Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 27th Nov 2010 10:46 UTC
Legal The US is really ramping up its war on intellectual property infringement, a war which I'm sure will be just as successful, cheap and supported by the people as the wars on drugs and terrorism. The US has started seizing the domain names of various websites through ICANN - not because owners of these sites were convicted of anything, but merely because complaints have been filed against them. Anyone want to take a guess how long it will be before the US government blocks WikiLeaks? Update: The blocks function outside of the US too. In other words, the US is forcing its views upon the rest of the world once again.
Thread beginning with comment 451295
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Correction
by Sausage on Sat 27th Nov 2010 14:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Correction"
Sausage
Member since:
2010-11-27

First I'd like to point out that if you look at the website graphic, a seizure warrant was issued by the courts and they are not required to tell you before seizing your stuff. In a practical sense it prevents things like drug dealers flushing their stash prior to thepolice showing up. Anyway, you are right, but the domain, for that one example anyway, is still held by GoDaddy within the US. If they shut down a website completely unrelated to the US at all then I'll change my tune. Frankly, a more accurate anology would be that the Justice Department stopped the flow of downstream toxic waste; not starting it. People are pissed because they got cut off from stolen goods? Color me devastated.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Correction
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 27th Nov 2010 14:41 in reply to "RE[2]: Correction"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

People are pissed because they got cut off from stolen goods? Color me devastated.


1) It might be illegal in the US to download illegally uploaded content, but it's not illegal in many European countries.

2) Many of these sites do not do anything that should be even remotely illegal, just as much as informing someone you can buy weed in the college district (bloody obvious) should not be illegal.

3) Most importantly, I see that you take the "guilty until proven otherwise"-approach to justice.

Good luck with that.

Edited 2010-11-27 14:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Correction
by jack_perry on Sat 27th Nov 2010 15:09 in reply to "RE[3]: Correction"
jack_perry Member since:
2005-07-06

"People are pissed because they got cut off from stolen goods? Color me devastated.



3) Most importantly, I see that you take the "guilty until proven otherwise"-approach to justice.

Good luck with that.
"

Thom, I've noticed in this and ore comments that you know a lot less about the law than you like to pretend. Your position has been made indefensible by several facts listed by some posters, and now you want to throw out charges of guilty until proven otherwise? Do you know what a seizure warrant implies? Do you know how it's obtained? Do you know what reasonable cause means?

I'm reminded of another thread where you screamed about censorship in the US but clearly didn't know that obscenity has never been considered protected speech. (Or perhaos you knew and you pretended not to, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.)

I agree with another poster that your comments can make a story more lively, but at least try to inform yourself before making them. Otherwise you do no one any favors.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Correction
by MamiyaOtaru on Sun 28th Nov 2010 10:12 in reply to "RE[3]: Correction"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

1) It might be illegal in the US to download illegally uploaded content, but it's not illegal in many European countries.

so what. The authorities in this case aren't going after people "download(ing) illegally uploaded content" are they? (as though you could separate downloading and uploading when dealing with torrents anyway).

To quote you again: "illegally uploaded content". welp. I don't feel bad for people being deprived of this content even if it is legal for them to download it. By your own admission it shouldn't have been uploaded in the first place.

A lot of the law needs to change, but you missed the boat with that bit

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Correction
by FrankenFuss on Sat 27th Nov 2010 15:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Correction"
FrankenFuss Member since:
2009-08-05

I completely agree with you. It's amazing how people here will defend to the death their alleged inalienable right to STEAL. Now, of course, you have the Black Helicopter Gang saying, "Oh...now WikiLeaks is next..." and other nonsense, completely ignoring the fact that copyright infringement is not the same as free speech issues. If they were, WikiLeaks and jihadist websites would have been blocked already.

So...why throw up these canards about WikiLeaks, free speech, etc...? How else can they rationalize their thievery.

Edited 2010-11-27 15:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: Correction
by ricegf on Sat 27th Nov 2010 15:34 in reply to "RE[3]: Correction"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

In criminal law, "theft" is defined as "the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession" (free dictionary) and "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it" (Webster's).

This just doesn't sound like what's happening here; Big Media is not being deprived of any personal property a'tall. IANAL, but I believe you meant to criticize "copyright infringement", which is a very different thing.

Copyright (in the USA) is a privilege granted to an author by constitutional authority for a limited time for the explicit purpose of promoting science and the useful arts. Property rights, by contrast, are considered God-given and inalienable and cannot be legally removed except by due process under the law; they never expire (for example).

Copyright infringement is still wrong, of course, but it isn't theft, no matter how many times Big Media repeats the big lie. And yes, the difference matters - if copyrighted material is "property" and violating copyright is "theft", then control of the material can only be removed after due process - which is, of course, the goal of Big Media. Tried watching "Steamboat Willie" lately? ;-)

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[3]: Correction
by tylerdurden on Sat 27th Nov 2010 23:59 in reply to "RE[2]: Correction"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

"People are pissed because they got cut off from stolen goods? Color me devastated."

There is no such thing as "stolen goods" when it comes to a digital realm, there are "copied goods"

Let's leave newspeak where it belongs; in Orwell's 1984

Reply Parent Score: 5