US Government Begins Global Internet Censorship Without Court Orders

[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.

[ZERO]

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.

[Nemesis]

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.

right, but if you scam the credit card company they will, and i think thats the way they're viewing this, as if by torrenting you are stealing, i'm not saying they're right, i'm saying i think thats the way they're gonna go about this whole thing.

[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.