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?"
Article Text (Score:5, Informative)
Donate [paypal.com]
Buy T-Shirt [cafeshops.com]
Federal charges were filed against Adam McGaughey, creator of the popular SG1Archive.com website - a fan website devoted to the MGM-owned television show Stargate SG-1. The charges allege that the website engaged in Criminal Copyright Infringement and Trafficking in Counterfeit Services. The charges were the culmination of a three-year FBI investigation, set in motion by a complaint from the Motion Picture Association (MPAA) regarding the content of the SG1Archive.com website.
SG1Archive.com is one of the most popular fan-run websites among the Stargate community. In addition to providing very active fan discussion forums, broadcast schedules, production news, and episode guides, the site heavily promotes the sale of the show on DVD. As of this writing, direct links from SG1Archive.com to Amazon.com have resulted in the sale of over $100,000 worth of DVDs. Many more DVDs have been sold to international fans of the show through sites like Blackstar.co.uk. Upon hearing this news, Stargate executive producer Brad Wright called the site "cool" - which Adam took as an endorsement of his work.
However, instead of thanking Adam for his promotion of their product, officials at MGM and the MPAA have chosen to pressure the FBI into pursuing criminal charges. Adam was first tipped off about the investigation when the FBI raided his and his fiancee's apartment in May of 2002 and seized thousands of dollars worth of computer equipment. Adam later received a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the search warrant, and was shocked to discover that this document, prepared by the FBI, contained significant amounts of erroneous and misleading information. For example, two social security numbers were listed for Adam, one of which is not his. References were made to a cease and desist letter sent by the MPAA to an email address that did not exist. His online friendship with other Stargate fans across the globe was portrayed as an international conspiracy against the MPAA. And perhaps most disturbing of all, it was later revealed that the FBI invoked a provision of the USA Patriot Act to obtain financial records from his ISP. The FBI's abuse of its powers did not stop there. When they seized Adam's computer equipment, he was given written documentation stating that it would be returned within 60 days. The equipment that they did return did not arrive until more than 8 months later, and only then after much prodding from his lawyer. Much of it was damaged beyond repair - one laptop had a shattered LCD screen, an empty tape backup drive was ripped apart for no apparent reason, his fiancee's iBook was badly damaged when it was pried apart with a screwdriver. The FBI's computer crimes staff is either incompetent (at least when it comes to Macintosh computer equipment) or else they just don't give a damn.
Adam has has received positive feedback about his site from multiple members of the Stargate cast and crew at fan conventions. In addition, a representative of MGM's fan publication interviewed Adam about his website several months prior to the FBI raid. As a result, Adam sincerely believed that the show's creators did not have a problem with the content of his website. 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. Why the MPAA and FBI have chosen to ignore these sites and target SG1Archive.com is unclear.
Up until this point, Adam has been fortunate enough to receive pro bono legal counsel in his current hometown of Cincinnati, Ohio. However, the charges were filed in Los Angeles county. The cost of travel, trial, bond, etc. is likely to be quite high.
OY MODS! (Score:5, Informative)
Smells bad.... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
FUD ALERT (Score:5, Informative)
If that isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. Have a look here [archive.org], at the episodes of the show that Mister McGaughey kindly put up on his site for download. I certainly do not see this as a case of busting fansites; it seems to me that the MPAA has a legitimate complaint here.
How he has interpreted the feelings of the show's creators/actors does not matter; their feelings and opinions count for nothing if they don't hold the copyrights to the show (which they clearly do not).
Perhaps the FBI did step over the line here, but from reading the Patriot Act (which you can find here [loc.gov]) one can see that the FBI is simply using the tools they've been given to bust the bad guys (the ranks of which this gentleman belongs to). If you feel that the Patriot Act is a bad thing, write your congressman [aclu.org]. Join the American Civil Liberties Union [aclu.org] and the Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org]. But don't sit here on Slashdot and bitch, you're not changing anything.
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.
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:5, Interesting)
If we're going to write to our Representatives and Senators about problems with the Patriot Act, we need to have a good understanding of the issues.
I haven't been able to discern the details yet, but if it is true that the Patriot Act was used to bust this guy, then it's an important thing for us to know about. Why? Because it gives us a concrete example to cite when we write our Senators and Representatives to say that the Patriot Act is being abused for non-counterterrorism purposes.
Note that there are a load of "if's" in the above! All we have so far is one person's assertion that the Patriot Act was abused to bust him. We need to get some kind of corroboration before using this example in letters. Letters citing this case could blow up in our faces if it turns out there was no Patriot Act abuse.
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: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:3, Informative)
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.
The patriot act streamlines, only in as much as it removes essential checks and balances by different branches on the executive
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:3, Funny)
I do not think this is quite true. The Patriot Act does not say to throw out all of your 1960's equipment and to buy new equipment created in the 21st century. Nor does it say to stop using the laws which were written in the 1960s. It simply broadens those laws as well as
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:3, Informative)
From http://slashdot.org/robots.txt [slashdot.org]
Disallow: article.pl
Disallow: comments.pl
Disallow: journal.pl
Disallow: messages.pl
Slashdot comments ARE indexed by Google (Score:3, Informative)
Google searches for many hot button issues including the DMCA often return a Slashdot comment as a top hit. Here is one awesome search that returns nothing but wisdom [google.com], by the way.
It only indexes the cached version, not the dynamic version, as you (tried to?) point out. HTH HAND!
YOU are FUDding here! (mod me up) (Score:5, Interesting)
The guy was asked KINDLY by the MPAA to take down the episodes (which were of very crappy quality to begin with) and he DID so. That was in 2002, if I remember correctly. I've followed the site's development over the years and they haven't done anything illegal since then. Apart from posting a few spoilers here and there for overseas fans.
So it's you who's spreading FUD here.
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: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:YOU are FUDding here! (mod me up) (Score:5, Interesting)
From what I've heard, he just made the episodes a little less public. Apparently, the archive of episodes was still being hosted and still being updated with newly aired episodes. The only catch is that the files weren't linked off of his site. Instead, the files used a predictable naming scheme, and details on how to find the files was given out via word-of-mouth.
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.
RTFL (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:5, Informative)
It has nothing to do with patriotism, so calling it the "Patriot Act" is misleading.
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:FUD ALERT (Score:3, Informative)
On a tangent here [counterpunch.org] is an interesting article on Homeland Security trying to enforce security through obscurity in the physical world and the virtual world too. Someone walked around the DNC and took photos of all the
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you left out an essential one: Join the Libertarian Party.
Yeah, yeah, the [insert your favorite of the big two parties here] party was only kidding when they voted overwhelmingly to pass the patriot act, they're real nice guys, and they promise
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.
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:Article Text (Score:5, Informative)
BUT that the "Patriot Act" is being utilized in such a manner AND that government/taxpayer money, time, and resources were spent to make the MPAA happy. That's ridiculous (hello INDUCE act glad to meet you...)
I feel safer knowing that these new "tools" for finding terrorists are being used domestically for other purposes. (that's sarcasm, fyi)
Hey, i'm all for increase our intelligence gathering capabilities and having US use the data it allready has more effectively... and acting on it properly... BUT the patriot act was not the right approach at all.
more sarcsam: Thank god they got that pesky judge and warrant business out of the way so they can go after the real criminals like stargate1 download/fan sites quicker! GJ!
e
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
Re:Article Text (Score:3, Interesting)
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: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
Homer (Score:2, Funny)
Yes it is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Jaysyn
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:Yes it is... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? (Score:3, Informative)
(a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001'.
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Here's an excerpt from the Patriot Act Myths [lifeandliberty.gov] government site:
If the Patriot Act were invoked in this case, it is a clear abuse that should be quickly corrected. The FBI personnel involved should be severely reprimanded or fired. That is, I suppose, unless viewing SG1 DIVX movies is potentially fatal... ;-)
However, this is an obvious example of the "slippery slope" problem the Patriot Act represents. Once new repressive legislation is enacted, people get used to it. Then the government starts to push the envelope. As long as this process is gradual, the public will be too caught up in "bread and circuses" (what is Jessica Simpson doing today, eh?;) to notice...at least that's the theory. Are you asleep?
Remember, Income Tax was originally supposed to be temporary. The government is not your friend. This is the case whether it's controlled by Republicans or Democrats.
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.
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? (Score:3, Informative)
That's not quite true. The Patriot Act made a lot of changes to how law enforcement works, only some of which had to do with terrorism. For those portions relating to terrorism, you're correct. But much of the Act was things like "the FBI can have roving wiretaps on cell phones in addition to landline phones
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? (Score:3, Interesting)
So yeah, the definition is pretty convenient. In essence, if you're a nation, it's war, unless you're going against the USA, in which case you're a terrorist. If you're not a nation, you're a terrorist. Note that the definition of nation is conveniently vague.
But yeah, our laws always
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:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? (Score:3, Interesting)
("Illegal" is a bit awkward in there, unconstituional or void would be more appropriate.)
Perhaps it's a subtle point of law, but if a law is unconstitutional it does not "become" invalid when it is declared so by a court. It was always unconstitutional, always null and void. It was never actually law in the first place. It was merey an invalid bill that conress did not actually have the power to pass. Any enforcement of it befo
Of course.. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
wouldn't be the first time (Score:5, Informative)
Metafilter [metafilter.com] has some comments too. Apparently the site had downloads of episodes available, despite their claim that it was just Amazon links that got them in hot water.
Abuse? (Score:2, Insightful)
Very Interesting, But Quite Old (Score:5, Interesting)
Posted: Mar 30 2004, 11:46 PM
Surely this is interesting and all, but VERY outdated. I would think there is quite likely some more current information available. What has happened in the last four months?
One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup (Score:5, Informative)
Firstly, as one of the comments on the MetaFilter [metafilter.com] page on the article points out, Secondly, other comments on that same page (as well as the US DOJ press release [usdoj.gov]) point out what the somewhat self-serving press release does not: sg1archive was hosting copies of Stargate episodes for download. Directly; apparently Mr. McGaughey wasn't even smart enough to use an peer-to-peer intermediary so he could claim he was just linking, not hosting.They were apparently low-rez rips intended to allow fans to catch up on missed episodes but not something you'd want to keep, but I'm afraid that's not a positive defense to copyright infringement. Neither is "But we were helping sell the DVDs" (despite what peer-to-peer folks would have you believe) or "Gee, but the people who made the show liked my site, really!"
It's a shame that his computer equipment got trashed, but the FBI (and other law-enforcement agencies) are somewhat prone to do that over the course of an investigation. If you don't even check online FAQs about what constitutes copyright infringement (anime fansub and fanfic FAQs were doing an adequate job of covering that more than ten years ago; I'm sure there are even more comprehensive ones out there by now that would have told him this was Not a Good Idea) before you go ahead and do it anyway, you deserve what you get. This is not another Steve Jackson affair [eff.org], folks.
And I won't even go into what a Google Groups search [google.ca] on Mr. McGaughey turns up...though if you click on that link, the blurbs from the posts it displays are fairly instructive without even clicking on any of the articles to display the full text.
I only wish I hadn't kicked in $5 to the guy's legal defense fund before I found out about all this. Oh well, it'll teach me to do a little research first next time.
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:3, Insightful)
Which just goes to show that the act's promoters were basically lying, since that's the flag under which they sold it.Then you'd have to accuse Congress of lying about just about every law they pass, given how many riders that are completely unrelated to the main thrust of the act get slapped onto bills of all kinds these days.
Complete text of the PATRIOT Act available here [epic.org], BTW.
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.
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Response doesn't fit the crime (Score:3, Interesting)
What? It's okay to have your property seized and trashed -- OVER A TELEVISION SHOW?! If what you say is true, then sure, he's an idiot. But shouldn't there be a difference in response between being under suspicion of terrorism, kiddie porn, or murder, versus under suspicion of trading low-quality (or even high-quality!) dubs?
If you're
Now... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Look at this (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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.
Re:This is what... (Score:4, Informative)
Do we? I keep forgetting that
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_
If you think Kerry is just going to hand you everything you wanted on a silver platter because he's "not Bush", you're foolish and naive. You'll have civil liberties and rights with whomever wins. I find it repugnant how members of both parties have resorted to scare tactics at this point.
-Erwos
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: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.
Wrong -- Kerry opposes the PATRIOT Act (Score:5, Informative)
You, sir, are full of shit [cnn.com].
Kerry supports letting the PATRIOT Act expire, Bush supports renewing it.
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
need more info... (Score:3, Insightful)
The other side of history! (Score:4, Informative)
Matthew sez, "There's a press release on the US DOJ site from April 2004 describing the charges. From this, you can learn the guy's name: "Adam Clark McGaughey". (link: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/pr2004/050.html)
The funny thing is that after searching google groups for "Adam McGaughey", you find a bunch of people that seemed to have been ripped off by him around 2002 on some SG-1 sites (as well as ebay) (make sure you sort by date to get more recent stuff). (link: http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8
I won't comment on any of the stuff here, but it's some interesting extra information that adds to the story.
So lets clap the horses...
MPAA == Unscupulous Liars (Score:5, Interesting)
They also abused laws and I would not be surprised if they were the ones that damaged the equipment.
Perhaps the FBI are in leauge with them. How else could such gross incompetance be explained.
The MPAA should face charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and the FBI should be put under review.
Oh wait. This was a little guy and the MPAA has a lot of money. Ergo, the law does not apply. They probobly threatened the guy with legal action when he asked for his stuff back.
Expect such underhanded dealings when the MPAA drags 12 year olds/protestors/Apple/Independant Movie makers into court.
Funding a terrorist organization (Score:5, Interesting)
The FBI claimed that SG1Archive was part of an international conspiracy, raided his home, and used the Patriot Act to obtain his financial records. Man, I'd hate to see what they do to the people that fund this kind of site...
Kidding aside, I'm kind of curious as to what happened. This is definitely a biased article, but what were the official charges brought against him, where do the chargest stand now, and why did the MPAA get the feds instead of just sue?
Re:Funding a terrorist organization (Score:3, Informative)
Here comes a rant (Score:5, Interesting)
Proof that this act was dangerous came in the 1st weeks when the Vegas strip-club owner got arrested. This act has also been used against kiddie-porn and drug traffickers. Although I like the fact that these bastards get caught, the ends do not justify the means.
This case proves that government and business have gotten to intermingled and inbred, and every politician aligned with these afronts needs voted out. Normally, I would say the erroneous affadavit would lead to his acquittal but I cannot predict our justice system anymore.
As soon as this guy can afford it, a massive counter-suit against the MPAA, MGM, and the government needs to be filed.
Re:Here comes a rant (Score:4, Insightful)
Wayback machine (Score:5, Informative)
In Jan 2002 the site "changed" into a fan site/info site.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011012011922/www.sg1
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.
Do a little research (Score:5, Informative)
While I don't think this is an appropriate use of the law, this guy is surely no angel. Terrorist? No way, but he doesn't sound like a real nice fellow.
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...
Um, wow (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Ma
We're not consumers (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with most of what you say, to some extent. But, we're citizens, not consumers. As soon as you let them label us as consumers instead of citizens, they win.
As citizens, we control them. As consumers, we are controlled.
Re:Um, wow (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, so lots of people have pointed this out and um....I hope its not to tasteless to ask.......but um....could someone link to the files already?
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: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?
Patriot Act is like RICO, squared (Score:3, Informative)
Terrorist organizations are believed to sometimes engage in similar activities. It's easier to prosecute such cases and easier to secure funding if the case is treated as a "potential terrorism" case.
Remember those anti-drug tv advertisements that ran a few months back. The odds are that ones local drug supplier are not connected to a terrorist organization. But the remote possibility raised by that series of ads might have convinced some that they might "just say no..."
that's why God gave us advertisers (Score:3, Interesting)
TV shows need advertisers. Companies that pay for the program so they can take a short moment to promote themselves.
So if you tell them that, because of their support of a particular program, you will, in fact not patronize them, it will get their attention pretty quick.
I know this article tries to sympathize with the people who work directly on the show, and a boycott would hurt them too. But the copyright holders only understand discourse in the form of money. There needs to be a monetary penalty for the mistreatment of fans. Start boycotting the advertisers and tell them know why.
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:oh dear (Score:3, Informative)
Just see the Internet Wayback machine [archive.org] for proof.
We are defending this guy why?
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, ethicall
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.
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: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: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:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. (Score:3, Interesting)
He was referring to what he saw was the lack of need for a bill of rights -- since Congress only had the power outlined in the Constitution.
And Georgia was one of the leading opponents of the bill of rights. They argued that if we list them out, some idiot in the future will think that our rights are limited to just those. The counter-argument to that was, look, we've made this constitution so
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It's still illegal? (Score:4, Funny)
Hi America, this is England. We just noticed that your war of independance was illegal and we'd like our colony back.
Hugs'n'Kisses,
England.
PS. You can keep Utah and Oregan
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:Criminal? (Score:5, Informative)
Fraud is not however. As pointed out by a previous poster, the site owner has allegedly commited fraud Several Times [google.ca]
I suspect that he stands accused of Copyright infringement for hosting episodes on his server, but also for fraud.... However, he wouldn't get much sympathy or paypal donations for your fraud legal defence fund...
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..."