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 451312
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Sausage
by flyingrobots on Sat 27th Nov 2010 15:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Sausage"
flyingrobots
Member since:
2010-09-30

There was a court order. They received a warrant from a district court and proceeded with executing that order.

Folks, when people steal other peoples stuff, it needs to be dealt with, or we have anarchy. How would you like to spend your whole life working on your talents, finally be able to produce stuff that people want and then not be able to charge for it. That's wrong, and what the torrent nerds are doing is wrong.

I'm happy to see some enforcement of the law, and am happy to see it being done the right way.

Now with that said, what does concern me are the vast number of agencies and the searches and seizures that occur without probable cause and without a warrant (TSA airport screening). This is very troublesome. It is as if the idea of a Representative Republic exists in name only. This TSA has no accountability to the law and the 4th amendment. This is a problem and a serious one. And this kind of power needs to be checked and challenged.

We need the law and the enforcement of the law. We cannot have anarchy, but we also cannot have a dictatorship either.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by Sausage
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 27th Nov 2010 15:56 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Sausage"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

There was a court order. They received a warrant from a district court and proceeded with executing that order.


But, the owner did not receive a notice of the warrant, which, as far as I understand it, is necessary.

Folks, when people steal other peoples stuff


Copyright infringement is not stealing. It's copyright infringement. If it were indeed stealing, we would not be seeing such ridiculous damages.

"There's much to be said for this view of "dealing with" piracy—which is why we have long argued that the judgments handed down in P2P lawsuits against twenty-something music fans have been ludicrous. $1.92 million? $675,000? No one walking out of a Walmart with a stack of Richard Marx discs under his arm would be subject to such penalties."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/obama-administratio...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Sausage
by Sausage on Sat 27th Nov 2010 16:08 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Sausage"
Sausage Member since:
2010-11-27

Nope. Notice is not required at all before the seizure to protect evidence, and they are only required to make reasonable attempts to give notice during the seizure and afterwars.

Considering I found that the actual owner of torrent-finder is currently in Egypt, it makes giving notice difficult.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Sausage
by stone2020 on Sun 28th Nov 2010 03:16 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Sausage"
stone2020 Member since:
2005-09-23

Copyright infringement is not stealing.


But yet you have this on your site:

© 1997-2010 OSNews LLC. All Rights Reserved. OSNews and the OSNews logo are trademarks of OSNews.
Source Code © 2007-2010, Adam Scheinberg, except where noted

Why would you ever need that on your site if you believe that copyright infringement is not stealing?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Sausage
by Sausage on Sat 27th Nov 2010 15:57 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Sausage"
Sausage Member since:
2010-11-27

I agree with you about the TSA. They have one... caveat, if you will... that allows them to circumvent what would normally be a clear cut privacy violations case. No airport within the US is obligated to use the TSA. You are, in essence, giving implied consent to be searched by utilizing an airport that choses to use TSA for security. There is nothing in the law that says that airports, which are not government owned, have to use TSA. In fact, some congressmen are calling for airports to drop TSA completely and go with private security... and some airports are considering it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Sausage
by telns on Sat 27th Nov 2010 16:39 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Sausage"
telns Member since:
2009-06-18

No airport within the US is obligated to use the TSA.


No, but the TSA sets the procedures. So even if the airports switch to private contractors, the TSA tells them what machines to use, and what pat-down methods to use.

You are, in essence, giving implied consent to be searched by utilizing an airport that choses to use TSA for security.


I disagree. Everyone has a prima facie right to travel where and as they see fit, which should only ever be interrupted in extraordinary circumstances. If I have a right to do something, and you order me that I won't be allowed to exercise that right unless I do what you want first, that is extortion. Even if I comply with your demands, it doesn't make it consent, because the demand was what violated my rights. It isn't consent in any legal or moral sense anymore than it is consent if I hand over my wallet to a thug, because he promised as long as I gave it over quietly he wouldn't pull the trigger. I can weigh the costs and decide handing it over is better than dying, but my "consent" with the thief's demand does not magically exonerate him of any moral or legal guilt.

If there were free competition in airport security processes, I might agree with you, but there is not. All "public" airports and airlines are heavily controlled by the US Federal government, and as I mentioned above, the TSA dictates the security methods whether or not the airport chooses to use TSA employees for screeners. There is no escaping it, and there is no choice. You either "consent" to the thugs' demands or you are denied your right to fly.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Sausage
by Lennie on Sat 27th Nov 2010 18:26 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Sausage"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Some airports do not make use of the services of the TSA, but they do have to abide by similair rules.

If you are interrested in reading up on the subject, you should really look at this blog-post:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/tsa_backscatter.html

Also it doesn't mean the TSA-officers are happy about it all themselfs:

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/18/tsa-enhance...

Summary: these procedures do not work, they don't not make you safer.

Simple example any terrorist can just blow up the people when they are queued waiting to go through these procedures.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by Sausage
by indieinvader on Sun 28th Nov 2010 22:27 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Sausage"
indieinvader Member since:
2009-08-11

I would recommend reading, or possibly re-reading, the definition of anarchy:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA1.html#seca11

I would also like to point out that Copyright Infingement != Theft! See:

http://www.osnews.com/thread?451308

Reply Parent Score: 2