Universal Music Targeting Domain Registrars To Take Down File Sharing Sites Without Due Process
from the the-next-tactic dept
Remember back when Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from the Department of Homeland Security was seizing domain names over file sharing claims based on a very questionable interpretation of the law? It got so bad that ICE had to return some of them because the DOJ had no case, and the federal government had flat out censored some websites for over a year based on bogus information.Since then, ICE has mostly kept away from seizing domains related to copyright infringement issues (focusing instead on trademark issues, which have many of the same problems, but get less attention). However, it appears that the legacy entertainment industry liked what it saw with this whole "target the domains" strategy. TorrentFreak is reporting that Universal Music in Germany went after the torrent site H33t, not by going after the site directly, but by getting the court to issue an injunction against the domain registrar the site used to get its domain. The registrar looked at the injunction -- which told it that it was responsible for blocking anyone using H33t from sharing Robin Thicke's album "Blurred Lines." The registrar, Key-Systems, realized the only way to do that was to take down the entire site, which it did by removing the name servers. H33t quickly popped up on another domain (now with lots more attention due to the takedown attempt).
Either way this is disturbing on many levels. H33t didn't know this was happening and was given no chance to defend itself. The registrar seems equally concerned about the implications of this, and how others might get broad and ridiculous injunctions sent to registrars, rather than the actual party responsible:
This is the first time that a torrent site has been targeted by a copyright holder through a domain registrar. While the details of the injunction haven’t been made available to the public it sets a dangerous precedent. This is also one of the main reasons why Key-Systems is determined to fight the ruling.Already, it's concerning enough that the entertainment industry likes to target secondary players like the tools providers, rather than those who are actually engaging in the infringement. But here it's gone to another level, where the target is a tool provider to a tool provider of someone who may be infringing.
“We regret that we cannot comment in detail on an ongoing legal matter that is yet to be finally decided by the court, however we are determined to get this court order lifted as soon as possible,” Greimann tells TorrentFreak.
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: domain registrars, due process, file sharing, germany, liability
Companies: h33t, key-systems, universal music
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
How many times are you going to post erroneous and ignorant diatribe? How many times do people have to point out the glaring factual and logical failure of your narrow way of thinking? When will you realize that everything you say is only correct to you because you demonstrably NEVER question your own dogmatic belief in your own willfully ignorant interpretation of the law and its purpose? You are one person insisting that you are the paragon of virtue and the purveyor of superior cognition, blindly pretending to have the moral high ground, against a sea of people that have reasoned, demonstrated, and proven that you are not only wrong, but intellectually dishonest. I've seen old strings of lights that are less twisted than your logic. You're like an old man yelling at a cloud. You look like a fool, yet you continue your vitriolic diatribe oblivious to your utter lack of credibility. No one believes you, no one respects you, and we're sick of explaining to you why you are so often full of hogwash. You don't contribute to the discussion, you just spew your contempt for the site, its founder, and the people that visit regularly. If this were any other community, you would have been banned a long time ago. Show some appreciation that Mike supports your right to express your opinions. Realize, he allows you to continue to insult him. He has the capacity to ensure you can never harass him or his audience. Be grateful, because he's being very generous.Personally, I'd prefer this site required registration so that an ignore button can be implemented, but I'll just have to be happy with the report button. Show a little decorum. You've been granted a lot of slack and you behave like an ungrateful prick.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Officer B: "Ok, lock down the entire city."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Officer A: "Sir, we've located the stolen vehicle, it's in City Xyz ."
Officer B: "Ok, launch missiles, nuke the entire city."
/fixed that for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Officer A: "Sir, we've located a stolen vehicle in this apartment complex parking lot".
Officer B: "Ok, tell the owner of the Apartment complex they have 30 minutes to kick out the thief, otherwise we fire the bazooka's and level the whole complex".
*Later, after the cops blow up the apartment complex anyway despite the apartment kicking the thief out*
Officer A: "Sir it seems the stolen vehicle has moved to a department store's parking lot.
Officer B: "Ok, this time we only give them a 10 minute warning, then we blast them with bazooka's again".
*Later, after blasting the whole department store and the stolen car to the ground*
Officer A: "Sir we've found another stolen car, at this house being rented out by the owner".
Officer B: "You know the drill, threaten the owner, then blast the house to the ground".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Officer A: Sir, we've received a report of a stolen vehicle and its possible current location.
Officer B: Excellent. Let's go arrest the thief and recover the vehicle immediately.
Officer A: Eh...no...we can't actually do that. We're not even sure that it was stolen. Heck we aren't even sure that it is a vehicle.
Officer B: Bummer. What can we do?
Officer A: Upstairs says that we are allowed to slap one guy that knows where the vehicle is, and tells the vehicle's location to people that ask him about it, until he promises to stop doing that. I didn't look it up, but the chief is positive that the law allows it...at least until he starts complaining.
Officer B: Slapping it is then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
(Oh, God, the copyright inquisition is gonna get me! Or maybe not, considering I expect it...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Officer A: "Sir, we've located the stolen vehicle."
Officer B: "Ok, go to the Shell station and arrest the guy behind the counter for selling the gas that let the thief drive the car away."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Officer B: Destroy all the bridges out of the city so he can't get away.
Officer A: Sir, he's moved to another city.
Officer B: Destroy all the bridges out of that city too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh please ... how many banksters are in jail - huh?
The list is endless, they feel entitled to shirk the law because they have money and therefore influence. But it only goes so far ... not all is lost, and it is not the end of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
*of course* the 1% are not accountable to mere 'laws' and principles of fairness, but we scum at the bottom of the food chain are...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Equal injustice under the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Equal injustice under the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Equal injustice under the law
The site itself didn't get any notice at all, the registrar did, so strike two.
And finally 'due process' involves being able to face and challenge your accuser before any penalty is imposed, something that the ones who got the court order made absolutely sure couldn't happen by going after the registrar, so strike three, you're out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Equal injustice under the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Equal injustice under the law
Why do you think the 5th Amendment states "no self incrimination", the 6th Amendment gives due process, which includes a right to an attorney and the 7th Amendment gives the right to a jury trial by peers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You do realize this happened in Germany? It was a German court giving an order to a German company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
2) realize these things happen everywhere
3) omg moment
4) ....
5) profit???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And where do you think Universal Music in Germany takes their orders from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
1) There isn't any process that Mike will ever believe "due" when comes to infringement; even if all the forms are filled out correctly, he yells that links to infringing content are "protected free speech" (he says sites were "censored").
2) Domains and registration being a corporate formality with money exchanged, there isn't any "due process" requirement for taking one away.
3) The entity owning "H33t" doesn't necessarily have any rights at all: it's likely a corporation.
4) Those who engage in criminal activity (infringement here) aren't in any case entitled to the protections of civil society; this is an evolving area of law -- and Mike objects to that evolution, wants the law to remain fixed so that criminals can grift off infringed content.
5) Key-Systems has for whatever reason made itself an adversary to Universal: I suspect because a provider of domain names to similarly criminally-inclined entities.
6) This is a tactic manifestly used because the direct route is stymied: criminals have used technical objections in law to continue their actual crimes of infringements.
Overall, it's as always impossible to believe that Mike "supports copyright" yet runs these items to gin up his piratey fanboys to yelling about "due process" for criminals.
And my basic opinion is that no matter how many pirates sites have their alleged "due process" allegedly violated, that's to the general good: helps see that rewards go to the actual producers of content, and NOT to grifters. The purpose of law is not to enable criminals to operate openly. -- But I'm sure that MIke morally approves of "H33t" for their practical way of monetizing someone else's content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
EVERYONE *DESERVES* Due Process
It's, you know...
One of the FUNDAMENTAL BASICS of the rule of law.
Without it, there's no rule of law.
So, if Due Process is violated, then you SHOULD be up in arms!
After all, it wouldn't take much for a prosecutor to come down on you hard and violate your due process, would it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
This is essentially corporate process: Key-Systems SELLS domain names.
But this IS due process! Universal went to a judge with what evidence it has, and convinced the judge to issue an order. You clearly disagree with the effects of that order, so yell about what actually occurred -- that might reduce piracy -- but you are NOT on any high moral ground here to lecture me about "due process".
If "H33t" is hosting infringing content -- which is yet to be determined, deserves due process on THAT -- then it's a criminal enterprise. All of its profits can then be seized -- and likely that'd be all because it's a corporate entity (an LLC) to escape common law liability while still getting money.
You are clearly pro-piracy and argument won't sway you. Yell all you want, but you're in practice advocating infringement and anarchy while I'm advocating rule of law. Just because some details are being worked out and tested in court is NO justification for stopping THAT entirely legal process in favor of doubtless grifters off someone else's content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
Due process means the person being accused (H33t) is given a chance to defend themselves before a sentence is handed down and executed against them.
"H33t" is NOT a person: it's a corporate entitry doing all it can to avoid ALL law, claiming it's outside ALL jurisdiction. Read the link or my quote of key part here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130914/23100224520/universal-music-targeting-domain-regist rars-to-take-down-file-sharing-sites-without-due-process.shtml#c533
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
It's like shutting down all the walmarts because one of them sold something illegal and not telling the owners about it, even though you got a court issue to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
Has this been proven in a court of law? Or is it just more lies?
If no proof is needed, then a baseless accusation should be enough to shut down all of Hollywood's internet access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
But this is his argument, isn't it? The site is being taken down - at the "entire site" level - before they can present their side. I personally wouldn't have a problem with a narrowly tailored preliminary injunction that would only take down the allegedly infringing content, but this is NOT narrowly tailored.
"2) Domains and registration being a corporate formality with money exchanged, there isn't any "due process" requirement for taking one away."
I disagree, precisely because money IS exchanged. You are taking away something that was paid for. It would be like saying that a business has no due process rights to the property it's renting, because renting is a "corporate formality with money exchanged".
"3) The entity owning "H33t" doesn't necessarily have any rights at all: it's likely a corporation."
But it's people who then own that corporation, and those people have rights. (If you can show me a corporation that is owned by a corporation that is owned by a corporation in some sort of endless recursion where no actual human owns it at the end, THEN I would agree that it has no rights.)
It's like, my house doesn't have a right to not be entered by police without a warrant or probable cause. It's a house, it has no rights. But that doesn't mean my house can be entered. Because *I*, as a human, have a right to not have my house entered. Similarly, if a corporation has no rights, the people who own that corporation still have a right to THEIR property, and their property is the corporation itself.
(And do I need to point out the irony of arguing that a corporation has no rights, when this entire matter is dealing with the exclusive right to reproduce a work that a corporation is claiming?)
"4) Those who engage in criminal activity (infringement here) aren't in any case entitled to the protections of civil society;"
But they haven't yet been able to present their side, and it is unfair to assume that anyone who has been accused is guilty. Also, just because someone engages in criminal activity does not mean they lose ALL protections.
"5) Key-Systems has for whatever reason made itself an adversary to Universal: I suspect because a provider of domain names to similarly criminally-inclined entities."
Hah. More likely, they just don't want to be bothered with constant court orders served on them if this practice becomes common. Also because the only thing they can do is take a sledgehammer to the entire domain, which is often not the appropriate thing to do.
"And my basic opinion is that no matter how many pirates sites have their alleged "due process" allegedly violated, that's to the general good"
Due process violations are GOOD? OK, can you get out of my country now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
Do you even know what Due Process is?
Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Typically, "Due process" means 1) NOTICE, generally written, but some courts have determined, in rare circumstances, other types of notice suffice[citations needed]. Notice should provide sufficient detail to fully inform the individual of the decision or activity that will have an effect on his/her rights or property or person. 2) right to GRIEVE (that being the right to complain or to disagree with the governmental actor/entity which has decision making authority) and 3) the right to APPEAL if not satisfied with the outcome of the grievance procedure. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
The key thing to remember is that out_of_the_blue hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
Mike is an Ivy League elitist, born into the 1%, schooled in Ivy League corporatist economics: capitalism is his religion, so whatever gains money is moral.
Just consider this link in light of the above, where Mike specifically dodges the moral question of piracy to focus on the practical:
So what is Mike's position on piracy? -- Here, try to guess!
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120810/02111919983/entrepreneurs-vcs-tell -white-house-to-focus-innovation-rather-than-ip-enforcement.shtml#c986
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
I wonder if H33t is one of the sites Masnick steals music with. Maybe that's why he's so unhappy about this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
Masnick is probably unhappy to see more terrorism from the RIAA groups. Just like any decent honest person would be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
"Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
ootb needs to learn how to quote. The actual quote is "the entertainment industry likes to target secondary players like the tools providers, rather than those who are actually engaging in the infringement.". Which is often the ENTIRE argument in these articles - go after those actually committing the infringement, not innocent 3rd parties. Yet, ootb is incapable of picking up the meaning of what's being said, even while quoting it.
"Mike now ADMITS infringement takes place!"
I've never seen him deny it. I've seen him point out that the measures taken to combat it are unworkable and ineffective, and that there's bigger concern for the industry that are killing their bottom line. But I've never seen a denial that infringement exists.
"There isn't any process that Mike will ever believe "due" when comes to infringement; even if all the forms are filled out correctly, he yells that links to infringing content are "protected free speech""
No he doesn't for various reasons:
- He's usually talking about legitimate content that gets caught up by this crap, not the infringing stuff. Even if the link being used to take down a site is illegal, that doesn't justify taking down the entire site and the legitimate content therein.
- If due process takes place before a takedown, he usually seems OK with it. This isn't due process by any stretch of the imagination.
- "Due process" doesn't mean whether or not the person shutting down the site before they have a chance to respond have filled in the form properly. It means their target have a reasonable chance to respond and a real process to start.
Intelligent people can continue picking out the fallacies and the lies, they're pretty obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
When has he ever denied the fact that infringement takes place?
There isn't any process that Mike will ever believe "due" when comes to infringement; even if all the forms are filled out correctly, he yells that links to infringing content are "protected free speech" (he says sites were "censored").
Due process typically means an adversarial hearing, i.e. the chance for both parties to present evidence that either confirms or refutes a specific claim and let a third party decide which case has more merit.
The major media conglomerates designed the DMCA to forgo the adversarial hearing. One takedown notice, even if it has no merit, can end up nuking an entire site offline without a chance for the target of said notice to respond beforehand.
Taking a site offline by threatening hosts and registrars or using the government to seize domain names, even if the site hosts infringing content, reeks of routing aroud the adversarial hearing that holds so much importance to the legal world. If the site taken down hosts no infringing content, it damn well counts as censorship. (Any takedown dependent on copyright counts as government-sponsored censorship, anyway, since the government [ostensibly] controls and grants copyrights.)
Domains and registration being a corporate formality with money exchanged, there isn't any "due process" requirement for taking one away.
So, technically, the US government would have no ‘due process’ rights if someone tried to take down whitehouse.gov?
Those who engage in criminal activity (infringement here) aren't in any case entitled to the protections of civil society
I want you to think for a moment about what, if taken to its logical extreme, that statement implies about your ideas on ‘the protections of civil society’ for anyone who commits any kind of criminal activity.
You have basically just said that any criminal does not deserve due process, the right to a fair and speedy trial, the right to a lawyer, the right of habeas corpus, and the right to humane and ethical treatment while imprisoned for their crime.
Mike objects to that evolution, wants the law to remain fixed so that criminals can grift off infringed content.
I’ve seen you tell some whoppers before, but this counts as arguably the boldest, biggest lie you have ever put to print here on Techdirt.
Mr. Masnick objects to companies such as Universal and their major media brethren — or any individual, for that matter — using copyright as a weapon to attack things they don’t like. Mr. Masnick wants to see copyright evolve back towards a form that better takes the public interest into account. You have no proof whatsoever that Mr. Masnick has ever advocated for ‘the law to remain fixed’ and to suggest otherwise without proof to back up your claims makes you a liar.
Key-Systems has for whatever reason made itself an adversary to Universal
Key Systems would prefer to see due process enforced. It shouldn’t hold any legal liability for the actions of its customers beyond purchasing the domain name, and it shouldn’t have to monitor the actions of every website hosted under a domain name it sells. That way lies madness.
This is a tactic manifestly used because the direct route is stymied
‘They can’t get ’em with legal tactics, so of course they have to use extra-legal tactics! Fight fire with fire!’
criminals have used technical objections in law to continue their actual crimes of infringements
Criminals have used technical objections in law to continue using phones as part of their crimes. How about we go after Verizon for putting up cell phone towers next?
it's as always impossible to believe that Mike "supports copyright" yet runs these items to gin up his piratey fanboys to yelling about "due process" for criminals
If Universal believes these acts constitute criminal infringement and the accused both had foreknowledge of infringement and directly enticed others to infringe, let them bring the case forward in a court of law and give the accused a chance to present their side of the story. If the accused fails to make their case, c’est la vie — but at least they had a chance to make their case in a proper adversarial hearing instead of getting their site yanked down without any notice or a chance to appeal the decision.
my basic opinion is that no matter how many pirates sites have their alleged "due process" allegedly violated, that's to the general good: helps see that rewards go to the actual producers of content, and NOT to grifters
Universal Music does not produce content. Universal Music publishes content. The artists signed to Universal Music-owned labels produce content.
How do they get paid every time a pirate site goes down? By how much does the takedown of a pirate site automatically increase an artist’s fanbase? If an artist approves of and joins in the sharing of their content on such a site, why doesn't the label go after the artist for sharing the content?
Oh, and if Viacom couldn't tell the difference between illicit uploads and its own authorised uploads in the legal battle with YouTube, what makes you think h33t knows with 100% certainty that any given upload doesn’t have the copyright holder’s consent to go up?
The purpose of law is not to enable criminals to operate openly.
The purpose of due process is to enable people accused of criminal acts to have their day in court to prove otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
Sure I do, it's right in the title here: Mike casts this entirely legal process through a court as "Without Due Process". Mike's statement clearly objects to the evolving mechanisms needed to get at anonymous international grifters off someone else's content. Taking down the domain name harms ME or any other honest person not at all! My opinion of why Mike does that is my opinion.
You assert that "H33t" is a person, when it's NOT: it's a corporate entity. I hope that my views on corporations are well-known here; manifestly you agree with it that it's outside of jurisdiction. (See my argument in link.) And you also ignored my reasoning stated in first post. So you end up pretty well proving that your view is that law is a shield for criminals, not a protector of the productive FROM criminals.
Rest is nothing but your usual quote-and-contradict without offering positives, so I'll just point you to my later post for more:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130914/23100224520/universal-music-targeting-domain-regist rars-to-take-down-file-sharing-sites-without-due-process.shtml#c533
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
Your opinion is... WOW!
The whole basis of "your day in court" is to stand trial against what you are accused of and have a chance to prove otherwise.
It's otherwise known as the 6th Amendment.
Perhaps you should read the Bill of Rights sometime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
RICO and civil forfeiture are notorious in this regard.
Regardless of whether or not a corporation is a person, it has legal rights. That includes not having it's property stolen.
Otherwise, we could all "steal" freely from media corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
Allow me a moment to explain due process via the adversarial hearing.
Someone accuses me of committing a serious crime, something that warrants jail time. (Let’s say it’s you.) You ask the police and the district attorney to press charges against me and arrest me. Under the rights afforded to me by the Constitution of the United States, I have the following rights: to have an attorney present during questioning, to avoid saying things which could incriminate me, to have a fair and speedy trial, to have the State offer proof of my arrest and reasoning as to why, to present my side of the story in my defense, and to appeal any decision made during the adversarial hearing (my trial) which could have unduly prejudiced the entire process. If I lose my adversarial hearing and the State proves I committed a crime, c’est la vie, but I still got my day in court.
Under your idea of ‘those who engage in criminal activity (infringement here) aren't in any case entitled to the protections of civil society’, you seem to advocate punishment without any hope of legal recourse for someone so much as accused of a crime.
Mike's statement clearly objects to the evolving mechanisms needed to get at anonymous international grifters off someone else's content.
When organizations have to attack what amounts to (at best) a tertiary ‘offender’ to get to the real offenders — and do so without due process or an adversarial hearing — I’d tend to object to those ‘evolving mechanisms’, too.
We have laws that prevent liability claims from going too far for a reason.
Taking down the domain name harms ME or any other honest person not at all!
It does harm you because it sets a dangerous precedent where an organization can go after a domain registrar for an alleged infringement and treat said registrar as the infringer — even if the registrar did nothing but sell the domain name. It opens up the possibility for said organization to go after domain names attached to websites which host no infringing content whatsoever for the fact that said organization hates the website.
You assert that "H33t" is a person, when it's NOT: it's a corporate entity.
Until and unless you can prove h33t exists as an autonomous living entity all its own, people run the corporation behind h33t.
your view is that law is a shield for criminals, not a protector of the productive FROM criminals
The law serves as a protector of human rights regardless of the human whose rights need protecting. The phrase ‘justice is blind’ refers to this very idea: a criminal (accused or otherwise) ostensibly has the same rights and protections under the law as their victim.
If criminals had no rights under the law, we could punish anyone convicted of any crime in any way without any issue whatsoever. We could toss people in jail for indeterminate amounts of time on a mere accusation.
The law exists to protect all people, and that means criminals get rights, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
so...if someone uploads a file or a link to a file on your website...and it gets discovered...and they shut you down...it is ok?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
Personally, I'd prefer this site required registration so that an ignore button can be implemented, but I'll just have to be happy with the report button. Show a little decorum. You've been granted a lot of slack and you behave like an ungrateful prick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tacit admission: "those who are actually engaging in the infringement."
I would argue that they are, mainly because of basic civil rights. Engaging in criminal activity does not take away any of your basic rights. Indeed, you must first prove that they are engaging in illegal activity to even infringe upon those rights without yourself becoming a criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The guy uploading the song (or whatever) is the primary infringer.
The site that hosts the file is a secondary infringer (did not directly commit copyright infringement, but you could argue that they assisted it).
The registrar is, like, what? A tertiary infringer? They assisted someone that assisted someone to commit copyright infringement?
How far up the chain can they keep suing people for copyright infringement? Will they be suing, say, AT&T for allowing "pirated bits" to flow through their infrastructure any time soon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they thought they could get away with it, they would. The labels wish to return to the days when they controlled all recorded music distribution. Now the are losing control to independent artists, and the only way to restore their control is to gain control over the Internet, or to destroy it. I do not think they care which they achieve, so long as they regain control over music distribution, and the profits that come from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Say someone is working for you, and they get sued for infringement (while they're at home, not on the job) and lose. You might get a court order to garnish their wages. But if you ignore that order, you could end up liable for the entire judgement, even though you have nothing to do with the infringement and nobody is even claiming you did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Things are't always that simple.
Depends on the jurisdiction. In some places, such a demand would be illegal and you could get in trouble for trying to execute it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Presumably the same theory behind the constant attacks on Google, ISPs, etc: "they're a big target, going after the right people is hard and we don't care about collateral damage we cause to innocent people so long as we get what we want".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Something like contributory infringement depending on German laws, albeit that's probably iffy as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Private Veto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The more they tighten their grip...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have an idea!
That'll surely stop the gun violence, right?
And before SOME people say anything...
It's the EXACT SAME "logic" that Universal just used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have an idea!
Your point is spot on, though. What you've exposed here is the oft-mentioned fact that site-blocking is basically internet whac-a-mole. You block the site on one IP address, it moves to another, and another, and another...
The trick is to respect market forces instead of trying to deny them and reinforce a monopoly by providing people with what they want at a price they are willing to pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CORPORATE PIGS
Gekko: It’s not a question of enough, pal. It’s a Zero Sum game – somebody wins, somebody loses. Money itself isn’t lost or made, it’s simply transferred.
SO WHY TRY TO BREAK THE INTERNET??????
Because its wreckable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Direct filing stymied by lack of address
But lack of a findable physical address to serve papers is not and never was a stop to all process, particularly not in the criminal realm, as here. For the internet, in this evolving area of law: so long as criminals hide outside of (known) international boundaries, they are manifestly outside of law, and thereby not entitled "due process". For a business to enjoy the benefits of operating in civil society, it MUST first accept responsibility, not least by making its location and principals known.
The intent to hide is supported in Mike's source:
These especially greedy and brazen grifters charge "an administration fee of $50 per takedown request"!!!
So keep defending these sleazy grifters, Pirate Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Direct filing stymied by lack of address
Dotcom wasn't exactly lurking either, sliding quietly into the night, running between alleys to his secret server farms to perform midnight maintainence to ensure his uploading empire was functioning and raking in the gold bullions.
What it means is you're supposed to bring the case against them in their jurisdiction or extradite them.
Also everything you say can be ignored, as you defend copywrite and patent trolls who purposely hide their locations and principals.
And you keep using the word grifter, I must assume you don't understand what that word, or many other words in the english language mean. Alas, this would also explain the barely coherent nature of your responses and posts.
Good day sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Direct filing stymied by lack of address
SHEESH! Mike's "due process" diversion here at Techdirt is based on the notion that since Megaupload didn't have a US address at which to be served, then the whole case against a criminal enterprise hosting PETAbytes of infringed content with which it illegally gained MILLIONS must be thrown out!
And YOU, miserable little pipsqueak of an AC, use the same craven lawyerly tactic in not even giving a screen name to avoid me having a target to snipe back at!
And by the way: "GRIFTER" IS APT; it means SNEAK THIEVES out past the fringes of law illegally diverting money away from the productive people.
Mega-grifter Kim Dotcom got millions by hosting infringed content. That's not even capitalism, that's THEFT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Direct filing stymied by lack of address
Also you didn't read my whole post, what a shocker.
How much data he had is irrelevent.
And no, grifter is someone who cons you through deception to get at your moneys.
"I'll sell you this charm, it's been blessed authentically by a native american shaman to give good luck." It's really a rock with a cheap string tied around it.
You buy it for $100 dollars. I grifted you.
Diverting money is things like fraud or scams. Different beast, and not necessarily one related to copywrite infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Direct filing stymied by lack of address
Apt for the music groups, not the filesharers. "Terrorists" is a little more harsh, but still appropriate given their love for intimidation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Direct filing stymied by lack of address
Indeed, it should. Because MU had no physical presence within the area of American jurisdiction, it was not subject to American laws. This is a concept known as 'sovereignty.' You might like to educate yourself in this, sometime, instead of looking like the idiot egotist that so many foreign nationals accuse all Americans of being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Direct filing stymied by lack of address
Well, this is true. Since they aren't a US company, they are outside US jurisdiction. They don't have to comply with the DMCA any more than a US company has to comply with Iranian law.
"Direct filing stymied by lack of address and known physical location, which pirates, especialy Mike, consider to be absolute shield against ALL process, as in the Megaupload case."
Do you have a citation for the claim that H33t has no physical location? Normally someone has to be listed on the domain registry, right? If that was a false address then I'd be much less sympathetic when they don't receive due process when the site gets shut down. But otherwise I think they have a duty to at least TRY to serve them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]