Once Again, A Court Overturns Internet Ban For Convicted Criminal

from the so-can-we-stop-issuing-these-bans? dept

For nearly a decade now, we've been questioning the wisdom of punishing a criminal who used the internet as part of their crime, with a ban from internet access. With the internet becoming so integral to everyday activity, it almost seems impossible to ban them from getting on the internet at all. Does it mean they can't use a smartphone (or even a featurephone)? Can they not use VoIP? It really makes very little sense. Thankfully, it seems like most of these bans get overturned. All the way back in 2002, we wrote about a court overturning such a ban, saying that it was an "unfair encroachment on his liberties." In 2007, a similar ban was overturned. Earlier this year, another such ban was overturned as being a restriction on the guy's free speech.

And yet, the courts seem to keep giving out these bans. So, yet again, we have a story of a 30 year computer ban being overturned. And again, the court found that such a ban seems to go way too far. In this case, it was deemed "substantively unreasonable" and "aggressively interferes with the goal of rehabilitation."

So, at what point do judges stop giving out these kinds of bans in the first place?

Filed Under: criminal, internet ban

EU Proposes Criminalizing Inducing Infringement In ACTA Draft; Could Outlaw Google

from the third-party-criminality dept

While the EU Parliament has decisively denounced ACTA -- both in terms of the process and the substance of the (still secret) draft agreement, it appears that the EU negotiators are still pushing to include draconian provisions in ACTA. KEI has discovered that the EU is proposing to make inducement a criminal offense, rather than just a civil one:

KEI has learned that the European Union has proposed language in the ACTA negotiations to require criminal penalties for "inciting, aiding and abetting" certain offenses, including "at least in cases of willful trademark counterfeiting and copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale."

Of course, definitions matter here. In this case, the question is what constitutes "rights piracy on a commercial scale." Beyond the troubling notion that these negotiators are using such an inaccurate and imprecise word as "piracy" in such a big agreement, the commercial scale definition is quite broad:

"significant willful copyright or related rights infringements that have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain"

Consider this the "let's criminalize The Pirate Bay" clause. Of course, it could also be read as the "let's criminalize the VCR clause" as well -- which is why this is so troubling. It's one thing to add civil penalties and liability to third parties through some sort of misguided secondary liability policy -- but it's really pushing to dangerous extremes to add criminal liability to that as well.

Now, let's look at the potential unintended consequences of such language. It effectively could outlaw Google. Google, without a doubt, can be used to "aid" or "abet" "copyright... piracy on a commercial scale... that have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain. Now, those in support of this bill will quickly insist that no one is going to use it to shut down Google. And they're probably right, given Google's brand recognition. But the fear is that they would almost certainly use this to shut down the next Google-like company before it had a chance to get very big. This is what happens when you have technologically, economically clueless bureaucrats trying to protect a dying industry. You get bad regulations that have massively dangerous unintended consequences.

Filed Under: acta, copyright, criminal, eu, inducement, secondary liability, third party liability

Halt...In The Name Of The MPAA/RIAA/FBI/NSA! [Updated: Hoax]

from the you're-in-trouble-now dept

See update below. GeneralEmergency writes "I was performing a Google search on the phrase "this website has been closed" recently, and the sixteenth result was a link to http://vxbinaca.beevomit.org/party_van/ where you get treated to the following (which you may want to read before clicking):

"This website has been closed by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation, in association with the United States National Security Agency, the Motion Picture Association of America, and the Recording Industry Association of America; pending a federal investigation.

Your visit to this URL has been logged. Please stay where you are. You will be contacted for questioning regarding the investigations related to this website. Any attempt to evade questioning will be considered obstruction of justice, and is subject to fines and imprisonment, pursuant to 18USC1510(a).

The owner(s) of this site will no longer be available for comment. For inquiries or if you wish to assist in this investigation, please contact:

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Attention: Internet Investigation Unit
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 7350
Washington, DC 20535

(202) 324-3000

iiu@fbi.gov"

My first thought was, "OK....Ummm...Wait for how long? I was really thinking about going to Lowes this afternoon for a new tube of Loctite."

But the more I thought about this apparent method of "Honey Pot Trap" investigation, assuming it is genuine, the more silly this seems. If they were serious about this site being an investigatory tool, you would think that they would have the basic internet common sense to use a robots.txt file to keep Google (and other polite netizens) from indexing the site. Moreover, it only takes one guy like me to stumble across a site like this, post it's URL elsewhere obfuscated as a TinyURL, and their little honeypot get overrun with ants!

If the F.B.I. is not serious about this method as an investigation tool, then why put up silly threats like this?

You can also find plenty of other sites that Google says contain the text string "This website has been closed by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation."

Guess I'm in big trouble now! I'll let you know if any suits show up on my doorstep!"

I actually don't believe this is a honey pot at all. Just a bogus threat tactic. It's the same message that goes up on every file sharing site that eventually gets taken down. Four years ago, we wrote about the same message on the front of Grokster's site. It's a blatant (and bogus) scare tactic, and pretty ridiculous as well. It is a bit silly that (1) the FBI and NSA allow their names to be posted with the RIAA and MPAA (2) that they imply just visiting the site is somehow illegal and worthy of being logged followed by a "visit" and (3) that they somehow think this is effective. Update: As pointed out in the comments, the particular site singled out above is a hoax... but really isn't all that different from the site that actually did go up on the Grokster page...

Filed Under: copyright, criminal, file sharing, honeypots, law enforcement
Companies: mpaa, riaa

Italian Prosecutors Assume Google Execs Read All YouTube Comments; Demands Jailtime Over Video

from the common-sense-failure dept

We've been absolutely stunned by the Italian attempt to prosecute Google execs over a YouTube video. If you don't recall the story, apparently some schoolboys taunted a disabled boy by throwing a tissue box at him. They filmed the entire ordeal and posted it to YouTube. Because of the video, the kids in the video were actually held liable for the taunting. It actually helped bring those kids to justice. Meanwhile, Google took down the video as soon as they were alerted to it by the authorities (within a couple hours of finding out about it). But Italian prosecutors insist not only that Google should have blocked the video entirely, but the fact that they left it up means that its execs are guilty of criminal violations and deserve jailtime.

In pressing the case forward, prosecutors are claiming that Google must have known about the nature of the video because there were comments on the YouTube video expressing disgust over the video. It's as if they believe that Google execs read all the comments posted to YouTube and use those to pick and choose which videos should stay up and which should be taken down.

In the meantime, I'm still wondering why Italian prosecutors are not trying to push the tissue manufacturer in jail as well, as I would argue that those who made the package of tissues thrown at the boy are at least as, if not more, responsible for the actions of those kids as Google.

Filed Under: comments, criminal, italy, liability, videos, youtube
Companies: google, youtube

Police Allowed To Hang Onto Seized Computers For Anti-Piracy Group, Despite No Gov't Prosecution

from the that's-bad dept

We were just noting that the IFPI thinks it's going to start seizing computers directly to get evidence of unauthorized file sharing, and wondering how that would work. At least in the UK, they may have just received some legal support. Over the summer, we wondered why an anti-piracy group in the UK was given access to and allowed to keep computers from a criminal investigation into an online service, called Surfthechannel, accused of unauthorized file sharing. The police seized the computers, but decided not to pursue criminal charges. It never made much sense that private, industry-backed anti-piracy group FACT was a major part of the criminal investigation, as they're quite the biased party. They were given seized computers as a part of this investigation -- and once the police decided not to pursue criminal charges, FACT kept the machines, saying it was considering a civil suit. However, the lawyers for Surfthechannel noted that the police and FACT had no right to keep the seized machines after the decision was made not to pursue criminal charges.

Apparently (and unfortunately) a judge disagrees. A reader alerts us (via comments on a totally separate story, rather than a submission -- not sure why) to the news that the judge in the case has said that police have every right to retain seized computers, even after they've decided not to pursue criminal charges. The judges noted that the law allows police the retain anything seized "so long as is necessary in all the circumstances" and then ruled that the potential of a civil suit from FACT was one of those "circumstances" that qualified. It's difficult to see how that makes any sense, but so ruled the court.

Filed Under: computers, confiscated, copyright, criminal, file sharing
Companies: fact, ifpi

Now Google's Facing A Criminal Investigation In Germany Over Copyrights On YouTube

from the oh-geeze dept

Hopefully, this leads nowhere, but NewTeeVee reports that an angry entertainment lawyer in Germany has filed a criminal complaint against YouTube for music from 25 musicians he represents. The complaint is that Google hasn't taken down the videos and hasn't allowed those artists access to the Content ID program that Google uses to try to block copyrighted works. It's not clear why these artists weren't allowed in. Google seems to deny the whole thing. Either way, it's not at all clear why this should be a criminal investigation rather than a civil lawsuit, as that's all there is (at best) here. There's apparently a half decent chance that German officials will eventually decide that as well, telling the lawyer to file a civil suit instead, but just the fact that a criminal investigation has begun is troubling enough.

Meanwhile, part of the complaint is that this lawyer wants to find out who uploaded the videos, presumably to sue them too, because we all know what works great these days for musicians is to sue their biggest fans, who are out there trying to help promote the musicians they love....

Filed Under: copyright, criminal, germany
Companies: google, youtube

UK Inventor To Lord Mandelson: Make Patent Infringement A Criminal Offense

from the yeah,-that'll-help dept

A whole bunch of folks have been sending in the story of how UK inventor Trevor Baylis has written a letter to UK Business Secretary (and sudden fan of kicking people off the internet), urging him to change patent law to make it a criminal offense, using the same old tactic: comparing an "invention" to real property, and noting that stealing a car will get you jail time -- so why doesn't "nicking" a patent? Well, Mr. Baylis, it doesn't get you jail time for a whole host of very good reasons: when someone steals your car, you no longer have your car. If someone happens to come up with the same invention as you do, both of you still have it. Plus, note in that last sentence that patent infringement rarely involves actual "stealing" or "nicking" of ideas, but usually is about multiple people coming up with the same general idea at the same time. Doesn't it seem slightly problematic to think that you might go to jail if someone else just happened to come up with the same invention you did, but got to the patent office a day earlier? Hopefully, Mandelson will explain this sort of thing to Mr. Baylis, but given his confusion over copyright... that seems unlikely.

Filed Under: criminal, patents, peter mandelson, trevor baylis, uk

Criminal Prosecution For Domain Hijacking

from the with-a-bizarre-twist dept

There have been tons of stories over the years of domain names being hijacked. The famous Sex.com saga goes back more than a decade, and involves accusations of a "stolen" domain. However, as a bunch of folks have sent in, for what appears to be the first time, someone has been arrested and criminally charged in such a situation (usually the disputes are handled through civil suits or arbitrators). In this case, it did, in fact, start as a civil suit, back in 2007 (attempts at the time to get police involved went nowhere). However, as new evidence came to light, criminal charges were just recently added, as well. The article linked above is chock full of detailed info on the case, including a good explanation of why these disputes almost never involve criminal charges. Oh, and as an odd side note, apparently the guy who "purchased" the domain from the guy who allegedly hijacked it, is professional NBA basketball player, Mark Madsen, who, when not playing center for the LA Clippers, has a side hobby of domain name speculation. Who knew?

Filed Under: criminal, domain hijacking, mark madsen, p2p.com

Thin Skin: SMS Political Jokes In Pakistan Can Get You 14 Years In Jail

from the can't-take-a-joke? dept

It would appear that the typical late-night TV comedian in the US would face serious jailtime in Pakistan, were he based there. MK alerts us that President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan is so annoyed by people passing around jokes about him via SMS that the gov't has started threatening to charge people for passing around such jokes, as "slandering the political leadership of the country" under a vaguely worded Cyber Crimes law, that could lead to 14 years in jail. It seems that should only lead to more jokes. How does one get to be a political leader with such a thin skin?

Filed Under: criminal, jokes, pakistan, sms

Why Did UK Anti-Piracy Group FACT Get Computers From A Criminal Investigation... And Keep Them?

from the that-doesn't-seem-right... dept

Last month, we wrote about the lawsuit brought by UK anti-piracy industry group FACT against the company Scopelight and its founders for running a video search engine called Surfthechannel.com. Considering it was simply a video search engine and pointed to content that was both authorized and unauthorized, we wondered how FACT could tell a legit search engine from an illegal one. However, more details on the case are coming to light, and the whole thing seems questionable. Someone, who prefers to remain anonymous, sent along the news that the lawyers for Scopelight have now won the first battle against FACT, and the full decision reveals some rather troubling details about how closely FACT -- a private industry group -- collaborated with the police in the initial investigation, and then FACT's own actions after the police investigation concluded.

It's already troubling enough that a private industry group, involved solely in activities designed to protect a business model, was allowed to work so closely with police in a criminal investigation. FACT alerted the police to potential illegality at Scopelight, which is fine, but from then on FACT was intimately involved in the criminal investigation. When the owners of Scopelight, Anton Benjamin Vickerman and his wife Kelly-Anne Vickerman, had their home raided by the police... FACT came along for the investigation. Not only that, but they had their own private investigator copy information from the Vickerman's computers (exactly what and how much was copied is apparently in dispute). When the Vickerman's were questioned by the police, FACT members took part in the questioning.

It seems troubling enough that private industry reps were allowed to be so closely involved in a criminal investigation where they have clear bias, but it gets worse. The police seized various computers and equipment as part of arresting the Vickerman's, and then allowed FACT employees to inspect the computers and the information found on them -- which, again seems to be granting way too much access to a private group. Then things got even more bizarre: the police gave a bunch of the equipment to FACT to allow FACT to continue to examine the equipment.

A few months after the original raid, investigation and arrest, the police decided that there wasn't enough for criminal charges, and decided not to prosecute the Vickerman's. The police told the Vickerman's their property could be returned, so the Vicerkman's lawyers contacted FACT asking for the equipment back, at which point FACT refused, claiming it was holding onto the equipment because it was considering bringing a civil suit against the Vickermans -- which it eventually did bring.

So beyond the rather stunning close working relationship between the police and a private industry group on a criminal investigation, including handing over evidence to a private party, once the police decided not to prosecute, that private party decided to keep the computer equipment and use it for a civil suit. Thankfully, the court has ruled that this latter decision was improper, and the moment the police decided not to prosecute, the equipment should have been returned. So while this is a victory for Scopelight, it's still a rather stunning revelation of how closely integrated a private industry organization is with criminal investigations, and certainly raises questions as to why such a group should get such access.

Filed Under: criminal, fact, investigation, surfthechannel.com, uk
Companies: scopelight