Sci-hub didn't respond to the lawsuit, and as such, the judge is generally well within his (or her) rights to throw the book at them. The scope of the judge's ruling is limited only by the law.
I think what is key here is the phrase "with notice of the injunction". It means that other parties are not required to follow the judgement until notified. After that point, they can ignore it and risk further legal implications.
Remember that each and every one of them could be served with DMCA notification and be liable if they didn't take appropriate action where possible to either remove the content in question or render it "unavailable". With the judgement in hand, it's very hard for them to argue otherwise.
Now, they are free to ignore it, at their peril. It may not be binding, but between the judgement and DMCA, they would have a very hard time not taking some sort of action, even if that action is to file lawsuit to try to avoid responsibility.
Yes, the judge's words are not binding - but the judgement does not suddenly render all the other existing laws null either.
The reason that the court won't review it is pretty simple: the case has not reached it's conclusion yet, so there isn't enough to really work on.
I would also say the courts are likely to take a very dim view of a guy who isn't willing to appear in court to face charges against him but can quickly whip up a couple of lawyers to appear to try to get his money. It actually looks pretty bad.
There also isn't much in the way of conflict between jurisdictions to resolve either. There isn't a series of opposing judgments in the different districts that needs addressing.
Further, and let's make it clear: "The issue here is that as part of the arrest of Dotcom and his colleagues, the US "seized" many of his assets. Now, when the government seizes assets, it's a temporary thing." The problem here is that Kim has been dragging out the extradition process as long as possible (and really way longer than is merited, New Zealand has one of the most patient legal systems in the world), in no small part to try to run the clock out on the asset seizure.
My feeling is if Kim had gotten the money back, he would have hopped the first transport he could get on to move to a neutral third country that wouldn't extradite him - with or without a passport. He pretty much knows if he ever gets into the US, his goose will be cooked.
There was little here for SCOTUS to deal with: An endless extradition, outstanding criminal charges, a defendant who appears mostly interested in the money and not in clearing his name, and a total lack of controversy at the federal court level. Why would they want to review the case?
Community standards was, pre-internet, the way it was done. What it meant was that what might have been legal i San Francisco might not be legal in Dirt Patch, Alabama. It was not a particularly tenable standard. It goes all the way back to court judgements in California that made porn legal to start with (early 70s).
With the internet, the problem is defining community. It's not where you live, but where you go, I guess. There have only been a very few obscenity prosecutions in the last couple of decades, and that usually involve content that most people would find offensive. The two cases I can think of involved Max Hardcore (real name Paul Little) spent 4 years in jail for his gagging / choking videos, and Rob Black (Rob Zicari) and his wife got nailed for "horror porn". Otherwise, the mainstream, middle of the road stuff has been ignored on the level of obscenity.
The fact that straight porn is legal and acceptable in the US means that any prosecution has to be for the very edges of things, and few producers seem to make that stuff in the US. Online delivery means that most of those who do make it are generally able to avoid prosecution so far.
The laws on obscenity and the court rulings there of are pretty much a rainbow of what ever you can imagine. The most common results can be seen in the Miller test, from Miller v. California. In that case, the concept of "community standards" was the yard stick the court went with. However, considering that the internet has pretty much demolished the concept of physical communities, it's mostly consider a non-starter.
The most useful yardstick at the moment is Reno v. ACLU - in that case, obscenity laws written for the internet were stuck down. They were pretty light rules all considered, and the court struck them down. Nobody has even suggested to take a swing at that again, Conservative types certain fear having the court rule against any anti-obscenity law, as it would confirm the legality of the products. They much prefer the current stew of indecision.
It should be noted that USC 18 section 2256 and 2257 apply to the production of adult material. Decent record keeping, model releases, ID copies, and the like have made it much harder for anyone underage to slip into porn. The existence of section 2257 record keeping for production of porn essentially codifies porn into law - ie, the government cannot regulate what is not legal. In regulating porn, they have also defined it as legal.
So your basic shag film isn't going to even wiggle the needle on obscenity - it's long since been proven to be legal.
In every situation (positive and negative) you will have people and groups who will try to drag the line even further. It always happens.
Thankfully, in the US anyway, non-obscene porn is generally considered protected speech. Every attempt to shut it down or block it has ended in failure for simple first amendment issues. Even when draped in the "for the children" mantra, it fails because the courts can clearly see the problems.
Attempts by the politicians to enforce stricter record keeping laws and make it almost impossible to run a porn business in the US failed (COPA, and COPA II).
So yes, there will be exceptional groups who will try to turn the new law into something else. Don't let their puny voices against legal activity get in the way of dealing with the illegal activities of prostitution and pimping.
Legalization of anything almost always comes with regulation, with regulation comes expense, and that creates a margin where illegal activity still happens.
Legalized prostitution (ie, no rules at all, do what you like) would almost certainly lead to a public health crisis. It would also likely have huge social implications in people running whore houses in residential neighborhoods, etc.
So you end up with... the need for regulation.
Regulation costs money, and money is raised by taxation or user fees. There really is no other choice.
Love it or hate it, there isn't any "just make it legal". Every change has implications, and not everyone can handle them.
All along you are saying "the legacy industry should learn from piracy". Now they do, and you are upset.
Who started this issue recently? The Pirate Bay. Didn't read any outraged comments then, even when they were running a miner that would knock your cpu usage to 100%.
Here the use isn't trasnformative, it is "informative", if you like. It's bringing together a collecting of appearances on a radio program, nothing more.
The works in question are clearly copyright. There is no debate there.
The debate of fair use is blunted quite a bit by the lack of any other editorial material with these audio files. There is no indication that the site is specifically education, it looks much more, umm, political in nature.
A rights holder has no obligation to make something available. Copyright in fact allows them to hold it for 75 years without releasing it. It's up to them.
"You ignored the point. I clearly said AVAILABLE. But since you went into the details I never talked about you don't see ads because you can't "disguise" it into something that looks legal. Prostitution can be 'disguised'. You can't really say if an "escort" service is actually prostitution."
It can - but the level of disguise to get it into mainstream advertising and make it stick (ie, not get shut down the next time) would render the product undetectable by the intended customers. Remember, this isn't a secret message between two knowing people, it's someone trying to sell a product to all potential buyers. If the buyers know the code, it won't be long before the sites do too, and boom, shut down. It's a pointless exercise.
"I've done some research right now and while this may be true in fact the legalization brought much more benefits than negatives."
Actually, in Amsterdam it's become worse. Limited licensing and limited space means the girls pay huge fees to be in business, huge fees to rent space they could never afford to buy, and become beholden to a pimp and a landlord. Legalization in a manner that made it safer for the public didn't work out. It's a huge bone of contention in Amsterdam right now and an on going problem, especially as spaces in the red light district get shut down and converted to other uses.
"Legalizing with severe constraints is the same of keeping it illegal."
In anything, legalization usually comes with regulation. Right now the pot laws in places like California are leading to widespread abuse by "doctors" writing up prescriptions for weed for ailments that people just don't have - only so they can buy weed. Amsterdam did outright legalization, and then reigned it back in by limiting it to licensed coffee shops. It means that the drug problem there actually got worse, as street level drugs are always harder drugs and it actually breeds more addicts. Oops!
Prostituion legalized and regulated is often too much of a burden, there will always been a black market. How you deal with the black market, how you keep that black market from gaining traction and becoming more mainstream is key in fighting against it, keeping it dark and keeping almost everyone with money away from it.
"Just like 'making drugs less available' via the stupid war on drugs worked wonders, right? "
Not an equivalent argument. Drugs are very illegal, and have never had anyone tolerate them advertising in public.
If anything, the legalization of weed should tell you what happens when drugs get even marginally legalized - people ilne up for it. Imagine if you could legally put ads for smack and coke on Backpage...
"general knowledge of criminal activity in your infra-structure is NOT enough to make you a criminal as many court decisions have ruled already."
There is a point where you go from "general knowledge" and it moves on participant. With section 230, we never get to find out, the site always has an "out".
" Except reality says otherwise. Make it more available, make it properly regulated and give girls protection. "
Okay, reality check for you: Prostitution is unlikely to ever be fully legal in the US because it's not going to play with the conservatives or the extreme libs either. So that fantasy won't play out.
I can also tell you that in Hong Kong, where single girl / single room prostitution is entirely legal, the business is dominated by... illegal immigrants from China working for triad pimps. They abuse the single girl laws to promote the girls one at a time and skirt the law, while still taking most of their money and then sending the back to China when they are worn out. Legalization didn't do anything except give the illegal operators ANOTHER way to dodge the laws.
Amsterdam? Red Light district, doors, and well maintained government mandated testing and licensing... and tons and tons of street prostitution, pimps, and organized crime.
"In theory, women would be less likely to suffer abuse at the hands of pimps, less likely to be involved in human trafficking, and more likely to earn a decent wage.
And yet, the system hasn't worked – it's made things worse.
A prostitute in Amsterdam, a notoriously expensive city, will pay up to one hundred euro a night for the rent of a window.
She also has to pay a pimp, and pay taxes if she registers – though only 5% of prostitutes have actually registered for tax, perhaps for fear of the social stigma that comes with publicly announcing yourself as a prostitute."
It fails. Legalization is a dead end, it goes nowhere.
Want another example? Nevada. Legalized prostitution everywhere except Clark County, and yet Nevada has the highest level of prostitution arrests, the most "girls to your room" bull crap, and not surprisingly, lots of Backpage style activity. Hmmm. Legalization has worked out, right?
stop? No such thing. Prostitution is the oldest profession, it won't ever "stop".
The question is making it less available. It's moving it from "7-eleven on every corner" to "only available in a dark alley downtown". Lowering availability in theory lowers demand, make the product less desirable and more dangerous to try to get, and not available anywhere any time. Cut down the income, cut down the profits, and cut down the desire for pimps to try to make easy money.
For the rest:
"who does not vet what appears on their site"
willful ignorance isn't a great legal defense. Intentionally ignoring what others post on your site (save for section 230) would not be a very good legal defense.
So, to sum up: make the ads less available. Make the product less available, take it out of mainstream public acceptability, and drive down the income for the girls and their pimps. Make it less desirable to be in the business, and perhaps they will rope in fewer girls.
It's not simple, but it is certainly better than doing nothing at all about a serious problem.
This is why Techdirt can be hard to take at times.
"Human trafficking arrests are almost nonexistent in most states, according to the FBI's newly released U.S. crime statistics for 2016. Part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) project, the new data on sex and labor trafficking shows that arrests for either offense are rare and that many suspected incidents of trafficking did not ultimately yield results."
Let's go through all this again, shall we?
The courts have made it entirely legal to do "girl to your door" services (such as you see in Vegas). You pay a flat fee, and they deliver a girl, period. The girl then does whatever she wants (she's a hooker, so she negotiated sex for money, aka prostitution), but the guys who got here there are free of liability because they didn't directly accept money for prostitution.
Actually nailing guys like that for human trafficking, pimping, proxenetism - whatever you like, is very complicated - close to near impossible.
Even in less organized situations, it's generally the girl who eats it legally, and since she is generally "owned" by someone and not in a position to turn against them, it's unlikely you will ever get anything that links the pimp to the actual sex crime.
With nearly 100,000 vice prosecutions each year, prostitution isn't small time. That's a pretty serious issue no matter how you slice it, and no matter how hard you try to sweep it under the rug in the name of a free internet.
Sorry, your answer makes no sense. There is nothing being torched. A very narrow part of section 230 is being revoked in regards to knowingly supporting illegal sex workers and their pimps. The rest of it is arm waving extreme case examples trying to rope as many non-related and irrelevant companies into the mix.
"What percentage of ads are for sex, compared to the percentage of things that might be for sex? "
You could do a quick phone survey and find out. Anyone advertising a legit "escorting" service wouldn't be posting there. So you can figure that almost every ad without exception leads to a sexual encounter. 90% of prostitutes are run by pimps, so you have a 90% chance of hitting a girl who is "owned".
"ollateral damage as people who were offering a completely legal product/service have their posts taken down right alongside people who were offering illegal products/service."
Quite simply, if you are offering a legit escorting service (ie, model for your prom or business function) you wouldn't be advertising in that area. Legit escorting is incredibly rare for the most part, and generally not offered by the hour at a hotel.
"Because while the alternative might make it slightly more difficult for people to find them, it also will impact a whole bunch of perfectly legal activity."
They will certainly be harder to find. It wouldn't impact legal activities in the slightest, again those offering legit escorting services / security and the like aren't going to advertising in that way and in that section. They don't want to get mixed up with pimps and hos.
"Law enforcement is supposed to be hard, it is supposed to take work, because taking the easy route is all but guaranteed to impact a lot of people doing nothing wrong,"
Yes, but in the case of prostitution, there is so much caselaw and so many flaming hoops to jump through, and the punishments are fairly low. Remember, because it's generally the girls getting the money, they are the "low hanging fruit" that gets busted. They end up going through the court system, locked up over night, paying a fine, and walking away the next day. To get there, it took the police to set up a sting, monitor (and maybe video) and try to get the girl to admit the payment is for a sexual act.
Want to get the pimp? You have to either get a girl to turn or get the pimp to admit the money is for sex, both of which are pretty rare.
The other option (and the one explored by this law) is that of removing at least some of the income potential.
"And once again, it's not 'abuse' of a law to use it as intended."
I don't think sainted Mr Wyden wanted underage escorts and their pimps to get a free ride online.
Section 230 let's sites turn a blind eye, when they could not do the same operating in the real world. That means that section 230 allows them to essentially ignore every other law, because they are magically exempted.
Now, it wouldn't be so bad if they were not looking for these types of ads but they showed up occasionally. It's not the case, they are actively looking for them and working very hard to find ways for people to pay for them. They know full well what the ads are for, and Backpage does report some cases to the feds in regards to minors. They cannot deny that they know what the ads are about.
Mr Lessig is no dummy, that is for sure. He has, however, proven to be a pretty bad judge of how people will take his views. He's also apparently not very good at getting people to buy into them.
I find it interesting that his Mayday PAC has taken a bunch of money from Peter Thiel. Yes, that guy.
I find it interesting that his mainstay argument on copyright, that it should be subject to first amendment limits, was chuckled out of every court including SCOTUS (7-2 against, a rare massive majority decision showing just how far off the farm he really way).
I find it interesting that his Presidential campaign was, well... sorry, I lack a word that is more mundane than mundane and more meaningless than meaningless to cover it.
Mr Lessig is a Theorist, plain and simple. Theorists tend to lack in the basic concept of applying things in the real world. He has shown again and again that he talks a nice talk, but it never seems to inspire anything except more ruminations from those who make their living off of being theoretical (Hi Mike!).
I don't think Lessig is doing a PETA here. I don't think he's capable, honestly. Attention whoring is a whole other bag, it requires a certain amount of flamboyance and flash that he's not really bringing to the party. That he really hasn't found a flash point handle to get a grip on his current theory means that the public isn't likely to buy in. It's something that will lead to more partisan whining and not much else.
So yeah, file this with "free speech overrules copyright".
No, I didn't say that at all, you didn't read my comment correctly.
What I am saying is that because it is difficult to make a case and the time requirement per case is very high, it's often not very effective to go after the pimps and prostitutes on individual case basis. It's often much more effective to do what might be considered "crime prevention".
The requirement for a prostitution bust is actually getting the girl to agree to have sex for money. the courts have over the years made this a really, really narrow set of circumstances. The use of special words and "donation" envelopes and all other sorts of work around are to avoid touching any of the things the court has ruled as actionable. Police are forced to make attempts to get the girls to say the wrong words in order to get an arrest.
The pimp? Forget about it! They either take the girl's money after the after the act, or use a flat fee referral system collected up front to connect the customer and the girl - and often do both. Why do you think the Las Vegas "Girls to your room" thing stands as legal? They charge a flat fee to deliver a girl to you. After that, it's up to you and the girl. So they can stay out of the dirty transaction, and the court allow them to by agreeing that they are only a referral service, even if they should be aware of the fuller picture.
The police know the players, they know the game. LV police routinely sting these girls, but it never leads them to the bosses, who have insulated themselves legally from the real action.
So no, it's not about arresting anyone without proof. It becomes much more a question of why the courts (and the laws) are unable to deal with larger, step by step organizations. The disconnection is somewhat insane and very obvious.
Your point has always been that the business model fails because of "infinite distribution". That isn't the issue here, is it?
The issue here is more to do with the choices they have made relative to trials and pricing of the full product, rather than anything else. It really isn't a question that piracy is better (because more and more, we are seeing it's not - malware as an example). Rather, it's a question of how the landscape has changed with apps and sites like Steam.
The gaming landscape has changed, and people are less willing to part with $40-$100 for a game sight unseen. They have too many other options out there that are free or "without cash cost" to try out. The risks of buying an expensive game are high.
So no, it's not a business model failing in not dealing with piracy, sorry, sad trombone for you for trying. It's about an evolved landscape, mostly on the free apps side.
"It helps if the examples you propose aren't so insanely hyperbolic and undermine your own argument by demonstrating that when someone puts up an ad for an obviously illegal service/product the site is quick to take it down(if they allow it up at all)."
I used an extreme example to try to get you to think a bit - does the drug dealer have to be arrested and put in jail before they drop the ad? Nope, they won't accept the ad because they know that selling drugs is illegal. Prostitution is illegal as well. Knowing that all of the ads lead to paid sex (because they do), should they continue?
For that matter, how many arrests do you think they would need before Backpage might consider that these ads are for prostitution? Should they take the police department's word, should they accept the AG for the state saying so?
For that matter, what percentage of the ads have to be show to be for sex? Arw you suggesting that they run the ad until the court finds the defendant guilty?
"As such the idea that they 'know' that 'none of the ads is for an legal service' is rubbish, you're again asserting that they should 'just know', and if you can spot illegal ads that easy then why in the world are you here, I'm sure there are likely hundreds of police and government agencies that would love to employ you."
The police know as well. The problem isn't knowing that an ad is for a prostitute, it's the cat and mouse game required to prove it. It actually requires that the police book the girl, actually get there, and actual get her to admit (in as many words) what she charges for sex. Well trained girls (and pimps) make sure that they avoid the exact words and use very terms to avoid the entrapment. Some go as far as to not accept direct payment, but to require a "tip" put in an envelope on the night stand, without the girl touching, counting, or considering it during the act (it's a way to avoid the concept that she had sex for money, the sex was free will and the tip was just because she was such a nice person).
So the police already know, they don't need me to tell them. It's why the concept of "keep it public so they can go after them" is such crap. They know where the hookers are, they know where the pimps are, and they play an endless game to try to get them to make just enough of a mistake to arrest them - otherwise, they skate free for another day. When you consider that a set up for a single arrest might take a team of cops a full shift, and that there are hundreds of ads every day, you can understand that it's spooning out the ocean material.
it's why the goal is to remove easy access to the public, to make the business less "open" and acceptable, and move it more underground. Make it harder for the "occassional" worker to get involved, make it harder for girls to do sex tours, and generally make it harder for the public and the providers to connect.
"b) Unless I am horrifically misinformed, 'adult ad' does not automatically equal 'illegal ad'. Were that the case I find it hard to believe the site would still be in business with an adult category(as something they directly created they would be liable for that were it illegal)."
Thanks to section 230, it's not a question. The site is not liable even the ad is for something truly horrible. That is the issue, and that is the abuse of section 230 in a nutshell.
"Yes, if only companies would pay more attention to the legally mandated 'I am a criminal' tagline on all user submitted content posted by criminals so they knew who they were dealing with. /s"
Which is why there are so many ads on Backpage for hit men, hard drugs, and invitation to join gangs intending to rob a jewelers store.
See, they don't have to wait for someone selling drugs to be arrested and charged before they remove their ad (try it, try listing "heroin for sale" on backpage and see how long you ad lasts).
Prostitution is illegal. None of the ads is for a legal service. Why wait for a conviction here when in other areas, they act immediately?
On the post: Shouldn't Federal Judges Understand That Congress Did Not Pass SOPA?
Book thrown
I think what is key here is the phrase "with notice of the injunction". It means that other parties are not required to follow the judgement until notified. After that point, they can ignore it and risk further legal implications.
Remember that each and every one of them could be served with DMCA notification and be liable if they didn't take appropriate action where possible to either remove the content in question or render it "unavailable". With the judgement in hand, it's very hard for them to argue otherwise.
Now, they are free to ignore it, at their peril. It may not be binding, but between the judgement and DMCA, they would have a very hard time not taking some sort of action, even if that action is to file lawsuit to try to avoid responsibility.
Yes, the judge's words are not binding - but the judgement does not suddenly render all the other existing laws null either.
On the post: Supreme Court Won't Review US Government Getting To Steal All Of Kim Dotcom's Stuff
I would also say the courts are likely to take a very dim view of a guy who isn't willing to appear in court to face charges against him but can quickly whip up a couple of lawyers to appear to try to get his money. It actually looks pretty bad.
There also isn't much in the way of conflict between jurisdictions to resolve either. There isn't a series of opposing judgments in the different districts that needs addressing.
Further, and let's make it clear: "The issue here is that as part of the arrest of Dotcom and his colleagues, the US "seized" many of his assets. Now, when the government seizes assets, it's a temporary thing." The problem here is that Kim has been dragging out the extradition process as long as possible (and really way longer than is merited, New Zealand has one of the most patient legal systems in the world), in no small part to try to run the clock out on the asset seizure.
My feeling is if Kim had gotten the money back, he would have hopped the first transport he could get on to move to a neutral third country that wouldn't extradite him - with or without a passport. He pretty much knows if he ever gets into the US, his goose will be cooked.
There was little here for SCOTUS to deal with: An endless extradition, outstanding criminal charges, a defendant who appears mostly interested in the money and not in clearing his name, and a total lack of controversy at the federal court level. Why would they want to review the case?
On the post: Campaigners For SESTA See It As A First Step To Stomping Out Porn
Re: Re: Re: Re:
With the internet, the problem is defining community. It's not where you live, but where you go, I guess. There have only been a very few obscenity prosecutions in the last couple of decades, and that usually involve content that most people would find offensive. The two cases I can think of involved Max Hardcore (real name Paul Little) spent 4 years in jail for his gagging / choking videos, and Rob Black (Rob Zicari) and his wife got nailed for "horror porn". Otherwise, the mainstream, middle of the road stuff has been ignored on the level of obscenity.
The fact that straight porn is legal and acceptable in the US means that any prosecution has to be for the very edges of things, and few producers seem to make that stuff in the US. Online delivery means that most of those who do make it are generally able to avoid prosecution so far.
On the post: Campaigners For SESTA See It As A First Step To Stomping Out Porn
Re: Re:
The most useful yardstick at the moment is Reno v. ACLU - in that case, obscenity laws written for the internet were stuck down. They were pretty light rules all considered, and the court struck them down. Nobody has even suggested to take a swing at that again, Conservative types certain fear having the court rule against any anti-obscenity law, as it would confirm the legality of the products. They much prefer the current stew of indecision.
It should be noted that USC 18 section 2256 and 2257 apply to the production of adult material. Decent record keeping, model releases, ID copies, and the like have made it much harder for anyone underage to slip into porn. The existence of section 2257 record keeping for production of porn essentially codifies porn into law - ie, the government cannot regulate what is not legal. In regulating porn, they have also defined it as legal.
So your basic shag film isn't going to even wiggle the needle on obscenity - it's long since been proven to be legal.
On the post: Campaigners For SESTA See It As A First Step To Stomping Out Porn
Thankfully, in the US anyway, non-obscene porn is generally considered protected speech. Every attempt to shut it down or block it has ended in failure for simple first amendment issues. Even when draped in the "for the children" mantra, it fails because the courts can clearly see the problems.
Attempts by the politicians to enforce stricter record keeping laws and make it almost impossible to run a porn business in the US failed (COPA, and COPA II).
So yes, there will be exceptional groups who will try to turn the new law into something else. Don't let their puny voices against legal activity get in the way of dealing with the illegal activities of prostitution and pimping.
On the post: SESTA Is Being Pushed As The Answer To A Sex Trafficking 'Epidemic' That Simply Doesn't Exist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Legalized prostitution (ie, no rules at all, do what you like) would almost certainly lead to a public health crisis. It would also likely have huge social implications in people running whore houses in residential neighborhoods, etc.
So you end up with... the need for regulation.
Regulation costs money, and money is raised by taxation or user fees. There really is no other choice.
Love it or hate it, there isn't any "just make it legal". Every change has implications, and not everyone can handle them.
On the post: Showtime Won't Explain Why Its Website Was Hijacking User Browsers To Covertly Mine Cryptocurrency
Who started this issue recently? The Pirate Bay. Didn't read any outraged comments then, even when they were running a miner that would knock your cpu usage to 100%.
Ahh, the double standards!
On the post: Sirius XM Uses DMCA To Memory Hole Archive Of Howard Stern's Interviews With Donald Trump
Re: Re: FU, or not FU? That is the question.
The works in question are clearly copyright. There is no debate there.
The debate of fair use is blunted quite a bit by the lack of any other editorial material with these audio files. There is no indication that the site is specifically education, it looks much more, umm, political in nature.
A rights holder has no obligation to make something available. Copyright in fact allows them to hold it for 75 years without releasing it. It's up to them.
On the post: SESTA Is Being Pushed As The Answer To A Sex Trafficking 'Epidemic' That Simply Doesn't Exist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It can - but the level of disguise to get it into mainstream advertising and make it stick (ie, not get shut down the next time) would render the product undetectable by the intended customers. Remember, this isn't a secret message between two knowing people, it's someone trying to sell a product to all potential buyers. If the buyers know the code, it won't be long before the sites do too, and boom, shut down. It's a pointless exercise.
"I've done some research right now and while this may be true in fact the legalization brought much more benefits than negatives."
Actually, in Amsterdam it's become worse. Limited licensing and limited space means the girls pay huge fees to be in business, huge fees to rent space they could never afford to buy, and become beholden to a pimp and a landlord. Legalization in a manner that made it safer for the public didn't work out. It's a huge bone of contention in Amsterdam right now and an on going problem, especially as spaces in the red light district get shut down and converted to other uses.
"Legalizing with severe constraints is the same of keeping it illegal."
In anything, legalization usually comes with regulation. Right now the pot laws in places like California are leading to widespread abuse by "doctors" writing up prescriptions for weed for ailments that people just don't have - only so they can buy weed. Amsterdam did outright legalization, and then reigned it back in by limiting it to licensed coffee shops. It means that the drug problem there actually got worse, as street level drugs are always harder drugs and it actually breeds more addicts. Oops!
Prostituion legalized and regulated is often too much of a burden, there will always been a black market. How you deal with the black market, how you keep that black market from gaining traction and becoming more mainstream is key in fighting against it, keeping it dark and keeping almost everyone with money away from it.
On the post: SESTA Is Being Pushed As The Answer To A Sex Trafficking 'Epidemic' That Simply Doesn't Exist
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not an equivalent argument. Drugs are very illegal, and have never had anyone tolerate them advertising in public.
If anything, the legalization of weed should tell you what happens when drugs get even marginally legalized - people ilne up for it. Imagine if you could legally put ads for smack and coke on Backpage...
"general knowledge of criminal activity in your infra-structure is NOT enough to make you a criminal as many court decisions have ruled already."
There is a point where you go from "general knowledge" and it moves on participant. With section 230, we never get to find out, the site always has an "out".
" Except reality says otherwise. Make it more available, make it properly regulated and give girls protection. "
Okay, reality check for you: Prostitution is unlikely to ever be fully legal in the US because it's not going to play with the conservatives or the extreme libs either. So that fantasy won't play out.
I can also tell you that in Hong Kong, where single girl / single room prostitution is entirely legal, the business is dominated by... illegal immigrants from China working for triad pimps. They abuse the single girl laws to promote the girls one at a time and skirt the law, while still taking most of their money and then sending the back to China when they are worn out. Legalization didn't do anything except give the illegal operators ANOTHER way to dodge the laws.
Amsterdam? Red Light district, doors, and well maintained government mandated testing and licensing... and tons and tons of street prostitution, pimps, and organized crime.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/why-amsterdams-prostitution-laws-are-still-failing-protect-empower-women-14 67733
"In theory, women would be less likely to suffer abuse at the hands of pimps, less likely to be involved in human trafficking, and more likely to earn a decent wage.
And yet, the system hasn't worked – it's made things worse.
A prostitute in Amsterdam, a notoriously expensive city, will pay up to one hundred euro a night for the rent of a window.
She also has to pay a pimp, and pay taxes if she registers – though only 5% of prostitutes have actually registered for tax, perhaps for fear of the social stigma that comes with publicly announcing yourself as a prostitute."
It fails. Legalization is a dead end, it goes nowhere.
Want another example? Nevada. Legalized prostitution everywhere except Clark County, and yet Nevada has the highest level of prostitution arrests, the most "girls to your room" bull crap, and not surprisingly, lots of Backpage style activity. Hmmm. Legalization has worked out, right?
On the post: SESTA Is Being Pushed As The Answer To A Sex Trafficking 'Epidemic' That Simply Doesn't Exist
Re: Re: Re: Re:
CL and backpage already filter out all adult ads on their regular listings. They do it already. So nothing changes.
So what's the damage?
On the post: SESTA Is Being Pushed As The Answer To A Sex Trafficking 'Epidemic' That Simply Doesn't Exist
Re: Re:
The question is making it less available. It's moving it from "7-eleven on every corner" to "only available in a dark alley downtown". Lowering availability in theory lowers demand, make the product less desirable and more dangerous to try to get, and not available anywhere any time. Cut down the income, cut down the profits, and cut down the desire for pimps to try to make easy money.
For the rest:
"who does not vet what appears on their site"
willful ignorance isn't a great legal defense. Intentionally ignoring what others post on your site (save for section 230) would not be a very good legal defense.
So, to sum up: make the ads less available. Make the product less available, take it out of mainstream public acceptability, and drive down the income for the girls and their pimps. Make it less desirable to be in the business, and perhaps they will rope in fewer girls.
It's not simple, but it is certainly better than doing nothing at all about a serious problem.
On the post: SESTA Is Being Pushed As The Answer To A Sex Trafficking 'Epidemic' That Simply Doesn't Exist
"Human trafficking arrests are almost nonexistent in most states, according to the FBI's newly released U.S. crime statistics for 2016.
Part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) project, the new data on sex and labor trafficking shows that arrests for either offense are rare and that many suspected incidents of trafficking did not ultimately yield results."
Let's go through all this again, shall we?
The courts have made it entirely legal to do "girl to your door" services (such as you see in Vegas). You pay a flat fee, and they deliver a girl, period. The girl then does whatever she wants (she's a hooker, so she negotiated sex for money, aka prostitution), but the guys who got here there are free of liability because they didn't directly accept money for prostitution.
Actually nailing guys like that for human trafficking, pimping, proxenetism - whatever you like, is very complicated - close to near impossible.
Even in less organized situations, it's generally the girl who eats it legally, and since she is generally "owned" by someone and not in a position to turn against them, it's unlikely you will ever get anything that links the pimp to the actual sex crime.
Basic facts: 90% of prostitutes have a pimp.
https://nobullying.com/prostitution-statistics/
Oh, and there is no issue?
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2017-09-24/police-compton-prostitu tion-ring-shut-down-36-arrests-made
That is this week...
2015:
http://time.com/4022124/prostitution-nationwide-sting/
With nearly 100,000 vice prosecutions each year, prostitution isn't small time. That's a pretty serious issue no matter how you slice it, and no matter how hard you try to sweep it under the rug in the name of a free internet.
On the post: Backpage's Biggest Law Enforcement Critic Doesn't Think He Needs SESTA To Take Down Backpage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Backpage's Biggest Law Enforcement Critic Doesn't Think He Needs SESTA To Take Down Backpage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You could do a quick phone survey and find out. Anyone advertising a legit "escorting" service wouldn't be posting there. So you can figure that almost every ad without exception leads to a sexual encounter. 90% of prostitutes are run by pimps, so you have a 90% chance of hitting a girl who is "owned".
"ollateral damage as people who were offering a completely legal product/service have their posts taken down right alongside people who were offering illegal products/service."
Quite simply, if you are offering a legit escorting service (ie, model for your prom or business function) you wouldn't be advertising in that area. Legit escorting is incredibly rare for the most part, and generally not offered by the hour at a hotel.
"Because while the alternative might make it slightly more difficult for people to find them, it also will impact a whole bunch of perfectly legal activity."
They will certainly be harder to find. It wouldn't impact legal activities in the slightest, again those offering legit escorting services / security and the like aren't going to advertising in that way and in that section. They don't want to get mixed up with pimps and hos.
"Law enforcement is supposed to be hard, it is supposed to take work, because taking the easy route is all but guaranteed to impact a lot of people doing nothing wrong,"
Yes, but in the case of prostitution, there is so much caselaw and so many flaming hoops to jump through, and the punishments are fairly low. Remember, because it's generally the girls getting the money, they are the "low hanging fruit" that gets busted. They end up going through the court system, locked up over night, paying a fine, and walking away the next day. To get there, it took the police to set up a sting, monitor (and maybe video) and try to get the girl to admit the payment is for a sexual act.
Want to get the pimp? You have to either get a girl to turn or get the pimp to admit the money is for sex, both of which are pretty rare.
The other option (and the one explored by this law) is that of removing at least some of the income potential.
"And once again, it's not 'abuse' of a law to use it as intended."
I don't think sainted Mr Wyden wanted underage escorts and their pimps to get a free ride online.
Section 230 let's sites turn a blind eye, when they could not do the same operating in the real world. That means that section 230 allows them to essentially ignore every other law, because they are magically exempted.
Now, it wouldn't be so bad if they were not looking for these types of ads but they showed up occasionally. It's not the case, they are actively looking for them and working very hard to find ways for people to pay for them. They know full well what the ads are for, and Backpage does report some cases to the feds in regards to minors. They cannot deny that they know what the ads are about.
On the post: Larry Lessig's Latest Big Challenge: Fixing The Way We Elect A President
Re: God save us from Lawrence Lessig.
I find it interesting that his Mayday PAC has taken a bunch of money from Peter Thiel. Yes, that guy.
I find it interesting that his mainstay argument on copyright, that it should be subject to first amendment limits, was chuckled out of every court including SCOTUS (7-2 against, a rare massive majority decision showing just how far off the farm he really way).
I find it interesting that his Presidential campaign was, well... sorry, I lack a word that is more mundane than mundane and more meaningless than meaningless to cover it.
Mr Lessig is a Theorist, plain and simple. Theorists tend to lack in the basic concept of applying things in the real world. He has shown again and again that he talks a nice talk, but it never seems to inspire anything except more ruminations from those who make their living off of being theoretical (Hi Mike!).
I don't think Lessig is doing a PETA here. I don't think he's capable, honestly. Attention whoring is a whole other bag, it requires a certain amount of flamboyance and flash that he's not really bringing to the party. That he really hasn't found a flash point handle to get a grip on his current theory means that the public isn't likely to buy in. It's something that will lead to more partisan whining and not much else.
So yeah, file this with "free speech overrules copyright".
On the post: Backpage's Biggest Law Enforcement Critic Doesn't Think He Needs SESTA To Take Down Backpage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What I am saying is that because it is difficult to make a case and the time requirement per case is very high, it's often not very effective to go after the pimps and prostitutes on individual case basis. It's often much more effective to do what might be considered "crime prevention".
The requirement for a prostitution bust is actually getting the girl to agree to have sex for money. the courts have over the years made this a really, really narrow set of circumstances. The use of special words and "donation" envelopes and all other sorts of work around are to avoid touching any of the things the court has ruled as actionable. Police are forced to make attempts to get the girls to say the wrong words in order to get an arrest.
The pimp? Forget about it! They either take the girl's money after the after the act, or use a flat fee referral system collected up front to connect the customer and the girl - and often do both. Why do you think the Las Vegas "Girls to your room" thing stands as legal? They charge a flat fee to deliver a girl to you. After that, it's up to you and the girl. So they can stay out of the dirty transaction, and the court allow them to by agreeing that they are only a referral service, even if they should be aware of the fuller picture.
The police know the players, they know the game. LV police routinely sting these girls, but it never leads them to the bosses, who have insulated themselves legally from the real action.
So no, it's not about arresting anyone without proof. It becomes much more a question of why the courts (and the laws) are unable to deal with larger, step by step organizations. The disconnection is somewhat insane and very obvious.
On the post: EU Buried Its Own $400,000 Study Showing Unauthorized Downloads Have Almost No Effect On Sales
Re: Re:
Your point has always been that the business model fails because of "infinite distribution". That isn't the issue here, is it?
The issue here is more to do with the choices they have made relative to trials and pricing of the full product, rather than anything else. It really isn't a question that piracy is better (because more and more, we are seeing it's not - malware as an example). Rather, it's a question of how the landscape has changed with apps and sites like Steam.
The gaming landscape has changed, and people are less willing to part with $40-$100 for a game sight unseen. They have too many other options out there that are free or "without cash cost" to try out. The risks of buying an expensive game are high.
So no, it's not a business model failing in not dealing with piracy, sorry, sad trombone for you for trying. It's about an evolved landscape, mostly on the free apps side.
So no apology, sorry!
On the post: Backpage's Biggest Law Enforcement Critic Doesn't Think He Needs SESTA To Take Down Backpage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I used an extreme example to try to get you to think a bit - does the drug dealer have to be arrested and put in jail before they drop the ad? Nope, they won't accept the ad because they know that selling drugs is illegal. Prostitution is illegal as well. Knowing that all of the ads lead to paid sex (because they do), should they continue?
For that matter, how many arrests do you think they would need before Backpage might consider that these ads are for prostitution? Should they take the police department's word, should they accept the AG for the state saying so?
For that matter, what percentage of the ads have to be show to be for sex? Arw you suggesting that they run the ad until the court finds the defendant guilty?
"As such the idea that they 'know' that 'none of the ads is for an legal service' is rubbish, you're again asserting that they should 'just know', and if you can spot illegal ads that easy then why in the world are you here, I'm sure there are likely hundreds of police and government agencies that would love to employ you."
The police know as well. The problem isn't knowing that an ad is for a prostitute, it's the cat and mouse game required to prove it. It actually requires that the police book the girl, actually get there, and actual get her to admit (in as many words) what she charges for sex. Well trained girls (and pimps) make sure that they avoid the exact words and use very terms to avoid the entrapment. Some go as far as to not accept direct payment, but to require a "tip" put in an envelope on the night stand, without the girl touching, counting, or considering it during the act (it's a way to avoid the concept that she had sex for money, the sex was free will and the tip was just because she was such a nice person).
So the police already know, they don't need me to tell them. It's why the concept of "keep it public so they can go after them" is such crap. They know where the hookers are, they know where the pimps are, and they play an endless game to try to get them to make just enough of a mistake to arrest them - otherwise, they skate free for another day. When you consider that a set up for a single arrest might take a team of cops a full shift, and that there are hundreds of ads every day, you can understand that it's spooning out the ocean material.
it's why the goal is to remove easy access to the public, to make the business less "open" and acceptable, and move it more underground. Make it harder for the "occassional" worker to get involved, make it harder for girls to do sex tours, and generally make it harder for the public and the providers to connect.
"b) Unless I am horrifically misinformed, 'adult ad' does not automatically equal 'illegal ad'. Were that the case I find it hard to believe the site would still be in business with an adult category(as something they directly created they would be liable for that were it illegal)."
Thanks to section 230, it's not a question. The site is not liable even the ad is for something truly horrible. That is the issue, and that is the abuse of section 230 in a nutshell.
On the post: Backpage's Biggest Law Enforcement Critic Doesn't Think He Needs SESTA To Take Down Backpage
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is why there are so many ads on Backpage for hit men, hard drugs, and invitation to join gangs intending to rob a jewelers store.
See, they don't have to wait for someone selling drugs to be arrested and charged before they remove their ad (try it, try listing "heroin for sale" on backpage and see how long you ad lasts).
Prostitution is illegal. None of the ads is for a legal service. Why wait for a conviction here when in other areas, they act immediately?
Oh yeah, income. Forgot about the money!
Next >>