Man Arrested For Linking To Online Videos 308
SonicSpike writes "In a case against a New York website owner, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is claiming that merely linking to copyrighted material is a crime. DHS, along with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), seized Brian McCarthy's domain, channelsurfing.net, in late January. The site has now been replaced with a government warning: 'This domain has been seized by ICE — Homeland Security Investigations, Special Agent in Charge, New York Office.' The advocacy group Demand Progress has claimed that McCarthy never reproduced copyrighted material, and that his website simply linked to other sites. A criminal complaint obtained by the group seems to acknowledge that agents knew that McCarthy was running a 'linking website.' While the criminal complaint alleges that McCarthy did engage in the 'reproduction and distribution' of copyrighted material, it is never clear that he actually reproduced any of the specified broadcasts."
McCarthy was arrested last week. Relatedly, TorrentFreak has posted a list of reasons why these domain name seizures are unconstitutional.
DHS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DHS (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is copyright infringement an issue of homeland security?
Because posting a link is terorism!
Re: (Score:3)
I would love to see who gave the DHS the jurisdiction and/or power to do this. Streaming live sports coverage would fall under wire-fraud, which I am pretty sure (IANAL) falls under the FBI. As I understand it, DHS is primarily immigrations and customs rolled into one budget line item. It wouldn't surprise me if this is an internal test case for expansion of powers of the department.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess that it went to DHS because customs is responsible for preventing the entry into the country of infringing material.
Re:DHS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If the copyright lobby (I'll rather generously use the term "lobby", rather than "fascists") wants a government agency or a copyright police, I'm surprised they haven't established an industry taskforce with the powers they need. Their own three letter organisation, with the power to spy on, and arrest, regular citizens; sanctioned by the government. I could understand if the FBI were investigating copyright (though I'd consider it a grievous misuse of resources). I could understand if the ATF suddenly b
Re:DHS (Score:5, Funny)
They just want to outsource the work onto the tax payer's wallet. So we effectively are arresting ourselves.
ICE/DHS: Stop arresting yourself. Stop arresting yourself.
Citizen: Mooooom! Make him stop!
ICE/DHS: Stop arresting yourself.
Citizen: Mooooom!
SCOTUS: Will you two just get along already? Don't make me come back there!
[ICE/DHS winks at SCOTUS; SCOTUS winks back.]
Re: (Score:2)
Because sharing stuff for free means that everyone can get access to it.
And that's COMMUNISM!
Re:DHS (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Secret Service hasn't been a part of the Treasury since march 2003. Now it is also a part of DHS.
Re:DHS (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Janet Napolitano has little interest in terrorism. She has been bought and paid for by Corporate America, to keep the sheeples in line with their vision of the future. Napolitano has prostituted herself and her agency to Big Business. She, and Big Business got around the constitution by claiming that pirated music and software are "counterfeit" music and software. Somehow, in their perversion of the concept of justice, the counterfeiting of music is on a par with counterfeiting United States currency.
I once thought that all this nonsense was the brainchild of the neoconservatives - but today's "liberal" party keeps right on with the rape of the United States constitution. Wait til the final version of ACTA comes out. It will most likely give ICE the authority to exterminate entire family trees based on a suspicion that members of the family have counterfeited a music track.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You clearly don't know why Customs is involved. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well - we differ on our view of government, I suppose. Have you looked at how ACTA is being handled by the US government? Until recently, even the existence of the discussions was secret, and the content of those discussions top secret. Who is discussing, anyway? RIAA, MPAA, and other alphabet soup people - not people, or civil liberties organizations, or even constitutional lawyers, or lawyers of any other type. (sure, there are lots of lawyers involved, each representing the interests of one corporation, or group of corporations or another) There aren't even any lawyers from academia involved. It's all corporate run.
But, you bring up a way of looking at things that I had neglected. The government has been pretty nearly insolvent for most of my life (over 5 decades now) so they need SOME way of making money. Doesn't matter how wrong and immoral the methods might be - they need to make money to avoid bankruptcy.
Well, I'm prepared to do my part. I'll get in line, right behind the Baby Boomers to get my euthanasia shot, so that the Social Security pyramid scheme doesn't have to pay me anything. Where's that line again?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is copyright infringement an issue of homeland security?
Man: Perhaps Mr. Reed will tell us what this war is all about?
John Reed: (Rises.) Profits. (Sits down.)
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering that myself.
How is it legal for ICE to seize the property of an American citizen?
Linking to another site that has copyrighted content is not a crime.
http://video.foxnews.com/assets/video-player.swf?video_id=4582906&d=video.foxnews.com [foxnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:DHS (Score:5, Insightful)
Why isn't Google, MSN, Yahoo, and anyone else who has a search engine functioning under arrest? Almost all content they list in their results is copyrighted.
I think someone has applied a very narrow filter to copyrighted content.
I didn't know that (Score:5, Interesting)
The DHS has a mission, to protect the riches of corporations.
Re:I didn't know that (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this the same mission that includes "touching the private parts of every human being?"
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's just hobby.
Re:I didn't know that (Score:5, Funny)
Surely you didn't think you owned your private parts, did you?! Those are the property of the telephone company! Any unauthorized tampering or manipulation carries a hefty penalty.
If that's the case then I'm pretty sure many of us owe the telephone company a lot of money.
Making the Same Bad Assumptions, Over and Over (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If you persist in electing assholes (or failing to campaign against them hard enough), you'll get this kind of activity going unchallenged.
Ireland had the same class of problem wrt their financial woes: electing assholes (or failing to campaign against them hard enough).
The solution is to stop electing assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't knock out any one party - it's that bit where if you split the voter bloc of one, the other wins First Past Post.
It is actually possible to knock out both, but we need a national level Social Network Vote Coordination Site to do it. If we can protect it from major sources of inaccuracy, we could do it by the 2016 election to have the Internet Candidate win by write-in. To repeat, if we had a properly secured social site where the entire country announces their intended votes, changing now and then
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with representative democracy (Score:3)
If you persist in electing assholes (or failing to campaign against them hard enough), you'll get this kind of activity going unchallenged.
The problem is that you elect *ONE* person to represent you.
Don't want to elect a religious nut? Then you are automatically voting for government controlled health care, no matter what's your opinion on that.
And no matter how you feel about "intellectual property" you are sure to vote for someone who has funding from the big media corporations, unless you vote for some fringe candidate who will have some weird ideas of his own.
A Congress that decides everything made sense in an age when a letter took weeks
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The taxpayers can afford this? (Score:5, Insightful)
The annual deficit is $1,400,000,000,000. and they are wasting money on crap like this?
Time to replace hierarchical DNS (Score:4, Insightful)
Domain name seizures cause damage. We should be able to route around it. Frankly, I don't want to care whether it's unconstitutional or not, I want it to be technically infeasible.
DHS? (Score:3)
Wow, I feel so much more secure now that they have stopped this dangerous terrorist from endangering my country!
Re:DHS? In UK you can be a terrorist for heckling (Score:2)
But then you get laughed at and lose next election (Score:2)
But it was pulling stunts like this that got the Labour party voted out at the next election. People realised they'd lost touch with reality. Not saying the current lot are any better, in fact they might be worse (hey, politicians, eh?) but at least we had the option to vote out the last lot when they got too crazy.
One of the big steps in the progression (Score:5, Insightful)
This is it folks.
Notice that the summary talks about "linking to videos". However, as we now know, both words and pics of any kind are copyrighted from the moment someone creates them. Reply with Quote? Look! It's a copy! Hotlinking pics? Linking!
For the third time I'll float my "subset" theory. They started small with "SomeGuy" (subset of everyone) and "SomeCategory" (videos, subset of all copyrighted items). This has the effect of keeping people looking at trees and not forests, and posts which deal with the grand plan get downmodded.
Linking to copyrighted works? If they can convince the Supreme Court to let this stick, there's the Ice Cannon they want to use againt the entire web. We're beyond copies now. If you can't link to anyone at all, ever, (because it's not you, and all items are copyrighted instantly), then forget Net Neutrality, that is the end of the net.
Re: (Score:2)
End of the net... in the United States.
Re:US (Score:2)
Well, even classical music takes seven chords to wind down.
If the entire US went black instantly, the we'd take the rest of the web with us because no one else is yet ready to be the new hub of the web to entirely replace 15 years of US Web legacy overnight. It would be funny, really - instant national solidarity "to obey the law". Asia, then Europe is ahead of USA on the time zones - if we did a total blackout at about 9PM on a Sunday, the freakout would be felt around the world.
Bonus to someone's question
Re: (Score:2)
totally incorrect. In fact without the massive amounts of spam generated by the US the net would be better off.
Go dark, we'll be fine.
(speaking as someone who works for a backbone provider...)
Re: (Score:3)
Sooo ... by this argument, anyone linking or embedding youtube videos they did not produce is committing copyright infringement? Better go after ~80%+ of the net then, DHS! Maybe Youtube too, for aiding infringement by providing the means to embed videos not of your own upload.
Or has there been a precedent that uploading a video to Youtube is 'publishing', therefore exempt from copyright?
Re:One of the big steps in the progression (Score:4, Informative)
It was time for the people to rise up in the US thirty years ago. After all that time the only significant popular movement to arise is a bunch of idiots trying to give more power to the elites. There is no hope for America.
Re:One of the big steps in the progression (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think it's that simple. The article says channelsurfing.net was linking to copyright infringing websites. So if I link to this Lady Gaga video [youtube.com], that's OK because it was uploaded by the copyright holder. But if I link to this version of the same song [youtube.com] then apparently I'm breaking the law because it wasn't uploaded by the copyright holder.
Re: (Score:3)
"Pssst, buddy, over here..." (Score:4, Funny)
Copyright linker: "Looking to find a lot of copyrighted material for free? Walk down this street, turn right, then left, and it's right there. In the building marked "library"".
Undercover Police officer: "You're busted."
Copyright linker: "Whaaaat?"
Undercover Police officer: "For aiding and abetting copyright infringers."
remember when sidewalk got owned by ticketmaster (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft's Link to Ticketmaster Site Spurs Trademark Lawsuit
Computer & Online Industry Litigation Reporter, May 6, 1997, Pg. 24087
A suit from 1997? I have to guess that Ticketmaster didn't win or we all would have heard about it by now.
linking to copyrighted material? (Score:4, Insightful)
Thats a fairly broad stick. Everyone links to copyrighted materials everyday.
By the looks of Slashdot's (c) blurb i could be linking to materials owned by a dozen people by posting a single link. I link to a few stories throughout the day. Looks like i better stop before I see an ICE badge. "All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by Poster. The rest © 1997–2011 "
btw....i might be taking this way off topic, but itsnt it bad form for ICE to use an image of their shield? I think it might have been a slashdot story, but i vaguely remember an article talking about how horribly illegal it was for someone to reproduce the FBI shield and, in fact, the FBI doesnt do it or allow it.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats a fairly broad stick. Everyone links to copyrighted materials everyday.
By the looks of Slashdot's (c) blurb i could be linking to materials owned by a dozen people by posting a single link. I link to a few stories throughout the day. Looks like i better stop before I see an ICE badge. "All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by Poster. The rest © 1997–2011 "
btw....i might be taking this way off topic, but itsnt it bad form for ICE to use an image of their shield? I think it might have been a slashdot story, but i vaguely remember an article talking about how horribly illegal it was for someone to reproduce the FBI shield and, in fact, the FBI doesnt do it or allow it.
I just infringed your ass off, or something... :P
as for TFA. I have no words to express what I feel about it. Two letters might be descriptive enough, though: BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Robert Van Winkle, we need your permission to link to your Ice Ice Baby video!
New twist - what if we all put CC licenses on our stuff? Setting aside the moderate complexities of them, then linking wouldn't be illegal would it?
Bonus: what about Pointilism Linking?
Officer: "You linked to the copyrighted article."
Webmaster: "No, that first link goes to a webpage containing a public domain copy of the letter F. The next link goes to a public domain copy of the letter U."
Then webpages would consist of scripts th
No dice. (Score:2)
The letters might be free, but the pattern you posted is copyrighted.
Officer: You sir, need to come with us.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes of course, how silly of me to think I could innovate around corruption.
Re:linking to copyrighted material? (Score:5, Informative)
Google links to copyrighted material. The Pirate Bay links to copyrighted material. That didn't stop Swedish courts from ruling against Pirate Bay, and still Google operates.
I mean, you're right and all, but don't expect that to provide any protection for this guy. We are well past the stage where the rule of law means anything in the US. There are different standards for the powerful, and for those who would challenge the powerful.
Re: (Score:2)
Im not saying this guy should not be punished, but they're using a law thats presumably far reaching to do it.
Consider the following....
Slashdot hosts a summary that links to an article behind a paywall. A third party then parrots the article somewhere else(giving proper attribution, but without consent) providing an infringing work. JoeSchmoe comes along to comment with a link to the parroted article. He can be charged the same way this guy is
This happens just about everytime theres a summary that links
Almost all websites are copyrighted, aren't they? (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't this make linking to practically any website in the world illegal? If you look at the bottom of most web pages you see the copyright sign. If linking to copyrighted material constitutes infringement does this mean the end of hyperlinking for the internet?
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily there is no strong WSOAA (Web Site Operators Association of America) to lobby the government for ignore common sense AND law.
Of course some French newspaper sued google for copyright infringement once (links to news stories), so it goes to show stupi
Re:Almost all websites are copyrighted, aren't the (Score:5, Interesting)
This is another instalment of the long-awaited crunch as the Web's refreshing informality and common sense collides with the institutionalized imbecility of the law. Tim Berners-Lee made his views unmistakably clear nearly 20 years ago: see http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkMyths.html [w3.org]. The basic principle is that, if you don't like the way the Web works, you should just ignore it. No one forces anyone to publish a Web site; but, if they do, it is an implicit invitation to anyone else anywhere to read it - and link to it.
However, it was only a few years later (probably about 1998) that the vast mass of money-grubbing freeloaders (sorry, the "business community") discovered the huge untapped mother-lode represented by the Web. "Hey!" they cried jubilantly, "Just look at this immense opportunity to make stacks of money that some stupid sucker has just given us - completely free of charge, too". Those were the same guys who soon began complaining that the Web's design was not optimized to help them make as much money as possible with no effort.
It was around 1998, too, that I stumbled across a law company's Web site somewhere in the USA that laid down strict legal principles for creating Web sites. One of these rules was that every single hyperlink required a separate legal agreement - negotiated by a reputable law firm, naturally.
The worst of the matter is that the reptiles (sorry, lawyers and politicians) can always change the law in any way they like. It's their game and their ball, and they are apparently absolutely unaccountable to anyone sane or educated.
For myself (Score:2)
question (Score:2)
What percentage of videos linked from McCarthy's site infringed copyright?
A single act of linking to copyrighted material is not criminal, but if you systematically do it, aren't you "inducing infringement?" That's copyright infringement under current law.
Now, I don't believe that this should be criminal, but it's hard for me to believe that encouraging and aiding infringement should be perfectly legal. I just believe that McCarthy should be facing a civil suit rather than a criminal one.
On a side note, I
Re:question (Score:4, Informative)
A single act of linking to copyrighted material is not criminal, but if you systematically do it, aren't you "inducing infringement?" That's copyright infringement under current law.
Sounds like a a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment.
It's like he believes Bush is still President or something.
If you look at the policies of the US government, you'd be hard pressed to tell that Bush isn't still President. Same shit, different guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Acronym (Score:2)
"This domain has been seized by ICE â" Homeland Security Investigations"
Those government guys aren't so good at the acronyms.
Why not just give in to the obvious (Score:3)
Did any of you actually read the complaint?! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Did any of you actually read the complaint?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Embedding is still linking. The copyrighted material doesn't come from your own server when you embed.
Even more hazardous linking... (Score:4, Informative)
...is linking to an article that fails to mention how McCarthy has made made over $90,000 in ad revenue from his website.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/illegal-tv-streamers-heres-how-the-feds-will-hunt-you-down.ars [arstechnica.com]
His website was dedicated solely for the purpose of copyright infringement
Why is copyright infringement an issue of homeland security? It is a federal law, it has to be assigned to someone, and The United States district courts has exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over copyright cases. IMO, you should learn about copyright law and history - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law [wikipedia.org]
Re:Even more hazardous linking... (Score:4, Insightful)
ICE? WTF? (Score:2)
So how does ICE have any authority to do this? Next thing they'll have the EPA taking websites for polluting the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
His website was dedicated solely for the purpose of copyright infringement
No, to linking. If making $90k from the hard work of running a web page is so damning, why isn't DHS seizing the corporations involved in funding him?
If Al Capone was alive today ... (Score:2)
Then, he was convicted of tax evasion. It was the only crime that could be proven. Today, they would nail him with a "domestic terrorism" charge. It was en Vogue for a while to use RICO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act [wikipedia.org] on mafia folks. I'm surprised that prosecutors aren't using anti-terrorist laws against organized crime. If the DHS is snooping around for naughty links, they are probably monitoring mob activities, as well.
I can hear the District Attorney:
Google does lot of linking to copyrighted material (Score:4, Insightful)
Google is in trouble. Unless the law is different for those who have wealth and power. ;)
ACLU? (Score:2)
So where are they on all this recent activity?
academic publications? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a Rovian Conspiracy!!! (Score:2)
George Bush is using telepathic mind waves to control Barack Obama!
Brilliant own goal.. (Score:2)
Just imagine that by some sponsorship, sorry, quirk of the legal system linking to copyrighted material would become illegal. How exactly would those marketing droids then propose to support product reviews and forums? Or establish that golden "guerilla marketing" wave that sometimes sells products?
This is insanity, from whatever angle you look at it. DHS involved in copyright? Copyright holders now deprived of marketing capital? Hello? What exactly have these people been smoking?
What Security Threat Does This Represent?!? (Score:2)
Linking to Videos (Score:3)
Way to get around it... (Score:2)
Yes, ask 2600. (Score:3)
I wonder if one can get around being a "linking site" by simply removing the HREF's, leaving just the text of the links.
Actually, yes, they can. When 2600 lost the DeCSS case they converted the links to text. The courts had no issue with this, as the order was to remove the links. Removing hyper-links are easy, it takes a lot more to get a court to remove text.
Time for a No Fly zone over US (Score:2)
Links NOT Copyrightable - Wrong Standard Applied (Score:5, Informative)
I believe the government is applying the wrong standard with respect to Web Links (URL's) and copyrights. They claim that creating a link creates a copyright. However, I strenuously believe that people are confusing the idea of "creating a copyrightable work" with the "mechanism of indexing and accessing" a work. URL's are no more copyrightable than the Dewey Decimal label is on a book in the public library. The fact that links (URL's) are a little more high-tech than the Dewey Decimal label on a book does not change it's fundamental essence.
The question is, could ICE or any government authority shut down or *confiscate* the Dewey Decimal label on a public library book simply because you referenced that book (or other material) by its *Common Cataloging System INDEX* in some public manner???
Linking to a web site is no different than saying "Go read this book at the public library, here is it's catalog number". An link *in and of itself* does *NOT* provide or imply *ACCESS* to the item, rather simply a pointer to it's location. Likewise, the idea of "Deep Linking" is no different as it is simply saying "Go read book XYZ on page 37".
The notion that the link (URL) itself provides "meaning" is simply ludicrous-- of course it does. And in a manner that's long been established as LEGAL and USEFUL and USED by libraries and media referencing systems all over the world-- for well over a hundred years, and probably longer than that. Even the United States own Library of Congress uses indexing schemes to catalog and reference their materials. The fact that a link contains meaningful information is a fundamental property and the very essence of creating a referencing catalog scheme. You can take the Dewey Decimal label from any book, for instance, and discern meaningful information about the nature of the work referenced simply by knowing the algorithm (naming / numbering conventions) incorporated by the scheme. The fact that web links (URL's) have the ability to be more descriptive is a function of the *INDEXING* mechanism, even if it is somehow technically made available to the author to suggest. It is no different than an author attempting to influence the librarian to catalog the material in one section rather than another.
Moreover, the courts have upheld many times that it is NOT a copyright infringement to publish a REFERENCE work containing even literal quoted passages from the original source as long as it is constructed in the manner of a catalog, all quotations are duly cited, and the work is "transformative". In other words, stands alone apart from the original quoted work in a substantive manner. In the case of linking to a web site, the author (person doing the linking) is not necessarily even quoting anything other than the INDEX of the cataloging method used to house and access the material. However, even if the title, author, etc. of that work were referenced, it is no different than going to the public library and pulling up the "link" to the exact same information stored in their card catalog system. In fact, in many cases, the card catalog even contains a brief synopsis of the source material, quotations, or other direct passages from the original material.
Finally, even if the person who put the links up online and then proceeded to laugh and make jokes or otherwise reference them, *that very act* begins a transformative process which is IN ITSELF a *copyrightable* element! So creating a page and linking to other sites *IS* in and of itself, a copyrightable act! And the more that is said in reference to those links, provided they do not incorporate substantive direct quotation of the material-- the *better* the argument that a new copyrightable work is being derived. There is tons of relevant precedent in the application of "Fair Use", "Derivative Works", "Satire" or "Parody", etc. to give someone an extremely good legal footing to claim that a substantially new work is being created, if incporporated into a larger framework. However, that said, simply claiming "Fair Use" or a
Utter and complete bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
[like] (Score:3)
*clicks like button* - OOPS!
Re: (Score:2)
Let him. And let's see Uncle Sam exercise some of that (rather unconstitutional) muscle in Hungary, about half a globe away from his borders.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Iraq and Afghanistan any closer? The US can exercise its muscle where it pleases, in case you haven't noticed. The constitution is just an old relic from grade school history classes.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that a bit different? If the US wants to bring its military to bear on Hungary for copyright infringement, I think the UN, NATO (yes, even NATO), and the EU will have a few words to say about that...
Let's not mix up terrorism and copyright law, even if they do appear to blur together as concepts in the mind of politicians.
Re:cap from last year's lectures (Score:3)
Okay, I hoped it wouldn't come to this, but I have to break out the heavy artillery.
Last year, at university, in a course titled "International Conflicts in the Post-Bipolar Era", we investigated this incident in depth, so let me give you the reasons:
There were both official and unofficial reasons for the invasion. Let's see the officially given reasons first: WMDs and terrorism.
WMDs were a reason because there was a period between 1998 and 2002, during which the execution of UNSC 687, the resolution that e
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it does. It does so because of the specific reason you listed. You see, international laws, which are basically a collections of treaties countries may have signed but enough have and they have been around long enough that it's expected to be the norm in the world community. The problem comes because they do not spell out specific infractions, they spell out specific results of actions.
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution is just an old relic
Some of us are rather actively fixing that [freestateproject.org]
Re:unplusgood (Score:5, Insightful)
They know you read this article, so its too late anyway. And remember, just having knowledge is now considered intent.
Re: (Score:2)
And even if you're not liable, often the lawyers and don't know yet (or don't care - they may not be paid to care about such details), so you'd still have problems first.
Re: (Score:2)
Better stop watching sporting events on TV because that's what channelsurfing.net was really used for finding.
Re: (Score:2)
Google's going to be fine for the same reason that Bittorrent and its variants were fine even after Grokster peer-to-peer system lost its case. Grokster lost (even though they didn't distribute any files directly) because they promoted and advertised the illegal uses of their system. Bittorrent (and Google) have never promoted the illegal uses of their systems.
Guess what I suspect the problem with this guy's site was? (And why I suspect he'll lose if it goes to trial, and why I don't believe there are an
Re: (Score:2)
Google will take down links if the content infringes copyright. There's no intent there.
Whether there was intent here I have no idea. Nor do I know if merely linking to infringing websites is a criminal offence, but the mere fact that Google does something similar does not mean Google is doing exactly the same thing. Intent matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It is about intent. Google intends to be an index of the web. These websites intend to link to copyrighted materials. And more importantly (I am presuming) to make money off of doing that via ads on the link-farm website. That's usually what really pisses off content creators: when they bust their ass to create something, and then some asshole co-opts their work AND makes money off of it.
Not all crimes are simply "if we can prove you did it, you are guilty". (That is called strict liability.)
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious, but why does the government get to selectively warn some sites in advance (like Google) about a possible infringement, and other sites are quickly shut down without any due process or recourse?
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious, but why does the government get to selectively warn some sites in advance (like Google) about a possible infringement, and other sites are quickly shut down without any due process or recourse?
Because in one case, they have a massive, well-funded legal department with which to contend. Can you imagine the uproar if the DoJ tried to seize Google.com? Whereas with the other, issuing a pre-emptive, punitive strike to seize all assets makes the individual unable to defend himself (regardless of the fact that he is, in effect, being punished for a crime only allegedly committed.) Very efficient though: you just manufactured a helpless victim.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a friend that was also arrested by ICE in a case of double jeopardy. We're still fighting for him. ICE needs some sort of accountability.
Hmm, what works against ICE ... the only thing I can think of is FIRE (Fucking Idiots Ruin Everything!)
Re: (Score:2)