Cyberlocker Blocked In Italy Hires Lawyer To Challenge The Block
from the censor-first,-ask-questions-later dept
Apparently, over in Italy, the latest overreaction to copyright infringement online resulted in police having the domains of 27 sites blocked at the ISP level. We're always nervous about law enforcement actions that involve such a broad-based attack on an entire site, especially when the sites are not given the chance to be heard in an adversarial hearing first. It appears now that at least one site, Rapidgator, has hired a lawyer in Italy to challenge the decision. Of course, in the meantime, the site is still blocked, which can be deadly for a startup trying to grow a business. Is it really that much to ask for a basic process in which a site is given the chance to respond to allegations before it's shut down entirely?
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: cyberlocker, italy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well...
Of course it is!
Why, if they had a basic process, one might think that they weren't doing something illegal! And then we'd have to go to court and drag stuff out and find out that maybe the MAFIAA lied to everyone to get these laws passed.
But that can't be, can it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny. SOPA provided for that, but I don't recall you hailing that feature of the bill. As a matter of fact, I remember just the opposite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 8:54pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.
c) It gives NO of its income to the creators of the products.
d) Should take no more than 15 minutes to know for certain that it's engaged in the usual "copyright infringement online".
e) It's not OVER-reaction, simply long due and appropriate reaction.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike sez: uploader + file host + links site + downloader = perfectly "legal" symbiotic piracy.
17:25:08[t-626-8]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.
Also, original content authorized by ceators is there too and they didn't do so for the money.
Are you claiming the value those artists get out of rapid is worthless just because they're not doing it for the money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.
Oh wait, google will actually defend themselves and show the MAFIAA for what they are!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.
Please provide an example of Google backpedaling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.
c) It gives NO of its income to the creators of the products."
By your *cough* logic *cough* Ebay should be shut down, too.
And 2nd hand record/game/video/book stores.
Ooh, charity shops, as well.
Bell-end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.
You keep forgetting that you don't buy outright ownership of a song, movie, or software. You purchase a license. You can conceivably transfer it, but you cannot duplicate it. Since Rapidgator didn't buy a license for each one it distributes, you can figure the rest out.
Bell end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.
"b) It makes none of the products it's selling.
c) It gives NO of its income to the creators of the products."
My examples fall into both those categories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.
Take your head out of your arse, it needs sunshine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.
Getting 3 or 4 or your "people" to anonymously pile on the same logical fallacies and "agree" with each other doesn't change these facts. Neither does childish name-calling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.
b)It is selling a file locker service, nothing more. to claim otherwise is to lie.
c)Again, the only "product" is it's own filespace.
d)Should take no more than 5 minutes to see that anyone making that claim is a habitual liar.
e)Yes, it really *is* an over-reaction. There is nothing appropriate or due about the actions taken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.
I disagree. They're not selling a service, not a product. Unless it's going to be claimed that any service needs to also create the product it allows to access, that first point is a great way to tell that the person making it is an idiot. But, then it is OOTB making the original comment, so...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Until it is their inbred arses in the chopping block, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Got any?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looking at it from the wrong side
I do not follow the "piracy" scene, so I do not know if what you are saying are true. But even if it is true, it might not mean as much as you think.
What you are saying is: of the pirate lockers, rapidgator is the most "egregious" (which I would take to mean as the most used). But what matters is not which locker the pirates use the most. What matters is who the users of each locker are.
To put it in numbers, to make it easier to see. Suppose we have two lockers, locker A and locker B. The pirates use locker A twice as much as locker B, so they use 67% locker A and 33% locker B. Clearly, locker A is "evil", right?
But look at it from the other side. Locker A has 1% of its users being "pirates", and locker B has 0.5% of its users on that class; the rest of their users are "non-pirates". Things look very different now, don't they? Clearly, neither lock is "evil" when looked at by that angle.
So, it is not enough to look at the "piracy" scene and point at which service they use the most. You have to instead look at each service, and see if most of their users are "pirates". Those who understand the Bayes formula can see this clearly.
And even that is not enough. A service could have 99% of its uses being "piracy"; but if it has "legitimate" uses, it should not be banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looking at it from the wrong side
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Looking at it from the wrong side
Do you realize how stupid you look when post this idiocy?
On a blog run by a documented paid shill of the tech industry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Looking at it from the wrong side
You have a funny way of showing it.
So you're invoking the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Looking at it from the wrong side
And I doubt seriously your any form of "artist", because you're too fucking chicken to use a name, instead of "AC".
And, to elucidate you on the REAL issue here: it's not about artists getting paid--we are all in favor of that.
What we are NOT in favor of, is kangaroo "courts" convicting people of perceived "crimes" without due process--which, last time I checked, we are GUARANTEED by our constitution; and, last I checked, the citizens of Italy were guaranteed as well.
We are also not in favor of media companies raping the artists with convoluted contracts that leave them destitute; or producing crap media that they then try to shove down our throats while picking our pockets.
We also despise companies that band together for the expressed purpose of stripping even more money out of those that buy said crap; and forcing "fines" in the name of "justice", which is nothing more than another illegal and unconstitutional extortion of the very people they should NOT criminalize: THEIR CUSTOMERS.
If indeed you are an artist, and not a puppet of the MAFIAA, then set yourself up as an independent, and watch us buy your stuff, willingly.
But if you indeed are a puppet on a string, then we will vilify you, and we will avoid buying your crap,
Make a choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Looking at it from the wrong side
Prove it. Oh, you people regularly claim to be artists, but you never state who you are and why you're really concerned. Half the points raised are just repeated fallacies and lies, the rest are personal attacks. Why are these comments always so fact free if they're honest concerns? That's the action of shills and fools, not honest people.
Let's have an honest discussion, but you have to be honest first. Unfortunately:
"On a blog run by a documented paid shill of the tech industry?"
Repeating stupid lies doesn't make me trust your honesty. Even if true, who cares who runs this site? Unlike many sites (especiallythose run by pro-RIAA/MPAA shills), posts here don't get blocked or removed if they say something counter to what the owner of the site wants.
So, let's have it, hoest discussion or STFU. Your choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It just comes to show that nobody is safe to operate a business and/or service online which the copyright industry takes exception to. Corporate interests take precedence, yet again, even at the expense of due process. Judge, jury and executioner in one fell swoop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyer of the cyberlocker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://blog.bittorrent.com/2013/04/23/bittorrent-sync-alpha-now-open-to-all/
A P2P file locker LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]