Specific instances of infringement... like the videos that Viacom itself uploaded and the sued YouTube over.
That's the point you still have never addressed, claiming you don't see how it matters. But it's matters entirely, because it shows that there's simply NO WAY for YouTube to accurately know if the content is actually infringing in absence of a specific notice that it is. Otherwise, how does it know if the Viacom uploaded videos are infringing or not?
OK, I've got some time now. YouTube can lose their safe harbor if they are "aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent." 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(1)(A). Above, I was quoting what the AIPLA said, but if you look to the statute it does not say "specific." I don't think the AIPLA added the word "specific" on accident. I think they're misstating the law intentionally. That's why they didn't use quotes for the "specific" part. Anyway, the district court ruled as a matter of law that YouTube lacked this knowledge. The court held that YouTube needed specific knowledge and that this knowledge could only come through takedown notices. This isn't what the DMCA says.
The text of the statute does not require the item and location specificity that the district court said are required. Despite the court's conclusion otherwise, there is such thing as "red flag" knowledge. It just has to be red flag knowledge of something that it is likely infringing, and then the service provider has the duty to take action. YouTube ignored the red flags and then took no action. If the awareness of "facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent" meant the same thing as specific awareness, then that section of the statute would be superfluous. It is fundamental to statutory interpretation that a law is to be interpreted such that no section is superfluous. In fact, such an interpretation in this case would make the preambular "in the absence of such actual knowledge" to be completely devoid of meaning. Such an interpretation makes no sense. Like it or not, "awareness" is an included alternative level of knowledge to "actual knowledge"--either one is sufficient under the plain meaning of the statute. The district court simply misreads the statute.
The record is replete with evidence that YouTube was "aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity" was apparent. As to the argument that YouTube couldn't tell the videos Viacom uploaded from the one's that unauthorized users uploaded, I think it's a red herring. YouTube was aware of the fact that most of Viacom's videos on YouTube were infringing, and they did not act "expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material." 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(1)(A). For example, this email from YouTube cofounder Chad Hurley: "This user is starting to upload tons of 'Family Guy' copyrighted clips... I think it's time to start rejecting some of them. Any objections?" There are other emails where people at YouTube state their awareness of Viacom's IP being on YouTube without permission. YouTube knew about it, and they did not act to remove the material. Keep in mind that YouTube didn't have to know for sure whether something was infringing, they only had to know that it was likely to be so. YouTube's bad faith is further shown by the fact that Viacom even offered to help YouTube identify the infringing content, and YouTube refused.
At the very least, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to YouTube's liability, and summary judgment was inappropriate.
Of course, we actually explained this in a previous post. Viacom takes those statements out of context. They were not "stolen" as in copyright infringing, but "stolen" as in copied from other viral video sites...
I love how Viacom defenders continue to use that one statement out of context, even though it's already been explained time and time again that it was out of context.
You guys are so desperate that you have to keep misrepresenting what was actually happening. Sad.
What about the rest of the facts in evidence? Finding one that arguably was taken out of context says nothing of the rest of them.
#40 is humorous in that two of the YouTube founders are chastizing via email the other founder for uploading "stolen" content to the new site.
Yes, thank you. I think is plenty of evidence in the record to support the claim that YouTube was "aware of facts or circumstances from which specific instances of infringing activity were apparent."
Specific instances of infringement... like the videos that Viacom itself uploaded and the sued YouTube over.
That's the point you still have never addressed, claiming you don't see how it matters. But it's matters entirely, because it shows that there's simply NO WAY for YouTube to accurately know if the content is actually infringing in absence of a specific notice that it is. Otherwise, how does it know if the Viacom uploaded videos are infringing or not?
That's a great point, and we'll get into it when I have more time (my exams start tonight). This case is certainly a huge deal, and I look forward to hashing it out.
From the amicus brief: The district court correctly held that the DMCA requires either "actual knowledge" of specific instances of infringement, or awareness of "facts or circumstances" from which specific instances of infringing activity are apparent.
But Viacom is arguing that YouTube was aware of facts or circumstances from which specific instances of infringing activity were apparent. Viacom is also arguing that YouTube received direct financial benefit directly attributable to infringement that it had the right and ability to control. Either one of those is sufficient for YouTube to lose their safe harbor under the plain language of the DMCA, and I think Viacom produced sufficient evidence of both. Viacom at the very least raised a genuine issue of material fact on those issues that precluded summary judgment, IMO. I will be genuinely surprised if the appeals court just affirms this.
They actually dropped the majority of Doe defendants from two cases, both before the same judge. It was "Far Cry" and "The Steam Experiment." The simple reason is that under the rules of procedure, you only have so many days to replace an unnamed Doe defendant with a named defendant, and that date finally came.
I think it's noteworthy that USCG has finally named two defendants, one in the "Far Cry" case and one in "The Steam Experiment" case. I'm pretty sure these are the only two named defendants in any of the USCG cases. It's kind of funny that out of all those thousands of defendants, they apparently really only found two who actually were within the D.C. court's jurisdiction. Sure there are still some unnamed defendants left on the complaint, but those are people that TWC is dragging their feet looking up. I wouldn't be surprised if none of them lived in D.C.
Of course, none of this changes much if anything for people receiving the settlement offers. The point of these Doe defendant cases was to get the names and addresses of the people to send the settlement offers to, and in that regard it's worked brilliantly. The people receiving these offers still face the prospect of being named in a federal lawsuit, just like they always have. Nothing's changed in that department.
I keep thinking that one day USCG is going to file a bunch of individual suits in several different jurisdictions just to make an example of some folks. That's what they said they were going to do. Thomas Dunlap said they were going to do this back in August, as I recall. I'm starting to wonder if that was just puffery.
Why do you need "abuse" to get upset about domain names being seized without due process? If the government seizes your car without due process, but they don't profit from it (i.e. "abuse"), is that to say you wouldn't have a problem with that?
I thought this thread was about people abusing their power to seize property for personal or departmental gain, which is really a different issue than whether or not due process was violated with these current seizures. If due process was indeed violated, I'm not at all happy about it. I'm just not convinced that it was.
Side note: I think in Australia "puff" and/or "puffta" is used as a slur for a person of homosexual orientation.
I just asked a friend of mine who is gay and who has lived in both England and Australia about that, and she said that it's a word used in England, not Australia. She said it's pronounced "poof" but she wasn't sure how to spell it.
Really? Seizing full domain names of sites including blogs with plenty of non-infringing content without a trial doesn't strike you as the least bit troubling?
Well, that's not fair. We were talking about whether those doing the seizing were motivated by illicit gains for them and their minions. You've changed the subject here.
Really? I brought it up because it shows one way in which these processes are of dubious legality and regularly abused. I never suggested, nor implied, that the feds would then sell the domains.
Show me how THIS process is being abused, and I'll get my pitchfork.
Again, the point was (as, um, was CLEARLY STATED in the post) to show that this process is regularly abused. It was not to say that this is exactly what happened in this case, just to raise questions about the entire seizure/forfeiture process.
Sure, other people MAY abuse a similar process in other cases. But, meh. Show me such abuse in this case, and I'll even sharpen my pitchfork first. :)
I'm curious if those supporting the whole forfeiture concept as being "perfectly normal" care to comment on these sorts of things...
I don't know if I would say it's "perfectly normal" but I do support these seizures/forfeitures, so I'll answer... We just don't have enough information to say that there's anything wrong going on here. You bring up police departments that seize assets so they can resell them for a profit. I don't think these domain names are going to be resold, so I don't see your point. As far as the feds exaggerating the costs of these seizures to pad their own pockets, there is no proof of that in these cases that I'm aware of, so I don't see the point there either. If you had proof, I'm sure you would have posted it. Otherwise, I'm going to call it "puffery" on your part, but only since you asked. (That's also a new word in my vocabulary, and I'm looking for places to use it.)
I just skimmed through the decision by the Second Circuit from a couple years back. It's not that they declared Cablevision's remote storage DVR legal per se, they only said that Cablevision would not be direct infringers for its use. The plaintiffs for some reason did not argue any sort of indirect liability, which is strange because the appellate court made it pretty clear that there would be contributory infringement. That's why it never took off.
Possibly the mistake to which you refer was made by the Viacom legal team in using those items in their case against Google. This might make more sense, however once done it is suprising that the court allowed them to remove the "evidence". I think this could be grounds for tossing the case - unclean hands or something.
That is what I meant. I don't think the issue is YouTube's knowledge of specific infringements that's at issue. The issue is that YouTube knew their site was chock full of infringements, and they did nothing but profit off of it.
Torrent search engines are used predominantly for infringement. With Google, it's ability to be used for infringement is only incidental. There's a big difference. I think this is the fifth time I've said this in this thread.
Can you do a google search and show me what isn't infringing?
In other words, what is on the web that isn't copyrighted?
I can take a screen shot of any site. I can copy any text/pic/song/movie that I can view/hear on the net. Actually, it was copied already or I couldn't hear/view it.
I think Microsoft should be seized for aiding and abetting in copyright infringement.
Adam, I disagree with some of your points. I don't think the govt. is telling everyone not to read the information, or even saying that govt. employees shouldn't read the information.
For what it's worth, a good friend of mine is an officer in one of the armed forces, and he was told by his commander not to read wikileaks using any computer. I don't know if that's actually the official policy or not, but I thought it was interesting.
And the government seized the domain names in exactly zero of these cases.
Those weren't criminal cases, so of course the government didn't seize any domain names. There was an injunction or two, as I recall. Those cases probably could have been criminal cases under the law at the time, but that was before the PRO IP Act--before we had an IP Czar and before the civil forfeiture statute was amended to streamline seizure of the instrumentalities used by infringers.
That standard doesn't allow them to be let of the hook in civil trials, but criminal cases have a much higher standard of proof. And if these aren't criminal cases, DHS (and its subsidiaries) shouldn't be involved at all.
The level of proof needed to get the seizure warrant is probable cause. The level of proof needed to make the seizure permanent is preponderance of the evidence (greater than 50%) since the forfeiture proceedings are civil rather than criminal. It's not exactly that these aren't criminal cases, since the seizures are done pursuant to a criminal investigation.
Since Google and torrent-finder are used in exactly the same way, how is one use "incidental" and the other a "primary purpose?" If you believe torrent-finder is automatically infringing, then you must believe that Google allowing torrent searches is also infringing.
I don't think torrent-finder is "automatically infringing." I think it's predominantly infringing. Google is not predominantly infringing, so it's not infringing. There's a pretty clear difference in my mind between the two.
I doubt they give a rat's ass about "helping out the pirate world." I think they saw that torrent sites are popular, and inserted themselves as an unnecessary middleman between the users and those sites, without adding any value. All the site does is add an additional layer of annoying advertising. I doubt any actual pirates would cry if it shut down.
Of course, that doesn't mean it's doing anything illegal. Certainly not illegal enough to warrant criminal charges.
And the investigators, prosecutors and judges who looked at the evidence decided differently. I hope they take it to court so we can see.
Why are MP3's so popular? Why were cassette tapes so popular? Are you seriously suggesting that the majority of users of MP3's or cassette tapes weren't infringing?
It's incredibly unwise to shut down a technology just because it's used for infringement. For every infringing use, there's a use that can be used by rights holders to make money.
They're not shutting down torrents. They couldn't if they wanted to. They're going after particular users who are using the technology to commit crimes. Sites like torrent-finder make money while helping others infringe. I don't think that's a good thing.
According to who? Progress doesn't have a "goal," just like evolution doesn't have a "goal."
Yes, sharing other peoples' IP is progress. It might not be progress that you like, but it is progress. Dinosaurs didn't like the asteroid that wiped them out, but that asteroid was progress. And the death of the dinosaurs allowed the surviving creatures - including our ancestors - to flourish. That's how progress works.
I simply disagree.
I'll ask you one more time: according to you, how does one build a "legit" torrent search engine? You didn't answer before, because according to you, there's no answer.
So according to you, there is no way to "keep it legit." If you set up any website having anything to do with torrents, it should automatically be considered a "pirate website." It should be assumed that all torrent sites "exist to assist others in pirating."
That's exactly what you're doing in this case.
Maybe it's not possible to set up a legit torrent search engine. I don't know. I do think that torrent-finder is NOT legit, which is the point.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Due process is not the problem
Well done. You just proved Mike's point about what is wrong here. There was no prosecutor. There was no Judge. LMAO!
I don't follow you. There was an investigation. The fruits of the investigation were handed over to the prosecutor. The prosecutor went to the judge and presented probable cause that the domain name was being used for crime. The judge agreed and signed the seizure warrant. That's how these seizures are going down.
On the post: Even IP Lawyer Trade Group Thinks Viacom Is Wrong About Its DMCA Interpretation
Re: Re:
That's the point you still have never addressed, claiming you don't see how it matters. But it's matters entirely, because it shows that there's simply NO WAY for YouTube to accurately know if the content is actually infringing in absence of a specific notice that it is. Otherwise, how does it know if the Viacom uploaded videos are infringing or not?
OK, I've got some time now. YouTube can lose their safe harbor if they are "aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent." 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(1)(A). Above, I was quoting what the AIPLA said, but if you look to the statute it does not say "specific." I don't think the AIPLA added the word "specific" on accident. I think they're misstating the law intentionally. That's why they didn't use quotes for the "specific" part. Anyway, the district court ruled as a matter of law that YouTube lacked this knowledge. The court held that YouTube needed specific knowledge and that this knowledge could only come through takedown notices. This isn't what the DMCA says.
The text of the statute does not require the item and location specificity that the district court said are required. Despite the court's conclusion otherwise, there is such thing as "red flag" knowledge. It just has to be red flag knowledge of something that it is likely infringing, and then the service provider has the duty to take action. YouTube ignored the red flags and then took no action. If the awareness of "facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent" meant the same thing as specific awareness, then that section of the statute would be superfluous. It is fundamental to statutory interpretation that a law is to be interpreted such that no section is superfluous. In fact, such an interpretation in this case would make the preambular "in the absence of such actual knowledge" to be completely devoid of meaning. Such an interpretation makes no sense. Like it or not, "awareness" is an included alternative level of knowledge to "actual knowledge"--either one is sufficient under the plain meaning of the statute. The district court simply misreads the statute.
The record is replete with evidence that YouTube was "aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity" was apparent. As to the argument that YouTube couldn't tell the videos Viacom uploaded from the one's that unauthorized users uploaded, I think it's a red herring. YouTube was aware of the fact that most of Viacom's videos on YouTube were infringing, and they did not act "expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material." 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(1)(A). For example, this email from YouTube cofounder Chad Hurley: "This user is starting to upload tons of 'Family Guy' copyrighted clips... I think it's time to start rejecting some of them. Any objections?" There are other emails where people at YouTube state their awareness of Viacom's IP being on YouTube without permission. YouTube knew about it, and they did not act to remove the material. Keep in mind that YouTube didn't have to know for sure whether something was infringing, they only had to know that it was likely to be so. YouTube's bad faith is further shown by the fact that Viacom even offered to help YouTube identify the infringing content, and YouTube refused.
At the very least, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to YouTube's liability, and summary judgment was inappropriate.
On the post: Even IP Lawyer Trade Group Thinks Viacom Is Wrong About Its DMCA Interpretation
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100319/1237138636.shtml
I love how Viacom defenders continue to use that one statement out of context, even though it's already been explained time and time again that it was out of context.
You guys are so desperate that you have to keep misrepresenting what was actually happening. Sad.
What about the rest of the facts in evidence? Finding one that arguably was taken out of context says nothing of the rest of them.
On the post: Even IP Lawyer Trade Group Thinks Viacom Is Wrong About Its DMCA Interpretation
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.viacom.com/news/Viacom%20Summary%20Judgment%20Motion/Viacom%20Statement%20of%20 Undisputed%20Facts.pdf
#40 is humorous in that two of the YouTube founders are chastizing via email the other founder for uploading "stolen" content to the new site.
Yes, thank you. I think is plenty of evidence in the record to support the claim that YouTube was "aware of facts or circumstances from which specific instances of infringing activity were apparent."
On the post: Even IP Lawyer Trade Group Thinks Viacom Is Wrong About Its DMCA Interpretation
Re: Re:
That's the point you still have never addressed, claiming you don't see how it matters. But it's matters entirely, because it shows that there's simply NO WAY for YouTube to accurately know if the content is actually infringing in absence of a specific notice that it is. Otherwise, how does it know if the Viacom uploaded videos are infringing or not?
That's a great point, and we'll get into it when I have more time (my exams start tonight). This case is certainly a huge deal, and I look forward to hashing it out.
On the post: Even IP Lawyer Trade Group Thinks Viacom Is Wrong About Its DMCA Interpretation
But Viacom is arguing that YouTube was aware of facts or circumstances from which specific instances of infringing activity were apparent. Viacom is also arguing that YouTube received direct financial benefit directly attributable to infringement that it had the right and ability to control. Either one of those is sufficient for YouTube to lose their safe harbor under the plain language of the DMCA, and I think Viacom produced sufficient evidence of both. Viacom at the very least raised a genuine issue of material fact on those issues that precluded summary judgment, IMO. I will be genuinely surprised if the appeals court just affirms this.
On the post: US Copyright Group Drops Thousands Of Cases... But Will It Refile?
I think it's noteworthy that USCG has finally named two defendants, one in the "Far Cry" case and one in "The Steam Experiment" case. I'm pretty sure these are the only two named defendants in any of the USCG cases. It's kind of funny that out of all those thousands of defendants, they apparently really only found two who actually were within the D.C. court's jurisdiction. Sure there are still some unnamed defendants left on the complaint, but those are people that TWC is dragging their feet looking up. I wouldn't be surprised if none of them lived in D.C.
Of course, none of this changes much if anything for people receiving the settlement offers. The point of these Doe defendant cases was to get the names and addresses of the people to send the settlement offers to, and in that regard it's worked brilliantly. The people receiving these offers still face the prospect of being named in a federal lawsuit, just like they always have. Nothing's changed in that department.
I keep thinking that one day USCG is going to file a bunch of individual suits in several different jurisdictions just to make an example of some folks. That's what they said they were going to do. Thomas Dunlap said they were going to do this back in August, as I recall. I'm starting to wonder if that was just puffery.
On the post: As The Feds Seize Domains, More Attention Paid To How Law Enforcement Regularly Abuses Asset Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I thought this thread was about people abusing their power to seize property for personal or departmental gain, which is really a different issue than whether or not due process was violated with these current seizures. If due process was indeed violated, I'm not at all happy about it. I'm just not convinced that it was.
Side note: I think in Australia "puff" and/or "puffta" is used as a slur for a person of homosexual orientation.
I just asked a friend of mine who is gay and who has lived in both England and Australia about that, and she said that it's a word used in England, not Australia. She said it's pronounced "poof" but she wasn't sure how to spell it.
On the post: As The Feds Seize Domains, More Attention Paid To How Law Enforcement Regularly Abuses Asset Seizures
Re: Re:
Well, that's not fair. We were talking about whether those doing the seizing were motivated by illicit gains for them and their minions. You've changed the subject here.
Really? I brought it up because it shows one way in which these processes are of dubious legality and regularly abused. I never suggested, nor implied, that the feds would then sell the domains.
Show me how THIS process is being abused, and I'll get my pitchfork.
Again, the point was (as, um, was CLEARLY STATED in the post) to show that this process is regularly abused. It was not to say that this is exactly what happened in this case, just to raise questions about the entire seizure/forfeiture process.
Sure, other people MAY abuse a similar process in other cases. But, meh. Show me such abuse in this case, and I'll even sharpen my pitchfork first. :)
You should read Techdirt more often.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100211/0133368126.shtml
I think I read techdirt too much. LOL! "Puffery" is a great word, though. :)
On the post: As The Feds Seize Domains, More Attention Paid To How Law Enforcement Regularly Abuses Asset Seizures
I don't know if I would say it's "perfectly normal" but I do support these seizures/forfeitures, so I'll answer... We just don't have enough information to say that there's anything wrong going on here. You bring up police departments that seize assets so they can resell them for a profit. I don't think these domain names are going to be resold, so I don't see your point. As far as the feds exaggerating the costs of these seizures to pad their own pockets, there is no proof of that in these cases that I'm aware of, so I don't see the point there either. If you had proof, I'm sure you would have posted it. Otherwise, I'm going to call it "puffery" on your part, but only since you asked. (That's also a new word in my vocabulary, and I'm looking for places to use it.)
On the post: Singapore Appeals Court Says Internet DVR Is Legal
Re:
On the post: Singapore Appeals Court Says Internet DVR Is Legal
On the post: Viacom Plays The Insane Hyperbole Card In Claiming YouTube Ruling Would 'Completely Destroy' Content Value
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is what I meant. I don't think the issue is YouTube's knowledge of specific infringements that's at issue. The issue is that YouTube knew their site was chock full of infringements, and they did nothing but profit off of it.
On the post: Homeland Security Admits That It's The Private Police Force Of The Entertainment Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
PC games don't work on Linux.
Again, the ability to use MS products to infringe is only incidental, whereas torrent search engines are predominantly used for infringement.
On the post: Homeland Security Admits That It's The Private Police Force Of The Entertainment Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Torrent search engines are used predominantly for infringement. With Google, it's ability to be used for infringement is only incidental. There's a big difference. I think this is the fifth time I've said this in this thread.
On the post: Homeland Security Admits That It's The Private Police Force Of The Entertainment Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words, what is on the web that isn't copyrighted?
I can take a screen shot of any site. I can copy any text/pic/song/movie that I can view/hear on the net. Actually, it was copied already or I couldn't hear/view it.
I think Microsoft should be seized for aiding and abetting in copyright infringement.
Search engines like Google don't infringe by returning searches, linking, showing thumbnails, etc. because they're protected by the fair use doctrine. See Perfect 10 v. Amazon/Google, for example: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/12/03/0655405.pdf
On the post: How Denial Works: Library Of Congress Blocks Wikileaks
Re:
For what it's worth, a good friend of mine is an officer in one of the armed forces, and he was told by his commander not to read wikileaks using any computer. I don't know if that's actually the official policy or not, but I thought it was interesting.
On the post: Homeland Security Admits That It's The Private Police Force Of The Entertainment Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those weren't criminal cases, so of course the government didn't seize any domain names. There was an injunction or two, as I recall. Those cases probably could have been criminal cases under the law at the time, but that was before the PRO IP Act--before we had an IP Czar and before the civil forfeiture statute was amended to streamline seizure of the instrumentalities used by infringers.
That standard doesn't allow them to be let of the hook in civil trials, but criminal cases have a much higher standard of proof. And if these aren't criminal cases, DHS (and its subsidiaries) shouldn't be involved at all.
The level of proof needed to get the seizure warrant is probable cause. The level of proof needed to make the seizure permanent is preponderance of the evidence (greater than 50%) since the forfeiture proceedings are civil rather than criminal. It's not exactly that these aren't criminal cases, since the seizures are done pursuant to a criminal investigation.
On the post: Homeland Security Admits That It's The Private Police Force Of The Entertainment Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think torrent-finder is "automatically infringing." I think it's predominantly infringing. Google is not predominantly infringing, so it's not infringing. There's a pretty clear difference in my mind between the two.
I doubt they give a rat's ass about "helping out the pirate world." I think they saw that torrent sites are popular, and inserted themselves as an unnecessary middleman between the users and those sites, without adding any value. All the site does is add an additional layer of annoying advertising. I doubt any actual pirates would cry if it shut down.
Of course, that doesn't mean it's doing anything illegal. Certainly not illegal enough to warrant criminal charges.
And the investigators, prosecutors and judges who looked at the evidence decided differently. I hope they take it to court so we can see.
Why are MP3's so popular? Why were cassette tapes so popular? Are you seriously suggesting that the majority of users of MP3's or cassette tapes weren't infringing?
It's incredibly unwise to shut down a technology just because it's used for infringement. For every infringing use, there's a use that can be used by rights holders to make money.
They're not shutting down torrents. They couldn't if they wanted to. They're going after particular users who are using the technology to commit crimes. Sites like torrent-finder make money while helping others infringe. I don't think that's a good thing.
According to who? Progress doesn't have a "goal," just like evolution doesn't have a "goal."
Yes, sharing other peoples' IP is progress. It might not be progress that you like, but it is progress. Dinosaurs didn't like the asteroid that wiped them out, but that asteroid was progress. And the death of the dinosaurs allowed the surviving creatures - including our ancestors - to flourish. That's how progress works.
I simply disagree.
I'll ask you one more time: according to you, how does one build a "legit" torrent search engine? You didn't answer before, because according to you, there's no answer.
So according to you, there is no way to "keep it legit." If you set up any website having anything to do with torrents, it should automatically be considered a "pirate website." It should be assumed that all torrent sites "exist to assist others in pirating."
That's exactly what you're doing in this case.
Maybe it's not possible to set up a legit torrent search engine. I don't know. I do think that torrent-finder is NOT legit, which is the point.
On the post: Homeland Security Admits That It's The Private Police Force Of The Entertainment Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Due process is not the problem
I don't follow you. There was an investigation. The fruits of the investigation were handed over to the prosecutor. The prosecutor went to the judge and presented probable cause that the domain name was being used for crime. The judge agreed and signed the seizure warrant. That's how these seizures are going down.
If you want to see one of the warrants from the June seizures, it's here: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/30/Warrant.pdf
On the post: Homeland Security Admits That It's The Private Police Force Of The Entertainment Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure you can find some content on that site that isn't infringing. That doesn't mean the site's not dedicated to infringement though.
Next >>