3:32pm
  
  Re: From The-Silence-Is-Deafening-Department
  Shut down all the search engines. AC's cannot and WILL NOT TOLERATE LINKAGE!
  
  Got that everyone?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 6:39am

"'I'm against child porn. That said, I think just linking to it shouldn't be a crime. If anything, as has been pointed out before, it will help law enforcement find the creeps."

Yes, but it helps millions of creeps find sick new outlets for their perversions. I think I'd rather task law enforcement with investigating if the cost is enabling easier access to these sub-human deviates that find sexual gratification in children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 8:00am
  
  Re:
  And yet, they can also be couselled away from acting on that through this. I find it amusing that you would much rather punish people before proving that harm was done, rather than counsel away from something that does harm.
  
  That's absurdism of the highest order.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 8:07am
  
  Re:
  So you're saying you'd like to get rid of sites that link to people who produce child porn? That would make it harder for law enforcement to find the producers. Why are you trying to protect people who make child porn?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 8:11am
  
  Re:
  Yes, but it helps millions of creeps find sick new outlets for their perversions.
  Not if law enforcement gets there first!
  
  Besides which the real harm in child porn is NOT "creeps find sick new outlets for their perversions." but rather the harm done to children. Once the images have been created that process has finished. There is no practical value in stopping the people who will only look from seeing those images but there is great utility in finding those who do the creating.
  
  What you are in favour of is stopping an imaginary harm whilst failing to stop a real one - - but then for someone who is addicted to imaginary property I suppose that isn't a surprise.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Albert Kesselring, 10 Jun 2011 @ 6:41am

It's Germany...
It's Germany... what did you expect?

May the Goose-stepping begin!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tired of all the crap..., 10 Jun 2011 @ 8:02am

Is this the same as..
Wouldn't it be the same as arresting someone for telling their friends, that they could go buy the bootleg cassette tapes of VanHalen at the FleaMarket Booth #43?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 8:08am
  
  Re: Is this the same as..
  I'm sure the GVU would favor that too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 9:01am

I wonder what would happen in Europe if I told someone (word-of-mouth) where they could purchase illegal recreational drugs...would I be arrested?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 9:12am

I'll Say It
No one should ever be arrested for a link. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2011 @ 7:14am
  
  Re: I'll Say It
  At least you have the balls to say it Chris. Which is more than I can say for Masnick, who apparently also believes it but runs and hides when the practical ramifications are discussed.
  
  I disagree that it's OK to run a website for the purpose of linking to sites offering narcotics, fake medicine, counterfeit goods, infringing content, child porn, etc.
  
  The practice is illegal. Do you have a legal or constitutional basis for your position?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 11 Jun 2011 @ 9:29am
    
    Re: Re: I'll Say It
    The practice is illegal. Do you have a legal or constitutional basis for your position?
    
    I went looking and couldn't find any evidence of anyone being convicted for linking to child porn in any country. Do you have any reference to back up your position?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2011 @ 12:24am
    
    Re: Re: I'll Say It
    The practice is illegal. Do you have a legal or constitutional basis for your position?
    
    The first amendment to the U.S. constitution. Go look it up.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2011 @ 6:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re: I'll Say It
      @AC:
      
      "The practice is illegal. Do you have a legal or constitutional basis for your position?
      
      The first amendment to the U.S. constitution. Go look it up."
      
      Funny, the leading 1st Amendment scholar in the United States testified before the House Judiciary IP Subcommittee and said just the opposite. Go look it up.
      
      Or perhaps elaborate on your own 1st Amendment credentials
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2011 @ 7:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll Say It
        Funny, the leading 1st Amendment scholar in the United States testified before the House Judiciary IP Subcommittee and said just the opposite. Go look it up.
        
        Actually, the leading 1st Amendment scholar in the United States said no such thing. Why would you lie like that?
        
        Or perhaps elaborate on your own 1st Amendment credentials
        
        And yours are?
        
        Yeah, that's what I thought.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2011 @ 9:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll Say It
        Obviously you are either too lazy to do the research or too stupid to understand what Mr. Abrams wrote. In the event it's to former, here's a link to his letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee:
        
        http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/30a27707-9da9-4cf3-b642-4fb949969102.pdf
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 12 Jun 2011 @ 10:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll Say It
        According to Abrams, who is in favor of PROTECT IP, linking is not copyright infringement. So I guess try again if you have any other references.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2011 @ 11:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll Say It
        @nasch:
        
        "According to Abrams, who is in favor of PROTECT IP, linking is not copyright infringement. So I guess try again if you have any other references."
        
        You are simply a liar. Or are torturously parsing words for the purpose of deceit. Read Abrams letter beginning with the last paragraph on page 9 continuing through the first two paragraphs of page 10. He clearly lays out the constitutional framework to include linking sites for action under the Protect IP Act. Sorry you don't agree with his conclusions. However, the man's credentials are unimpeachable and other than the "constitutional scholars" appearing on Techdirt, no one has made a constitutional argument against the Protect IP Act that I have seen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 3:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll Say It
        Actually I hadn't read that far. I stopped after the top of page 5, where he'd described copyright infringement as defined by 17 USC, and it clearly doesn't include linking (linking isn't reproduction, distribution, or public performance). I do indeed disagree with his conclusion that linking can be copyright infringement, unless PROTECT IP actually modifies the definition of what constitutes infringement. I haven't heard that that's the case, but I doubt I would be able to understand the law if I tried to read it. Do you know?
        
        I also find it disturbing that he says linking can be disallowed "even if a linking website does not technically host infringing content". It's not a technicality. Either they have the content or they do not. It makes me wonder if he really understands what he's talking about. Would he consider it copyright infringement to give directions to a bookstore that violated copyright?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2011 @ 4:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll Say It
        What kind of douchebag reads only half of a brief and draws the opposite conclusion than brief does? I'm guessing another piracy apologist grasping at straws to support his ability to continue to freeload.
        
        Protect IP Act allows actions against websites "dedicated to infringing activities. A site constructed for the purpose of directing visitors to other sites that carry infringing content is certainly "dedicated to infringing activities". Protect IP also has injunctive remedies against Information Location Tools which would include such linking sites.
        
        How you can read half of a brief, draw the opposite conclusion of the writer and then turn around and question whether the author "really understands what he's talking about" is simply laughable. The man is the former Solicitor General of the United States and has argued more 1st Amendment cases before the Supreme Court than perhaps any other lawyer still alive. And you question whether he knows what HE is talking about?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 10:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll Say It
        What kind of douchebag reads only half of a brief and draws the opposite conclusion than brief does?
        
        What kind of douchebag (by your reasoning Abrams is a douchebag) writes half of a brief and then comes to the opposite conclusion when writing the second half?
        
        A site constructed for the purpose of directing visitors to other sites that carry infringing content is certainly "dedicated to infringing activities".
        
        No, that is actually not certain. Because many people (me, for example) don't believe there's anything infringing about a hyperlink. Therefore they cannot constitute dedication to infringing activties.
        
        The man is the former Solicitor General of the United States and has argued more 1st Amendment cases before the Supreme Court than perhaps any other lawyer still alive.
        
        What are his credentials regarding internet technology? I haven't seen anything about that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 3:12pm

Wow Mike Masnick has the apologist brigade out in full force. What's wrong Mike are you unable to pull your foot out of your mouth and speak for yourself. Your silence speaks louder than their words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeni (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 4:03pm
  
  Re:
  Gee AC, give the guy a chance - crosses my mind that perhaps he doesn't just sit here all day waiting with baited breath for a "challenge" from you...but what do I know, I guess.
  
  I wish I understood how a digital copy of anything truly and really hurts anyone. I just can't compute that in my dingbat brain.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 8:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I quite agree, but it's actually "bated" (meaning restrained) in case you care.
    
    I wish I understood how a digital copy of anything truly and really hurts anyone. I just can't compute that in my dingbat brain.
    
    I guess you are just not cut out to be an RIAA lobbyist then. Congratulations!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeni (profile), 11 Jun 2011 @ 4:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, sorry for typo; my bad.
      
      "I guess you are just not cut out to be an RIAA lobbyist then. Congratulations!"
      
      Thank you very much. :) Glad it shows!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 6:25pm

Why don't you go bake some muffins, honey? This kind of discussion isn't for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:30pm
  
  Re:
  Troll harder, weirdo.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeni (profile), 11 Jun 2011 @ 4:44am
  
  Re:
  Mmmm. Love muffins - how about cinnamon-mini-chocolate chip? Want one? I'll even share with a moron like you because I'm just that way.
  
  As to whether or not the discussion may include "me", when an admin of this web site tells me a discussion is "not for me" and/or requests I not take part, I will refrain from posting.
  
  So, is your name Mike Masnick? All I see there is an Anonymous Coward, which he is not.
  
  Until then I will continue to treat it as an invitation to the general public - which yes, includes me - and I suggest you consider being the one to STFU if you cannot add anything constructive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2011 @ 8:57pm

"The practice is illegal. Do you have a legal or constitutional basis for your position?

I went looking and couldn't find any evidence of anyone being convicted for linking to child porn in any country. Do you have any reference to back up your position?"

I don't know about that, but these characters were arrested and I guess we will have to wait and see if convictions follow.

As far as anyone being convicted because they have a website with a variety of links and one or two suddenly change from legitimate sites to illegal sites, that's really a stretch. The sites in question link to illegal content and continuously update and add. That's a bullshit argument. Reload.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2011 @ 9:03pm

It is puzzling that Mike Masnick hasn't come here to defend his remarks. I note he has posted a number of articles and commented on others. Seems like there may be a problem getting the genie back into the bottle. It's very hard to argue that linking is OK without acknowledging and accepting the abominable consequences as well. Alas, methinks he has lost heart in his own argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeni (profile), 12 Jun 2011 @ 5:03am
  
  Re:
  Or perhaps he's smart enough to realize when "Silence is King".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 12 Jun 2011 @ 7:34am
  
  Re:
  MMM...nice crackpipe you have there. You seem to miss the point between a civil action, and a criminal action. Child Porn is a criminal offense. Copyright infringement is not.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2011 @ 9:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    @eeejit:
    
    You are either breathtakingly stupid or a flat-out liar.
    
    From Title 17 USC:
    
    � 506. Criminal offenses
    
    (a) Criminal Infringement. �
    
    (1) In general. � Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed �
    
    (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
    
    (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
    
    (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
    
    (2) Evidence. � For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.
    
    (3) Definition. � In this subsection, the term �work being prepared for commercial distribution� means �
    
    (A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution �
    
    (i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and
    
    (ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or
    
    (B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture �
    
    (i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and
    
    (ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]