US Government Begins Global Internet Censorship Without Court Orders

[hallwagner]

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]

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]

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]

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

[CYBER]

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]

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]

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.