US Government Begins Global Internet Censorship Without Court Orders [Archive]

ZERO

11-27-2010, 11:33 PM

US Government Begins Global Internet Censorship Without Court Orders

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/us_government_seizes_77_domains_including_torrent_ meta-search_engine

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_7_0_t&usg=AFQjCNFaTG1n_i2E-gV-mZzGM60oJ_KkDA&cid=17593823089267&ei=q9vxTNiVC5XcM_PLyYwC&rt=MORE_COVERAGE&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB1000 1424052748704693104575639692746020382.html%3Fmod%3 Dgooglenews_wsj (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_7_0_t&usg=AFQjCNFaTG1n_i2E-gV-mZzGM60oJ_KkDA&cid=17593823089267&ei=q9vxTNiVC5XcM_PLyYwC&rt=MORE_COVERAGE&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB1000 1424052748704693104575639692746020382.html%3Fmod%3 Dgooglenews_wsj)

Apparently the US Gov can remove any website off the internet it wants for any reason without a court order. I wonder how long before they can come into my home and take things with no court order and without even saying what law I have broken.

While these sites may have been breaking some laws it is important to note that the Government even said that it did not remove the sites for violating any particular law. In other words the Gov is removing anything they do not like off the internet. :pistols:

ZERO

11-27-2010, 11:40 PM

Note that they do claim they were executing court orders but copyright is a procedural law and can not be enforced legally in this way. The claims that there were court orders while there is still been no evidence of any such orders only helps support that the Gov is just making up whatever it wants.

StarsMine

11-28-2010, 12:06 AM

yea, I saw this, I dont like it at all, and Im not sure how they could get a court order to do such a thing, hopefully sometime soon the supreme court will do something about it

http://www.technobuffalo.com/blog/news/us-government-seizing-domain-names-of-illegal-sites/

Fluffy Frufflebottoms

11-28-2010, 01:28 AM

It's just another example of why ICANN should be an entirely independent organisation, and why, ideally, it should be well outside of the jurisdiction of most Western governments.

BladeTwinSwords

11-28-2010, 02:02 AM

This makes me rather furious since much of the music I get are from sources online.

DJ_MikeyRevile

11-28-2010, 05:43 AM

..... it is possible they proclaimed this.. as a scare tactic.. for people like WIKILEAKS who plan on revealing millions of the governments secrets on the internet.. this is a HUGE thing for the goverment and military considering all there plans are revealed if it happens......... Taking in consideration, National Security i see no reason why this Announcement is obscene. The goverment is only out to maintain National Security not get rid of sites that bash.

after reading.. it seems like the goverment is doing what they do with any other unlawful infirgment (kinda like what most do in our severs)

examples "Police confinscate drugs, THEN bring you to court"
"goverment Seizes any criminal activity as evidence THEN bring you to court"
"admins ban under suspicion, THEN bring it to our forums"

i see no problem in the government taking action on somthing they can no longer "control" any more. Especially when alot of the stuff is beyond our national boundaries.
even in the midst of this "dilemma" i think the last thing anyone in our country should be worrying about is internet sites that provide illeagle downloads but more focusing on stuff like the most recent attack on South korea and other world wide conflicts that are far more important then this. the last thing our country needs is more people to detest our goverment for its minor discions when a major one finally comes along.

p.s. seriously if people want to see a movie or listen to a CD .. buy it.. if you can afford the internet.. why cant you afford a movie or CD

jssaylor2007

11-28-2010, 12:16 PM

SCRIBBLE

11-28-2010, 12:24 PM

Wikileaks IS the government... dont you think its a little fishy how they can get HUGE top secret files, not just little heresay stuff, but terabytes of data, that somehow just oopsied its way out of some super secure vault in the pentagon. And all the while Julian Assange walks around doing public interviews, and having a good ol time. What do you think would happen to you if you had released even a minorly classified government document? I dont trust wikileaks as far as i could throw em. The government shows us daily that they can and will silence people, but the one man walking around throwing the supposedly most secure and dangerous data in the history of the US government around like its no big deal gets away scott free... Tell me that makes sense.

You should look into the term whistleblower. People are giving Assange and wikileaks the information anonymously. The system Assange has set up is solid and 100% legal. They have at least one person representing wikileaks in almost every major country to avoid breaking international law. THIS IS WHY WIKILEAKS IS DANGEROUS.

For example, a PFC in the US Army (he was an analyst) stole some info from a secure network while overseas. He submitted a video of an Apache killing 12 people, two of which are rumored to be Reuters reporters. He got caught because he bragged to a hacker friend who felt it necessary to turn the kid in to the US gov.
Now the PFC is looking at 50 years +.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10529110

edit: also this guy does NOT have what would be considered "the most secure and dangerous data in the history of the US." It's war logs. Who/where/what was killed/shot/injured. Most classified information that is 'dangerous' to the US is compartmentalized to the point where one document makes no sense without other corresponding documents. This is also why there are different levels of classified information.

Superman

11-28-2010, 12:40 PM

Its just another way the government can control what they can't control. The internet is beyond anyone's control and the government wants to control it so they do stupid shit like this, only problem is, when the government spits in the face of internet users, internet users make their own ways of doing what they want and share it out and thus, we do what we want on here anyways. So, its just a waste of time and money. Leave my fredoms alone, k, thanks.

anex

11-28-2010, 01:23 PM

..... it is possible they proclaimed this.. as a scare tactic.. for people like WIKILEAKS who plan on revealing millions of the governments secrets on the internet..

p.s. seriously if people want to see a movie or listen to a CD .. buy it.. if you can afford the internet.. why cant you afford a movie or CD

Wikileaks is under a mass ddos attack right now. Try to visit the site... I am unable to.

The principle for a lot of people is watch or listen before buying. I can't tell you how much money piracy has saved me. I buy movies, music, and games... however I always try the product before I buy it.

EDIT: Apparently Wikileaks is supposed to drop those new US documents tomorrow. The Guardian, Der Spiegel and NYT have it. They said they will still run the story even if Wikileaks is still down... Here is a theory. The US gov is trying to shut down piracy websites (Mostly torrent sites) to stop the information from spreading... Ill be you $10

Nemesis

11-28-2010, 04:51 PM

wait, they're stopping illegal activity, and people are upset?

Fluffy Frufflebottoms

11-28-2010, 05:21 PM

wait, they're stopping illegal activity, and people are upset?

No, people are upset that it can be done with minimal, if any, oversight by the courts.

DJ_MikeyRevile

11-28-2010, 06:36 PM

No, people are upset that it can be done with minimal, if any, oversight by the courts.

so there stopping people from criminal activity.. and people are upset.

Fluffy Frufflebottoms

11-28-2010, 07:04 PM

so there stopping people from criminal activity.. and people are upset.

No. They're middle-men ensuring that private interest organisations can circumvent the courts. That's why people are upset. These organisations have lobbied the legislature to avoid having to deal with a judiciary system that often found their methods to be unlawful. Some of these sites are outlets for people committing felony copyright infringement, but others are not. Torrenting, for example, is not a crime. It's a tort handled as a civil matter.

acolyte_to_jippity

11-28-2010, 07:05 PM

so there stopping people from criminal activity.. and people are upset.

i personally am upset. it's not the stopping criminal activity, but its the fact that they can o this for any reason whatsoever. plus, some of the sites were perfectly legal, like torrent-finder.

Tickle Me Emo

11-28-2010, 08:34 PM

wait, they're stopping illegal activity, and people are upset?

so there stopping people from criminal activity.. and people are upset.

If that's really all you see in this issue, you're retarded. I'm too tired to go into detail right now, but that's really all the time you deserve anyways.

Christmas

11-28-2010, 09:55 PM

i personally am upset. it's not the stopping criminal activity, but its the fact that they can o this for any reason whatsoever. plus, some of the sites were perfectly legal, like torrent-finder.

Don't torrent sites provide links to copyrighted content?

Jeimuzu

11-28-2010, 10:07 PM

If that's really all you see in this issue, you're retarded. I'm too tired to go into detail right now, but that's really all the time you deserve anyways.

I give you +1 my good sir.

Fluffy Frufflebottoms

11-28-2010, 10:15 PM

Don't torrent sites provide links to copyrighted content?

Nothing that a torrent site provides as part of serving torrents is copyrighted. Torrent-Finder itself merely links to these sites. It's sorta like shutting down Google for indexing sites that serve content that in some capacity could be used to commit civil offenses.

acolyte_to_jippity

11-28-2010, 11:14 PM

Don't torrent sites provide links to copyrighted content?

technically, torrents are just specially formatted text files that a tracker client interprets as instructions for where to go and connect to the actual torrent network. there is no copyright material in torrents.

hallwagner

11-28-2010, 11:47 PM

technically, torrents are just specially formatted text files that a tracker client interprets as instructions for where to go and connect to the actual torrent network. there is no copyright material in torrents.

its a huge grey are you're getting into. limewire was shut down for the fact that people were able to download songs that the artist or record label owners did not want them to be that easily (cheaply availiable). in my view torrenting falls under the same category as limewire and napster. there is almost no way the government or torrent provider/search engine can regulate every single thing that people can torrent, its just not plausible at all. regardless of these points, i understand both sides because i too, enjoy torrenting music and downloading from p2p search engines, but i also understand the governments point of view and the need to censor/ban certain content. you shouldn't need court to see if you can stop illicit activity, a cops not gonna walk down the street and say, oh theres a guy robbing a store, i'm gonna go see if i can get a court order to stop him. yes, eventually it should/will go to court, but you have to take care of business first

Nemesis

11-28-2010, 11:51 PM

I give you +1 my good sir.

they don't need a court order to stop them, if they have exigent circumstances they can shut it down, then later prove that they were doing something illegal, then go though the proper channels. the trouble comes when they do that and later can't prove that something illegal was happening.

DJ_MikeyRevile

11-29-2010, 02:10 AM

they don't need a court order to stop them, if they have exigent circumstances they can shut it down, then later prove that they were doing something illegal, then go though the proper channels. the trouble comes when they do that and later can't prove that something illegal was happening.

exactly... like every other unlawful thing...

partial Punishment first, questions and discussion later in court.
if the government sees or has reason to belive there is somthing unlawful happing, they shut it down.. not just for websites but for ALL aspects of crime.

StarsMine

11-29-2010, 06:59 AM

CYBER

11-29-2010, 11:43 AM

Torrents are 100% legal, and are used for legal uses very very often. however the question of legality of torrents is a stupid thing in this question, if torrent finder got pulled why not Google as you can do the same thing with google

+1
seriously this thing with US feds pulling out the actual GOOD domains is getting old...
instead of focusing on helping the poor, saving the homeless, feeding the hungry, saving the innocents, protecting the citizens, aiming for peace....
instead of all of this...
they just go after harmless domains and shut them down for the sole pupose of letting the rich people get richer since the lower class ppl used to go to these domains to save some money getting what they want...
talk about fucking up the gap between classes of our society....
and stars is right, for all we know, google, youtube, heck even facebook one day might be closed for either being a search engine that shows torrent results, a music/vid sharing website, and a social website that allows users to upload wtvr they want on the internet technically...

meh... fuck that shit.

Nemesis

11-29-2010, 11:57 AM

Torrents are 100% legal, and are used for legal uses very very often. however the question of legality of torrents is a stupid thing in this question, if torrent finder got pulled why not Google as you can do the same thing with google

alone they may be legal, but if they can be used to commit an illegal act then they can be deemed illegal.

for example, is a crowbar legal? yes. can you be arrested for walking down the street with one? yes. because it is something that could be used to commit a crime.

Fluffy Frufflebottoms

11-29-2010, 12:07 PM

exactly... like every other unlawful thing...

partial Punishment first, questions and discussion later in court.
if the government sees or has reason to belive there is somthing unlawful happing, they shut it down.. not just for websites but for ALL aspects of crime.

alone they may be legal, but if they can be used to commit an illegal act then they can be deemed illegal.

for example, is a crowbar legal? yes. can you be arrested for walking down the street with one? yes. because it is something that could be used to commit a crime.

What you guys need to understand is that private torrenting isn't criminal. Copyright infringement without intent to profit is a civil tort, just as the rights holders want it to be. In a civil case, the plaintiff merely requires a preponderance of evidence to win a case, whereas in criminal law, guilt beyond reasonable doubt must be proven, which would be both incredibly difficult, and incredibly expensive to establish.

The rights holders make use of the liberties that civil cases grant them, running operations that essentially mimic extortion rings, targeting infringers and entirely innocent people alike. At the same time, they want to enjoy the protections and advantages of having their business models protected by criminal law, without giving up their aggressive litigation schemes, and they're lobbying a corrupt legislature to grant them criminal enforcement of civil matters.

You may think that the end is justified, but the entire legislative and judicial foundation of this country speaks to the fact that the means aren't.

Nemesis

11-29-2010, 12:54 PM

What you guys need to understand is that private torrenting isn't criminal. Copyright infringement without intent to profit is a civil tort, just as the rights holders want it to be. In a civil case, the plaintiff merely requires a preponderance of evidence to win a case, whereas in criminal law, guilt beyond reasonable doubt must be proven, which would be both incredibly difficult, and incredibly expensive to establish.

The rights holders make use of the liberties that civil cases grant them, running operations that essentially mimic extortion rings, targeting infringers and entirely innocent people alike. At the same time, they want to enjoy the protections and advantages of having their business models protected by criminal law, without giving up their aggressive litigation schemes, and they're lobbying a corrupt legislature to grant them criminal enforcement of civil matters.

You may think that the end is justified, but the entire legislative and judicial foundation of this country speaks to the fact that the means aren't.

i understand what you're saying and i'm not saying what they're doing is right, only that they have the right to do it. there response is that they are stopping it before it can get to the point of selling copywrited material. you can go around the law in order to prevent crime from happening if there is no current guidelines established.

Fluffy Frufflebottoms

11-29-2010, 01:00 PM

i understand what you're saying and i'm not saying what they're doing is right, only that they have the right to do it. there response is that they are stopping it before it can get to the point of selling copywrited material. you can go around the law in order to prevent crime from happening if there is no current guidelines established.

What? That's like shutting down a gun store to "stop it before it can get to the point" of a murder being committed with a weapon purchased there. That's just not how any law works, civil or criminal.

They have absolutely no right to do it, and you can never go around the law. That's illegal by definition.

Nemesis

11-29-2010, 01:10 PM

What? That's like shutting down a gun store to "stop it before it can get to the point" of a murder being committed with a weapon purchased there. That's just not how any law works, civil or criminal.

They have absolutely no right to do it, and you can never go around the law. That's illegal by definition.

i'll give you an example. a few years ago at the university i went to there was this strange guy walking around in a trench coat carrying a heavy duffle bag. the police were called and then they talked to him and asked if they could look in his bag he said no. now, by law, they have no right to go hold him up and search him. he'd commited no offence, and shows no signs of criminal activity. well they seached it anyways and inside they found an uzi, two pistols, a shit-ton of ammo and a map of the school and which rooms to hit.

Now technically they violated his rights, right? be in court it was deemed that it was exigent circumstances and for the good of us all. you are allowed to violate any rights if it is for the good of the public and acted on in good faith.

Remember, the only rights you have are the ones that you're allowed to have, and that can change at any time.

acolyte_to_jippity

11-29-2010, 01:16 PM

Now technically they violated his rights, right? be in court it was deemed that it was exigent circumstances and for the good of us all. you are allowed to violate any rights if it is for the good of the public and acted on in good faith.

might i point out that there is a large difference between a school shooting an downloading music. and "if it's for the goo of the public" doesn't take into account that the "public" is the one that's downloading the music to begin with.

Remember, the only rights you have are the ones that you're allowed to have, and that can change at any time.

not actually true. maybe up in maple-land, but it's a hell of alot harder to change our rights in america

Fluffy Frufflebottoms

11-29-2010, 01:36 PM

i'll give you an example. a few years ago at the university i went to there was this strange guy walking around in a trench coat carrying a heavy duffle bag. the police were called and then they talked to him and asked if they could look in his bag he said no. now, by law, they have no right to go hold him up and search him. he'd commited no offence, and shows no signs of criminal activity. well they seached it anyways and inside they found an uzi, two pistols, a shit-ton of ammo and a map of the school and which rooms to hit.

Now technically they violated his rights, right? be in court it was deemed that it was exigent circumstances and for the good of us all. you are allowed to violate any rights if it is for the good of the public and acted on in good faith.

Remember, the only rights you have are the ones that you're allowed to have, and that can change at any time.

As far as your argument of exigent circumstances goes, I think it would be fairly difficult to argue in court that there's anything exigent about copyright infringement without intent to profit. By extension, it would be a lot more difficult to argue that there's anything exigent about providing directions on how to infringe copyright without the possibility of profiting. Your example also doesn't constitute a case of "going around the law," as the entire concept of exigent circumstances was used as a legal defense by the prosecution.

Remember, the rights that you have require extraordinary circumstances to undermine. You're arguing a case of unfounded and empirically unwarranted speculation offered by corporations worried that they may somehow, in the future, lose profit to criminal behaviour that may or may not be committed by parties unrelated to the site operators, possibly choosing to use, amongst many others, precisely the site in question to acquire the means to possibly commit criminal copyright infringement. Maybe.

If that to you is ample justification, then I don't think you hold your own rights in sufficient regard.

Nemesis

11-29-2010, 02:26 PM

not actually true. maybe up in maple-land, but it's a hell of alot harder to change our rights in america

no, it's not/ but hey, ignorace is bliss.

By extension, it would be a lot more difficult to argue that there's anything exigent about providing directions on how to infringe copyright without the possibility of profiting.

i'm wondering, do you have to profit off of it? like if you just sit there and hand out free copies, thats gotta be the same. so by letting people seed off of your downloads would that fall into the same catagory?

Fluffy Frufflebottoms

11-29-2010, 02:41 PM

i'm wondering, do you have to profit off of it? like if you just sit there and hand out free copies, thats gotta be the same. so by letting people seed off of your downloads would that fall into the same catagory?

Copyright infringement is only criminal if it is done willfully for commercial advantage, or private financial gain. Neither downloading, nor seeding, constitute criminal infringement.

ZERO

11-29-2010, 03:23 PM

Nemesis

11-29-2010, 06:23 PM

StarsMine

11-29-2010, 06:33 PM

then they contact the ISP (ill be honist here, the ISP will do nothing, they like their customers wallet) not the goverment, then the goverment will be contacted after the ISP does not comply and they go for a civil court (and thats unlikely as it will cost the compony more money then it is worth)

ZERO

11-29-2010, 06:44 PM

Should the gov remove all tabloids under the claim of slander?

Nemesis

11-29-2010, 07:08 PM

Should the gov remove all tabloids under the claim of slander?

i'm sure they would if they could, especially after what happened after today.

StarsMine

11-29-2010, 07:32 PM

i'm sure they would if they could, especially after what happened after today.

im sure they wouldnt, as its not damaging to anyone except those who belive what they say. Why? we have freedom of press.

hallwagner

11-29-2010, 08:17 PM

Exactly, it is a civil tort. The gov does not have any right to come in outside of the accuser getting a court order. It is like if I did not pay my credit card bill and the cops show up. It is not the same as not paying my taxes which does involve the gov. Me not paying my credit card bill is something the credit card company comes after me for via civil court not via the police or any other part of the gov. Now if I did not pay my taxes this is not the same thing.

look, regardless the website is providing illegal "items" to a consumer. if i start up a website and sell massive quantities of weapons and drugs to people, the government doesn't need to have much reason/permission to shut it down. i think the point you guys are missing is that piracy is illegal, why does the government need a to research and go through court processes to stop something that is wrong? the internet is not free, and i dont know why anybody would think that. governments are on the lookout all the time for certain things and shutting them down as well. would you people be angry if sites providing nuclear weapon sales, child porn, and slaves were shut down. bottom line is that illegal activity will be stopped no matter how minor or insignificant it may seem.

Superman

11-29-2010, 08:20 PM

look, regardless the website is providing illegal "items" to a consumer. if i start up a website and sell massive quantities of weapons and drugs to people, the government doesn't need to have much reason/permission to shut it down. i think the point you guys are missing is that piracy is illegal, why does the government need a to research and go through court processes to stop something that is wrong? the internet is not free, and i dont know why anybody would think that. governments are on the lookout all the time for certain things and shutting them down as well. would you people be angry if sites providing nuclear weapon sales, child porn, and slaves were shut down. bottom line is that illegal activity will be stopped no matter how minor or insignificant it may seem.

Shutting down illegal items is one thing, but shutting down copyright infrindgments in another. You can't go to jail for taking someone's name, you can only get sued. When the government puts their filthy nose into civil matters, they are ONLY doing it because its somehow going to benifit them.

hallwagner

11-29-2010, 08:29 PM

Shutting down illegal items is one thing, but shutting down copyright infrindgments in another. You can't go to jail for taking someone's name, you can only get sued. When the government puts their filthy nose into civil matters, they are ONLY doing it because its somehow going to benifit them.

are you saying that copyright infringement is legal? if so :stupid: yes it usually ends up in a civil suit, but a law breakage is a law breakage
some further reading http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

Fluffy Frufflebottoms

11-29-2010, 08:32 PM

look, regardless the website is providing illegal "items" to a consumer. if i start up a website and sell massive quantities of weapons and drugs to people, the government doesn't need to have much reason/permission to shut it down. i think the point you guys are missing is that piracy is illegal, why does the government need a to research and go through court processes to stop something that is wrong? the internet is not free, and i dont know why anybody would think that. governments are on the lookout all the time for certain things and shutting them down as well. would you people be angry if sites providing nuclear weapon sales, child porn, and slaves were shut down. bottom line is that illegal activity will be stopped no matter how minor or insignificant it may seem.

Sorry, Wagner, but you're confusing civil law with criminal law. Torrenting is not a crime. It's not illegal. It's a tort, which is settled in civil court. All of your examples deal with criminal law, permitting law enforcement agencies to take action preliminary to criminal charges. It doesn't work that way in civil law.

Superman

11-29-2010, 08:35 PM

are you saying that copyright infringement is legal? if so :stupid: yes it usually ends up in a civil suit, but a law breakage is a law breakage
some further reading http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

No, its not legal, but.... It is not arrestable. Its a civil matter only. One can not go to jail or be prosicuted for it.

&&toasties

11-29-2010, 08:43 PM

What you guys need to understand is that private torrenting isn't criminal. Copyright infringement without intent to profit is a civil tort, just as the rights holders want it to be. In a civil case, the plaintiff merely requires a preponderance of evidence to win a case, whereas in criminal law, guilt beyond reasonable doubt must be proven, which would be both incredibly difficult, and incredibly expensive to establish.

The rights holders make use of the liberties that civil cases grant them, running operations that essentially mimic extortion rings, targeting infringers and entirely innocent people alike. At the same time, they want to enjoy the protections and advantages of having their business models protected by criminal law, without giving up their aggressive litigation schemes, and they're lobbying a corrupt legislature to grant them criminal enforcement of civil matters.

You may think that the end is justified, but the entire legislative and judicial foundation of this country speaks to the fact that the means aren't.

This.

No one could have said it better.

BTW: I love your signature.

Fluffy Frufflebottoms

11-29-2010, 09:05 PM

BTW: I love your signature.

I love how you're a woman of your word.

&&toasties

11-29-2010, 09:09 PM

I love how you're a woman of your word.

Stay on topic sir!

Don't want anyone to come and rampage.

Scrubbleboo

11-29-2010, 09:13 PM

I can't attest to whether or not censorship is in place (in this instance at least) and this policy is being acted upon without the proper systems, but I doubt this will be signed into legislature. It's been under review and it's legality is only contingent on passes by senate, house and signed in by Obama.

The only reasoning I could see behind signing this bill is to prompt more people to go out and legally purchase media instead of downloading it which might stimulate the economy. Maybe.

Personally, I would rather not see something than purchase it. If it comes down to me spending 70 dollars on a dvd set, I'd rather just rent it on netflix when it comes out or not see it at all. Then again, I'm frugal. :laff:

If you are truly concerned with what's happening write your local government and demand action, get your friends and family to write too. You may not think it helps, but votes can be motivation :).

For any interested in what the actually proposed bill entails and it's recent changes I've included a link, you can also check the progress it's making and who supports it. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-3804

ZERO

11-29-2010, 09:28 PM

Also remember that you can always view current or old bills via http://www.thomas.gov/ (http://www.thomas.gov/)
that is where I read over the 1T stimulus package back in the day and posted the fist 100B.

StarsMine

11-29-2010, 09:39 PM

Personally, I would rather not see something than purchase it. If it comes down to me spending 70 dollars on a dvd set, I'd rather just rent it on netflix when it comes out or not see it at all. Then again, I'm frugal. :laff:

[/url]

eh, if its out, then I would rather buy it then rent it, however there are limits to what I am willing to spend, usually NO MORE then 2 bucks an ep (we are talking anime there) and thats only if the show really catches my eye, usually dont want to spend more then 1.50-1.75 an ep.
and then there are movies, unless its some uber super deluxe edition, please dont sell it for more then 15 bucks.

hallwagner

11-30-2010, 12:27 AM

Sorry, Wagner, but you're confusing civil law with criminal law. Torrenting is not a crime. It's not illegal. It's a tort, which is settled in civil court. All of your examples deal with criminal law, permitting law enforcement agencies to take action preliminary to criminal charges. It doesn't work that way in civil law.

i wasn't stating that torrenting itself is illegal, i was stating that copyright infringement is. it is most definitely illegal.

No, its not legal, but.... It is not arrestable. Its a civil matter only. One can not go to jail or be prosicuted for it.

i never said it was arrestable, i said that the government has the right to stop such activity whenever it happens. this is at least my view. also if people believe the government is acting illegally or unconstitutionally in any way and act as if they can get their actions reversed or prove them as unlawful, then they have another thing coming. also, as i've said before, torrenting isn't illegal, but some of the things people torrent are. there is no way a torrenting service or even a government agency is going to regulate every single torrent and see if its legal or not. its just a whole lot easier to shut those sites down. i mean who uses torrents for anything other than downloading unlicensed media? yea, almost nobody. its like having a store that sells crack and small amounts of furniture, your'e not gonna say, well we'll just take away the crack and let you guys carry on your business. bad analogy, yes, but still

Fluffy Frufflebottoms

11-30-2010, 12:49 AM

i wasn't stating that torrenting itself is illegal, i was stating that copyright infringement is. it is most definitely illegal.

Contrary to what you said, however, infringing copyright by torrenting copywritten materials without gain is not a crime. You can't keep drawing comparisons to criminal law enforcement, when the issue at hand isn't criminal behaviour.

acolyte_to_jippity

11-30-2010, 10:50 AM

Contrary to what you said, however, infringing copyright by torrenting copywritten materials without gain is not a crime. You can't keep drawing comparisons to criminal law enforcement, when the issue at hand isn't criminal behaviour.

exactly. the companies can sue for lost profits (lol, good band) but since it's a civil issue arrests cannot be made. BUT, if they're selling the shit they pirate, then it becomes a criminal issue.