"But they index that particular file type for the purpose of making copyright infringement easier. That's why those sites exist. That's why people use those sites. That's pretty much the only reason why people use those sites. We all know it."
That's a very dangerous assumption to make, much less operate upon. And that's the issue with the search engines being taken down. More and more businesses are making their programs downloadable via bittorent (I think the latest version of my anti-virus was that way). So if we shut down an entire search engine just because there is infringing material out in the great-wide interwebs, what about the legitimate ones? How is that a good decision to block a legitimate business use of a technology just because some people may use it to pirate? Wasn’t that the discussion over VCR’s, Walkman’s, and CD burners? Bittorrent is a new form of this argument… one that many businesses are finding a great value in.
It may be true that these search engines started out as a way to make infringement easier, but that model is changing. It's dangerous to keep operating as though it hasn't.
Another point that was missed in the other two responses:
By blocking the publication of these websites (seizing the domain names), the government has squelched free speech in the attempt to block illegal expression (copyright infringement)... this is known as prior restraint and a violation of the First Amendment. Did they lose something of value? Only their rights to free speech.
Re: Get used to it, its how things work, you have the same right as they do (media), and they the same as you.
everything you've said is actually pretty well formulated and (as far as I can tell) right. But you're missing the problem here...
When a cop takes your contraband, he doesn't take everything you own along with it. What we're talking about is the authorities seizing an entire domain for suspected infringing material. And this is where this case diverges from your analogy of contraband and property... that website represents speech and expression. Some of which may be protected speech. If you block protected speech in an effort to stop infringement (or other illegal expression), that's prior restraint and has been shown to be unconstitutional.
Was the judge right in trying to secure the rights of copyright holders? Absolutely... illegal activity should be stopped. However, you cannot infringe upon protected constitutional rights to do so.
I'm not sure why people fail to understand this: Mike is not protecting copyright infringement... he's trying to protect individual rights that are being infringed by those with power and money (entertainment industry). Yes, my right of expression does not trump your copyright... but your copyright does not trump my right to non-infringing expression.
and you obviously didn't read my link to the article where a judge issued a court-ordered gag on proceedings that was a violation of free-speech and was overturned by a higher court.
So, yes a judge would be so stupid as to issue and illegal court order.
Are you arguing my reference or the recent seizure of websites? Quit dancing around the matter. And you still have yet to point out where it's not a First Amendment Violation just because there's a judge-signed court order.
Look, I've pointed out fact and proof... Mike has pointed out fact and proof... I've come to the realization that you're either just don't get it or you're being willfully dense. Either way, I'm done. I'm not hear to teach those who refuse to listen and especially not those that revel in ignorance.
Feel free to take whatever victory you want to claim with your iron-clad logic of "because I said so"... even my kids don't argue thus anymore.
I hate to break it to you, but your opinion (howeverly childishley stated) does not constitute legal application. Nor does your opinion disprove or discredit everything Mike, or anyone else, has said about COICA. That's what facts are for. Got any?
"And no, please, tell me all about the JUDGE breaking the First Amendment. Please. Post it right here:"
Actually, I asked you for citation to support your statment that a judge can set aside the First Amendment by court order. Want proof that they can't? Ok...
"Injunctions and the Press in Fair Trial Cases .--Confronting a claimed conflict between free press and fair trial guarantees, the Court unanimously set aside a state court injunction barring the publication of information that might prejudice the subsequent trial of a criminal defendant." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/09.html
A judge decided to put a gag-order in place (court order) and it was over-turned as a First-Amendment violation. Oops.
Wait... which of these 20+ agencies from before DHS was the one in charge of policing the internet and seizing domain names without due process? I'm a bit fuzzy on that.
If this is 'just a customs issue', who would be the group with the authority to do this before being merged into DHS?
Do you people read these or just see 'copyright' on a post and start yelling "Mike's a liar and a thief!!"?
"I wonder if Mike Masnick will ever explain this strange agenda he has: defending sites that rip off artists and creators?
About the same time that you anonymous posters come forward with identities. Instead of just revolving around each other with the same tired accusations with no foundations in reality.
I'm sure Mike can defend himself, so I'll speak for the sake of truth and simple knowledge... I do hate to see either trodden upon.
Mike has constantly stated that he does not support piracy and agrees that copyright infringement is illegal. If you actually take the time to read, he (like most of the rest of us) are not for piracy, but against government censorship and the revocation of the rights of Free Speech in deference to copyrights.
Not to worry, due to a lack of Net Neutrality laws, our tubes are getting clogged by bigger dumptruck-loads of data being moved by single users. If I can't send a simple ineternets, how can an immigrant make it through?
Don't know if you're still around to read this after the long weekend...
That was not the differentiation Mike was talking about. Look... Mike is saying that piracy is expression but not protected expression. The court case was saying that prostitution is not expression (protected or otherwise). Therefore, since piracy is expression, you cannot block protected speech in the effort to block piracy. Since prostitution is not expression, the same defense of prior restraint would not apply.
And I disagree with you on the prior restraint... just because it did not result in a positive ruling in the past does not make it irrelevant to this discussion. Remember, those cases were settled, not ruled upon... there was no appeal to try the prior restraint argument higher up. While I see how it looks for the argument of prior restraint in those past cases, that is not proof that it failed then, nor that it fails here.
from: http://supreme.justia.com/us/478/697/ "Held: The First Amendment does not bar enforcement of the closure statute against respondents' bookstore. United States v. O'Brien, supra, has no relevance to a statute directed at imposing sanctions on nonexpressive activity, and the sexual activities carried on in this case manifest absolutely no element of protected expression."
"sexual activities carried on in this case manifest no element of protected expression"
So are you saying that the word "protected" being in there causes the case to show that prostitution is an expression, just not a protected expression? I read the part of the sentence before that: “[case] has no relevance to a statute directed at imposing sanctions on nonexpressive [sic, sp] activity…” as saying that the prostitution was the non-expressive activity. So that's how I read that and where I 'picked it up'.
"And prior restraint is not an issue here."
From the actual blog post this thread is discussing: "First off, the bill would allow the Justice Department to take down an entire website, effectively creating a blacklist, akin to just about every internet censoring regime out there. Now, it is true that there is a judicial process involved. The original bill had two lists, one that involved the judicial review, and one that did not (it was a "watch list," which "encouraged" ISPs and registrars to block -- meaning they would block them). However, everyone seems sure that the second list will not be included in any final bill. Even so, there are serious problems with the way the bill works. Case law around the First Amendment is pretty clear that you cannot block a much wider variety of speech, just because you are trying to stop some specific speech. Because of the respect we have for the First Amendment in the US, the law has been pretty clear that anything preventing speech, due to it being illegal, must narrowly target just that kind of speech. Doing otherwise is what's known as prior restraint."
I'd say that qualifies these discussions as being about prior restraint. At least the discussions that are actually about the subject and not misdirection, personal attacks and the many other logical fallacies I've seen tossed around here. The core issue: yeah, it's prior restraint.
I must be reading things different... everything I've read over looks like courts agree that while copyright infringement is a form of expression, it does not gain First Amendment proctection since it violates legal Copyright:
"“Verizon concedes, as it must, that there is no First Amendment defense to copyright violations. The Supreme Court ... has made it unmistakably clear that the First Amendment does not shield copyright infringement. In other words, the First Amendment is not a license to trammel on legally recognized rights in intellectual property. Indeed, copyrights serve as important incentives to encourage and protect expression: the Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression.” (internal citations and quotations omitted)"
"In the event that Napster, Inc. cannot separate the infringing and non-infringing aspects of its service, its First Amendment argument still fails."
Which does this come from again? I read it as saying that if Napster could have spearated it's infringing and non-infringing aspects of it's service, the First Amendment argument could have succeeded. And again, I believe the argument was that the action of shutting down the whole service would have been prior restraint on the un-infringing portions of the service which would qualify for First Amendment protection.
I'd like to read the whole thing to get the full context. Although I'm unlikely to read it today as I'm only around for another 45min.
You make a good argument here... but all it's showing is that copyright infringement is not protected speech and is therefore not afforded First Amendment protection. Something Mike has stated he agrees with.
What the whole point of ALL of this was is this:
1) Copyright violation (piracy) is a form of expression, albeit illegal.
2) Any law that stops legal expression in its effort to stop illegal expression is unconstitutional on the basis of prior restraint.
"Yet he doesn't believe prostitution could be considered expression.
Wouldn't the same concepts apply? A woman could say she is protesting gender inequality by being a prostitute, etc."
But the much-contested Arcara v. Cloud Books state that prostitution is not a form of expression, which is why prior restraint does not apply. Sure, an argument could be made that prostitution is a form of expression... Cloud Books tried that. But the judges disagreed. And ultimately, isn't that where we establish such definitions? Isn't that the reason such cases are cited in discussions like these? To establish the definitions of the terms under discussion?
On the post: Homeland Security Admits That It's The Private Police Force Of The Entertainment Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's a very dangerous assumption to make, much less operate upon. And that's the issue with the search engines being taken down. More and more businesses are making their programs downloadable via bittorent (I think the latest version of my anti-virus was that way). So if we shut down an entire search engine just because there is infringing material out in the great-wide interwebs, what about the legitimate ones? How is that a good decision to block a legitimate business use of a technology just because some people may use it to pirate? Wasn’t that the discussion over VCR’s, Walkman’s, and CD burners? Bittorrent is a new form of this argument… one that many businesses are finding a great value in.
It may be true that these search engines started out as a way to make infringement easier, but that model is changing. It's dangerous to keep operating as though it hasn't.
On the post: Homeland Security Admits That It's The Private Police Force Of The Entertainment Industry
Re: Re:
By blocking the publication of these websites (seizing the domain names), the government has squelched free speech in the attempt to block illegal expression (copyright infringement)... this is known as prior restraint and a violation of the First Amendment. Did they lose something of value? Only their rights to free speech.
On the post: Homeland Security Admits That It's The Private Police Force Of The Entertainment Industry
Re: Get used to it, its how things work, you have the same right as they do (media), and they the same as you.
When a cop takes your contraband, he doesn't take everything you own along with it. What we're talking about is the authorities seizing an entire domain for suspected infringing material. And this is where this case diverges from your analogy of contraband and property... that website represents speech and expression. Some of which may be protected speech. If you block protected speech in an effort to stop infringement (or other illegal expression), that's prior restraint and has been shown to be unconstitutional.
Was the judge right in trying to secure the rights of copyright holders? Absolutely... illegal activity should be stopped. However, you cannot infringe upon protected constitutional rights to do so.
I'm not sure why people fail to understand this: Mike is not protecting copyright infringement... he's trying to protect individual rights that are being infringed by those with power and money (entertainment industry). Yes, my right of expression does not trump your copyright... but your copyright does not trump my right to non-infringing expression.
On the post: Five Questions For Homeland Security Concerning Its Online Censorship Campaign
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, yes a judge would be so stupid as to issue and illegal court order.
On the post: Five Questions For Homeland Security Concerning Its Online Censorship Campaign
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look, I've pointed out fact and proof... Mike has pointed out fact and proof... I've come to the realization that you're either just don't get it or you're being willfully dense. Either way, I'm done. I'm not hear to teach those who refuse to listen and especially not those that revel in ignorance.
Feel free to take whatever victory you want to claim with your iron-clad logic of "because I said so"... even my kids don't argue thus anymore.
On the post: Five Questions For Homeland Security Concerning Its Online Censorship Campaign
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I hate to break it to you, but your opinion (howeverly childishley stated) does not constitute legal application. Nor does your opinion disprove or discredit everything Mike, or anyone else, has said about COICA. That's what facts are for. Got any?
Actually, I asked you for citation to support your statment that a judge can set aside the First Amendment by court order. Want proof that they can't? Ok...
A judge decided to put a gag-order in place (court order) and it was over-turned as a First-Amendment violation. Oops.
On the post: Five Questions For Homeland Security Concerning Its Online Censorship Campaign
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmm... oh I don't know... only every single article on COICA and all the related studies, cases, etc that were used in discussion.
oookaay... citation to support that statement?
On the post: Five Questions For Homeland Security Concerning Its Online Censorship Campaign
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If this is 'just a customs issue', who would be the group with the authority to do this before being merged into DHS?
On the post: Five Questions For Homeland Security Concerning Its Online Censorship Campaign
Re: Re: Re:
Really? I'm... I'm dumbfounded.
The sites were taken down by ICE... which is a part of the DHS. Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement
Do you people read these or just see 'copyright' on a post and start yelling "Mike's a liar and a thief!!"?
About the same time that you anonymous posters come forward with identities. Instead of just revolving around each other with the same tired accusations with no foundations in reality.
I'm sure Mike can defend himself, so I'll speak for the sake of truth and simple knowledge... I do hate to see either trodden upon.
Mike has constantly stated that he does not support piracy and agrees that copyright infringement is illegal. If you actually take the time to read, he (like most of the rest of us) are not for piracy, but against government censorship and the revocation of the rights of Free Speech in deference to copyrights.
On the post: Five Questions For Homeland Security Concerning Its Online Censorship Campaign
Re:
~snerk~
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That was not the differentiation Mike was talking about. Look... Mike is saying that piracy is expression but not protected expression. The court case was saying that prostitution is not expression (protected or otherwise). Therefore, since piracy is expression, you cannot block protected speech in the effort to block piracy. Since prostitution is not expression, the same defense of prior restraint would not apply.
And I disagree with you on the prior restraint... just because it did not result in a positive ruling in the past does not make it irrelevant to this discussion. Remember, those cases were settled, not ruled upon... there was no appeal to try the prior restraint argument higher up. While I see how it looks for the argument of prior restraint in those past cases, that is not proof that it failed then, nor that it fails here.
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not so fast...
You too!
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
from: http://supreme.justia.com/us/478/697/
"Held: The First Amendment does not bar enforcement of the closure statute against respondents' bookstore. United States v. O'Brien, supra, has no relevance to a statute directed at imposing sanctions on nonexpressive activity, and the sexual activities carried on in this case manifest absolutely no element of protected expression."
"sexual activities carried on in this case manifest no element of protected expression"
So are you saying that the word "protected" being in there causes the case to show that prostitution is an expression, just not a protected expression? I read the part of the sentence before that: “[case] has no relevance to a statute directed at imposing sanctions on nonexpressive [sic, sp] activity…” as saying that the prostitution was the non-expressive activity. So that's how I read that and where I 'picked it up'.
From the actual blog post this thread is discussing:
"First off, the bill would allow the Justice Department to take down an entire website, effectively creating a blacklist, akin to just about every internet censoring regime out there. Now, it is true that there is a judicial process involved. The original bill had two lists, one that involved the judicial review, and one that did not (it was a "watch list," which "encouraged" ISPs and registrars to block -- meaning they would block them). However, everyone seems sure that the second list will not be included in any final bill. Even so, there are serious problems with the way the bill works. Case law around the First Amendment is pretty clear that you cannot block a much wider variety of speech, just because you are trying to stop some specific speech. Because of the respect we have for the First Amendment in the US, the law has been pretty clear that anything preventing speech, due to it being illegal, must narrowly target just that kind of speech. Doing otherwise is what's known as prior restraint."
I'd say that qualifies these discussions as being about prior restraint. At least the discussions that are actually about the subject and not misdirection, personal attacks and the many other logical fallacies I've seen tossed around here. The core issue: yeah, it's prior restraint.
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Not so fast...
"“Verizon concedes, as it must, that there is no First Amendment defense to copyright violations. The Supreme Court ... has made it unmistakably clear that the First Amendment does not shield copyright infringement. In other words, the First Amendment is not a license to trammel on legally recognized rights in intellectual property. Indeed, copyrights serve as important incentives to encourage and protect expression: the Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression.” (internal citations and quotations omitted)"
Which does this come from again? I read it as saying that if Napster could have spearated it's infringing and non-infringing aspects of it's service, the First Amendment argument could have succeeded. And again, I believe the argument was that the action of shutting down the whole service would have been prior restraint on the un-infringing portions of the service which would qualify for First Amendment protection.
I'd like to read the whole thing to get the full context. Although I'm unlikely to read it today as I'm only around for another 45min.
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re: Not so fast...
What the whole point of ALL of this was is this:
1) Copyright violation (piracy) is a form of expression, albeit illegal.
2) Any law that stops legal expression in its effort to stop illegal expression is unconstitutional on the basis of prior restraint.
On the post: Lars Ulrich: Underestimated File Sharing.. But Proud We Sued
Re:
Lars... say it with me... "I was wrong!" See? That wasn't so hard. &_&
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the much-contested Arcara v. Cloud Books state that prostitution is not a form of expression, which is why prior restraint does not apply. Sure, an argument could be made that prostitution is a form of expression... Cloud Books tried that. But the judges disagreed. And ultimately, isn't that where we establish such definitions? Isn't that the reason such cases are cited in discussions like these? To establish the definitions of the terms under discussion?
On the post: TSA Agents Absolutely Hate New Pat Downs, Find Them Disgusting And Morale Breaking
Re: Re: Re: Keep up the pressure
On the post: Lars Ulrich: Underestimated File Sharing.. But Proud We Sued
Re:
On the post: Lars Ulrich: Underestimated File Sharing.. But Proud We Sued
Re:
I get your analogy, but in the eyes of the law, they are NOT the same things. Sorry.
Next >>