US Government Begins Global Internet Censorship Without Court Orders

[hallwagner]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

are you saying that copyright infringement is legal? if so 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]

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.

[&&toasties]

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

Stay on topic sir!

Don't want anyone to come and rampage.

[Scrubbleboo]

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.

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/bill...bill=s111-3804

[ZERO]

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