Slashdot Mirror
EFA Claims No Illegal Material On mp3s4free.net
An anonymous reader writes "Electronic Frontiers Australia (www.efa.org.au) claims that the raids organized by the music industry on mp3s4free.net have come up with nothing. Only links to other sites and not copyrighted material have been found.
The music industry is now saying that just
linking is in itself illegal. This does not appear to be supported by Australian law." Update: 10/29 15:26 GMT by T : This story originally referred to "mp3s4free.com," while it should have said -- and has been corrected to read -- "mp3s4free.net."
Yes! Google, I have you now...
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
> Electronic Frontiers Australia (www.efa.org.au) claims that the raids organized by the music industry on mp3s4free.com have come up with nothing. Only links to other sites and not copyrighted material have been found. The music industry is now saying that just linking is in itself illegal.
MP3s, WMDs, it's all the same...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Surely this is like hosting a list of places you can buy illicit drugs. You do not actually possess said drugs, but you are party and complicit in assisting access to illegal materials.
By the letter of the law they may be correct in claiming a high ground, but morally, you are as guilty as someone who stands in front of a junior school with a list of crack houses and hand them out to the kids, then claims he was doing nothing wrong as he didn't posses the drugs.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!
If you ask me where Fred lives and I tell you he lives next door, that's fine. If you ask where you can hire a hitman and I tell you that Fred can do it for you and he lives next door, I could be an accomplice to murder.
Same with linking. If a site posts links to other sites and one (or more) of them contains something illegal, but the illegal content was neither the overt or covert reason for the link, then that should be fine. But if the purpose of the link is solely or primarily to help you do something illegal then the person posting the link should be regarded as an accomplice.
Obviously this requires discretion on the part of law enforcement agencies and, specifically, judges.
It's mp3s4free.net, not mp3s4free.com.
Rank Presidents by th
If Australian law is anything like US law, in order to obtain a search warrant the lawyers for the music industry had to provide affidavits to the court giving their reasons to believe that the web site contained infringing material. Since the site in fact contains only links, either they lied in their affidavits, which would be both perjury and a fraud upon the court, or they didn't even bother to look at the site, which would be grossly negligent.
Am I missing something, or are they in very deep legal trouble?
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Linking per se is not illegal, but linking to infringing material will be, especially when you have reasonable belief that the material is illegal.
In the case of google or a search engine, they have a good defence: file a DMCA take down notice to have the infringing material unlinked. It is unreasonable to expect that google would self-police their content, it's just intractible.
But when you have a site set up, specifically to provide references to infringing material, largely for the purpose of allowing people to access that material, then I'm afraid you probably don't have a strong case. It's already looking bad "in principle", despite any technical issues.
Attempting to "beat the system" by using this approach is really not the way forward for any advocacy over rights. It's effectively trying to cheat around the technical points while in principle supporting copyright infringement.
Guy: Hey man, do you know where the drug dealers on this block are?
Me: Um, there's a sketchy guy that hangs out on the corner over there who might know about it.
Cop: FREEZE!! You're under arrest for drug dealing!
Me: Damn you DMCA! Now I'm a drug dealer cause I know where the sketchy people hang out!
You posted the link to the web page that has links to illegal material!
And as it has been proven that on the web everything is within 10 clicks - you all guys are under arrest for linking to links to links to links to links to links to links to links to links to links to links that point to the illegal material!
Didn't we already try this?
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
Perhaps they should hire Al Gore and buy out SCO. We now have the guy who invented the internet therefore we claim it for our own and oh yeah. . . All your Lunix are belong to us!
It's hardly fair, but the DMCA already has a positive track record in this area; 2600 was forced to remove a link on their webpage to a separate page which hosted the crack that disabled DVD copy protection.
Consider the chilling (abbusable) effect of making linking illegal or conspiritorial act.
You have a problem with a person or organization. You link to their site as an example of the problem you have with them. (Say you link to the Debold site because they are "election fraudsters".)
If your problem is that they can (a) persue you because you linked to their stuff or (b) change the page you innocently linked to to an infringing content site (you infringe their content, but they don't, so clearly you meant others to infringe their property.)
Plus there is a proof-by-induction problem. You link to a friends page because you like him. Unbenonst to you, he links to infringing material. An over-zealous RIAA decides that the "only possible reason" for you to have linked to such a malcontent was that you must share his every view.
How many link steps does it take to wash an outgoing link?
Suppose you have a bunch of links lying fallow on your friends page that you haven't bothered to clean out for a while. A new user takes over an old firends equally fallow account and posts kiddie porn. Your link reads (and always had read) something innocent like "A young lady who's company I enjoy" but "margrets-life.com" now takes you to naughty-margret the hottest little 12 year old in siagon...
Its a mire.
You sould be able to link to anything. Essentially when you link you are in a crowded stadium and you are pointing your finger across the crowded field (at a possible stranger). Such pointing should not make you responsible for the actions of the person you are pointing at.
Its just too much "who guesses what whom intended where? We'll let the prosicutor who is up for reelection decided... he should be impartial..."
(And yes, this goes for a link that says "crack and murder-for-hire at franks house" because when you wrote it, it might have been a joke. How do you *really know* what frank does in his off time anyway?)
Don't sacrafice your life on the alter of "seeming reasonable".
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Although I am not familiar with Aussie law, by looking at the latest stories, I am under the impression that it is as draconian as their counterparts in the US.
And being backed by these extremely corporate favoring laws, music industry (not the artist) is able to do anything "they" deem possible and doing it. When they can not find any real substance to hold the websites accountable, instead of accepting defeat, they are spinning the story to make their claim valid as "linking by itself is illegal" claims in this story.
Yes, artists are getting gipped by pirate downloads and it is morally wrong. We all know and accep that. But these artists are the ones who can say "STOP!" to this music industry who is alienating the atrists' client base. EFF/EFA are doing the right thing, by protecting the innocent but as long as artists are backing the RIAA and its derivatives all over the world, just to make a few more pennies, these big-money dragons will prey on everyone and the rule of the land will be "everyone is guilty unless proven innocent".
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
"Electronic Frontiers Australia (www.efa.org.au) claims that the raids organized by the music industry on mp3s4free.com have come up with nothing."
How much nothing did they find? No matter--whether it was 4 minutes 33 seconds or only a minute, nothing is still a copyright violation, and John Cage's publishers will have something to say about the nothing that was found!
The question is, how do you remove it?
So let's say linking to "illegal" mp3s IS wrong, let's say the highest freaking court in the land will rule in favor of the music industry, well hoopy do, fucking jay walking is wrong too. Do policeman go chasing after people every time they see one walk against a red man? No of course not, they have better things to do. In a society with so much "real" crime going on why is so much attention given to bloody 15 years olds downloading the latest Britney single? Fuck the music industry and their profits, and fuck the elected officials whos pockets are getting pissed in by these people. What a bloody waste of resources chasing after file downloaders.
So when Bush said Iraq had WMDs, he really meant to say that they LINKED to WMDs... :-p
It might be that the site just had a list of MP3's that are in the public domain. Just because something is in MP3 format doesn't mean that it isn't legal
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
> The U.S. government is tired of invading poor countries. Since Australians are possibly doing something that is annoying, the U.S. will invade tomorrow.
> Don't worry Australians, it will be less than a year until you get your $87 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for reconstruction, government corruption, and to help make the Halliburton company richer.
Coming to a theatre near you soon...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This is the same argument used in the 2600.com case for linking to DeCSS, looks like they'll have a more difficult job pursuading an Australian judge.... we can but hope!
Humm. Is this anything like SCO declaring copyright is illegal?
fifth sigma, inc.
Fermi's Solution: Any sufficiently advanced civilization either destroys itself or transcends to superintelligence.
Fermi's Precipitate: Civilizations that destroy themselves.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I have a test CD for setting up sound systems and checking CD players specifications. It has a track of silence as a refrence for signal to noise measurements. I wonder if it is in violation of copyright? I didn't see any refrence to cage.
The truth shall set you free!
Darl is sharing his new crack. Now the Ausie recording greedheads are on crack too. Linking is not illegal. Sorry no cigar. I hope the courts that issued permission for these raids jambs them up side the head with some nice cash penalties.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
Uh-oh, did I stick a link in there?
What would they do if they found 'The Sound Of One Hand Clapping'. Hey do you realise that J Cage does own a the copywrite for the sheet music to his Silence. So it is illegal for you to Photo Copy and destribute for the purpose of performance a copy Silence! Thats why it's so fsck'n noisey in todays world I guess.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Hi all,
:)
trying to make linking illegal is sneaky, because here they are trying to take advantage of a subjective matter (illegal MP3s transfers). This issue is controversial ; thus, trying to enforce a ban on linking will be easier on a subject where people are not focused primarily on this concern. But it should appear much more clearly as a dangerous thing if applied for instance on content shifting trough time etc.
Pardon my English, but the Frenchies still can't admit that they are supposed to speak any other language than this of Napoleon the GRrrrreat...
JDif
Let's overcome our weakness.
I have a copy of that CD. Fortunately, the track to which you're referring is of hip-hop silence, which contains a two-second sample of Cage's original 4'33" repeated many times.
Listen to it again and you'll agree that the first two seconds sound exactly the same as the next two seconds, and so on. Actually, I'm surprised you didn't notice it before!
It's not a matter of sites that "might know about it", they link to the sites knowing they have illegal mp3's, and give the address, preciesly.
Making it much easier for the cops to go pick up the real criminals. Yeah, that's a serious crime in any country that has a criminal as president.
Hm what ping program are you using? The '-f' is actually the fun one and does something quite different from what you listed. From the man page:
-f Flood ping. Outputs packets as fast as they come back or one hundred times per second, whichever is more. For every ECHO_REQUEST sent a period ``.'' is printed, while for ever ECHO_REPLY received a backspace is printed. This provides a rapid display of how many packets are being dropped. Only the super-user may use this option. This can be very hard on a network and should be used with caution.
Part of the free speech movement at Berkeley in the sixties. I think he did a little too much LDS.
More and more money and time in the UK is spent chasing "mostly honest" individuals for the slight slips, why?
Because they don't run, they don't hide and they pay up.
Expect this trend to spread.
Great time and money are spent trapping motorists who speed by as little as 10% such that around speed cameras motorists now take their eyes off the road in order to check their speed to the meter.
Someone will be harrassed by local youths and when provoked to right back, get arrested - why - because they didn't run away.
Expect more of this as law enforcement agencies have to meet their targets they pick easier targets.
Not all law enforcement are like this, I know some who like to target the truly criminal.
However...
blog.sam.liddicott.com
I would think that sites like this would be to the advantage of the music industry. Don't bother going after the site, just go after all the links to illegal music that they have ever so nicely collected for you.
kiwi
making fun of you.
" If you intend to stand at the corner of a school and get kids to buy crack by telling them to go to the store then it is illegal."
Uh, yeah, the CRACK STORE. That's where I buy all my crack. When I feel like some heroin, I go to the HEROIN STORE.
"If you tell them where to go buy ice cream ral cheap and it just so happens that the place also sells crack then it is not. Or at least that is what the founding fathers meant - which we have drifted quite a bit in the last 50 or so years from that."
I must have been asleep in civics class when the covered how Ice Cream fits into the Bill of Rights. Which amendment was that? The "right to bear double scoops" one, right?
"It is clear that the site was linking to copyrighted MP3 websites for the purpose of downloading them."
Is it clear? Wouldn't it be funny if you actually went to the site and found out it wasn't what you thought it was?
"(and not being a lawyer only what I understand it to be in the US, which could be wrong)"
At least you got that one right.
OK, I'm being mean. But just as I shouldn't be suprised by ill conceived posts like yours, you shouldn't be suprised by someone making fun.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Europe? mp3s4free.com's in Europe?
Ah well.. Hereby Europe welcomes all yanks to its capital Australia (which also happens to be the largest city of both Sidney and Melbourne.)
--
The right to be heard does not include the right to be taken seriously
In response to a complaint we received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 7 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint for these removed results.
That's right, Google does self-police their content. They have to, if they want to remain a company.Counter-sue? Press for indeminization...
I posted last week about running for parliament on a technology based platform. Well, I've set up the first draft of the party website:
http://www.users.on.net/grypen/politics/
Please mirror the site if you can, there's a ZIP file (92K) on site for those who want to download it. You can bitch and moan all you like, or you can DO something about it. I plan to.
Quizo69
Visceral Psyche Films
This does not appear to be supported by Australian law.
And why should it be? Just because i know theres a drug dealer down the road and may direct the odd pot head to him. I dont think im breaking the law. Just helping someone feed their addiction.
Immoral as it is, its not illegal.
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
Austrian, not Australian...
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
someone once said that war is just a way to teach yanks geography........
I accept the link between the UK and Australia, but since when has England accepted it is part of Europe?
;-)
Bwah. Europe... that's SO continental!
lets leave the Fred's out of your analogy, it happens to be my name. Try Mr.X. I do not think a court record uses names to prove a point unless they have proof of their participation. I do want to express a little humor here but somewhere someone is thinking "I know a guy named Fred I wonder what he is doing. I better call the cops or spread dome rumors about him". Also, the police can pull you into any situation they want, any time, any where, take everyting you have and ruin your life over any situation they want, this is the power they have and the only thing preventing them from abusing this power is the Bill Of Rights and the first Ten Admendments.
I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
You cant sing or play it loud enough for me to hear it.. I dont have a license to listen to any of her music.
You have in effect violated the 'unauthorized public performance' part of your agreement when you purchased the CD/Right to listen, or some such garbage.
( and of course insulted my ears. but that is a different issue )..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Can't go to http://www.mp3s4free.net - I get a "Host not found" error. Is it just me?
Seeing John Howard is s*cking the cock of every big business in Oz all at once it won't be long now till linking is illegal. He made chipping playstations etc illegal.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
In Sweden (Europe) around two years ago some man in his 20ies was actually charged and found guilty to direct linking to illegally hosted copyrighted music - ven though he never had anything to do with the files themselves. He got away pretty easy money and time wise but still it set an example here what is legal and what isn't.
I coulden't find a story as it was a while ago, but I'm sure some Nordic reader here remembers it?
The whole (possibly misguided) drug thing focuses on the fact that it is illegal to buy, possess or use - however, it is not technically ILLEGAL to copy copyrighted material (no jail time or fine for doing so) - it is only an INFRINGEMENT of the rights-holder's rights. It is a cause for civil action, and there is no real basis for seizure, especially without due process. It is not like the criminal courts could really get involved if it weren't for the questionable extensions like DMCA.
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
but since when has England accepted it is part of Europe
It *is* in Europe, just not in the european union.
That's different.
Heh! Only when the dumbasses credit Cage with the composition or allude to a derivative work based on it.
:-)
Yeah, this was a haw-haw post, but if you took a song I wrote and made it sound ANYWHERE near similar (even if just marginal) and then claimed I was a co-writer, I'd sue yer ass too (well, not until ya got famous though...don't want to shoot myself in the foot too soon).
I have a friend that was involved in something similar. My company designs and publishes sound design works for synths and otherwise. My friend decided he'd make an accurate Prepared Piano -- another Cagian creation. Unfortunately, he designed it to the exact specifications of Cages notes and proceeded to tell everyone that this was what it was intended for and in the liner notes stated that if Cage were alive, he'd endorse it...but it was for creating your own works.
His estate didn't like that and sued him. If he would have just left the descriptions as a more generic term and didn't reference this as THE definitive Cage Piano, then he would have been cool. I think the estate were assholes for doing it, but it was very clear noting their past actions what would happen, and thus he should have stayed away from that mine field altogether. I understand it from both ends, he was using Cage's works for his own profit, but he was also paying tribute to the man...
Doncha hate when someone takes a perfectly good joke post and posts something half serious along with it.
What if their website had said something like:
"We've found the following MP3s on other websites that we believe may infringe copyrights. Our repeated calls to the RIAA have gone unanswered. In an effort call attention to this problem, we have included links to aid the copyright holder in their enforcement efforts. Unless you are a representative of the RIAA, clicking the links may be a violation of local and international laws".
This may to fix the MP3 problem, but not the $cientology problem.
You link to a friends page because you like him. Unbenonst to you, he links to infringing material. An over-zealous RIAA decides that the "only possible reason" for you to have linked to such a malcontent was that you must share his every view.
Didn't we have this evil linking business before? If you merely know someone on the communist blacklist, then you are on the blacklist. Then recurse for those who know you.
Are you now or have you ever been a pirate sympathizer? Do you share in their anti-corporate views? God bless America.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
Ahem. (Best revival preacher's voice)
I think that it should be clear by now that the solution to the vast social problems of today is the internet. Where else do we have LINKS to Weapons of Mass Destruction? Where else to do we have nudity and violence galor? Were it not for the violation of our public decency caused by the intrusion of this vile satanic entity, the internet, we would be a peaceful people strong and secure in the bliss of ignorance.
Ignorance of the sins of the internet. The porn. The violence. The pedophiles sitting at their glowing screens temping the virginity of the children. Think of the children and the unlimited amount of smut, porn, nudity, violence, and crime that they are exposed to every single moment they are on the internet. The internet is everywhere. In your schools, in your homes, in cafes and parks, and in every businessplace in the world.
Yes, friends, we must petition our legislators to outlaw this vile corruption that has been visited upon us by the very forces of Hades; whose sole purpose is to consume the souls of our children and turn this blissfully ignorant world into a Hell on Earth.
I tell you now, brothers and sisters, that the root of all evil is money. And the internet's most profitable businesses are crimes against humanity: the violation of women and children who are hapless porn victims, the teenagers temped to steal billions from poor, starving musicians because that theft is merely a mouse click away. Click. Click. Click. Another poor musician starves to death.
We must empower the magnificent defenders of our blissful ignorance to protect us from these might forces of iniquity. The RIAA, The MPAA, our brothers in congress--yes children, you know the ones who share the views of our defenders; those tireless public servants who like the dearly departed Mr Sonny Bono-author of the copyright extension act that prevents Mickey Mouse from being turned into a vile star of pornography, crafted the DMCA, the COPA, and other valiant legislation. But we must have more. We must have an end to this internet thingy. Now. Before it is too late for our children.
Thank you and good night. Please donate heavily to our cause to protect our precious children.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
mp3s4free.net is down. Guess the dark side won...
I don't get it.
Am I infringing copyright if I say "Leopold Stokowski and Mickey Mouse shake hands in Walt Disney's Fantasia?"
Am I committing an indecency if I say "Grove Press created a sensation when they published Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer?"
Am I committing a terrorist act if I say "Nuclear weapons information which the government, in the eighties, claimed was classified, appears in the Encyclopedia Americana?"
I don't think so.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Sorry... Maybe I'm just bitter because I submitted an article with good links to active, true material and it never got posted because I'm not one of "the usuals," but I checked out this mp3s4free.com site and the only links to mp3s there are sponsored by the artist. Where's the beef? I don't understand how such a farce can get "slashdotted." Even if there were once links to a real list of mp3s on the site, they're long gone now. I guess whatever this "raid" was supposed to accomplish worked in the long run-- so the only topic left to discuss is how easily site hosts can be cowed to submit to perceived authority with idle threats. Whether they found anything or not is beside the point-- one of the following is true: (1) the raid worked and the site no longer hosts mp3s without artist permission, or (2) the story is bogus.
Well, the phrase having links to terrorist organisations keeps popping up as a vague but severely incriminating description in the media.
A few decades back, "having links to organized crime" was used, much more often, as a similar undisprovable slam by both the media and government.
In the Xanadu archetecture links were first-class objects, like documents rather than text IN documents, and could be authored in isolation.
And it seemed like every time some A-hole politician or reporter would slam someone as "linked to organized crime", one of us would say something like: "[A-hole] is linked to organized crime, and I can prove it. I just made the link myself."
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I always understood it to be more the lines of intent. If you intend to stand at the corner of a school and get kids to buy crack by telling them to go to the store then it is illegal. If you tell them where to go buy ice cream ral cheap and it just so happens that the place also sells crack then it is not. Or at least that is what the founding fathers meant - which we have drifted quite a bit in the last 50 or so years from that.
Given that Jefferson and Washington exchanged letters on cultivation techniques for increasing a hemp crop's potency as a drug (at the expense of its usefulness for rope and paper), and Franklin wrote and published pornography (and acknowledged fathering several dozen children on women to whom he wasn't married), I strongly suspect they didn't intend the new "limited" federal government to have drug wars or smut wars in the first place.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The UK has been a member of the European Union since 1973.
Recent arguments are with regard to the single European Currency and the forthcoming European constitution, not EU membership.
Man, trying to use a windows box to ping-flood is like trying to run the 40 with a peg-leg.
If you really want to bring the riaa's site down just use your l33t hax0ring sk1llz and ddos with a bunch of zombies.
I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Others have written infamatory posts about sending people next door to a hitman. Links are nothing like murder and the person making the link has no idea what the person next door really has in his house. The situation is more like fining the phone company for listing a hitman's telephone number. Copying files hurts no one and associating that act with murder is only done to wip people up into a frenzy to do real harm.
The music industry really does hurt people. They really wants to RAID YOUR HOUSE AND PUT YOU IN JAIL. That's physical harm. In this case the search order was for obtaining a copy of the website. How stupid is that? They turned a man's house upside down to obtain something they could have gotten without leaving their offieces. They wanted to put him and his friends in jail and they are going to ruin him finacially as they try to put him there. That's real harm. The music industry has been composed of thugs since Gilbert and Sullivan got publishing your own notes to someone else's song outlawed and their thugs swept London breaking presses and legs.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I can equally malign the music industry in this case. First, the search warrent was for content they could have gotten without a raid at all: a website and logs. Instead of just downloading the site, the wrecked a man's house and a place of business. Second, I can speciously claim that all of the copyright violation sites were constructed by the music industry themselves to break a competitor with false accusations. My specious argument has as much weight as yours, more when you consider the thugish nature of the music industry.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I bet you haven't got the foggiest clue what the Patriot Act actually does.
AUSTRALIA? ISN"T THAT FULL OF CONVICTS ALREADY? What do they think will happen if they make shower butt fucks illegal? Nothing. NEW SOUTH ARKANSAS has made it perfectly clear that this sort of legislation is not going to be tolerated.
AL GORE only claimed to have his dick in your mouth. IT IS YOU WHO ARE SUCKING.
There are at least three different versions of ping, with different switch letters for the same options and vice versa.
If you smack yourself silly with a frying pan or cut yourself with a knife (you own one of those too I assume), and some govermental agent is aware of this action, You will be hauled off as being suicidal and locked up for a couple of weeks untill you no longer are a "threat to yourself or others". so this would lend credence to the "Govt. owns your butt theory" and they would prefer you not damage it.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
Ah, the "If you don't like it, leave." argument.
I find it particularly ironic that you used it in this thread, where the question is whether you or the government own your body. This is especially apt with regards to emigrating to another country.
Nominally, there are no laws preventing you from going to another country. IN THIS COUNTRY. But every other possible country you could enter has laws regarding you becoming a permanent resident. So you would have to come back, whether you like it or not.
So to "remove" yourself, you would have to kill yourself - is it your body to kill? Isn't (bizarely and ridiculously) attempted suicide a crime too (don't fail)?
I love the way "give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" has become "if you don't like it, F$%% off!".
Is it possible that *if* the site is found to be clean of any infringement material that they can counter sue for damages made by taking their site down? I think it would be great to give them a taste of their own medicine...
As for the whole drugs thing... Get a Life! That is an abismal analogy, and you simply come accross as an old FUD'dy dudy. Many thing that are illegal in the US are perfectly legal in the Netherlands. Likewise, things legal in the US are illegal in places like Saudi.
They are the ones who putted that tag from the deamon ... (i am afraid my post will get censored with this words ...) ..
O god what an evil tool created on purpose to help infringe the IP of this pooor workers of the suit bullshit bussiness!!!!
I think we should eliminate this from WYSIWYG editors, if there are no links, then there is no more IP infringment!!! and the world will be a better place to buy 20 bucks CDs!!!!
So contact your WYSIWYG HTML editor developer and ask him to remove that 'link' button from hell!!!
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
This should be modded as funny. its funny. see? ha ha. Funny. Get it?
Sure you could only promote free music but why not go all the way and boycott all recorded music and hurt RIAA where it counts. Make them stop pirating music before you buy another CD.
Granted IANAL, but think about this... These big companies (DirectTV,RIAA,SCO,etc..) are using (and in my opinioin abusing) the civil courts to twist the law in their favor, right or wrong - they go after the small companies and individuals, who simply have (and very possibly innocent) ties (using/linking) to organizations that apparently are illegal. In reality, in seems to me that while abusing the law to get there way (and they are) - they are also setting precidant, to where "there" relationship, no matter how small or innocent, with some organization out there that infact in someway physicallys harms others, that they are also guilty of support and facilitating this. Just as these sites that link to the pirates sites, and 9 year olds downloading MP3's that didnt know any better. For example: They are going after sites, that are doing nothing more that linking (the relationship) to other sites that seem to be homes for evil pirates (and ofcourse terrorists). Well, they very much support (much more than a mere link in correlation) these numerous rap artists that talk/sing about killing others and cops - A creative and ballzy attorney out there could use the very same precidents that they them selves set, against them and practically put them out of business - IE: numerous wrongfull death suits...
Indeed, who gets to choose what equates harm. For many lighter things, most people would equate it to a pleasant experience. I have a pierced ear, should that have been illegal, since in most cases the basic concept of perforating one's body could be considered "damage" or "harm."
Hell... judging from past experience eating bean burritos with a few glasses of beer should be harmful... the aftereffects are much less pleasant than many other things
Drugs, at least in the USA, are illegal. If I provide a link to a coffeeshop in Holland where you can buy cannabis, this would make my link illegal and myself liable for aiding the procurement of drugs?!
My dear sir, if one would go that way, then the internet itself should be closed down.
And why stop at links in cyberspace? Why not go after referrals by 'standard' media, such as newspapers? If they give a description of where and how one can find weapons/drugs/etc. illegally, why, that makes the article illegal too!
Making bombs is illegal...then why not make pages illegal that show how to make it, and links to it, or even speech that deals with making bombs, or speech itself, even!
In fact, if we put EVERYONE in jail, imagine how safe society would be: no more crimes whatsoever!
...I don't think that anyone will.
Now they're raiding houses? This guy's life is ruined because of they're overzealous attitude. They are going way too far. I swear from this day forward, I will never buy a music CD again, nor will I recommend any music CDs and will advise all my friends to do the same. Until I hear that sanity has returned to these Mofos, I'm going to exercise my right not to give them any money, unless that's against the law as well!!
By that same logic, since www.mp3s4free.net converts to the site's IP address you should sue the registrar.
You mean he didn't sign his amnesty agreement?!
You have a certain right to life simply in virtue of being a human person. This is not thoroughly a legal right. Instead, it is part of that on which all modern legal rights are founded. It is not religious; it is human.
This right can not be taken from you. You can not waive or transfer it. As a reasonably well-off, generally normal, rational person, that you wish to end your own life is itself sufficient evidence that you are incompetent to make the decision to end your own life.
The state does not own your body, or any part of you.
Yet, the state does has an interest in protecting life, and furthering the well-being of its citizens. It has such an interest because it is the charge of those who have so established it that it should fulfill this duty of one man to another; the unalienable right to be let to live.
Were you to end your life in the manner suggested, you would have violated this right of yourself. No rational human person may do this.
The whole legal system around the world is dominated by money and the big money holders (i.e corporations) can just stamp on everyone else.
If an expensive (i.e better) lawyer is more likely to win a case, something is wrong. If you can use money to persuede politicians to implement your policies over other peoples then something is wrong. Both these statements seem to be true (anyone disagree?) and this isnt the sort of problem you say "oh thats the way it is, thats life to" its the sort of problem you say "OMG jesus F christ you mean its like that??? quick call CNN call the police! lock the doors" to, or the way there would be public out cry if some companys kids toy had sharp razor blades and aspestos in it. But no, even tho the entire system is totally screwed no-one seems to care, am i missing something?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The failure here is obvious. Person A takes car, dealer can't sell it to person B. Person A takes MP3, dealer can sell it to person B. Whether it's right or wrong, it's not proper to compare real life goods to intellectual property.
Virg
That's because the laws are written with the grand-fuzzy of 'intent' built into them. The problem isn't intent, the problem is that the laws are so vague that intent matters.
...we cannot infer intent. We must judge the potential criminal only on their actions.
"potential criminal" meaning one who is accused but not yet convicted? The problem is, intent really matters. If one is accused of killing another, should the punishment be the same
if the victim ran out in traffic on the freeway or
if the killer was drunk and crashed into the sleeping victim's bedroom or
if the killer chased down the victim until finally able to make the kill?
Of course not. Intent matters.
In this case however, no harm was done by providing a link. The harm, if any, was done by the parties providing and/or downloading copyrighted works without owning the copyright.
sdbI understand the flaw in that analogy, but consider that it is only in the ease of mass-production where "intellectual property" differs from "real life goods". The amount of mp3s able to be produced per year is, for comparisons sake, unlimited. The amount of cars able to be produced per year is still limited. Hypothetically, if it got to the point where it was possible to mass produce cars as easily as it is mp3s, cars would become an intellectual property of sorts, and I guess we would be sitting here arguing about the illegal copying of copyrighted cars. My analogy is only there to compare the morality of it, and so "whether it is right or wrong" is what I was trying to get at. Yes, it is hard to create a valid analogy in this situation, but regardless, I still think that just because one wouldn't ever buy something (whether it may be because he just can't afford it or for some other reason), does NOT mean that he should be allowed to have it anyway.
That would be the same as me saying: "You know, my website is hosted by the same hosting company as some completely unrelated site that may be holding some illegal MP3s, I'll turn myself in for... um... what exactly?"
You've gone to far in the analogy and it's fallen over.
yeah mine too, wtf? is my isp blocking the site?
is the site down or forced off the net by linking the domain to 192.168.100.1?
the page is slashdotted apparently, the google cache of www.mp3s4free.net dosn't quite work, but the cache of one of the sub pages shows what the site was like
A J: www.mp3s4free.net/terms.shtml+%22mp3s4free.net%22& hl=en&start=2&ie=UTF-8
http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:9yBXW4xY7E
is a link.
Windows XP shows:
C:\>ping
Usage: ping [-t] [-a] [-n count] [-l size] [-f] [-i TTL] [-v TOS]
[-r count] [-s count] [[-j host-list] | [-k host-list]]
[-w timeout] target_name
Options:
-t Ping the specified host until stopped.
To see statistics and continue - type Control-Break;
To stop - type Control-C.
-a Resolve addresses to hostnames.
-n count Number of echo requests to send.
-l size Send buffer size.
-f Set Don't Fragment flag in packet.
-i TTL Time To Live.
-v TOS Type Of Service.
-r count Record route for count hops.
-s count Timestamp for count hops.
-j host-list Loose source route along host-list.
-k host-list Strict source route along host-list.
-w timeout Timeout in milliseconds to wait for each reply.
C:\>
I suppose your flood ping capability is on Linux. Too bad. Anyone have a Windows program that would do the same?
If the Agents for the Music Industury raid my office being that they are NOT law enforcement officers can I shoot them for tresspassing?
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
I guess I should have added that.