Slashdot Mirror
Japan Makes Linking Illegal Material Illegal
Once&FutureRocketman writes "According to this article, a Japanese court has handed down a decision that make it a crime to link to a page that contains illegal material. I don't think this crowd needs me to elaborate on the potential ramifications of this decision. " Update: 04/21 12:10 by CT : Ooops, this is a duplicate of
an earlier article. I'm leaving it up 'cuz there's already a ton of comments.
Judge Masayuki Kawai of the Osaka District Court reached the conclusion that Kiuchi had increased the number of ways to access obscene sites and had made it easier for many people to view pornographic pictures, and that he therefore was guilty of aggravating crime. For that reason, he handed down a guilty verdict carrying a one-year prison sentence, suspended for three years. (The prosecution had requested that he receive a one-year sentence.) So, to follow this reasoning, if I publish a list of addresses of banks, I'm aiding and abetting the crime of bank robbery?
If merely linking to a site is illegal, then all the Japanese government has to do is sit back and define what is legal and not legal, thereby greatly restricting the flow of information of the web. Also, this will of course give the Japanese government an excuse to censor international traffic - declaring that certian sites like infoseek or google are unfit for consumption simply because they might link to content that is "illegal". What a bunch of bullshit - I even heard that it is illegal in Japan to use encryption (I don't know if that is entirely true, but I did here that somewhere.) On top of all this, the Brittish government is making it easier than ever to shut down a web site. There was a story about it on BBC news - you can basically have a website taken down with relative ease if it merely offends you. Can you imagine what a boring fucking place this would be if all web sites had to be un-offensive to EVERYONE and not link to anything that could potentially be *gasp* illegal? At least the US government has not gone to these extremes, but who knows, perhaps in time even they will. I really hope that this will not happen. We cannot let them silence us.
Silly citizen, that's because Leno doesn't make fun of the people who really run the country.
Try making a wisecrack about Alan Greenspan and see what ha-&@993549@23..!@335
+
+
+ NO CARRIER
Sure millions will still break the laws, but "selective" application of the law will be used to imprison dissidents. New study out today shows 1 in 47 of us American adults are, or have been imprisoned.
As for some little country getting rich off it, not likely. If it becomes a haven for ideas Amercians dont like (or other powers) the little country will be blacklisted. The US did it to Cuba because they dont like one particular guy.
If Sony and now/AOL Time Warner decide that XYZ is bad, they have the lawyers and lobbyists to make sure you don't see XYZ. You can't even host yur own DNS in the future to route around it. You'll need an upstream provider, i.e. ATT/AOL/TimeWarner/SONY/MS Inc. And they'll have no qualms in cutting off independant DNS outfits in order to "protect the children" or "protect the artists creative works.". Yeah right.
Cheap, fast broadband you say? Sure everybody buys an Airport card and has their own bandwidth. Not. Radio broadcasts are regulated, despite the recent ruling (still costs $25,000 to set it up legally (less than $1,000 for the tech, the rest is regulatory/legal bs). Yes you can, but it'll be illegal. They'll ignore you unless they want to jail you, then they have a pretext... In 2007 Mr Lee Harvey was detected to have collaborated with other terrorists seeking to destroy Free AMercia (hah). Using an unregistered, out of date, and therefore illegal copy of Half Life 3.0, he and the other defendants simulated amushes of federal agents and the assination of the President of the United Corporations of America. For these crimes of treason, there shall be no bail, no parole and no stay of execution."
Far fetched? Think about it. A dozen $100,000,000,000 companies say they want it so. How much is your senator's, parliment's, sheik's vote worth? Especially since freedom equals the freedom to say or see things some people don't like? Strippers and pasties. KKK marchers and their hoods. i-Opener and linux. Ebay and EverQuest items.
One other rant for this diatribe: I can buy writable(and therefore more expensive) CDs at Staples for 30 cents each. Why do CDs cost MORE than tapes? Multiple plactic housing, pulleys and their assembly vs. a 3 layer print job? Blank tapes cost more tha blank CDs. So why do tapes cost LESS than CDs? Because the corporatation can make more that way. It's recorded "better" than the tapes. Did the artist make the tape's version on a bad day? blah blah blah I'm done.
--- Any and all typos are ust that. I can spell, just can't type.
This .sig here until i think of something funny.
Just so you know, you need to capitalize the i in your sig. I've been thinking about your sig for some time, but have decided to let it all slide and just tell you this. Please go to User Preferences, capitalize the i in your sig and then click the Save button. Then everything will be hunky-dory. As for the actual content of your sig, please think of something funny by next week, or you will hear from me again.
That said, it's time you got yourself a new sig. Thank you.
That's a pretty theory you have. But do you mean 'illegal' or 'immoral'? I mean, lets look at everyone's favorite example: DeCSS.
Is it illegal? Yes. Should it be illegal? Probably not. Fair use after all. Digital copy protection laws are bar-none useless. After all, even things in the digital realm are protected by basic copyright laws. Now they want to steal our right to fair use. So is DeCSS immoral? More then likely.
Sort of like libel/slander. Being blatantly libelous or slandering an individual is both illegal and immoral. Like you said, maybe the laws are the problem. But don't forget who makes your laws, who's to say how moral they are.
If you can reach anywhere on the web with 9 hops, consider yourself very very lucky.
So now all search engines are illegal in Japan if they return a page with links to "illegal" stuff. Also if the page was fine when the link was established but then the person put illegal stuff on it what happens? I guess the anarchy of the web is cool until it's your butt being screwed over by the "ruling class" that just doesn't get it.
Protecting my goats from coyotes and mountain lions. You think I'm going to use a machete?
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
Your analogy is quite flawed. A more fitting one might be: Mr. Jones lives in the house two doors down from me. I have known Mr. Jones since I moved in to my house a few years ago. One day a stranger comes to my door--he's on his way to visit his friend Mr. Jones, and he's lost, so he stopped by my house to ask directions. "No problem," I say, "Mr. Jones lives just two houses away, he's my neighbor," and I point him towards Mr. Jones. The visitor says "thank you" and goes over to Mr. Jones's house to buy smack.
I didn't know Mr. Jones sold drugs, my redirection ("link") was simply to Mr. Jones. Am I a criminal?
--
DeCSS is not illegal. Only certain specific sites have been prohibited from distributing it due to the MPAA having obtained a preliminary injunction against them. Any site that has not been hit with such an injunction is legally allowed to distribute DeCSS.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
On the other hand, these guns wouldn't be there without the manufacturers and they are therefore indirectly responsible.
The gunmakers are selling a legitimate product. It, like many other products, can be used for illegal purposes. That does not mean that the company is even indirectly responsible for those actions. People never go after knife makers when someone is stabbed to death. Why go after gun makers? If you go after gun makers, why not automobile makers? All you end up doing is trying to shift the responsibility to someone else, even though they were selling a perfectly legitimate product.
The lawsuits against gunmakers on deaths should be thrown out of court.
Couldn't agree more with this, although I don't think I agree with your overall stance on guns.
(Likewise with smoking. Can't smokers read warning labels that first said smoking is harmful, later that smoking kills?)
For anyone who started in the last 20 years, and barring any unusual circumstances, I think I agree with you. However, I also think that the cigarette companies did conspire to hide the facts from consumers about the harm that smoking causes, as well as the fact that it is highly addictive. It's not just a matter of saying "oh, I'd better quit" after you realize that smoking will quite probably kill you. For these reasons, I think that many of the people who are filing suits against the cigarette companies have a legitimate grievance.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I don't believe that such a list would really work, but it is certainly an example of the measures which were open to them.
I don't know of any measures that could effectively prevent the transfer of copyrighted works. What it comes down to is a bunch of unidentifiable bits. Don't know of any way to filter those.
The interesting thing is that apparently the RIAA has said that they aren't going to go after users. C'est la vie.
Yep. They have no interest in pursuing those who are actually infringing on their copyright. They are looking for a quick fix that will end up setting a bad precedent that they will use to remove even more of our rights in the future. This is almost exactly the same thing the MPAA is doing with DeCSS.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Are the manufacturers responsible when the product's primary use is illegal and they make no bones about it? Yes.
The primary use of guns is not illegal. The primary use is for law enforcement, self-defense, and sport. There are illegal uses as well, such as armed robbery, assault, and murder. These are all illegal and anyone committing such a crime should certainly be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It does not mean that the rest of us should lose the right to effectively defend ourselves, our families, and our homes.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Harmless fun nearly by definition. Quite unobjectionable on its own merits, although other methods to both hunt and fire projectiles at targets exist.
Other methods of transportation exist, yet we do not ban automobiles, despite the fact that they kill tens of thousands of people every year. The point is that while other methods are available, they are not equivalent. We use the method that works best for us.
In both England and Japan, effective policing takes place without arms, but then, the people are not armed either.
Wrong. England is currently having a seriou s gun problem. Guns are still coming into the country despite the ban. Why? Because people still want them, and other people can make money off of them. Criminals still get all the guns they want. They are having problems with gangs toting around automatics. The police still use guns as well (note the picture in that article). Not all of them carry a gun all the time, but they definitely still keep them handy. I haven't read anything about Japan's situation, so I can't comment on that.
Multiple armed home invaders aren't going to be very amused by resistance.
Actually, resistance is usually enough to send them packing. They are there for the quick, easy score. They don't want to die over it.
At least with knifes, the chances are that they'll only wound one another.
Sorry, but as you pointed out, some people are bigger and stronger than others. I have no intention of engaging in a knife fight with someone. A gun is much more effective. Even a warning shot will often make an intruder run rather than take his chances against someone with a gun. The odds are way too even, and possibly even against him. If I am competent in the use of my gun, then I am unlikely to be disarmed or have it used against me. I think the real thing that gives guns a bad name is that people don't learn how to handle them. They think it's just like on tv, you point and shoot and bad guys start dropping. I personally think you should have to pass a test to own a gun, just like you do in order to drive a car. There are just too many incompetent gun owners. But, until there are non-lethal weapons available to the public that are at least as effective in any given situation as a gun, I believe we all have the right to defend ourselves and our families to the best of our ability and with the most effective weapon available to us.
I think it highly unlikely that either one of us can convert the other to the opposite way of thinking, but if you'd like to continue the discussion, I am quite happy to.
You're probably right, but naturally I couldn't let your post go unanswered. You understand, of course. :)
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Even in cases where the driver was drunk, it is called an accident the whole while as the driver is on trial.
Actually drunk drivers are routinely convicted of vehicular manslaughter. The term "accident" is just a very deeply ingrained term when it comes to vehicles. If I was a legitmate gun owner and accidently shot someone while cleaning a gun, they don't call that an accident. Neither should it be called an accident when someone kills somebody after getting behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated. It should be called vehicular manslaughter at the very least, and murder 2 at the most.
People commit murder regardless of what weapon they have available. How many murders committed last year were not committed using a gun? I bet a large portion of the people who used a gun would have used another weapon had a gun not been available (although its hard to imagine someone not being able to get a gun if they want one, same as drugs). Even assuming you could get rid of guns (completely impossible IMO), I don't see the other problems in this country being fixed, so we'll still have the environment in which people will commit murder, simply because they either feel it's right in their situation, or they don't care at all. The way things are going, it's probably just going to get worse too.
The rest of your points are quite reasonable, though you'll usually have more luck outrunning a knife than a bullet.
If I'm defending my home or family, I'm not likely to be running. In other circumstances, running might be a wise idea. As the article I mentioned shows though (and you seem to agree), you're going to have a real tough time trying to get guns away from criminals. So, I'd just as soon not bring a knife to a gunfight.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
/ k.d / earth trickle / Monkeys vs. Robots Films /
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
First, Japan didn't start World War II as we know it. You know that it wouldn't have happened without Europe.
Of course not. Though Japan gave the US a convenient reason to get into the war, it was not responsible for starting the war itself.
Second, what is a Samurai-like technique? Do the companies go around wearing masks throwing throwing-stars at eachother?
Nope. But the techniques you described weren't used by samurai anyway. Shuriken (throwing stars, you called them) were more typically the tools of the shinobi (who had another name that I dare not mention simply because it would get a certain Slashdot troll very excited).
How does "the country" use techniques to root out competition.
Actually, it's possible by using protectionist tariffs, something the US has also done in the past (Hawley-Smoot, anyone?) And Japan is known to do this. However, the trend has been reversing in recent years, albeit slowly.
Your post is way too full of B.S. to make any sense whatsoever.
That's why it's called a troll.
::scratches head::
My cat's breath smells like cat food.
This is effectively how it has been in Japan all along.
.jp extention.
:)
Whether or not Japan's ISP's had been operating under some sort of consent decree or something I couldn't say, but I have never found anything containing copyrighted material or pictures of human genetalia on any server with a
.hk servers on the other hand are another matter entirely
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Napster in trouble from Japan?
Japan doesn't even represent 5% of the worlds internet users. Napster will be fine.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
So God is responsible for my raping spree!
Whee! Everything I do is someone elses fault!
Ain't America grand?
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
The WTO will strike Japan's law down as an unecessary hindrance to porn-producing economies like California and Hong Kong.
Thank God for the WTO, eh?
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Does Russia have copyright laws at all? If it does, do the laws permit this type of redistribution?
if the answer is no to the first, or yes to the second, then it's plenty fair. copyrights were not handed down by god to some prophet on the mountain - they're totally artificial and have to be implemented by law. furthermore, they can be repealed, and they don't have to be particularly consistant.
as i recall, taiwan has no copyright laws (or if it does, they're really lax)
at any rate, if it is an infringement of copyright law, that's a civil matter. go sue them (if possible)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Self defense - if your life is in immediate mortal danger (it can be from a rabid bear, if you're uncomfortable with the idea that some humans are likely to kill you) then this strikes me as a useful time to have and use a gun.
War is another one. It's very nice to make war illegal, but there are relatively few nations that are willing to submit without some kind of fight.
Suicide (legality varies wildly depending on your local jurisdiction)
Fishing - no really. When you catch large fish, they're usually alive and dangerous to get near, given as how they outweigh you, are strong, and are flopping around like mad. If you're gonna kill it anyway, you might as well not endanger yourself in the process. You'll note that we didn't have matches for a long time either, but there are few people willing to carry flint and tinder.
My favorite - overthrowing an unjust, illegitimate and immoral government (probably the underlying reason behind the US 2nd Amendment; a method to ensure that if it failed, it could be removed)
I'm sure there are others.
My point is, I would rather have the ACT or at most direct incitement to perform the act (e.g. telling Mr. B to murder Mr. C as opposed to talking out loud about how Mr. C is a pain in the ass and you wish he were dead) be illegal, not the tools.
There are good, constructive uses for virtually any *thing* that I can think of. Make it illegal to commit (or be about to commit) the negative acts with those things - don't make it illegal to possess them no matter what your intentions.
And yes, I think that Napster should remain online. If some company x has a problem with them, they should sue the people who are actually pirating stuff. Napster at worst (assuming that they haven't dl'd stuff illegally) has been negligent. this can be very serious, but their intent needs to be determined. did they create napster with the intent that it would be used illegally? did they take action when it was brought to their attention that it was used illegally?
Sure napster has it's faults, but what would be wrong with a system where files were transferred legally, with good faith on the part of napster that people weren't lying through their teeth? So like I said - find out what they were trying to do and what they knew, first.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
This is getting offtopic even for /., but the culture of the army would pretty likely fragment it at worst - put it against the government at best.
and effectiveness aside, at present, guerilla armies are pretty damn effective if their enemies are planning to hold territory and not kill absolutely everyone to do it. We found that out in Viet Nam (although when they stopped hiding we kicked the shit out of them) and the Russians found out in Afghanistan. It's tough to nuke yourself from orbit, even if it's the only way to be sure.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Your argument makes no sense.
First you say that gun manufacturers ought to be liable for crimes committed with their products. Despite there being legal uses for their products.
But then you don't answer the question of whether film and camera manufacturers are liable for crimes committed with their products, and you disagree that DeCSS's creators should be liable at all.
In *EACH CASE* the product has both legal and illegal uses. You can't have your cake and eat it too - are the manufacturers of ANY product which is used illegally liable for that use? Yes or no? Ratios don't enter into it. The purpose the tool is created/used for (aside from legality - e.g. guns kill people, but this can be legal or illegal depending on circumstances) is irrelevant.
Liable or not? Just answer.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
But if I say in some public forum, 'Rodney, two doors down from me sells cocaine - we ought to run him out of town on a rail,' am I still liable, even if someone uses that information (and that information alone) to commit an illegal act?
;)
The trick is *intent*, imho. If you knowingly tried to aid in the commission of a crime, you're in trouble. Making negligence a crime in any but the most extreme cases would have a terrible effect on the freedom of speech.
OTOH, censorware lists (when decrypted) provide a treasure trove of links. Someone should really prosecute them for providing, in a roundabout way, links to all of these horrible horrible things. Let's do it for the children
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
According to my criminal law class in high school (late 1980s), the conviction rate here in the States is about 90%.
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
For instance, what do you do in the US if someone in Russia decides to ignore copyright?
Is it fair?
No.
Can you stop it?
..?
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
This is stupid as the linking site has no control over the content of the linked site. It might be ok when the link is created but not later.
Ok so if I find a japanese site linking to some legitimate stuff I have. All I have to do is move some stuff around stick in a how to make a bomb page and blamo the japanese site is now illegal.
How about it you just strip off the ""? It's not a link, it's just text.
Not that it really matters, given what's been said about the Japanese legal system. Speaking of which, does anyone know where I can read in English about modern law in Japan?
"Plain Old Text" doesn't seem to be, exactly :)
Wanna fix that, Rob? You should convert > and < into &-lt; and &-gt; (without the -'s -- I can't figure out how to represent these in this bastarized sub-HTML), and so on.
I meant to suggest that Japanese sites strip the "<a href=" and ">".
Lets say I know a guy named Bob. I've only known Bob as a nice guy, though I don't know him well. I believe that Bob is a capable handy-person. A friend needs a TV antenna installed, so I send them to Bob. Unbeknownst to me, Bob offers to hook up my friend to illegal cable at the same time. My friend accepts, but only tells me that Bob was really helpful. I now send all my reception-challenged friends to Bob. One day, the FCC (or whoever) come down hard on Bob and he's jailed - then I'm similarly charged with aiding and abetting (or whatever), simply because I helped people find Bob. Am I ignorant of Bob's activities? You bet. Am I ignorant of the Law? Hell, no.
So Japan is now holdling people responsible for other's actions based on whether a third party believes that the first knows everything the second is doing. Even describing it is hard! Search engines are the obvious losers, because they now have to prove that the system is totally automated, or whole companies risk going directly to jail. What about the "Submit your link" sites like that FFA crap?
Sure, this instance looks pretty cut and dried, even the journalist is willing to openly agree, but a de-pixelating tool is basically just a very intelligent sharpening tool. Thus Adobe with their Photoshop program are half way to being convicted in Japan - lets hope they don't have a search engine box on their web site...
If what's being linked to isn't illegal in the country it's in, is it still illegal to link to it from Japan where it is illegal? I don't know how they're going to enforce this one...
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Clearly, all search engines need to immediately block all .jp addresses from accessing them.
.jp addresses.
I'm not kidding; the most effective protest that could happen here is if Google, Yahoo, et. al. immediately block off all
Let the Japanese search engines get arrested. Insist on it, in fact.
Have you read some of the other comments? If linking to an illegal site is illegal, then by transitivity you've pretty much got the entire Internet as illegal. Not to mention if, say, you link to a site that's perfectly normal, but the maintainers of that site then put illegal material on their page, then *wham* you're screwed.
Just to explain a few things here:
1) The guy was busted not only for linking to pornographic sites, but also for providing software that he had written that allows people to remove the "mosaic" used on the pr0n.
2) Japanese courts are a little different to American courts - for a start, they're not quite so concerned about "setting precendents" for future judgements.
3) In Japan, if you're busted for something, you're convicted. The conviction rate here is around 96%, so if the police take the trouble of arresting you, it generally means the court is gonna find you guilty, no matter what arguments your lawyer makes.
4) It's pretty clear that the guy was aiding and abetting; it just happens that the form of the abetting was links to other HPs. In the States, that would probably get you off; in Japan, it's nothing more than a detail. The judge has not made a judgement regarding linking to other sites; he's made a judgement about this guy's culpability.
BTW: I don't actually support this judgement (for one thing, I've used the guy's software (FL-Mask) and it's pretty cool), but once you get into a Japanese courtroom, not even God can save your ass if the judge thinks you're guilty.
No... It's just the final link, making 99.9999% of the pages out there that don't themselves contain illegal information still legal.
Hmm. The way the decision was worded makes that unclear - strictly speaking the links site _owner_ was committing a crime, but the website itself isn't necessarily illegal. However, the reason the judge gave for convicting makes it likely that any site with external links will be illegal.
The worst part is that the person putting up the link doesn't have to be aware of the illegal nature of the material to be committing a crime. This creates two problems
Expect some changes to this ruling, to address these issues, if the Japanese legal system has any concept of justice or fairness.
Yeah, and I suppoe Smith & Wesson is aiding and abetting your local armed robber?
And hey, Kodak is aiding and abetting your local kiddie pornographer?
And Jon Johansen is aiding and abetting all those evil DVD pirates?
Sure...let's not actually blame the criminal, it is not their fault they commited those crimes...
Q.
Maybe 500 years ago it made sense to try and protect citizens from information, but the Church eventually lost that battle. Now we're dredging the whole damn thing up again.
I think you might overvalue a trial's value in non-anglosaxon countries.
Under English-derived law (is it called common law?) a court precedent has an high value in defining what a lawsuit's setting will be. A court ruling can also overthrow a law, I understand (I am no lawyer, so I might be completely wrong).
Under Roman-law derived judicial systems, a precedent's value is a lot lower than that.
I'll take Italy's judicial system as an example: there are three levels of ordinary justice: ordinary, appeal and supreme court, plus a constitutional court which only deals with law-related rulings. Justice courts (including the supreme court) can not overhrow a law, but only interpret it. At most, they can raise an incostitutionality objection ask for a judgment from the constitional court - unconstitutional and contradictory laws are canceled by the constitutional court. Precedents are only set at the supreme court level: while earlier judgements at the ordinary and appeal levels might be taken into account in rare cases (mostly dealing with new laws or new developments of science or technology which are not covered by the law), their value is almost none any at all.
I'm not saying that in Japan the situation is like under Roman Right, just that you might be assuming that their judicial model is the same as in the US.
It might be, or it might be something completely different, and thus a ruling in the case you cite might have no value in setting a precedent.
Shouldnt they just be going after the publisher? After all, they are the ones that possess and serve up the offending materials in the first place. Cracking down on everyone else is like stomping on ants coming out of the anthill. Sure you wind up with some dead ants, but you never address the real problem. So what if the links make it easier for people to find the offending material? It also makes it easier for the authorities to find the original publisher. Cut off the head and the body dies. Don't waste your time arresting people who have not actually published illegal materials.
The era of governments controlling access to information is over. Look at the US. We have some really nasty drug laws. Enforcement of these laws has been pretty swift and severe, and an increasingly large number of people have been incarcerated. Has this really stopped the drug cartels from muling tons of the stuff northward every day? Hell no! I still have to walk by people selling dope just to get to the 7-11 that gets robbed weekly so people can buy their next fix.
You know what? Information is a lot more slippery than drugs. It has no mass, no odor, and can travel at the speed of light. It can be hidden or disguised to a mathematical near certainty. You only need one server to get the message out, not 300 mules with condoms full of coke in their stomachs. Once it is distributed, it can be replicated endlessly by the end user.
You want to stop this? You think you can? The technical solutions will rise up and cut away at your authority permanently. Your best shot is being as permissive as possible, and then crucifying the publishers when appropriate. Getting all draconian will only drive it to the underground. You know, the underground of MILLIONS ala Napster. The tighter you grip at the information the more it will slip through your fingers. Wake up and start realizing what is going on here. We have the playbook for the 21st century and we can put your ass on the bench.
-BW
Take a site on geocities. If I am in Japan and link to something there, I really need to go visit that page every day. The site I originally linked to may have gone away and been replaced by a site that is illegal. Now, I would be breaking the law.
For that matter this could happen anywhere (I use geocities as an example because of the high turnover). I had an account a long time ago on a server and had some stuff there I still find people linking to. The site has been gone for 4 years now. But it is very possible someone is going to come along and request that same account name, put something illegal up, and now those sites will be pointing to it.
It's lunacy.
Therefore linking to a site that links to a site containing illegal material is also illegal.
And since we all know you can reach anywhere on the web with 9 hops, the whole WWW is now illegal in Japan.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Buying/posessing cocaine is illegal. If you come to me looking for some nose garbage, and I say 'yeah. Go two doors down and ask for Rodney, he'll hook you up.' then technically, I *AM* committing a crime. I am aiding in the commission of a crime.
If trafficking in a certain type of material is illegal, and you provide people with information as to how to obtain that material, then you are committing a crime. The proper response, in the eyes of the law, is to say 'Sir, that material is illegal. I cannot help you to obtain it.'.
what about yahoo.co.jp? I found a page linking to a site hosting illegal CSS info and DVD linux drivers from Yahoo. (http://search.yahoo.co.jp/bin/search?p=d ecss) Does this mean that search engines are all illegal in Japan?
It means that some court just opened up a legal can of worms that it will take lawyers a decade to straighten out --- and until it's straightened out, nobody knows the answer.
There was a similar *effect* a few years ago in the US when the first cases involving suing ISPs for content came out --- there was a year or two where everyone was nervous about what the courts would decide, because you didn't know if, say, a company could be held liable for statements in posts to their corporate newsgroups.
Eventually the law settled down, and a set of rules were established and disseminated, and most companies stopped worrying.
In this case, the time to *start* worrying is now --- but there's no excuse for panic; no judge is going to rule search engines illegal, they're going to draw up some elaborately technical distinction between search engine links and normal links, and create a whole class of bizarrely detailed law about what sorts of sites fall on one side, and what sorts of sites fall on the other.
A while ago, they tried to pass laws here making it illigal to post, or link to information about drug production. The catch, the information itself wasn't even illegal. It seems that the US government uses its 'war on drugs' to excuse just about every invasion of our rights that they can think of.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
The article says: The court's ruling means that if somebody creates a Web page that includes a link to another page, and if that other page is in violation of the law, then the person who creates the link can be charged with aiding and abetting the crime. This is regardless of whether or not they are aware of the illegality of the page they linked to.
What does this mean for search engines/portals that operate in Japan, like Yahoo Japan? Do they have to check each site to make sure that it is not illegal under Japanese law? If someone changes their site so that it includes illegal material, after the link has already been up for a while, will Yahoo Japan be liable?
I hope this precedent isn't adopted elsewere.
=======
Life is exciting, isn't it?
The DMCA--for corporations, the best copyright law money can buy.
Um is DeCSS and such illegal in Japan? If not then it's not an issue. You guys have to get a clue here, remember: jurisdiction. A japanese court can decide just about anything it wants and unless I'm in Japan it doesn't matter.
This doesn't quite reach as far as the above title. 1. This isn't Japan, it is merely one district court in Japan. 2. This isn't just any link, there was a fairly close relationship, going both ways, between the web sites in question. 3. It wasn't the link alone, but the combination with the sale of software which allegedly aided and abetted criminal conduct. Even so, this, along with an apparent claim that this ruling was "constitutionally" required really makes one wonder what the actual ruling will do. I wonder if MacArthur had any idea?!
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes "Who Keeps the Keepers Themselves" ~ Juvenal
What if the link is established BEFORE the illegal content is posted. Common enough to link to the page of another, for some general purpose. Then there would be no criminal intent.
Similarly, what if the content was made illegal after the link was made. This basically requires active editing on the part of a web page owner, and establishes "STRICT LIABILITY" for alleged unlawful content.
I used to be a trial observer in Japan. Can't say I would want to be up against their criminal justice system! Certainly on something so sweeping as this law! If I were hosting, I sure wouldn't do it in Japan!
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes "Who Keeps the Keepers Themselves" ~ Juvenal
Firstly,
/. The person here was making software that allowed people to view pornographic material. This was done by removing the masking done on web-sites to censor out the explicit part of images.
The personal opinion of this journalist is that the judge has made an extremely appropriate decision.
You gotta love objective journalism.
Anyway, I believe that this is not as bad as it seemed when I read the blurb on
This is clearly software designed against the 'spirit' of the anti-pornography laws Japan seems to have. This person is a citizen of Japan, and is therefore subject to their laws. He is also making money (it was shareware, which means you have to register, at a cost). IANAL, but if I were a judge in this case, I would find him guilty of SOMETHING for so doing things which so clearly violate the spirit of the laws Japan has made. (whether those laws are good or not is a seperate debate...)
I am not saying that this decision, or indeed these laws are not something to get concerned about. This also does set legal precident that most of us would shudder over. However, this was a direct link, to an illegal site, by a person who was doing pseudo-legal activity himself. The various posts of 'now the whole net is illegal!' are extremely over-reactionary in this case.
Anywhere.
Napster is definitely aiding and quite possibly abetting people commit copyright violations.
While the penalty for a single count may be a small, there is no doubt that a million $100 fines add up. Let's not forget that $100 is far from the maximum possible fine. Under the Canadian Criminal Code (it's what I know, though IANAL), one who either aids or abets in a criminal act is just as liable as the one who commits it.
The Osaka ruling changes nothing related to Napster, it simply brought the thought to my mind.
------
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
Your very educated opinion is taken into consideration, and rejected.
Smith & Wesson was an example of a gun manufacturer, not the target of any particular animosity. Try retaking Reading Comp 101.
------
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
That's what I mean when I say it wouldn't work. Such a list wouldn't block the trading of illegal mp3's, but it would certainly make it harder, and show that the company is trying to prevent same.
------
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
The thing that defines the difference is that, simplified, with a gun you aim and pull the trigger. With a knife, you can certainly stab or slash just as easily, but unless you hit a particularly vulnerable spot, more than one attempt is necessary to kill a target.
True, gunshots aren't always fatal either, but they are more likely to be so. Especially when using larger calibres.
------
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
The neck is one of those particularly vulnerable spots. The torso is protected somewhat by ribs, but the the heart and lungs would be another.
------
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
I didn't ever think about this angle, but suddenly Napster seems to be in a little more danger than they were.
------
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
Say you link to a page that doesn't contain illegal material, but is part of a whole system that contains other pages that are illegal? Or have I just defined the internet?
This ruling is silly.
if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll);
Let me throw this out for an example then.
Assume I'm Japanaese and say I'm an Anime fan and I have a web page that has links to other fan sites. Say one of those sites begins to add illegal things on it. Like pirated videos, hentai (XXX stuff), etc. But those things weren't there when I originally linked to it. But, hey, we get busy and can't keep our pages up to date. Am I now responsible?
I realize the true intent here may be to prevent direct linking like many MP3 sites do. ie.) "I only have links to these files. None of them reside on my server/site."
So, what is to keep Japanese from obtaining sites elsewhere in the world anonymously. The only enforceability of this would be for servers hosting data (or I guess hosting the links to the data) that physically reside on Japanese soil. Or, I suppose that if a foreign site could be linked to ownership by a Japanese citizen that may be enforceable.
I am glad I'm a U.S. citizen. As messed up as things may seem over here, we are still pretty damn hard-core when it comes to freedom of speech. (Let's keep that up BTW.)
This all seems to me like corporate marshall law. Bring on the one world government, right? That way they'll make us all abide by the same rules. Screw that. Who's money is it anyway? I don't understand why companies just want to keep growing and growing. It's got to be those rich fsckers at the top doing all this crap. Enough of my ranting. I feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for Australia too.
For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the sheltered will never know.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've had my head in the Penal Code (ouch!) all afternoon and I've just written a brief analysis which I hope clears up some of the misunderstandings I'm seeing here.
You can get the full analysis in HTML format or in PDF format, but here's the summary:
In summary, the risks to Japanese webmasters arising from this case
are considerably less than made out by the Internet press. Firstly,
this case does not establish a binding precedent, since Japan operates
a codified law system. It does not speak solely about web linking, but
is encumbered by complicating factors. It does not create an
action-at-a-distance problem, since the intent of the referrer must be
established. Further, it is the opinion of this author that it does not
suggest that linking to illegal material is illegal, since the link
is a reference rather than an act of distribution, and is an invitation
to investigate in the same way as a bibliographic reference. Finally,
it is uncertain what implications, if any, this has on links to material
stored on sites outside of Japan.
Um, not that I have any use for such a thing, of course, but I'm interested in it from intellectual curiousity...really...
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I knew this would happen, and I'll try to find the article on it, but it was published on more than one Website fairly recently. Unfortunately, these were video game Websites, and searching their archives is a chore, but I'll try...
Ok, here's one, Japanese Game Makers File Suit, it's from 1998. It may after you lived there that they made it illegal, or just after that they decided to crackdown on it. I suppose it is also possible that this article is a hoax, but I'm guessing it's legit because I remember seeing it more than one place when it came out.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
It's also illegal to sell used video tapes and video games in Japan, so, basically, I think it is more or less the kind of corporate Hell the Multinationals want to turn the US into. We're still ahead of Japan in this area, our corrupt, unethically pro-corporate government still takes baby steps toward destroying our freedom... (See Article) where it seems the Japanese government already thinks freedom is for corporations and the government, not people.
I feel sorry for the citizens of Japan, who produce some of my favorite creative works, that they have to live under such an evil government.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Here is another problem. The PM wants to ban all Internet gambling sites based in Australia.
Here is a pertinent quote from an executive of an ominously named Australian online gambling firm:
"What it might do is encourage Australian players to move offshore because the Internet obviously does not have any geographical boundaries," Bill Forburn, chief executive of Goldens Caskets Interactive Gold, told reporters.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Perhaps it's just me, but it seems like this is just one of those gimmes. Linking to illegal stuff is illegal. It's like ordering someone else to pull the trigger, it might be their gun, but your guilty be association.
What I don't like is they limit freedom. And it can be misused. Can you call a websearch site on this for linking to a illegal site their bot found? And if so, how will you prevent against it? Free speach is one thing I like about the web, and everywhere I see things hindering it. While I agree that some things should not be shown, should my opionion rule the world?
Strider
And, as a sidenote, did they have to use that font? My eyes are still hurting!
"When will this FP stuff stop?" "After the great growing..." "The great growing?" "Yea, when people grow up."
Well, the article states that there's some room for debate, so presumably the text of the ruling doesn't specify down to the nitty gritty for the general case... so maybe later rulings will clarify.
Anybody familiar with Japan's legal system care to comment?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
And the linker bears responsibility for linking, as presumably he was not FORCED to link unless the server was cracked.
Try telling an undercover cop where to get some contraband, such as crack. Even if you yourself are not the one carrying the stash, and probably even if you do not touch the money, I sincerely doubt that they'll let you go, since you are willingly and knowingly facilitating a criminal transaction. I would agree with the prosecutor in this case, as you are, indeed, being an active accomplice in crime.
Unfortunately, the article does NOT mention whether the ruling covers 'unusual' situations, like what happens if you allow people to submit links and they get automatically added; you link to a legitimate page that gets replaced later on with illegal content; or the server is cracked, the link is misdirected, and the page owner (the page with the link) later on maintains the page without noticing. In these cases, the user is arguably NOT being a willing accomplice. Ignorance of the illegality of a deed is generally no defense, but complete and reasonable ignorance of the deed itself really should be.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Anybody who thinks that the US Code is the most draconian must be seriously stoned. In many countries, you really wouldn't, say, want to publicly make the same kind of cracks about the Government that Leno and others can make freely every weeknight in front of the nation...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Just think of this when you think that the US has the most draconian laws on earth. It could be worse but it could be better.
Colm Atkins
Michael Feldman of "What do you know" makes cracks about Alan Greenspan pretty regularly during his "all the news that isn't" monologue.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
So what happens when there's a computer related conference in Japan, and webmasters (or owners of companies that offer web hosting services) arrive at the airport? If their sites have ever had links to any illegal material, are they automatically arrested when they pass through customs?
Since a web site can be administered from anywhere in the world, is it reasonable to assume that this law can be applied to anyone who has ever linked to anything illegal the moment they step foot on Japanese soil?
Time to put a link on my web site to a warez newsgroup just to see if ninjas or yakuza death commandos come looking for me.
Is this law also mirrored in print media or on film? In other words, if a news article mentions that there's illegal prostitution in a certain part of town (low-tech linking to illegal activities), can the editor and author get arrested?
I know the laws regarding freedom of speech are different in other countries, but this is fairly ludicrous. In addition to being oppressive, it's also essentially unenforceable because web space is freely available on an anonymous basis. The government is just letting their people see one more chink in their virtual armor by passing a law that is sure to be broken and left unpunished except in a few cases.
I wonder- if linking to a page containing illegal material means your page is itself in violation of the law, then you don't even have to link to an illegal page. You just link to a page that has a link, and so on. I think that, under this reasoning, almost all of the web pages in the world are in trouble. Certainly every search engine is. It spreads fast. As for Japanese laws being draconian, well, the obscenity laws under discussion here are a part of their constitution, which was written by-- wait for it-- the United States of America. After WWII, remember?
No, no, no How am I supposed to know that what I'm linking to isn't illegal? Unless I check all my links every day I can't. And you would have to get rid of all censorship, obscenity and IP laws before all information would be illegal. If linking to illegal material is made illegal it will be virtually the death of the internet (it will be much less useful without search engines), and also a real PITA for other media.
Way to go - you just made slashdot illegal in Japan :-)
com/.net/.org TLD's are non-geographic
.JP -- no matter where it's located geographically. Because everything else is potentially beyond their control -- servers moved offshore, and the address controlled by ICANN.
Yeah, of course. My point was that the only thing the Japanese gov could do would be to control the accessability to
-rt-
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
Hmm.... they can't stop a US company (or other non-Japanese companies) from linking to illegal material -- so what are they trying to accomplish? Seems pretty useless because it's so simple to get a account offshore and host elsewhere.
.JP sites that link to illegal material, and will be forced to use .COM/.NET/.ORG like the rest of us. And of course more business for US hosting firms.
I suppose the only effect that will have is they won't be able to register
OOOH... they could still keep their normal sites, link to an offshore site that contains links to illegal material. =) It's a battle the governement can't win!
-rt-
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
They also have bigger fish to fry than this.
Ooh, maybe now they'll do something about all the spam that comes from there! How many emails do i see that come from .ad.jp and never stop until procmail gets involved?
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) - AOL IM: MicroBerto
Berto
This brings up an interesting point...what makes
a site "illegal"?
Lets say they make information on making widgets
illegal. Ok...so its illegal to post it on my
site right?
What if the site that I link is on a server where
widget making information is legal? say in
sweeden?
Furthermore...its illegal to link a site with info
on making widgets. Does that mean it is illegal
for me to put up such a site...or illegal for a
host in the country to host a site?
If I have a shell acount in sweeden, where widget
making info is legal, and I post such a page, am
I breaking the law? Does this only apply if the
server itself is in the country?
All in all this is really really silly. To think
that people wont post on servers outside of
their reach or something similar is absurd.
Even the United States making such a law would
have no real impact on the content of the Web.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Though I agree with your conundrum in general, there are most certainly web pages on the internet that are more than 9 hops from eachother if there's a path between them at all. Suppose I was to host a website which contained no external links at all? It would be impossible to hop from that site to anywhere else, hence it is an infinite number of hops away from illegal material (unless it contains illegal material).
There's no reason for a sig here.
Don't get me wrong, the Japanese are a great people and have contributed a lot to the world, but they are still insane. Yes, all of them.
Then again, half my experience with the Japanese is badly translated anime, from which I gather 'Huh?', 'Hey wait!!', and 'Tetuso!!' comprise most of their language. And every grade school teacher is an absolute bombshell.
Personally, I think the designers of TCP/IP should be sued for aiding/abetting.
If there is one country that bows to the wants of industry more than America it's Japan. Warez sites stay in bussines by linking to porn sites ect. All the government has to do is charge the company running the porn site and it will be very easy to get an injunction against both the persons behind the warez site and concivibly their web host. A couple of weeks later no more nickels(or yen) trickling in from horny teenage hackers clicking on banners, can't afford that T1 dammit, out of bussiness. No one every has to be found guilty, just stall things up in the courts to "prepare your case againt the feindish deliquents" and then drop it when they have gone out of bussines.
> Happy 4/20, everyone! What is that supposed to mean? That site is full of that. Do you know that April, 20th, is Adolf Hitler's Birthday? Here in German speaking Europe this day is associated with Neo-Nazi parades and the like.
Post tenebras lux. Post fenestras tux.
> [...] > I suggest you Germans need a more positive connotation for 4/20. Agreed. This political correctness stuff brings us nowhere. For example it is not possible to have a license plate "ns" round here (even if you just mean Netscape). Not to mention SSL and SSH.
Post tenebras lux. Post fenestras tux.
When you distribute, you actively spend effort to give out the goods. Linking is just telling someone where the goods are; they have to go get the goods themselves. While it is very very easy for the user to click on the link, it is still the end user that takes action to obtain the goods; you have not touched or in any way moved the goods yourself. For instance: you witness robbers take bags of stolen money from a bank and hide it in a nearby park. You then tell someone where you saw the money being dumped, and that it is stolen. No matter who you told, you have not done anything illegal, even though it is trivial for the people you tell to help themselves to stolen property. ("Aiding" theft is another matter - but if you do not spend every possible effort to track down the robbers and arrest them, then relative to what you could be doing, you are technically "aiding" the robbers' escape.)
(begin clip)
Good for Japan
(Score:-1, Troll)
by Anonymous Coward on Thu 20 Apr 04:12PM EST
I know this will probably get moderated down, but I think Japan did the right thing here. There is SO much illegal material on the Internet that some controls HAVE to be introduced. At the moment ANYONE can get their hands on all sorts of material. How to hack, how to makes bombs etc...
Any ruling which prevents linking to illegal material is alright with me. I hope it includes search engines so that they aren't allowed to link either and the black side of the Internet will shrivel and die. I know this opinion flies in the face of Slashdot, but I'm sorry, I had to say something as I have very strong feelings on this issue.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
(end clip)
Who could have done this to this AC post? I mean, TROLL??? We all need to go to the Moderation discussion and talk about this this, people!
--
Until about 200+ years ago, starting in North America, freedom was only for the sovereign, and those who could buy his favor. Outside of North America, that's still largely the case. This idea of freedom for the commoners is very novel. We shouldn't be surprised that Japan is more than 200 years behind us culturally; so's most of the rest of the world. Israel outlawed torture just last year, and some parts of the world still haven't eliminated slavery.
See what I've been reading.
-Foxxz
The way I read it, the law only applies to the last level of linking. I could be misinterperating things here, but that is the way I see it.
you link to a site that's perfectly normal, but the maintainers of that site then put illegal material on their page
This is the bit that concerns me; the content changing after the link is established. But again (in theory) IF material is illegal THEN it should be removed from the internet, and the people who put it there in the first place charged. If their current laws were enforceable, then there would be no need for yet another unenforceable law.
-----
Vikhozhu odin ya na darogu;
Skvoz' tuman kremnisti put' blectit;
Noch' tikha. Pystinya vnemlet bogu,
Rhapsody in Numbers
I agree that people should be willing to take the consequences of their actions, but my unwillingness to be arrested for DeCSS is a matter of scale:
I am not going to be put in jail or fined because I want to watch a few movies. I may refuse to buy those movies in protest, but I am not going to ruin my life for something as trivial as entertainment (and I don't care what you say about "evil megacorporations", it is not worth that much to me).
On the other hand, things like the civil rights movement or the WTO/IMF/World Bank impose much more sever limits that affect not just Americans with the money to buy computers and DVDs, but third world contries who can do little to defend themselves, I would be willing to take greater risks and accept greater consequences.
Those evil four letter acronymes are much less of a problem in my mind than the others listed above. I also don't believe that just because they are large corporations copyright laws cease to exist. One hopes that any reasonable judge would not see DeCSS as a tool for piracy, but by the same token, the evil megacorps have a right to prosecute people that misuse the software. IMHO, the battle should be fought not over DeCSS, but over people who use DeCSS to pirate intellectual proporty.
And if you want to tell me that it is every one's proporty, I would like to refer you to this slashdot thread.
-----
Vikhozhu odin ya na darogu;
Skvoz' tuman kremnisti put' blectit;
Noch' tikha. Pystinya vnemlet bogu,
Rhapsody in Numbers
I mean illegal. Whether or not it is immoral, if it is illegal, it should not be there. I take issue with the laws that exist, but I am not going to get myself heavily fined or thrown in jail breaking bad laws. I will continue to keep my mp3 collection, harbor a copy of DeCSS, and do many other things that are probably illegal, but if push comes to shove, I would probably back down if faced with the alternatives of hefty fines that I can't pay or jail time. There are more important things. Call me sellout if you like, but I have my priorities.
To get back on topic, the issue is not one of morals. I don't really care what people do on their own time, but if there is a law against it, I see there as being three options:
We may not like the laws that exist, but if we break them, it seems that we must be prepared to take the consequences.
-----
Vikhozhu odin ya na darogu;
Skvoz' tuman kremnisti put' blectit;
Noch' tikha. Pystinya vnemlet bogu,
Rhapsody in Numbers
It seems to me that, in theory, "illegal" material should not be on the internet (again, in theory, that does not mean in the real world). In a sense, linking to another's site is a form of distributing that material, thus illegal. It seems to me that this descision is not the problem, but rather the underlying laws. Perhaps we should instead aim our hostilities at the Japaneese laws that outlaw pornography.
note: this is honestly not meant as a troll or flamebait; if you think I am wrong (which I very well could be), please try to explain why in a rational and polite fashion -- I don't swear at you, I would like the same curtiousy (pardon my poor spelling)
-----
Vikhozhu odin ya na darogu;
Skvoz' tuman kremnisti put' blectit;
Noch' tikha. Pystinya vnemlet bogu,
Rhapsody in Numbers
If you create a filter that takes out major artist names, you're just going to see PH@ 80Y 5L1M and N_I_N_E_I_N_C_H_N_A_I_L_S, etc etc...
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
so the whole web is illegal now? No. Only the part that lives in Japan. That's what makes these rulings so goofy. If you ban something in one country, the nature of the web means that it will still get around. Remember that TCP/IP was designed so that, even if there was a break in the system (say, an entire city bombed to the ground) there would be redundant links and the information would get to it's destination via one of these links. I wonder what the inventors of TCP/IP think now of what their invention is doing. It makes lots of good stuff possible (very quick communication) and, at the same time, lots of bad stuff possible (illegal distribution of copyrighted works). Well, I guess you pretty much HAVE to have a balance. Whenever you design something that works very well in our favor, there's usually a bad side effect. For example: cars. They get us pretty quickly from A to B. But, then sometimes people/animals are killed by them. And then there's the pollution. The same goes for electricity. And WATER! (rain == good ... flood == bad) Thank GOD for balance.
Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
Does this rulling apply to deep linking, or only the first tier of links? If it's deep linking, then i can see a large number of .jp sites disapearing overnight.
First the Dr Godfrey / Demon thing in the UK, now this. I just seriously hope this doesn't become a world-wide trend.
Syllable : It's an Operating System
what about yahoo.co.jp? I found a page linking to a site hosting illegal CSS info and DVD linux drivers from Yahoo. (http://search.yahoo.co.jp/bin/search?p=d ecss) Does this mean that search engines are all illegal in Japan?
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
What about linking to a site that links to a site that hosts illegal material? Is that going to be illegal? If thats the case, and I link to google, and google links to illegal material, then can I be prosecuted? What about 3 or 4 links down the chain? If that is the case, then almost anyone could be prosecuted if you follow the link tree far enough, if it isn't, then all you have to do is link to a dummy page to that links to the site that links to the illegal stuff. Either way, this law is flawed. (I won't even go into the merit of the law, or in this case, the lack thereof).
Interesting argument: Who did start WW2?
I will agree that the invasion of Manchuria was a significant contribution to the start of WW2 but did not of itself begin the war. Why? Because it only really involved one of the world powers, whereas the invasion of Poland brought in Germany, France, Britain and a couple of less powerful states in one fell swoop. It also did not itself begin from nothing - the fundamental contributing factor had been the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression which followed. Japan was highly dependent on resources which were not easily obtained from within but were available in plentiful amounts in northern China. The damage which the Great Depression did to their economy limited their ability to obtain these resources through trade, the League of Nations was too weak to intervene, and so the Japanese military were able to invade and get away with it. I am not saying that Japan had to do what it did, or that what followed was not criminal and tragic, but it was not of itself enough to start the war, merely another link in the chain. Had another powerful nation, or the League of Nations, opposed Japan's actions at this time, the invasion might also have been halted. The further progress towards WW2 could also have been forstalled if action had been taken against the Italian Invasion of Abyssinia in 1935, or the German Anschluss with Austria, or the Annexation of the Sudetenland, or yet the subsequent inroads upon Czechoslovakia. But the order of the day was appeasement, and the invading parties were able to carry on and gain momentum unimpeded. I am not saying that intervention is always a wise policy - I personally opposed the bombing campaign of Kosovo and oppose the current measures being taken against Iraq. With hindsight, it seems like it might have been a good idea then, however.
To get back to my point, in no way does Japan alone deserve the blame for WW2. The failure of disarmament, the gross penalties against Germany in the Treaty of Versailles, the failure of other world powers to oppose expansionist states, and the expansionist policies of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or Stalinist Russia (yes, they were on our side in the end, but they signed the treaty with Germany which led directly to the invasion of Poland) - all these factors played their role as well. Unjust apportioning of blame does a great deal of harm every time in world affairs - the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles can be directly linked to the rise of Hitler, and the use of the Jews as a scapegoat for Germany's poverty played a very significant role in the Holocaust. Therefore it pays to be careful in these matters.
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
>With a knife, you can certainly stab or slash
>just as easily, but unless you hit a
>particularly vulnerable spot, more than one
>attempt is necessary to kill a target.
I hate to disagree with you, as I also oppose the overly loose gun laws currently prevalent in the US, but this is not true. Stab someone in much of the torso or neck, and the odds are pretty good that they'll die. If you know what you're doing (as in where to go for), it's a certainty. Knives are lethal weapons too, which is why the circumstances under which it's legal to be carrying one are very limited in the UK. Luckily.
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
I could tell you how to stab someone with great effectiveness in the torso, owing to some ninjitsu training I had a while back (no seriously, I'm not just being a troll). I don't want to, however, because I disaprove of diseminating this kind of information indiscriminately - outside of a disciplined training environment, any kid with a screwdriver becomes lethal with the knowledge of a little basic anatomy.
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
Actually, you can sue someone else for not just breaking a law, but for the possibility of having once broken the law. Even if a criminal court has found you not guilty of the charges that the filer accuses you of. The rediculous O.J. Simpson fiasco is an example. BTW, IANAL. The justice involved in a lawsuit is tenuous at best, and needs serious reform, IMHO.
"Its a trick; get an axe." -Ash, Evil Dead II
Linking to mp3's is already illegal in the netherlands.
One of the users on a box of mine had some links to 'illegal' mp3's, and i got a nice letter from a dutch copyright-enforcement bunch.(find it here)
Funny though, because the copyright enforcers in the netherlands are not government-related.
This wouldn't be a problem, but i wonder how they check if the material is illegal; they would have to download and listen to it first.
If every web-designer in japan put a little icon of a naked lady on there site, the whole net (in japan) would be illegal.
And hopfully it would show just how dumb this law really is.
I mean what would they do? Shut down every site? Arrest anyone with a FTP program?
BTW this makes all the major search engines illegal. And it's a good beet that alot of japaness corperate and government site's would link to a major search engine -- making them all illegal to.
- - -
You...are wrong.
I could run into six volumes of expletive laced indignation...you're not worth my time.
You are an ignorant slave-in-waiting.
Or simply an uncreative jokester.
Quick...go buy a notebook so that you can write down the transgressions of your neighbors so that you can report them to the authorities.
You are an ape that wears clothes and begs for food.
I am a thinking being. We have nothing in common.
So if linking to a site which has no illegal material in itself is OK, and if that linked site links to an illegal site is also OK, then I simply set up a redirect service in the UK for Japanese people to link to, to link to the material they want to
r eallyillegalstuff.com
i.e. in a Japanese page: http://www.redirect.co.uk/redirct.cgi?http://www.
And now no-one is breaking the law
Only a few years ago, before the birth of the web, there was a commonplace that public pornography or warez sites (FTP sites, back then) could never survive, because the crush of traffic would surely overwhelm any particular server. A few years later, and nobody would argue that porn and warez are hard to find. This was because, in any particular instance, the logic of "it can't happen" worked, but when spread over multiple instances, it failed. Why bring this up? Because in this decision, along with the recent decision in England, the anti-DVD campaign, the arrest of "mafiaboy", etc., one can see an analogous movement in the realm of regulation of the internet. Whether or not this particular decision stands, or the decision of the British courts is reversed, or the RIAA somehow loses, and so on, it is quite clear that the internet can no longer be seen as naturally free from oversight. Governments, elected and corporate, want control, and the multifront erosion of freedom seems nearly inevitable.
It always amazes me how repressive governments will attempt to control access to these things. Insane folks simply do not obey laws and non-repressive governments have no need to fear their populace. It is a symptom of a sick government when they try to legislate against information rather than actions. I presume that the Japaneze government will soon outlaw all libraries since the information contained in them can be used for these illegal purposes.
For those wondering, here is the FL Mask program they article is talking about.
http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/V A013065/index2.htm
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
In MY (imaginary) world of course the onus is on the user, however in most of the world it never plays out that way, thus the propensity for preventative law making. I think the governments view is that basically people are like lemmings and can't be trusted to make their own decisions... how about the electoral college? (Which, if memory of US gov't serves correct (and it rarely does) was put in place to stop a "rouge", with enough charisma to fool the people, from being elected...) "I thought IBM was born with the world..." Stereolab
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Just link to everything. No organization has the infastrucutre to prosecute 200,000 offenders. tcd004
Think about it, one minute you're emailing one of your buds to tell them they better patch the server, here's a link to SecurityFocus. Next minute, they're cutting a hole in your ceiling and SWAT enters your pad via a portable fire pole.
I suppose the end result will be that .jp will become the cyberspace eqivalent of Mc Donalds Playland for the script kiddiez.
cat
That'll be good. Maybe one day a tiny African country will be cancelling the USA's national debt
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
This article was a well-thought out and intelligent piece. Whoever moderated this down is an idiot.
Ed xxx
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
Any Venture Capitalists reading this want to give me some money ?
A web page is illegal. Therefore, a web page linking to it is illegal. Therefore, a page that links to it is illegal. Therefore..... "Head for the hills, Martha, Thuh japs' are takin' the web!" I'm gonna go hide in a corner now.
Judge Pag, the Learned, Impartial, and Very Relaxed
My local Tsutaya http://www.tsutaya.co.jp - the Japanese BlockBuster - rents out CDs and games, including new releases, for under a dollar a time. There's also a branch of a chain speciality used console shop one minute's walk from my flat, and the electrical district has any number of used CD/DVD/LD/VHS.
As for your cheap "freedom" jibe, well, try living in Japan for a bit. Things are different, not necessarily better or worse just because they don't measure up to your particular, simplistic I must say, measure of freedom.
The US, of all the countries I've visited and lived in, is always the one I feel least "free" in.
And as for your opening "creative and intellegent citizenry" - well, try working in a Japanese software development lab without crying at least once a week at how clueless many of your fellow "professionals" are.
IP was designed to "self heal" in the event of failure of part of the system. However the cost of maintaining redundant links is high. For example the whole of the UK academic network "JANET" is connected to the UK internet at 1 point (LINX) in the UK (it's has its own links to the states).
These days whole countries can be cut off by one or two links failing
-dp
420 was the police code for possession of marijuana at some point. It's come to be associated with marijuana in the US. If anyone remembers the exact origin, help me out. He's not refering to Hitler's birthday here.
-Matt
If what you say is correct, that what the judge MEANT to do was saying that providing links to material that you are aware is illegal (creating a database of links to illegal sites) then that is illegal. In other words, if I had a database of all the places where you could learn to make bombs on the Web, then that page would be illegal - it's links which are SUPPOSED to be to illegal sites. However, if on my link page, I have a link to a site which just happens to decide to post, oh, I don't know, DeCSS, than that would not be illegal, as I was not actively promoting the link as illegal. I could be wrong though. Also, IANAJL (J = Japanese, figure the rest out :)), so I might be understanding this wrong. I can say that based on what you said, if such a ruling was passed in the US (and IANAL here either), then linking to sites which happened to have illegal content would not be criminal. But compiling a large list of illegal sites would be.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
If what you say is correct, that what the judge MEANT to do was saying that providing links to material that you are aware is illegal (creating a database of links to illegal sites) then that is illegal.
In other words, if I had a database of all the places where you could learn to make bombs on the Web, then that page would be illegal - it's links which are SUPPOSED to be to illegal sites. However, if on my link page, I have a link to a site which just happens to decide to post, oh, I don't know, DeCSS, than that would not be illegal, as I was not actively promoting the link as illegal.
I could be wrong though. Also, IANAJL (J = Japanese, figure the rest out :)), so I might be understanding this wrong. I can say that based on what you said, if such a ruling was passed in the US (and IANAL here either), then linking to sites which happened to have illegal content would not be criminal. But compiling a large list of illegal sites would be.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Certainly looking for illegal material using a search engine will create links to illegal material. Would this ruling make Yahoo, Excite, Infoseek and such responsible for the links that they provide as a result of a query?
Jesus Christ! Why don't you people read what other people have written before you spew? I don't need to see "Uh..well.. uh.. won't that mean that uh.. all the internet will be illegal?" fifty times!
I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion given the other posts, but here I go:
* The person hosting the site that was linked to was convicted of a criminal act in japan by hosting the site, before the person linking to it was taken to court. Reading the article, it is clear that the linker would not have been taken to court if the first lawsuit did not go through.
* The link was only part of the legal argument against the linker. The linker provided a tool to allow the porn site to commit a crime, and advertising in the form of a link so that the site's crime could reach a wider audience. It was clear that the intent of the tool was to facilitate a crime.
This does not seem to set a drastic precedent - it was clear that it was the intent of the site to aid criminal acts, and the site provided a tool that made criminal acts possible that would have otherwise been impossible. This could be compared to a site that provides the address of and blueprints of a house and security alarm codes to break in. If someone used the information and tools (the codes) to break in, then the site would have aided and abetted a criminal act.
Its actually a reference to 4:20, sort of like tea-time for stoners. Has nothing to do with Hitler. I suggest you Germans need a more positive connotation for 4/20. Because the Holocaust was some serious shit. I'm glad we kicked the Nazis ass in WWII, I strongly identify with the Jewish people although I'm not Jewish, and I hope such a horror never is allowed to happen again.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Happy 4/20, everyone!
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
I do not think the US courts would use this case as a legal precident. Laws of other countries do not influence the opinions of US judges. However, I understand the fear here, if it happens in Japan whats to stop it here? Another problem: What if you put a link on your page that was legit when you put it on, and then they change their content.
It's time to come up on free net tonight. I am getting really tired of the regulatory bodies trying to put a finger on the web.
Got Code?
...there must be some part of the law we did not understand correctly...my mind can not comprehend that a court of law did SUCH a big poo-poo. what if i *post* an illegal link to any message board? NOW SLASHDOT.ORG IS ILLEGAL! QUICK! PUT CMDRTACO BEHIND BARS! as you can see, it is tottaly insane
a signature
If one were to do a search for so-called illegal material, and a search engine such as Hotbot turned up a link to, say, DeCSS, would the search engine be legally accountable?
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
Hmmm....
How many times do we see links to l337 w4r3z and stuff in that vein here?
linking to Slashdot is illegal.And I looked, and behold, the pokemon all spontaneously combusted.
I just realized something...
The Internet really does change everything.
Ok, lets consider. I am a multinational corp. I have a copyright which is valid in many countries. You violate my copyright on your web site. I now go and sue you in each and every one of those countries. Worse, most of these coutries have extradition treaties with each other.
You now face huge fines and possiable jail terms to be served across the board in most of the civilized world...
Have the lawyers thought of this one?
Scary.
F-A-C-I-S-T
First its the big web page providers that are responsible for content on their client's websites. Now individuals are supposed to be responsible for the materials on sites that they link to? The argument in the article has a certain logic, but people can't realistically be expected to gauge the legality of what they link to. What if the linked site is a list of links to other sites that are deemed to promote illegal activity? Does that make the whole web a tool to commit crime? What if excite dredges up a site like this in response to a query? Are they aiding and abetting a crime? I'm afraid we're going to have to put up with absurd things like this for awhile before legal systems can digest the internet and come up with a reasonable body of laws.
"An armed individual with a knife or baseball bat can be disarmed without casualties many times more often than a gunman."
.38's. How about Rwanda? Clubs and knives. Mankind was (and continues) busy whacking each other long before gunpowder was invented.
Never heard of the Vikings, right? I don't think many of them were carrying
"Whenever the cause of the people is entrusted to professors, it is lost." ~ V.I. Lenin
You wish. If someone has a site with one page of illegal/obscene pictures, then is only that one page illegal? So if I link to a page on that site that links to the illegal page, am I safe? I doubt it.