Police Arrest A Bunch Of Folks In Europe For Linking To Infringing Content
from the linking-=-crime dept
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?![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
More confused than thou
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nazis?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
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 thread ]
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 thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
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 thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
May be more to this than simply linking
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 thread ]
Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not for infringing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not for infringing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
The guys weren't arrested for jaywalking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
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 thread ]
Re: Not for infringing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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. 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 thread ]
Re: Not for infringing
That statements worth nothing and make you look like an industry shill trying to prove a bad point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
dumb gov
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sure bout that? Choose your words carefully.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not for infringing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
Of course not, that could actually harm people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Or simply ignore the obvious troll. Checkmate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But to sites hosting child porn? Or why keep you going on about it like a self-proclaimed expert?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LOL GVU!
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 thread ]
Re: Not for infringing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Criminal Vs Civil - do you understand the difference ?
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 thread ]
Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Criminal Vs Civil - do you understand the difference ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not for infringing
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not for infringing
Too bad these are not facts but simply allegations (by the GVU, no less). Troll harder.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Criminal Vs Civil - do you understand the difference ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Check, mate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re:
Nope, not even close...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Criminal Vs Civil - do you understand the difference ?
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
(Copyright is not equal to theft, so both analogies break down obviously)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Criminal Vs Civil - do you understand the difference ?
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
From The-Silence-Is-Deafening-Department
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 thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: From The-Silence-Is-Deafening-Department
"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 thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Criminal Vs Civil - do you understand the difference ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: From The-Silence-Is-Deafening-Department
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 thread ]
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 thread ]
It's Germany...
May the Goose-stepping begin!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: From The-Silence-Is-Deafening-Department
Dumb troll is dumb. What a surprise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
wrong
There is no comparison.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Moreover, how can you own a copyright? A copyright is granted, not sold. There's a big difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That's absurdism of the highest order.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is this the same as..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Is this the same as..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Criminal Vs Civil - do you understand the difference ?
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'll Say It
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: From The-Silence-Is-Deafening-Department
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: From The-Silence-Is-Deafening-Department
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: From The-Silence-Is-Deafening-Department
Got that everyone?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"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 thread ]
Re: I'll Say It
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 thread ]
Re: Re: I'll Say It
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Citation needed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Was just going to mention that. So many people pop off about stuff they don't know about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I'll Say It
The first amendment to the U.S. constitution. Go look it up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 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."
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll Say It
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 thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll Say It
http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/30a27707-9da9-4cf3-b642-4fb949969102.pdf
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll Say It
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 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."
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll Say It
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll Say It
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll Say It
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 thread ]