US Government Begins Global Internet Censorship Without Court Orders

[Fluffy Frufflebottoms]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[&&toasties]

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]

BTW: I love your signature.

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