If you know that the content isn't legal, you are pretty much on the hook for it.
Let's go for the extreme example. You run a website that features child pr0n. But you don't host the videos, the videos are somewhere else (say in the nethelands or spain, they seem to have lax laws right now). Your cp site is like a blog with the videos embedded.
Is that site legal or illegal? Would your opinion change if 50% of the site was tips on gardening or how to cook dinner?
So now, back to the case at hand. If you have a site that is streaming the Superbowl, but you know nobody has those rights (and certainly doesn't have the rights in your country), and you embed the video in your site, you are aiding / assisting and possibly profiting from illegal content.
Obviously there will be grey area "I am not sure" cases, but if UFC is only on PPV, and you find a stream on some off brand site, any sane and normal person would know that the feed is illegal. If you choose to embed it in your site, you have certainly crossed a line.
It's not really difficult to figure out, unless you try to FUD it.
I think one who embeds the video is an aider and abettor, sure, but they're not the principal criminal. Perhaps the latest affidavits will be more clear than the one used for torrent-finder.com.
I was getting all excited to yet again rip you a new one, but then you go and write an article that makes sense. (Except for the hippie stuff at the end, of course.) How embedding a video is direct infringement is a damned good question. :)
OK, who added "The Masnick Effect" the Mike's Wikipedia page?
"He is also the name sake for the term "The Masnick Effect", on the techdirt blog in January 2011. The Masnick Effect discusses the idea of using and bending data to come to a predefined conclusion, even if the data does not clearly support the outcome. Often referred to as working backwards."
Dude, what world do you live in? Do you not get the concept that the site that brought on this discussion was PERFECTLY LEGAL in Spain? If so, how then do you feel justified injecting 'piracy' into the debate?
"Perfectly legal in Spain" is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not it's legal in the United States, dude.
3.7.7.10 For the adjudication of disputes concerning or arising from use of the Registered Name, the Registered Name Holder shall submit, without prejudice to other potentially applicable jurisdictions, to the jurisdiction of the courts (1) of the Registered Name Holder's domicile and (2) where Registrar is located.
According to ICANN, you are in the jurisdiction of the courts where you live and where your registrar is located. If your registrar is in the U.S., you are subject to U.S. law.
How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
They would realize that a U.S. company that had registered its domain name in Spain would have agreed to abide by the laws of Spain. In other words, they wouldn't care. Good grief with the FUD, Mike. It's pretty unreal. Why don't you ever get worked up about rights holders who are having their rights trampled on by pirates? Oh, never mind... We know. You're not pro-piracy. Your goals just happen to be coextensive with the pirates. Whatever...
Like when someone in a fundamentalist Muslim country issues a death warrant against the owner of a foreign website for publishing something "blasphemous". Never mind that the website isn't violating any laws where it's located. Makes perfect sense, huh?
Yeah, I know how your type thinks, whether you're in a fundamentalist Muslim country or the good ol' U.S.A..
If a warrant is issued in a fundamentalist Muslim country, doesn't that indicate to you that the website was violating the laws of that country? Websites are global, and their effect is global. A website may be legal in one country and illegal in the next. It isn't my "type" that thinks this. That's the way it is. Sorry if you dislike reality, but that is the reality.
I just realized something....you are calling someone a "criminal" before they have been convicted of anything. That's not how it is supposed to work...you should know all about "innocent until proven guilty".
I do. Property can be seized when there is probable cause that it is being used for crime. It is not necessary that the crime be proven first. In these seizures, a judge agreed that there was probable cause and then signed the warrant. When I say "criminals" I should be saying "purported criminals." You're right.
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re: Re:
On the post: Homeland Security Domain Seizures Raise More Questions: Is Embedding A Video Criminal Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
True. So what?
On the post: Homeland Security Domain Seizures Raise More Questions: Is Embedding A Video Criminal Infringement?
Re: Re: ICE Press Release
On the post: Homeland Security Domain Seizures Raise More Questions: Is Embedding A Video Criminal Infringement?
Re: ICE Press Release
I have a PACER account, but I don't think the affidavit would be on PACER, nor could I find it when I looked. I'm not sure where to find it...
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That only shows someone was pretending to be me.
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
I wish I got paid for posting. That sounds awesome!
On the post: Homeland Security Domain Seizures Raise More Questions: Is Embedding A Video Criminal Infringement?
Re:
Let's go for the extreme example. You run a website that features child pr0n. But you don't host the videos, the videos are somewhere else (say in the nethelands or spain, they seem to have lax laws right now). Your cp site is like a blog with the videos embedded.
Is that site legal or illegal? Would your opinion change if 50% of the site was tips on gardening or how to cook dinner?
So now, back to the case at hand. If you have a site that is streaming the Superbowl, but you know nobody has those rights (and certainly doesn't have the rights in your country), and you embed the video in your site, you are aiding / assisting and possibly profiting from illegal content.
Obviously there will be grey area "I am not sure" cases, but if UFC is only on PPV, and you find a stream on some off brand site, any sane and normal person would know that the feed is illegal. If you choose to embed it in your site, you have certainly crossed a line.
It's not really difficult to figure out, unless you try to FUD it.
I think one who embeds the video is an aider and abettor, sure, but they're not the principal criminal. Perhaps the latest affidavits will be more clear than the one used for torrent-finder.com.
On the post: Homeland Security Domain Seizures Raise More Questions: Is Embedding A Video Criminal Infringement?
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re: Re:
Thanks. I've been sitting on that one for a while.
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't prove anything. :)
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re: Re:
OK, who added "The Masnick Effect" the Mike's Wikipedia page?
"He is also the name sake for the term "The Masnick Effect", on the techdirt blog in January 2011. The Masnick Effect discusses the idea of using and bending data to come to a predefined conclusion, even if the data does not clearly support the outcome. Often referred to as working backwards."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Masnick
Too freakin' funny!
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re: Re:
"Perfectly legal in Spain" is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not it's legal in the United States, dude.
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re: Domain Names
http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3.7.7.10
According to ICANN, you are in the jurisdiction of the courts where you live and where your registrar is located. If your registrar is in the U.S., you are subject to U.S. law.
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re: Re:
Stop! I can't take it! LOL!
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sit in your home, pick up the phone, call a foreign country, threaten to kill their leader, travel to that country, and then let us know how it goes.
Are you incapable of understanding, or do you just choose not to?
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
They would realize that a U.S. company that had registered its domain name in Spain would have agreed to abide by the laws of Spain. In other words, they wouldn't care. Good grief with the FUD, Mike. It's pretty unreal. Why don't you ever get worked up about rights holders who are having their rights trampled on by pirates? Oh, never mind... We know. You're not pro-piracy. Your goals just happen to be coextensive with the pirates. Whatever...
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Chicks dig me. What can I say? :)
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I know how your type thinks, whether you're in a fundamentalist Muslim country or the good ol' U.S.A..
If a warrant is issued in a fundamentalist Muslim country, doesn't that indicate to you that the website was violating the laws of that country? Websites are global, and their effect is global. A website may be legal in one country and illegal in the next. It isn't my "type" that thinks this. That's the way it is. Sorry if you dislike reality, but that is the reality.
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do. Property can be seized when there is probable cause that it is being used for crime. It is not necessary that the crime be proven first. In these seizures, a judge agreed that there was probable cause and then signed the warrant. When I say "criminals" I should be saying "purported criminals." You're right.
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually I was. But I was only in it for the ladies. :)
Next >>