"I'm OK with the fact that it's a crime to go around advocating that people should overthrow the government."
Um, no, its not. That statement is ABSOLUTELY protected speech in the US.
18 U.S.C. 2385: "Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States . . . Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both . . . ."
Is the argument that there's censorship and therefore it must be bad? I don't think it's nearly that simple. Lots of things are censored in the U.S., both on and off the internet, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. For example, I'm OK with the fact that it's a crime to go around advocating that people should overthrow the government. There's a give and a take with these things--a balance--and the issue isn't whether it's good or bad on its face. The issue is whether or not the good outweighs the bad in its application. Simply calling it censorship doesn't go far enough without further analysis. Maybe it's the good kind of censorship or maybe it's the bad, I don't know, but without further analysis it's just not clear.
You say there is a "bizarre dichotomy of US politicians (including the President) speaking out against internet censorship in other countries, while at the very same time supporting policies that censor websites in the US." But that ignores the reality that these same politicians already support other types of censorship, like censorship of certain pornography. Are those politicians speaking out against copyright censorship in other countries? I doubt it. If not, there's no "strange dichotomy" that I can see.
Answer me this, Karl. In your opinion, do you think the majority of torrent-finder's traffic is for infringement or for legitimate purposes? Just give me your honest best guess. Obviously we aren't in a position to know for sure.
I'm not sure that a site like torrent-finder which intentionally aggregates hundreds of piracy sites is ever going to be able to operate legally. I'm not losing any sleep over it, that's for sure.
The problem is that all torrents are illicit. The problem is that the majority of them are, and we all know it. You can dance around the issue, and argue that they're so removed from the infringement that they're legit, but I don't buy it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Due process is not the problem
Please show me what you did, because when I went there, it wouldn't do that.
Here's what I did:
1. Typed in "batman" and hit "search."
2. torrent-finder.info returned table with a bunch of metadata about torrents.
3. I click on one of the torrent names. A third-party website (btjunkie) is loaded, contained within torrent-finder's frameset.
That's all that happened. At no point was I offered the torrent file directly. Unless I missed something?
Now, compare that to doing a Google search for "batman filetype:torrent". How is it any different?
Where does it say that liability turns on whether a site "offered the torrent file directly"? Courts are going to look at the totality of the circumstances, and that is but one piece. Google is different because it's ability to search for illicit files is merely incidental.
Also, it would be appropriate to quote Eric Goldman's final paragraph:
Overall, I believe this opinion reflects an ongoing strain of P2P doctrinal exceptionalism. I can rationalize the Napster ruling (and the many cases trying to follow in its footsteps) only by concluding that P2P copyright law irreconcilably deviates from mainstream copyright law. We have P2P copyright law on the one hand, and mainstream copyright law on the other, and it simply isn’t possible to harmonize them.
All that says to me is that P2P sites have a tougher hill to climb. Doesn't that hurt your argument?
You do realize that torrent-finder is not doing the same thing as Isohunt, right? Isohunt hosted torrent files and ran a tracker. Torrent-finder does neither. It doesn't even link directly to torrent files on third-party websites.
Sure, it's not a perfect fit on the facts, but I think the court's analysis is very instructive in looking at sites like torrent-finder. The analysis doesn't necessarily turn on whether or not the site hosts the torrent files or not.
Odd, because that's exactly what COICA does: it purports to extend US jurisdiction over every web site in the world, and at the same sets the precedent that countries can enforce their domestic laws worldwide.
I disagree. Websites whose predominant effects are felt in the U.S. are already subject to U.S. jurisdiction, even if registered and hosted abroad. I'm sure you're familiar with long-arm statutes.
Playboy Entertainment v. Chuckleberry Publishing: district court held that Italian website infringing on Playboy's trademark was subject to jurisdiction in New York.
Yahoo v. LICRA: Ninth Circuit held that French groups were under U.S. jurisdiction because there were sufficient contacts in the U.S.
It works the other way too.
Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick: High Court of Australia subjected Dow Jones to suit in Australia for defamation over a posting made on Dow Jones's U.S.-based server.
Richardson v. Schwarzenegger: United Kingdom's High Court of Justice held that the Govinator's campaign manager could be sued for defamation in England for comments made in the U.S.
The idea that USA apparently thinks it has jurisdiction over the entire world?
Or the notion that the most repressive countries on earth will be able to dictate the limits of our freedoms regardless of what our laws and Constitution say?
Or both?
I don't agree with either of those assertions. What "works for me" is a bill like COICA. I'm just not as doom and gloom about it as some others are.
What a big coincidence that this witness's sudden recollection just so happened to help the government prove the higher level of mens rea that the judge just ruled they had to meet. Funny that.
You should have asked me earlier. I would have taken you up on it. Kind of silly the prosecutor didn't know what level of mens rea they needed to prove. I guess that sort of thing happens with a seldom used statute. They won't make that mistake again I should think.
There does appear to be infringing works on the net, which it finds.
Did the entertainment industry put works up to entrap people?
Are you sure the content is what the title says it is?
I'll bet you can't tell until you download the complete file.
It's pretty obvious torrent-finder exists for the primary purpose of assisting infringement. You can dance around it all you want, but I'm not buying it.
Says who? You? The entertainment industry? How very convincing.
In the case of these seizures, the prosecutor thought there was probable cause that the sites were being used to commit crimes, and the judge agreed, hence the warrant.
I looked at torrent-finder, did a quick search, and it looked like the site was dedicated to infringement to me. Have you been there? What do you think?
Gotcha. It's hard to follow along when you aren't reading things in threaded view. The threaded view is pretty much unusable for me on my netbook with its tiny screen.
Yeah, it works for me. Sorry if you don't approve. I don't share your apparent pessimism, and I'm OK with it.
Prosecutors have decided to continue without any deal:
No surprise there. I don't know why everyone got their hopes up. This "hero" judge will probably be signing off on this guy's guilty verdict in the very near future.
I don't really follow how the debate over which mens rea the prosecution needs to prove has anything to do with fair use. It doesn't. The issue was whether or not the statute required the defendant know he was breaking the law. That's got nothing to do with fair use.
Besides, as the judge made perfectly clear is his recent ruling, not to mention as Congress made perfectly clear when enacting the DCMA, there is no fair use defense available in this case. I'm not saying I agree with that, but that's what the law says.
They're not seizures the way the word is used in the context of this discussion. We're talking civil asset forfeiture here. An entirely different legal animal with an entirely different set of standards than the type of "seizure" conducted under an arrest warrant.
A seizure made pursuant to a seizure warrant signed by a judge after a showing of probable cause in these forfeiture cases is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
An arrest made pursuant to an arrest warrant signed by a judge after a showing of probable cause is also a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Yes, arrests and civil forfeitures are obviously different, but both undeniably involve seizures under the Fourth Amendment.
I'm not really sure how we got on this line of discussion, though. Seems kind of beside the point to me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Due process is not the problem
Merely pointing out the general area where pot is sold in a city cannot (and never has) been legally sufficient to hold someone criminally liable as an accomplice in the sale of illegal drugs.
But apparently these long-established rules and precedents have no meaning the moment some record label feels their copyrights are being infringed.
I just went into torrent-finder and did a search, and it didn't point me to the "general area" of where the torrent is, it took directly to the torrent. I don't think your analogy quite works. The torrent search engines would be kind of useless if they just pointed you to the "general area" of the torrent, no?
On the post: US Has Lost All Moral High Ground On Internet Censorship
Re: Re:
Um, no, its not. That statement is ABSOLUTELY protected speech in the US.
18 U.S.C. 2385: "Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States . . . Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both . . . ."
Boom!
On the post: US Has Lost All Moral High Ground On Internet Censorship
You say there is a "bizarre dichotomy of US politicians (including the President) speaking out against internet censorship in other countries, while at the very same time supporting policies that censor websites in the US." But that ignores the reality that these same politicians already support other types of censorship, like censorship of certain pornography. Are those politicians speaking out against copyright censorship in other countries? I doubt it. If not, there's no "strange dichotomy" that I can see.
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:
Woops. Should say: "The problem ISN'T that all torrents all illegal."
On the post: Homeland Security Admits That It's The Private Police Force Of The Entertainment Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure that a site like torrent-finder which intentionally aggregates hundreds of piracy sites is ever going to be able to operate legally. I'm not losing any sleep over it, that's for sure.
The problem is that all torrents are illicit. The problem is that the majority of them are, and we all know it. You can dance around the issue, and argue that they're so removed from the infringement that they're legit, but I don't buy 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: Due process is not the problem
Here's what I did:
1. Typed in "batman" and hit "search."
2. torrent-finder.info returned table with a bunch of metadata about torrents.
3. I click on one of the torrent names. A third-party website (btjunkie) is loaded, contained within torrent-finder's frameset.
That's all that happened. At no point was I offered the torrent file directly. Unless I missed something?
Now, compare that to doing a Google search for "batman filetype:torrent". How is it any different?
Where does it say that liability turns on whether a site "offered the torrent file directly"? Courts are going to look at the totality of the circumstances, and that is but one piece. Google is different because it's ability to search for illicit files is merely incidental.
On the post: Homeland Security Admits That It's The Private Police Force Of The Entertainment Industry
Re: Re:
Overall, I believe this opinion reflects an ongoing strain of P2P doctrinal exceptionalism. I can rationalize the Napster ruling (and the many cases trying to follow in its footsteps) only by concluding that P2P copyright law irreconcilably deviates from mainstream copyright law. We have P2P copyright law on the one hand, and mainstream copyright law on the other, and it simply isn’t possible to harmonize them.
All that says to me is that P2P sites have a tougher hill to climb. Doesn't that hurt your argument?
On the post: Homeland Security Admits That It's The Private Police Force Of The Entertainment Industry
Re: Re:
Sure, it's not a perfect fit on the facts, but I think the court's analysis is very instructive in looking at sites like torrent-finder. The analysis doesn't necessarily turn on whether or not the site hosts the torrent files or not.
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:
Missed it. Which number is it if you're looking in flattened view?
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: international
I disagree. Websites whose predominant effects are felt in the U.S. are already subject to U.S. jurisdiction, even if registered and hosted abroad. I'm sure you're familiar with long-arm statutes.
Playboy Entertainment v. Chuckleberry Publishing: district court held that Italian website infringing on Playboy's trademark was subject to jurisdiction in New York.
Yahoo v. LICRA: Ninth Circuit held that French groups were under U.S. jurisdiction because there were sufficient contacts in the U.S.
It works the other way too.
Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick: High Court of Australia subjected Dow Jones to suit in Australia for defamation over a posting made on Dow Jones's U.S.-based server.
Richardson v. Schwarzenegger: United Kingdom's High Court of Justice held that the Govinator's campaign manager could be sued for defamation in England for comments made in the U.S.
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: international
The idea that USA apparently thinks it has jurisdiction over the entire world?
Or the notion that the most repressive countries on earth will be able to dictate the limits of our freedoms regardless of what our laws and Constitution say?
Or both?
I don't agree with either of those assertions. What "works for me" is a bill like COICA. I'm just not as doom and gloom about it as some others are.
On the post: Government Drops Xbox Modding Trial
On the post: New Judicial Hero: Philip Gutierrez Goes Ballistic On Ridiculous Gov't Prosecutors During Xbox Modding Trial
Re: Re: Re: The case is proceeding
You should have asked me earlier. I would have taken you up on it. Kind of silly the prosecutor didn't know what level of mens rea they needed to prove. I guess that sort of thing happens with a seldom used statute. They won't make that mistake again I should think.
On the post: Homeland Security Admits That It's The Private Police Force Of The Entertainment Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There does appear to be infringing works on the net, which it finds.
Did the entertainment industry put works up to entrap people?
Are you sure the content is what the title says it is?
I'll bet you can't tell until you download the complete file.
It's pretty obvious torrent-finder exists for the primary purpose of assisting infringement. You can dance around it all you want, but I'm not buying it.
On the post: New Judicial Hero: Philip Gutierrez Goes Ballistic On Ridiculous Gov't Prosecutors During Xbox Modding Trial
Re: Apparently the new update is the case has been dropped
On the post: Homeland Security Admits That It's The Private Police Force Of The Entertainment Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the case of these seizures, the prosecutor thought there was probable cause that the sites were being used to commit crimes, and the judge agreed, hence the warrant.
I looked at torrent-finder, did a quick search, and it looked like the site was dedicated to infringement to me. Have you been there? What do you think?
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: international
Yeah, it works for me. Sorry if you don't approve. I don't share your apparent pessimism, and I'm OK with it.
On the post: New Judicial Hero: Philip Gutierrez Goes Ballistic On Ridiculous Gov't Prosecutors During Xbox Modding Trial
Re: The case is proceeding
No surprise there. I don't know why everyone got their hopes up. This "hero" judge will probably be signing off on this guy's guilty verdict in the very near future.
I don't really follow how the debate over which mens rea the prosecution needs to prove has anything to do with fair use. It doesn't. The issue was whether or not the statute required the defendant know he was breaking the law. That's got nothing to do with fair use.
Besides, as the judge made perfectly clear is his recent ruling, not to mention as Congress made perfectly clear when enacting the DCMA, there is no fair use defense available in this case. I'm not saying I agree with that, but that's what the law says.
On the post: Homeland Security Admits That It's The Private Police Force Of The Entertainment Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: international
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: Law
A seizure made pursuant to a seizure warrant signed by a judge after a showing of probable cause in these forfeiture cases is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
An arrest made pursuant to an arrest warrant signed by a judge after a showing of probable cause is also a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Yes, arrests and civil forfeitures are obviously different, but both undeniably involve seizures under the Fourth Amendment.
I'm not really sure how we got on this line of discussion, though. Seems kind of beside the point to me.
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: Due process is not the problem
But apparently these long-established rules and precedents have no meaning the moment some record label feels their copyrights are being infringed.
I just went into torrent-finder and did a search, and it didn't point me to the "general area" of where the torrent is, it took directly to the torrent. I don't think your analogy quite works. The torrent search engines would be kind of useless if they just pointed you to the "general area" of the torrent, no?
Next >>