Patriot Act Used to Enforce Copyright Law? 725
iter8 writes " The Stargate SG-1 Information Archive is reporting that the Feds filed charges against Adam McGaughey, creator of SG1Archive.com. The website is a fan site for the television show Stargate SG-1. The charges allege that Adam used the website to engage in Criminal Copyright Infringement and Trafficking in Counterfeit Services. Two interesting things about the charges are that they were apparently set in motion by a complaint by our friends at the MPAA and the FBI invoked a provision of the USA Patriot Act to obtain financial records from his ISP. Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?"
Yes it is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Jaysyn
Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Abuse? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's still illegal? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, but it is still illegal.
Am I the only one who thinks people shouldn't break the law?
Just because you don't agree with the law doesn't mean you should break it. CHANGE it.
Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Change the damn law (Score:3, Insightful)
This Patriot Act thing really needs to be refined. While parts of it may be good, it's worded so that it can be invoked in far too many cases. This escapade with The Stargate SG-1 Information Archive is just the latest example.
Will the law be redefined? The Powers That Be won't do it on their own, as the Patriot Act is (according to their collective mentality) too good a tool to throw away or change. The public needs to call for the change, loudly.
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup (Score:4, Insightful)
Which just goes to show that the act's promoters were basically lying, since that's the flag under which they sold it.
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup (Score:2, Insightful)
I can understand damaging a component if it were hindering their invistigation. But prying open an iBook with a screwdriver, damaging the screen?
That's just plain evil.
This is what... (Score:5, Insightful)
What we as a collective need to do, and need to do now, is to take a look at the ambiguities in this act, and the scope of it and put down strict guidelines as to when and where it could be enforced and put some damn oversight while you are at it.
The Govt has cleverly chosen depictions of late night arrests and mysterious black cars/helicopters as the evidence of a communist/totalitarian regime. They hope you would never equate that with Feds in uniforms. They hope to turn your attention to daily terrorist warnings, to turn your attention away from the extent to which these antiquated laws can be abused.
You all have a clear choice this November. Even if that choice is starkly different from the other half of the nation, act now to ensure you still have civil liberties when all this is over.
need more info... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? (Score:2, Insightful)
The only thing that could rescind the Bill of Rights is a constitutional ammendment. The USA PATRIOT Act is not a constitutional ammendment, therefore every single one of these cases should be overthrown in the federal courts without question. The PATRIOT Act is illegal.
Actually.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not yet.
The patriot act is not illegal until it is declared so by the US Supreme Court, and (sorry) it probably won't be declared unconstitutional. Maybe some small parts, but most likely not all of it.
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup (Score:3, Insightful)
Complete text of the PATRIOT Act available here [epic.org], BTW.
Re:It's still illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Here goes Slashdot blowing things out of proportion again. I'm shocked.
Has anyone here actually read the USA Patriot Act? Or the 9/11 Commission report? Or written their Congressman?
Everyone just bitches on Slashdot. No wonder nothing ever changes.
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup (Score:2, Insightful)
Not the point! Think about INDUCE. (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is not that he was or was not breaking the law. The point is that this is yet another case of a law being applied outside its original scope.
Every time some new law comes up, people say "what if the law's abused, how about putting in some clauses describing how it's supposed to be applied, so it can't be abused". The lawmakers and other defenders of the purity of our bodly fluids say "CLEARLY the FOO act would never be used for BAR, and your clause would allow some tiny fraction of FOOmeisters to go free!"
So what happens? You get the DMCA being used to enforce toner cartridge and service and support monopolies, RICO being used against churches, and so on...
So here we have the INDUCE act. People have pointed out that it could make VCRs and iPods illegal. Apologists argue that they'd NEVER ban a USEFUL technology, they'd only go up against BAD people who are pushing CRACKING SOFTWARE and PIRACY NETWORKS and scary stuff like that.
Wrong. If a law can be applied in any way... however inappropriately... it will be. Whether it's the Alien and Sedition Act, the PATRIOT act, RICO, the DMCA, or INDUCE... laws like these are an attorney's field of dreams.
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be nice for you if that were the whole story, but it's not. It should be written "amended many laws that were already on the books so that the FBI wouldn't need to be distracted with pesky Constitutional requirements such as judicial oversight.
Whether this guy willingly broke copyright law, which it sounds like he did, is another matter. Whether copyrights, previously litigated, should be a matter for door-kicking-in police/feds, is an issue that needs to be revisited.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Re:oh dear (Score:2, Insightful)
Well spotted that man.
We are defending this guy why?
Here we see the dangers of only getting one side of the story. That said, this is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They could have simply demanded the ISP remove access to the material. Anti-terrorism measures should not be used for a relatively minor crime.
Re:Article Text (Score:2, Insightful)
> the content of his website
I'm not sure that the opinions of the shows creators have anything to do with it. Adam's beliefs of their opinions are even less relevant.
> Many other sites are currently serving content of questionable legality,
> without promoting the sale of DVDs or offering a community for fans to discuss
> the show.
What other sites are doing is irrelevant.
Re:Of course.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Shoplifting, for example: steal a can of coke, the state (as in the government and the governing collective) loose x cents taxation. Hence, you have just committed an attack against the state and can be immediatly sent for an indefinate stay at a small jail in Cuba during which friends and relatives may or may not be told about your detention.
Hitler and Stalin would both of envied being able to do such legally.
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup (Score:3, Insightful)
So they may not all be liars, some of them may merely be incompetent morons with the intelligence of the common garden slug.
Only one side of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
I also observe that the "article" asks for donations to this guy's legal defense fund. Before anyone clicks to donate, I suggest that you consider that the "article" is a clearly biased view of the facts. He admits to no wrongdoing, but even a Slashdot poster has been able to show that this guy has some culpability. Shame on Slashdot for accepting this submission and allowing it to be passed off as truth.
He had links to DIVX's of the shows while DVD (Score:4, Insightful)
Now lets be a little objective here. Newcomers don't know but those that have lurked around for quite a while (myself) and have appreciated the site for a number of years know. The REAL reason for this lawsuit was that divx bootlegs of nearly (all?) every episode, up until a couple years ago, were available here for download. THAT'S why he got raided. So don't let the one sided story that's on here fool you. If it were truly for linking to legitimate dvd sales, I would be standing in line to donate to the legal fund. As it stands, it's a legitimate lawsuit.
Oh... and of course... don't believe ME... Check it out for yourself. The internet wayback machine has the pages archived.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010418190842/...sg1a
Just click on the links for the seasons and you can see that they were available for download via ASF and DIVX.
Now, the FBI probably was involved because of the overseas links to the DIVX contents when he was originally sent a "Cease & Desist." But, INAL...
Point is, there was copyright infringment, I'm sure the DCMA would have been the better act to follow, I don't know why they pulled the patriot act, other than it's another "TOOL" at their disposal....
BTW, the fact that this was from 2002, and it is just now being brought up, makes you wonder if it wasn't a planted story because of a certain election that is going to be playing out soon...
You know, FUD by the DNC? - Interesting thought, thats all I submit, no flames please, not trying to make any political points...
Re:Look at this (Score:2, Insightful)
Either there's still a chunk of story we're missing, or MPAA/FBI have blown this way out of proportion.
Re:Yes it is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Well you know, if people vote for a candidate and they get enough votes, yes they'll get office. You know, it's called democracy. That's how it votes. You pick the candidate whom you believe will do the best job and you vote for them.
This is true of any democracy, apart from the U.S, where people apparently feel that they must simply vote for either the guy most likely to win, or the other guy because they don't like one candidate. It's totally braindead. How often do you hear "I don't like candidate X but I'm going to vote for him because at least he isn't candidate Y!" How fucking stupid is that?
Then we get confused voters like you, who believe that voting for the guy you like the most is "wasting" your vote. It seems the two largest political parties in the U.S have done a bang up job of making you believe this. The problem in the U.S is that a lot of people think like you, so nobody votes for the candidate they really want, so that candidate looses and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
Common sense long left the voting public, it seems. So I guess you'll always be stuck with Cookie Cutter Candidate A or Cookie Cutter Candidate B. Both of which nobody really likes and they both suck up the guys with the cash anyway, and couldn't give two flying blue fucks about stiffs like you but you'll keep on voting for them because you're a scared little puppy, and if you don't vote for A then B might win and we all know B kills puppy dogs! Can't let happen can we? Now just remember to vote Democan or Republicrate come November and it'll all be O.K
Police State Wish List Act (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright infringement is not a terrorist act. The USA PATRIOT Act wasn't designed to fight terrorism. It was just sold as a law to fight terrorism. (If I were the wild-eyed type, I'd say the PATRIOT Act is a terrorist act.)
Virtually every provision of the USA PATRIOT Act was on John Ashcroft's Police State Wish List well before the terrorist attacks of 9/11 ever happened. After the attacks, it didn't take long to wrap every rotten proposal up with a great big red-white-and-blue ribbon and ram it through Congress. Ashcroft demanded it be passed within three days with no amendments [peacecouncil.net]. In the heat of that moment, only a handful of legislators from either side of the aisle dared to suggest that we should be more careful with our liberty.
Easy come, easy go, I guess.
Re:Look at this (Score:5, Insightful)
You might figure out at some point that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is the government organ for handling internal federal problems, and currently is enagaged in everything from counter-terrorism thru to tracking down bank robbers. Enforcement of copyright is generally down to a civil action rather than getting a government body to kick your doors down. For one thing, every taxpayer is now engaged in protecting the copyright holders, so now you're not only buying their products, but paying for them to keep the prices where they want them.
Next time someone detonates a large-ish bomb in a city centre, think about whether the FBI's manpower is better spent working for the good of society or the good of a corporation.
As for the moral aspect of it, usually it's considered polite to send some contact first, and generally to a postal address. Getting a PI to serve papers has to be easier on the taxpayer than invoking an anti-terrorism law, just not as scary.
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. (Score:4, Insightful)
So, what you're saying is, people can be prevented from breaking existing laws by passing a law against it?
That explains quite a bit....
Re:This is what... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Patriot Act and its proponents has done a fantastic job in making America feel safer under its umbrella, hence I would not go deep in to why Patriot Act and other regulations wont keep americans any safer (it will probably save the land, but not its citizens who choose to travel beyond its boundaries). What I believe would keep its people safe is when its Govt decides not to trample over the collective will of the rest of the world over starkly contrasting priorities and beliefs.
You are admitting that Kerry does want to take out the obviously scary stuff while leaving some behind. We have an administration who is backing the law in its current state, with all the scary stuff thrown in, and they want to make it Permanent!!!
Bush had his shot at the White House. He could have chosen to unite the country on the wake of 9/11. He took the path of the religious right, choosing to align himself with right wing nuts like Falwell and folks like Apostolic Congress. He chose to wage a crusade, he chose to go to war over vague notions as to what a WMD is. He chose to divide this country, rather than unite it.
Kerry might do a double take like Bush when he becomes President, but my perspective of him is more of a statesman, of a masterful politician, a man who chooses his words wisely, a man who did not have the Presidentship handed to him on a platter. Him, I can trust, atleast for the next 4 years. Bush, I have lost that trust.
Re:oh dear (Score:1, Insightful)
We are defending this guy why?
Even the guilty have the right to due process.
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Patriot act, at it's core, was designed to remove many of the limitations on law enforcement. If all you really care about is catching criminals, rather than about personal rights or privacy or any of that other stuff that gets in the way, then where you really want to live is in a police state. We've had those and most people didn't like them very much. The protections were there for a reason. The Patriot act was a bald manipulation of public emotion over 9/11 to pass a bill that had been shot down dozens of times over the last few years and decades. It's certainly true that there's nothing restricting those powers to use against terrorism (which was pointed out at the time the bill passed, and ignored). It's passing was dishonest at best.
Now, as for catching criminals - nothing in the patriot act was needed to "catch" this guy. In fact, a simple C&D from a lawyer directly to him probably would have been sufficent. One to his ISP certainly would have been. Unless there's (a lot) more to this case that we don't know about, like he was using the SG-1 fansite as a cover for child porn or sale of nuclear weapons or something, then the amount of force used against him was totally out of line. If there is more than we know, then we should know it - it should have been on the search warrant and it should be in the court case.
The people are not supposed to be accountable to the government! It is supposed to be the other way around. The police/FBI/CIA/etc are there for YOUR benefit, and they are not supposed to be able to act in secrecy and without public justification.
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:5, Insightful)
The airing of grievances in a public forum (like Slashdot) is an essential part of achieving change. Nothing happens until a critical mass of people become aware.
The down side of the long slow bell curve (Score:5, Insightful)
I was going to moderate this comment, but I found there's no "sad" category. This is spot-on (heck, I've already left), and the sentiment needs to be better known. Sure, the US has lots going for it -- but so many of the positives seem more like historical legacies slowly being choked to death by the corporate greed and public complacency that has enveloped the country.
And now I embark on some very general theorizing, so bear with me.
Historical comparison:
The Islamic world was a major intellectual force from around 700 to what, 1300 or so? They brought us algebra, among other things. But this drive for knowledge got choked off -- the Powers That Be decided that the spirit of inquisitive examination of the world had learned "enough", and the screws were tightened. And now it seems we are seeing signs of the same choking in the West, driven largely by the US, with greed as the engine.
Suffice it to say I am dismayed. I dearly hope someone (a very many someones) will prove me wrong, but it will take years of very different behavior in the US to bring me around.
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:5, Insightful)
How about joining the ACLU and bitching on Slashdot? The article may not give both sides of the story, but regardless of whether the guy is a 'bad guy', its not ok for the FBI to take legislation specifically drafted to fight terrorism and use it whenever they see fit. And I don't see any problem with bitching about things that are wrong.
Re:Article Text (Score:0, Insightful)
Well, it might not have been in the article, but he was -- plain and simple. I know folks that have used this site to download the shows when they missed an episode. Hell, I had to watch Atlantis this was as I missed the first episode (and didn't realize it was coming on 17 times in the next week like all of SciFi's shows)...
I can safely say if it weren't for places like this, I'd have probably bought the box sets already -- I mean, these are generally as good of quality as my VCR and you don't have to worry about commercials.
So -- is it a stretch to use the Patriot Act against this? No. Maybe the Patriot Act needs to be rewritten and let the copyright laws do their thing...but of course, that wouldn't satisfy slashdoters either -- because they want everything for free. Who cares that the content cost money to produce, it gotta be for free.
As for Ashcroft being a fascist -- he may well be, but in this case his administration is using the tools provided to them. I personally think criminals of any sort need to be hit with every fucking law applicable. That will do two things -- it will make people realize we need to simplify the legal system, and it will allow the unjust laws to be published. Innocent (and not so innocent like this asswad -- what the fuck was he thinking, everytime I looked at that site, I wonder how it was staying up as long as it was) will be hurt doing this, but sometimes you have casulties in a war. If we can declare a fictious war on an idea like terrorism, why not declare a real war on unjust laws.
Of course, I'm posting this anonymously because I don't want anyone knocking on my door simply because I needed to watch a show the next day I missed and I haven't gotten around to buying a Tivo yet
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here comes a rant (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:oh dear (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a matter of defending him. It's a matter of objecting to the FBI invoking 'terrorism' to avoid due process in a case that clearly has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
Further, it's a matter of objecting to a criminal investigation of what should be a civil matter. In addition, it's a matter of objecting to the FBI wantonly destroying or outright stealing his property for no good reason (yes, stealing! If they take it for investigation, then don't return it within a reasonable amount of time, ethically, it's theft). Surely the FBI should know that stealing is wrong!
He SHOULD have recieved a cease and desist by registered mail. If (and only if) he chose to ignore that, he should have recieved a summons. The FBI should have had nothing to do with it, there should have been no search and siezure, no vague mumblings about international conspiracies, no destroyed hardware, etc.
I can't speak for everyone here, but I'm not objecting to him facing negitive consequences for posting episodes on his website. I'm objecting to the FBI abusing it's power, neglecting it's responsabilities, and lying to the courts.
Re:Yes it is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes it is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Way already on the bus, man.
For US voters who don't know what The Libertarian Party [lp.org] is, here's a good 10 second summary [badnarik.org].
Their presidential candidate this time around is Michael Badnarik [badnarik.org]. He's a computer programmer by trade and he gets the whole "The Patriot Act really was a bad idea" argument.
FYI.
Re:oh dear (Score:2, Insightful)
KFG
Re:Do a little research (Score:1, Insightful)
hell, if i wanted to, i could get on the newsgroups and have google archive messages of me spreading whatever kind of stuff i wanted to. doesn't make it true, and it certainly doesn't lend much credibility when its just one person.
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, when the Patriot Act was passed there was considerable discussion regarding this exact issue, and assurances were made that the PA wouldn't be used except for clear-cut cases of terrorism.
Actually, when the Patriot act was passed, there was no discussion. That only came after it was passed.
ssurances were made that the PA wouldn't be used except for clear-cut cases of terrorism.
Yeah, they always do that. Then, when the furor dies down, they push it as far as it will go.
Material support? (Score:3, Insightful)
>Donate
> Buy T-Shirt
1. Donate to legal defense fund / Buy T-shirt.
2. Get charged with providing material support for terrorists.
3. ???
I think I'll pass.
I preferred it when #3 was "Profit!", even though I still haven't solved for the old #2.
Re:YOU are FUDding here! (mod me up) (Score:5, Insightful)
First: Re "YOU are FUDding here!" -- no, he's not. Read the guy's post about the raids etc for a minute and forget about whether you liked his site or liked Stargate. It's totally misleading crap that doesn't even remotely mention that the raid was related to him (even at one point in the past) having hosted entire episodes. No, he makes it out to be an issue of linking to amazon that got him raided by the FBI.
Second: Giving this
Also, as people mentioned there's discussion over at metafilter, and someone there stated that he knew he was going to be raided and had been moving around quite a bit before it happened, etc...
The ONLY valid point of discussion here is whether or not the PATRIOT act should be used, and if measures / activism need to be taken to get it repealed. Linking to this scammer's donation/"help my sorry ass" site without even realizing what a scammer he is, however, is upsetting to me.
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:5, Insightful)
When people first started warning that USA-PATRIOT granted the government absurdly broad powers, its supporters replied, "Oh, don't worry about it, it's just to go after terrorists -- they won't use it in other kinds of cases." Now that it's being used as a blunt instrument against people who are not terrorists by any reasonable definition of the word, we're being told, "Well, what can you do, it's the law." Great.
If you feel that the Patriot Act is a bad thing, write your congressman. Join the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But don't sit here on Slashdot and bitch, you're not changing anything.
Talking about these things, getting the word out, does have an effect -- in the long run, more of an effect than any single letter or donation. FWIW, I was an ACLU member before
Re:Article Text (Score:2, Insightful)
There's no law stating that these agencies had to be slow, cumbersome, and reactive.
Just because these agency are (perceived to be) a buerocratic mess (even if I can't spell it), don't short circuit due process.
If there are other stupid laws (such as preventing an agent from using a publicly available resource like google to "investigate" as you point out) they should be ammended/removed, but lets not throw out the baby (due process/ civil liberties) with the bath water ( inefficiency , other hindering law enforcement laws).
*shrug* I think what most people feared about the PA is that it would be used in situations other than or too broadly (or not even) defined "terrorist"... and that's what we seem to have here. copy right infringement != terrorism unless they think he's funnelling all his amazon referral money to bin laden? c'mon now =)
e.
Re:Um, wow (Score:1, Insightful)
try the fact that he HASN't hosted anything for over 2 years and complied with taking the content down. OVER 2 YEARS AGO.
or did you want us to overlook that little fact.
do more research you idiot instead of blindly reposting someone elses information.
Re:Police State Wish List Act (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess you are the wild-eyed type, because you pretty much just said it.
Or would you be okay if GWB said, "If I were the conspiracy type, I'd say that John Kerry eats babies."
Would you be quiet if the president said that?
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to agree with this and to add that if the Patriot Act was used, I do not care what sort of criminal this guy might have been. He is innocent to me.
I agree that the government should track and jail scumbags. This guy sounds like a real scumbag. However, there is a reason we have the rights we were given in the Constitution, and the FBI is wrong to make use of inappropriate laws in order to make it more convenient to catch someone. I really do not care if the guy has a rap sheet that streches from Texas to Canada. Copyright infringement is not a terrorist act (even if Jack Valenti may think so).
Re:Um, wow (Score:3, Insightful)
And as a taxpayer, one of the folks who supposedly gets to decide the mission of his government bodies (including the FBI), I really don't give a fuck what TV show the guy was illegally hosting on his site. I'd much rather the FBI (which, remember, I support with my tax dollars) goes after REAL criminals and not copyright infringers.
Copyright infringement is a case for civil, not criminal courts. Anything else is a waste of my tax dollars.
Max
On the other hand... (Score:4, Insightful)
When you are not voting for something, but against something - often the replacement is not what you expect.
Re:Article Text (Score:3, Insightful)
Shit yeah since apparently without oversight they end up wasting their investigative resources on crap like this. For copyright violation to be criminal, it has to be done for financial gain - otherwise its a torte. Since he wasn't selling the episodes, its very doubtful that is even a criminal matter.
patriotic duty (Score:5, Insightful)
People might defend the guy without deciding whether he's worth defending. OTOH, the government is prosecuting the guy as a terrorist, justifying an invasion of his privacy (financial records) unwarranted by the act of which he's merely accused, not even convicted. Now that the "Patriot" Act is used to prosecute mere copyright violation, Slashdotters can choose to defend our rights to privacy by protecting our rights to copy, even when the copyright violation is valid. Even we nerds and geeks who make our living from copyright protection are more threatened by unjust laws like the "Patriot" Act. If only the rest of the population would participate in such central decisions of our democratic society, with the degree of organization that counterbalances the lawyers at the "Justice" Department, we might actually resolve some of these issues, and debunk these false choices.
Re:OY MODS! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:YOU are FUDding here! (mod me up) (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what this is about. The government, bought and paid for by the folks in the cartel, bowing to their masters. If I have to explain to you why this is fucked, I am wasting my time - THE GOVERNMENT IS PROSECUTING COPYRIGHT CASES WITH A LAW MEANT TO PREVENT THINGS LIKE PLANES CRASHING INTO BUILDINGS!!!
Of course, that's probably a moot point to types like you, who will gleefully state that hey, the US govt can do anything they want with their laws, it's their intellectual property, and if you don't like it, you don't have the right to make them do anything...
Oh wait...
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:5, Insightful)
And there in you see the problem. The entire point of everyone bitching about the patriot act was because they didn't think the gov't should have these powers for use in every day investigations. But the gov't just said hey don't worry, well never use this against normal criminals, we just need this for terrorists. Low and behold.... they lied.
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup (Score:2, Insightful)
I certainly wish this person had posted a copy of their warrant, and pictures of the equipment. There is so much that they could do to shore up their story. However, if their story is correct this certainly is "another Steve Jackson affair."
The important point thing about the Steve Jackson case had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he was guilty. The case was an example of hundreds of cases that were occuring all over the country at the time that shared two common characteristics:
1. Law Enforcement had no idea what they were talking about. (They thought a role playing game was a handbook for computer crime.)
2. The investigation was intended to be punative. They show up, seize everything they can possibly get their hands on, destory as much of it as possible, hold onto it for as long as possible, and do everything in their power to make the court proceedings as expensive as possible. At the end of the day if the suspect is innocent it doesn't matter, everyone who is targetted by investigations like this is left completely broke and unemployed with tarnished reputations in their communities. Ruined.
Now let me be completely clear on this second point. There are those in law enforcement who beleive that they need to deal with suspects as harshly as possible to send a message that people should stay away from crime. They are dead wrong. Punative investigations are unconstituional. The judicial branch meters out punishments, not the executive. When the executive steps outside the bounds of its constituional authority and starts attempting to punish people who have yet to be convicted of a crime the whole balance of our system is undermined. Innocent people are caught up in the frey.
When you have punative investigations pursued by law enforcement agents who have no idea what they are talking about the result is a very dangerous government organization that is completely out of control. An angry drunk with a baseball bat.
Steve Jackson Games was simply a particularly good place to draw a line in the sand. Thats why you are familiar with it.
If this account is correct, then this case has all the hallmarks of such a situation.
Clueless law enforcement/investigators: On the MPAA side, a completely incompetent attempt to serve a cease and desist notice. One has to wonder if this wasn't intentional. How hard is it to get this right? Didn't they get a bounce message? On the FBI side, a totally bizzare analogy between a Scifi fan club and organized crime in the warrant application!
Punative Investigation: You have to really try to smash an LCD screen, or you have to be so negligent in your handling of the equipment that you might as well have tried. Note also that they seized things like "girlfriends laptop" which are technically covered by their warrant but really have nothing to do with their investigation. Note also that they chose a court venue on the other side of the country.
Three comments:
1. Law Enforcement agents who operate this way do so consistently. We can look forward to lots more stories like this.
2. The FBI is usually much more professional then this. Its a shame. They are sending a very bad message about themselves here. Intellectual Property on the internet is an extremely controversial and visible topic. These cases are going to get a lot of attention. They should be handling this more carefully.
3. The decision to move Copyright cases into the criminal justice system was bad law. This case is exactly why. This whole thing could have been dealt with via a properly delivered C&D. It would have cost far less taxpayer money. We do not need our federal security forces out smashing computers for the MPAA!!
Re:What is the Patriot Act for anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, no, I suppose not, considering the "and for other purposes" pretty much translates to "and a bunch of stuff we don't care to enumerate in the preamble where people might notice what we're really up to..."
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:2, Insightful)
I hate bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
If this guy was hosting pirated copies of the show then he needs to be called to task for that. If the FBI abused the patriot act in the process of their investigation then they need to be called to task also. The FBI's wrong-doing doesn't make this guy right.
I'll not give him one thin dime for a "defense fund" if he is going to side-step the question of his guilt. I'd much rather put that money towards fighting the patriot act itself.
Lee
Re:Wrong -- Kerry opposes the PATRIOT Act (Score:3, Insightful)
1. You posted an ambiguous statement from CNN.com. The way _I_ read it was that Kerry supports keeping the PATRIOT Act in a form that lets it expire without Congress specifically voting as such. This is not _at all_ the same as saying "I will let it expire".
2. Kerry's OWN WORDS contradict what you just linked to, if we go with your interpretation.
I think someone's full of it, but it's not me.
-Erwos
Re:Article Text (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if they are at least partial copyright holders for the show, their opinions are relevant. However, I suspect that the "creators" don't actually own the copyright (despite the fact the intention of copyright is to go with the creators.) Neither the MPAA nor FBI own the copyrights.
What other sites are doing is irrelevant.
Not entirely true. Selective enforcement is a legitimate defense, particularly if related to accusations of harassment. For example, police can't just stop blacks who are speeding. True, they are breaking the law so they can be stopped, but they can't do it selectively to target certain groups or individuals. That doesn't mean he can use it as a legal defense here, but it does mean that what others do (and aren't prosecuted for) is not entirely irrelevant.
What seems to missing in the article is actually what was done that was illegal. It's obviously related to copyright infringement, but are they accusing this guy of selling T-shirts without licensing the images, or something like that? It can't be just displaying some images without permission. If it's criminal infringement it has to be something quite serious to meet the circumstances required by the statutes.
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:1, Insightful)
Consider the subject of marijuana reform. NORML has been lobbying and working toward this goal since 1970. Although, due to their efforts, some progress has been made at the state level, the federal branch of government has largely been inflexible. Polls indicate that one third [stopthedrugwar.org] of Americans support legalization. Do a search on Google and you'll find many states where polls have indicated 75% of polled residents support legalization for medical uses. Many scientists, doctors, actors, and others from all walks of life have come forward to decry the war on marijuana. Nevertheless, after all of this, the federal government isn't having any of it.
How much damage could be done if it were to take 30 years to repeal the Patriot Act?
Re:This is what... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not simply propaganda. It's a very real issue -- nobody but a Republican or a Democrat will win this election.
I will happily agree with Michael Moore that the country needs voting reform and a change in the voting system to help promote smaller parties. However, refusing to accept the reality of the current voting system just plain doesn't help anyone. The time for that was the past four years, when you could campaign for and push your Senate and House representatives for voting reform. Now it's too late -- the vote is upon us, and it's going to use the traditional system.
A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader, and a vote for Michael Badnarick www.lp.org is a vote for Michael Badnarik, and their respective parties.
Yes, but the practical effect is one half of a vote to help retain Bush in office.
I just don't understand the liberals that keep whining about how scary the government is and yet they want to disarm the people.
Again, I think that it would be just spiffy if we could be a direct democracy on issues like retaining gun rights. But we *aren't* -- we will have a single powerful administration that will decide one way on the other on *all* of our issues. Pretending that that isn't the case doesn't help anyone.
Ultimately, you have to weigh the merits of a Bush administration against a Kerry administration, because one of those two people will be sitting in the White House for the next four years. Anyone that votes Green or Libertarian simply does not provide their input into choosing the next administration of the United States, and into foreign and domestic policy for the next four years. That may suck, but until vote reform goes through, that's the way things are going to be.
Re:Article Text (Score:4, Insightful)
I've also found amusement that Uncle Sam is more than willing to spring to action to protect the rights of the corporations against a private citizen but, should any private citizen have a problem with the behavior of a major corporation, they'll have to come up with their own PIs, attorneys, and counsels who don't have the authority to just kick the door down, take everything in sight, and return most of it damaged and broken.
What amuses me more is that >50% of the posters on
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, the Patriot Act is nothing more than streamlining the search warrant, wiretaps, and property seizure laws to bring them in line with modern technology.
Slashdotters constantly whine about how out of touch with technology gov't is. That is until it comes to law enforcement. Then they want the cops to be restricted to using laws designed for 1960 on criminals using technology from 2004.
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:1, Insightful)
Unless said personal disagreement is based on the FACT that Congress does _NOT_ have the Constitutional power do pass 99.9% of the laws they debate.
Secondly, the Patriot Act is nothing more than streamlining the search warrant, wiretaps, and property seizure laws to bring them in line with modern technology
Let's streamline it then. You have no rights. Period. Don't expect any. You can be surveilled at any time. Deal with it. If persons of authority want to search your home you must let them. Period. If, in the course of investigation, they damage your possessions you have no recourse. Period.
If you're a masochist you may enjoy living in a world so tolerant of abuse. I, on the other hand, have worked very hard for what I have and have no interest in donating it to User#610215's Corporate Commonwealth of America.
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't think this claim is accurate. For example, the provisions in connection with the FISA warrants radically change the search warrant rules, they don't just streamline them.
The other issue here is a question about whether the law is being properly applied. The Patriot Act did not proclaim itself as a law for streamlining search warrant, wiretap, and property seizure laws in general. It proclaimed itself as an anti-terrorism law. If it's being used to just catch Joe Scumbag, whether or not you thinking catching J.S. is a good thing, it's not a proper use of the law.
If the American people want a law that's a general streamlining of evidentiary rules, then they should get such a law. But they shouldn't get such a law under false pretenses, masquerading as an anti-terrorism law.
Re:Article Text (Score:2, Insightful)
Since when did any law passed in recent memory actually protect the indivudal?
All it takes is to piss off some corporation and they've got the weight of all sorts of laws and acts that they paid off senators and congresspeople to pass so that they can come after the individual. Since when did any federal agency act on the concerns of the indivudal, and not with vested interest from those corporations and foundations that donate big bucks to election campaigns and federal agencies? Since when does America actually give a rats ass about the individual?
I'll tell you when. It was when the corporations became more powerful with deeper pockets than the goverment.
Taxes? You're giving more profit to your beer manufacturer, or your gas manufacturer than the government sees in taxes. What do you spend the other chunk of your income on that doesn't go towards taxes? Consumables that are being produced at ever cheaper rates in factories that aren't in the US. Guess where the employment goes towards? THOSE TAIWANESE KIDS WHO WORK UNTIL THEIR FINGERS BLEED!
end rant
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:2, Insightful)
That must be some good crack you're smoking.
They didn't create laws around wiretapping because it was technologically difficult at one time to do it. It has never been terribly difficult to spy on someone, from a technological point of view. The laws were put in place to make it difficult to spy on someone, from a legal point of view.
That was the point, to make spying on people difficult. That technology has made it even easier to illegally spy on people in 2004 compared to the ease with which you could illegally spy on people in 1960... isn't a very convincing argument to make the spying legal, or remove oversight.
It would not be difficult to ammend existing wirerap laws to include new technology, or develope caselaw to extend the application of existing law.