Slashdot Log In
Following up on Torrent Shutdowns
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:53 AM
from the whats-going-down dept.
from the whats-going-down dept.
dantheman82 and others have submitted a number of links about the recent closure of torrent mega sites like suprnova and torrentbits.
The
Unofficial Suprnova Closure FAQ comments that some torrent site maintainers have been arrested and that Suprnova was closed over fear of similiar fate.
DeHavilland notes that the finnish police raided an unnamed torrent site. There's a lot of scary things here, but to me what is most scary is that American copyright owners can mobilize foreign police to do their bidding.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What does mobilizing foreign police actually mean? (Score:5, Informative)
> that American copyright owners can mobilize foreign police to do their bidding.
This would be scary, if you think that taking sites down was not just and legitimate. I don't know the facts about finish rights, but under german right suprnova could have been shut down.
It's not always the US pushing and picking on people and maybe it is not in this case. At least I believe, that the finnish police made it's own independent decision.
With Indymedia It actually seemed to be some tougher mobilizing:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/10/07/204217.shtml
Re:What does mobilizing foreign police actually me (Score:5, Informative)
That's what the Finnish police themselves say. What's interesting is that MPAA has been attempting to take the "credit" for the raid. Sure, everyone knows they are lying bastards, but one would expect them to pick lies that are not so easy to check...
Parent
Re:What does mobilizing foreign police actually me (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
OWNED!!!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
The site now reads:
I haven't included linkage... I think we've all seen gotse.cx.
Parent
Re:OWNED!!!!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:OWNED!!!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
First I will say that I am not interested in downloading the vast bulk of stuff out there - Its way less hassle just to hire the DVD or tape it off TV or whatever.
However I have always found the whole idea that just providing *links* (going right back to Napster) is some sort of criminal or civil offence.
Look at it this way. If you sell ripped off CDs or DVD at a market & get caught, thats a copyright offence - ok.
But if I just say to someone "I know of a guy in such-and-such a place that sells ripped off CDs or DVD " - should just providing that info (or link) an offence? So why just limit the principle to Copyright? Why not *ANY* sort of offence? If you provide a link (for whatever reason, and by this logic maybe even inadvertently) to a place that is engaged in some "illegal" activity, that becomes an offence, right?
Essentially we just end up with a situation of "legislation creep" where the bounds of law expand to such an extent that it is impossible to avoid breaking the law in some trivial way - and you can be arrested on the whim of the authorities.
And have you noticed the ever swelling prison populations (increasingly harvested as cheap/slave labour) around the world - UK, USA, maybe China..
Orwell anyone?
Parent
Re:What does mobilizing foreign police actually me (Score:5, Interesting)
which made under finnish law, the copyright infrigment into copyright crime, since they were making money with piracy.
True that the money was spent on paying their expenses running the dedicated server abroad, but it was still income from distributing copyrighted material.
Point being you're not allowed to receive any income or donations from illegal material or byproducts of such, no matter what your expenses are while getting the material.
You're allowed to download such material under current fair use laws for personal use, as long there's no intention for profit.
The line of intention was crossed on this occasion because of the donate button.
Parent
Re:What does mobilizing foreign police actually me (Score:5, Insightful)
This would be scary, if you think that taking sites down was not just and legitimate.
No, it's scary full-stop. The problem isn't that the sites were shut down, it's that police have been arrseting people. This should be a civil matter, not a criminal one. I was under the impression that copyright infringement was only a criminal matter in the USA - what are local police doing getting involved? It should be lawyer letters to their ISP, not people with guns coming to take you away.
Parent
Re:What does mobilizing foreign police actually me (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know anything about Finnish law, but it's a criminal matter if Finnish law says it is.
In the US, you are exposing yourself to civil *and* criminal penalties depending on the infringement.
Look, mommy, I can Google! Here's a page at the US DOJ about it [usdoj.gov].
Parent
Ob Ghostbusters Quote (Score:5, Funny)
That's right, and you dont want us exposing ourselves.
Parent
Re:What does mobilizing foreign police actually me (Score:5, Insightful)
Believe it or not, some things are illegal while others aren't. Recording a show off television for personal use was always legal and is still legal. This is why you can legally own a Tivo. Distributing copies of movies on a massive scale and getting moeny for it (as these advertising- and donation-driven sites are doing) was always illegal and still is. In the 1980's if you were selling pirated video cassettes or tapes on the streets of New York, you were doing something illegal and could be arrested. Today, if you are offering pirated movies or music online, that is a crime and you can be arrested. The fact that it is happening online does not magically change things. It would appear that it is you who can't remember the past. What these sites were doing has never been permitted.
Parent
Re:What does mobilizing foreign police actually me (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Under the DMCA, specifically the section 512(d), sets out the criteria under which the 'search engine ' examption applies. The following key points are worthy of note:
Thus, this can only apply if the site owners are never aware that the material they are indexing is infringing.
A simple look at the front page of Suprnova.org is enough to belie that.
If a site wished to claim 512(d) as a defense, they would have to demonstrate to the court that they did not know any of the material they indexed was infringing.
Now, there might be a defense, under the multiple layers of abstraction, in that Suprnova indexed
Simple rule of thumb: If it's common knowledge that a site is were to look to find infringing materials, and is of little other use, 512(d) won't apply (on the grounds that it beggers belief that a site owner would have no grasp on _why_ so many people were using thier site).
Disclaimer: You're not paying for this, this is not legal advice. If you want legal advice, contact a lawyer in your juristriction.
Parent
Irony? (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't it slightly ironic [slashdot.org] a site, outlining the demise of a site to enable IP violations, is worried about someone stealing [slashdot.org] their IP?
Re:Irony? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is not stealing it is copyrigth infrigment.
Parent
Re:Irony? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I copy your CD without your permission, YOU STILL HAVE IT. You've been deprived of *nothing*, except the highly speculative "loss" a sale (which presumes that I would have paid your asking price in the first place, and that I won't buy a "legitimate" copy later)
Checking a book out of the library and scanning the contents is fair use.
Capturing a song or TV show off the air neither stealing nor copyright infringement, it's fair use.
Giving away your fair-use copies CAN also be legal fair use as well in some circumstances; it can also be illegal copyright infringement in others. It is a legal grey area -- giving a copy to a relative is unquestionably OK. Giving a copy to 10 casual accquaintances is probably OK. Giving a copy to everyone in a class you are teaching might be OK. *SELLING* a copy is *NOT* OK.
Parent
Re:Irony? (Score:5, Insightful)
No it's not. Getting the word out that the 'official' FAQ is located at one address, then it's made known that other versions located elsewhere could be modified, changed, etc. I imagine there's a lot of disinformation flying around about this topic right now, and they want to make sure everyone knows where the proper resource is located.
Parent
Re:Irony? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
numbers?? (Score:5, Interesting)
If BT was accounting for 35% of traffic, what's it at now? Still declining?
Re:numbers?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Did anyone NOT expect this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Did anyone NOT expect this? (Score:5, Insightful)
But this has little to do with right and wrong and much more to do with balance of power. Those with money and infrastructure (MPAA is only an example) will do everything in their power to maintain control over profitable media. Are content producers being hurt by torrents? Marginally. I think a balance will be struck in the distant future where content providers and consumers interact directly, with publishers taking diminished (not eliminated) role. Half-Life 2 is an early example.
Abuses will diminish when the proper channels are available.
Parent
unofficial? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm confused...
Not that scary (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I'm not sure how it's scary. If I'm the owner of some digital item that has a copyright on it and some other country where copyrights are valid has people breaking it I hope the police would do something about it.
Re:Not that scary (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Doing their bidding (Score:5, Insightful)
What did you think they were paid to do, pull over and beat minorities?
Re:Doing their bidding (Score:4, Insightful)
The moment someone makes unbeaten minorites illegal, yes.
Parent
Re:Doing their bidding (Score:5, Insightful)
Until recently, copyright law in the US was a purely civil matter (I cannot speak for other nations). While I shed no tears for the sites that have shut down whether under actual or possible threat of litigation, I do object to using the police to enforce these kinds of things. They should be working on other things related to public safety, and even in the safe cities of Europe, I'm sure there are open cases, and even cold cases, that could be worked rather than sending them to do what the lawyers should be doing.
Parent
Criminal copyright law is not entirely new (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Doing their bidding (Score:5, Insightful)
The MPAA et al are getting foreign law enforcement agencies to arrest people will little or no evidence that they've actually committed a crime in the coutry that they're being arrested.
That's like me ringing up the French police and demanding that they raid someone in France that I think might have some involvement in the unauthorised distribution of my "IP". I'd be laughed off the phone.
Parent
Re:I guess the issue is (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
unnamed finish site (Score:5, Informative)
Re:unnamed finish site (Score:5, Informative)
National Bureau of Investigation(KRP) made announcement that they(MPAA) were trying to fish off free publicity from their investigations, and had nothing to do with the shutdown
Parent
all of your police are belonged to U.S. (Score:5, Funny)
all of your police are belonged to U.S.!!!!
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, what is most scary is that people think they flaunt copyright laws on such a massive scale and get away with it.
Furthermore, this is exactly what should be happening: the government attacks those who break the law, rather than those who create the tools. Bit torrent and p2p applications have legal, useful purposes; by seeking those who use them in illegal ways rather than banning them altogther is appropriate, rather than trying to ban them.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Shutting down a torrent sites which feature copyrighted movies and music annoys those who just want something for nothing. DRM hurts everybody, and especially every geek.
It is a given that the MPAA, RIAA, etc. are going to do SOMETHING. I would rather have them do this than add copy protection to every A/D converter made.
Parent
MPAA had nothing to do with the finnish raids (Score:5, Informative)
Actually it has been reported that MPAA had NOTHING to do with the finnish raids.
The KRP (Keskusrikospoliisi = FBI?) has publicly said that the MPAA has not been in contact with the finnish authorities. Here is a site [itviikko.fi] (in finnish) that says it all.
Re:MPAA had nothing to do with the finnish raids (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
copyright is not american only (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally, those "American copyright owners" are also the German copyright owners, and the French copyright owners, and the Japanese copyright owners, and the Russian copyright owners. About the only place they aren't the copyright owners is Gilligan's Island.
Freenet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Freenet is probably too slow to recreate a site like Suprnova, but how about this. Instead of using Freenet to distribute each individual torrent, could you publish on Freenet a torrent that contains other torrents? For instance, a torrent for each category of files, like what was on Suprnova - a "Movies-Drama" torrent that contained a zipped file of all torrents in that category? This way, you wouldn't be relying on Freenet to distribute every torrent file, just a much smaller index of torrents.
If somebody wanted to take ownership of this, they could create a Freenet page with an anonymous feedback form. When somebody has a torrent to publish, they could submit the info to the anonymous form, and then the publisher would compile all the new torrents into the next version of the index.
Sound feasible?
Slippery Slope (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't new. Remember anon.funet.fi? (Score:4, Informative)
With enough money to fund attorneys you can apparently get other countries, especially the Finnish, to comply.
International Copyright Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps dantheman82 needs to understand the concept of international copyright law. Many countries, including those in the story, have agreements to enforce each other's copyrights.
The sites being shut down were rampantly violating the copyrights of an organization big enough to fight back.
What's scary is that the submitter thinks shutting these sites down is somehow wrong and unjust. There are a lot of things wrong with the big music companies, but this is not one of them.
If there's something to be angry about, be angry that these governments wouldn't take the time and effort to protect your small time products in the same manner they protect the big big time products.
Re:International Copyright Law (Score:5, Insightful)
> what is most scary is that American copyright
> owners can mobilize foreign police to do their
> bidding."
> Perhaps dantheman82 needs to understand the
> concept of international copyright law. Many
> countries, including those in the story, have
> agreements to enforce each other's copyrights.
I think it's more the fact that they can get the police in another country to shut down a copyright violator, whereas Joe Average can't get the police in their own country to catch the person who burgled him..
Parent
Easily impressed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you miss out on the CIA campaigns of assassination in the 1960's and 1970's? If the US government can mobilize foreign coups d'etat to snuff the democratically-elected leftist leaders of nascent democracies, then taking down a bunch of pimply-faced warez monkeys is neither surprising nor newsworthy.
The facts on copyright and international relations (Score:5, Informative)
The anti-American whining is making you look stupid. Stop it.
Re:Listing substitute sites? Smart (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:BooHoo (Score:5, Informative)
So they are not CLEARLY offering illegal content, as...
Wait a minute. Let me actually look this up. I'm applying patent law thinking to this...
*looks it up*
Oh fuck. Okay, so copyright protection usually DOES apply in foreign countries, assuming they signed the Berne Convention, are members of the WTO or signed the WIPO Copyright Treaty.
Parent
Annan has not been accused of taking money. (Score:5, Informative)
There is absolutely no evidence that Kofi Annan has personally profited from the oil-for-food program.
Remember, this program was set up at the behest of the US, with support from the UK and was, according to UNICEF, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Sectio nID=15&ItemID=6861 [zmag.org]
Parent
Re:Exactly (Score:4, Informative)
Kojo Annan worked for Cotecna, *In Nigeria*, and left before Cotecna had the Iraq contract. He had deferred comp (like Cheney has from Haliburton), but has done no work for them since.
How did Cotectna get the contract - string pulling, right? WRONG. The previous contract holder was Lloyd's Register. Lloyds left on almost no notice, leaving all inspections of goods held up until a new company could be found. An incredibly short bidding period was consequently given, and whatever companies bidded had to be able to start work immediately. As a result, and due to the very limited number of inspection companies, only one company offered a bid; Cotecna. When you have only one bid and all good shipments into a country of over 20 million people are held up until a contract is granted, the choice is obvious.
Furthermore, OFF did not benefit Saddam to the tune of 23 billion dollars. Kickbacks through OFF contractors are estimated at around 5 billion dollars; the rest (of which the amount is controversial; some US investigations have said only 5 billion) are from oil smuggling, which is outside the scope of OFF.
FURTHERMORE, OFF's 661 committee, which was in charge of blocking contracts, had absolutely no authority to either investigate companies for giving kickbacks to the Iraqi government, or to block them even if it knew about this. Their charter authority was only to block banned items from getting to Iraq. There was a body that could block contracts, but it wasn't an OFF body: it was the UN security council. I.e., *our government* could have investigated and blocked contracts (it only took one government). It didn't. The 661 committee actually complained about suspected kickbacks to the security council; it didn't act.
Also, you seem unaware of how kickbacks work. The kickbacks aren't kickbacks to the company; they're kickbacks to the Iraqi government. In order to get the contracts, the company would have to raise their prices. On paper, the company would have been making a much larger profit as a consequence, but in reality they were only paid for what they initially would have charged, and the Iraqi government would get the extra money. Kickbacks are almost standard in many 3rd world countries, but Iraq was just a particuly sensitive case.
Next: Your claim that Kofi is ineffective, and that you think the world will cheer when he's gone. Well, lets just do a quick search:
"Kofi Annan and Pope John Paul Top the List of Most Popular World Leaders in Five Largest European Countries"
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/ allnewsbydat e.asp?NewsID=821
"Person of the Week: Kofi Annan
For turning the fight against AIDS into a world war and for his popular reelection as U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan is our Person of the Week" (many more details about his tenure follow)
http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,85 99,165905
Whole bunch of links related to him, his policy platforms, and why he's so popular in the world (outside America)
http://www.globalpolicy.org/secgen/
Kofi's win of the Nobel Peace Prize:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200 1/10/12/ un_nobel011012.html
I could easily keep on going.
Lastly, for Reagan. You claim:
"... used the proceeds to fund essentially anti-Communists during the Cold War"
Go read a summary of what the contra war was like, for starters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras (general summary)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_t he_America s (used to train the contras, among others)
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icases/inus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Negroponte (covered up abuses in Honduras so that we could train Contras there)
http://www.wakeupmag.co.uk/articles/cia5.
Parent