Patriot Act Used to Enforce Copyright Law?

iter8 writes " The Stargate SG-1 Information Archive is reporting that the Feds filed charges against Adam McGaughey, creator of SG1Archive.com. The website is a fan site for the television show Stargate SG-1. The charges allege that Adam used the website to engage in Criminal Copyright Infringement and Trafficking in Counterfeit Services. Two interesting things about the charges are that they were apparently set in motion by a complaint by our friends at the MPAA and the FBI invoked a provision of the USA Patriot Act to obtain financial records from his ISP. Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?"

Comments

Article Text

[byolinux]

Site seems very slow already, so here's the article text.

Donate

Buy T-Shirt

Federal charges were filed against Adam McGaughey, creator of the popular SG1Archive.com website - a fan website devoted to the MGM-owned television show Stargate SG-1. The charges allege that the website engaged in Criminal Copyright Infringement and Trafficking in Counterfeit Services. The charges were the culmination of a three-year FBI investigation, set in motion by a complaint from the Motion Picture Association (MPAA) regarding the content of the SG1Archive.com website.

SG1Archive.com is one of the most popular fan-run websites among the Stargate community. In addition to providing very active fan discussion forums, broadcast schedules, production news, and episode guides, the site heavily promotes the sale of the show on DVD. As of this writing, direct links from SG1Archive.com to Amazon.com have resulted in the sale of over $100,000 worth of DVDs. Many more DVDs have been sold to international fans of the show through sites like Blackstar.co.uk. Upon hearing this news, Stargate executive producer Brad Wright called the site "cool" - which Adam took as an endorsement of his work.

However, instead of thanking Adam for his promotion of their product, officials at MGM and the MPAA have chosen to pressure the FBI into pursuing criminal charges. Adam was first tipped off about the investigation when the FBI raided his and his fiancee's apartment in May of 2002 and seized thousands of dollars worth of computer equipment. Adam later received a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the search warrant, and was shocked to discover that this document, prepared by the FBI, contained significant amounts of erroneous and misleading information. For example, two social security numbers were listed for Adam, one of which is not his. References were made to a cease and desist letter sent by the MPAA to an email address that did not exist. His online friendship with other Stargate fans across the globe was portrayed as an international conspiracy against the MPAA. And perhaps most disturbing of all, it was later revealed that the FBI invoked a provision of the USA Patriot Act to obtain financial records from his ISP. The FBI's abuse of its powers did not stop there. When they seized Adam's computer equipment, he was given written documentation stating that it would be returned within 60 days. The equipment that they did return did not arrive until more than 8 months later, and only then after much prodding from his lawyer. Much of it was damaged beyond repair - one laptop had a shattered LCD screen, an empty tape backup drive was ripped apart for no apparent reason, his fiancee's iBook was badly damaged when it was pried apart with a screwdriver. The FBI's computer crimes staff is either incompetent (at least when it comes to Macintosh computer equipment) or else they just don't give a damn.

Adam has has received positive feedback about his site from multiple members of the Stargate cast and crew at fan conventions. In addition, a representative of MGM's fan publication interviewed Adam about his website several months prior to the FBI raid. As a result, Adam sincerely believed that the show's creators did not have a problem with the content of his website. Many other sites are currently serving content of questionable legality, without promoting the sale of DVDs or offering a community for fans to discuss the show. Why the MPAA and FBI have chosen to ignore these sites and target SG1Archive.com is unclear.

Up until this point, Adam has been fortunate enough to receive pro bono legal counsel in his current hometown of Cincinnati, Ohio. However, the charges were filed in Los Angeles county. The cost of travel, trial, bond, etc. is likely to be quite high.

Re:Article Text

[Anonymous Coward]

> Adam sincerely believed that the show's creators did not have a problem with
> the content of his website

I'm not sure that the opinions of the shows creators have anything to do with it. Adam's beliefs of their opinions are even less relevant.

> Many other sites are currently serving content of questionable legality,
> without promoting the sale of DVDs or offering a community for fans to discuss
> the show.

What other sites are doing is irrelevant.

Re:Article Text

[enrico_suave]

I think what most people object to, is NOT the copyright holder trying to protect their IP, so to speak...

BUT that the "Patriot Act" is being utilized in such a manner AND that government/taxpayer money, time, and resources were spent to make the MPAA happy. That's ridiculous (hello INDUCE act glad to meet you...)

I feel safer knowing that these new "tools" for finding terrorists are being used domestically for other purposes. (that's sarcasm, fyi)

Hey, i'm all for increase our intelligence gathering capabilities and having US use the data it allready has more effectively... and acting on it properly... BUT the patriot act was not the right approach at all.

more sarcsam: Thank god they got that pesky judge and warrant business out of the way so they can go after the real criminals like stargate1 download/fan sites quicker! GJ!

e

Re:Article Text

[SilkBD]

Adam was first tipped off about the investigation when the FBI raided his and his fiancee's apartment

Jesus, that's some tip off!

Re:Article Text

[enrico_suave]

If you re-read what I said, in my own rambling way... the people/agency who are charged with protecting the US/people SHOULD be more efficient.

There's no law stating that these agencies had to be slow, cumbersome, and reactive.

Just because these agency are (perceived to be) a buerocratic mess (even if I can't spell it), don't short circuit due process.

If there are other stupid laws (such as preventing an agent from using a publicly available resource like google to "investigate" as you point out) they should be ammended/removed, but lets not throw out the baby (due process/ civil liberties) with the bath water ( inefficiency , other hindering law enforcement laws).

*shrug* I think what most people feared about the PA is that it would be used in situations other than or too broadly (or not even) defined "terrorist"... and that's what we seem to have here. copy right infringement != terrorism unless they think he's funnelling all his amazon referral money to bin laden? c'mon now =)

e.

Re:Article Text

[teromajusa]

So you are upset that they used the provision of this law so that a local agent could decided to investigate a crime instead of waiting for approval from headquarters and the weeks that use to take before the passing of this law?

Shit yeah since apparently without oversight they end up wasting their investigative resources on crap like this. For copyright violation to be criminal, it has to be done for financial gain - otherwise its a torte. Since he wasn't selling the episodes, its very doubtful that is even a criminal matter.

Re:Article Text

[tabrnaker]

Don't worry. All that terrorist talk is your government terrorizing you so that you'll blindly let in more laws like the Patriot Act. They could tell you what ever you want and if you can't read/understand arabic you're out of luck. Good thing about those color codes for your alert levels, sure makes playing the stock market easier.

Re:Article Text

[Dashing Leech]

I'm not sure that the opinions of the shows creators have anything to do with it.

Well, if they are at least partial copyright holders for the show, their opinions are relevant. However, I suspect that the "creators" don't actually own the copyright (despite the fact the intention of copyright is to go with the creators.) Neither the MPAA nor FBI own the copyrights.

What other sites are doing is irrelevant.

Not entirely true. Selective enforcement is a legitimate defense, particularly if related to accusations of harassment. For example, police can't just stop blacks who are speeding. True, they are breaking the law so they can be stopped, but they can't do it selectively to target certain groups or individuals. That doesn't mean he can use it as a legal defense here, but it does mean that what others do (and aren't prosecuted for) is not entirely irrelevant.

What seems to missing in the article is actually what was done that was illegal. It's obviously related to copyright infringement, but are they accusing this guy of selling T-shirts without licensing the images, or something like that? It can't be just displaying some images without permission. If it's criminal infringement it has to be something quite serious to meet the circumstances required by the statutes.

Re:Article Text

[maximilln]

However, I suspect that the "creators" don't actually own the copyright (despite the fact the intention of copyright is to go with the creators.) Neither the MPAA nor FBI own the copyrights

I've also found amusement that Uncle Sam is more than willing to spring to action to protect the rights of the corporations against a private citizen but, should any private citizen have a problem with the behavior of a major corporation, they'll have to come up with their own PIs, attorneys, and counsels who don't have the authority to just kick the door down, take everything in sight, and return most of it damaged and broken.

What amuses me more is that >50% of the posters on /. (and in the world) have been brainwashed to think that this is the right and true way for things to work.

Re:Article Text

[marleyboy]

begin rant
Since when did any law passed in recent memory actually protect the indivudal?

All it takes is to piss off some corporation and they've got the weight of all sorts of laws and acts that they paid off senators and congresspeople to pass so that they can come after the individual. Since when did any federal agency act on the concerns of the indivudal, and not with vested interest from those corporations and foundations that donate big bucks to election campaigns and federal agencies? Since when does America actually give a rats ass about the individual?

I'll tell you when. It was when the corporations became more powerful with deeper pockets than the goverment.

Taxes? You're giving more profit to your beer manufacturer, or your gas manufacturer than the government sees in taxes. What do you spend the other chunk of your income on that doesn't go towards taxes? Consumables that are being produced at ever cheaper rates in factories that aren't in the US. Guess where the employment goes towards? THOSE TAIWANESE KIDS WHO WORK UNTIL THEIR FINGERS BLEED!

end rant

Re:Article Text

[DigitalSpyder]

"Not entirely true. Selective enforcement is a legitimate defense, particularly if related to accusations of harassment. For example, police can't just stop blacks who are speeding. True, they are breaking the law so they can be stopped, but they can't do it selectively to target certain groups or individuals. That doesn't mean he can use it as a legal defense here, but it does mean that what others do (and aren't prosecuted for) is not entirely irrelevant"

Ever heard of criminal profiling?

Homer

[bool morpheus()]

In the words of Homer Simpson, this is bull plop! But seriously, it's a fan site. If someone made me a fansite, I wouldn't sue them. Hell, I'd be grateful! Anyone want to make me one?

Re:Homer

[aslate]

Obviously you've not heard of the Futurama site "The Leela Zone" which has survived at least 5 Cease and Decist letters from FOX to their ISP and are still going. No-one knows what content isn't allowed on the site still.

However the site doesn't want to work now!

Re:Homer

[d7urban]

Because you fudged the URL. The Leela Zone is still there, at http://www.leelazone.com.ar/

Yes it is...

[Jaysyn]

... Thanks to our pandering polticians, Democrat & Republican alike. Vote Libertarian & stop this silliness.

Jaysyn

Re:Yes it is...

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, do you really think a libertarian candidate has any chance of winning any office?

Well you know, if people vote for a candidate and they get enough votes, yes they'll get office. You know, it's called democracy. That's how it votes. You pick the candidate whom you believe will do the best job and you vote for them.

This is true of any democracy, apart from the U.S, where people apparently feel that they must simply vote for either the guy most likely to win, or the other guy because they don't like one candidate. It's totally braindead. How often do you hear "I don't like candidate X but I'm going to vote for him because at least he isn't candidate Y!" How fucking stupid is that?

Then we get confused voters like you, who believe that voting for the guy you like the most is "wasting" your vote. It seems the two largest political parties in the U.S have done a bang up job of making you believe this. The problem in the U.S is that a lot of people think like you, so nobody votes for the candidate they really want, so that candidate looses and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

Common sense long left the voting public, it seems. So I guess you'll always be stuck with Cookie Cutter Candidate A or Cookie Cutter Candidate B. Both of which nobody really likes and they both suck up the guys with the cash anyway, and couldn't give two flying blue fucks about stiffs like you but you'll keep on voting for them because you're a scared little puppy, and if you don't vote for A then B might win and we all know B kills puppy dogs! Can't let happen can we? Now just remember to vote Democan or Republicrate come November and it'll all be O.K

Re:Yes it is...

[mwood]

Yeah, when we got our portion of the cut, I turned to my wife and said, "hey, good news, we're plutocrats!" It's still a struggle to make the payments on a modest home and the grocery budget is a bit tight, but we must be among the richest 2% of Americans 'cos our taxes were cut. Maybe there are a few bags of $1000 bills that got lost behind the sofa.

Re:Yes it is...

[Asprin]

Way already on the bus, man.

For US voters who don't know what The Libertarian Party is, here's a good 10 second summary.

Their presidential candidate this time around is Michael Badnarik. He's a computer programmer by trade and he gets the whole "The Patriot Act really was a bad idea" argument.

FYI.

Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, its not. You've merely been suckered by the spin that the PATRIOT Act is in some away a counter-terrorism measure, rather than noticing that the terrorism angle was just to stop you from noticing that the Bill of Rights was being recinded.

Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?

[AKnightCowboy]

You've merely been suckered by the spin that the PATRIOT Act is in some away a counter-terrorism measure, rather than noticing that the terrorism angle was just to stop you from noticing that the Bill of Rights was being recinded.

The only thing that could rescind the Bill of Rights is a constitutional ammendment. The USA PATRIOT Act is not a constitutional ammendment, therefore every single one of these cases should be overthrown in the federal courts without question. The PATRIOT Act is illegal.

Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?

[jlgolson]

every single one of these cases should be overthrown in the federal courts without question. The PATRIOT Act is illegal.

Not yet.

The patriot act is not illegal until it is declared so by the US Supreme Court, and (sorry) it probably won't be declared unconstitutional. Maybe some small parts, but most likely not all of it.

Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?

[dmomo]

This is true. But, I would consider it more than a "Spin". The Document Comprising the USA-PATRIOT states:
(a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001'.

Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?

[Glock27]

You've merely been suckered by the spin that the PATRIOT Act is in some away a counter-terrorism measure, rather than noticing that the terrorism angle was just to stop you from noticing that the Bill of Rights was being recinded.

Actually, when the Patriot Act was passed there was considerable discussion regarding this exact issue, and assurances were made that the PA wouldn't be used except for clear-cut cases of terrorism.

Here's an excerpt from the Patriot Act Myths government site:

Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act "expands terrorism laws to include 'domestic terrorism' which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy." They also claim that it includes a "provision that might allow the actions of peaceful groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, to be treated as 'domestic terrorism.'" (ACLU, February 11, 2003; ACLU fundraising letter, cited by Stuart Taylor in "UnPATRIOTic," National Journal, August 4, 2003)

Reality: The Patriot Act limits domestic terrorism to conduct that breaks criminal laws, endangering human life. "Peaceful groups that dissent from government policy" without breaking laws cannot be targeted. Peaceful political discourse and dissent is one of America's most cherished freedoms, and is not subject to investigation as domestic terrorism. Under the Patriot Act, the definition of "domestic terrorism" is limited to conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life. Therefore, peaceful political organizations engaging in political advocacy will obviously not come under this definition. (Patriot Act, Section 802)

If the Patriot Act were invoked in this case, it is a clear abuse that should be quickly corrected. The FBI personnel involved should be severely reprimanded or fired. That is, I suppose, unless viewing SG1 DIVX movies is potentially fatal... ;-)

However, this is an obvious example of the "slippery slope" problem the Patriot Act represents. Once new repressive legislation is enacted, people get used to it. Then the government starts to push the envelope. As long as this process is gradual, the public will be too caught up in "bread and circuses" (what is Jessica Simpson doing today, eh?;) to notice...at least that's the theory. Are you asleep?

Remember, Income Tax was originally supposed to be temporary. The government is not your friend. This is the case whether it's controlled by Republicans or Democrats.

"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BF

Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Actually, when the Patriot Act was passed there was considerable discussion regarding this exact issue, and assurances were made that the PA wouldn't be used except for clear-cut cases of terrorism.

Actually, when the Patriot act was passed, there was no discussion. That only came after it was passed.

ssurances were made that the PA wouldn't be used except for clear-cut cases of terrorism.

Yeah, they always do that. Then, when the furor dies down, they push it as far as it will go.

Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?

[WNight]

Terrorism, I think, is the intentional targetting of civilians by military units, or military-level weapons. But, if my land was taken away and the bad guy's troops were all safe in tanks, who else would I be able to attack?

So yeah, the definition is pretty convenient. In essence, if you're a nation, it's war, unless you're going against the USA, in which case you're a terrorist. If you're not a nation, you're a terrorist. Note that the definition of nation is conveniently vague.

But yeah, our laws always seemed effective before. Police were allowed to ignore many due-process and search-warrant restrictions when in hot pursuit, or when they could show that they believed they acted to prevent immediate danger. Search warrants were fairly easy to get, but prevented abuse by not allowing fishing trips - they had to state what they expected to find, or see direct evidence of capital crimes. (Dead bodies, etc.)

Seemed reasonable. You could get by most roadblocks to get terrorists and other threats, but you couldn't use any other evidence to get a conviction on some unrelated crime to cover up your failure to find evidence of terrorist conspiracies.

So yeah, the patriot act is a crock. Once you're labelled a terrorist you're as good as guilty.

Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?

[Alsee]

The patriot act is not illegal until it is declared so by the US Supreme Court

("Illegal" is a bit awkward in there, unconstituional or void would be more appropriate.)

Perhaps it's a subtle point of law, but if a law is unconstitutional it does not "become" invalid when it is declared so by a court. It was always unconstitutional, always null and void. It was never actually law in the first place. It was merey an invalid bill that conress did not actually have the power to pass. Any enforcement of it before prior to it being ruled unconstitutional was always invalid / erroneous. Any refusal to comply was always proper and legal. Any conviction was invalid and gets expunged, any fines/damages incurred were improper and you are entitled to restitution.

Of course anyone who gets hit by invalid enforcement of a non-law is certainly going to be suffer until the courts publicly delrare that it is and always was a non-law and clean up the mess. But at least in legal theory it was never actually a law and any action taken under it was always invalid.

-

Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?

[pudge]

Actually, when the Patriot Act was passed there was considerable discussion regarding this exact issue, and assurances were made that the PA wouldn't be used except for clear-cut cases of terrorism.

That's not quite true. The Patriot Act made a lot of changes to how law enforcement works, only some of which had to do with terrorism. For those portions relating to terrorism, you're correct. But much of the Act was things like "the FBI can have roving wiretaps on cell phones in addition to landline phones," which is not specific to terrorism.

The problem is that the story says "a provision of the USA Patriot Act" but doesn't say which one, and we don't know if it was one relating to terrorism, or not. So there's really nothing intelligent we can say about what happened, since we don't have enough information.

Of course..

[Anonymous Coward]

...everything is a terrorist act now. Haven't you read the text of the Patriot Act? Oh wait, not even the people who voted on it read it...

Re:Of course..

[malsdavis]

If you think about it, anything can be called a "terrorist act".

Shoplifting, for example: steal a can of coke, the state (as in the government and the governing collective) loose x cents taxation. Hence, you have just committed an attack against the state and can be immediatly sent for an indefinate stay at a small jail in Cuba during which friends and relatives may or may not be told about your detention.

Hitler and Stalin would both of envied being able to do such legally. ...ofcourse they won't living in a time where we all ought to be scared for are very lives due to the intense, widespread terrorist activity presently occuring in the USA.

Re:Of course..

[JaffaKREE]

To all those Slashdot posters who write "If you're not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about!" and "Take off your tinfoil hats, the government would never use the patriot act in such a broad manner" -
Guess what ?

wouldn't be the first time

[tiltowait]

It was invoked in an embezzlement case against a strip club -- hardly a matter of national security if you ask me, Tony.

Metafilter has some comments too. Apparently the site had downloads of episodes available, despite their claim that it was just Amazon links that got them in hot water.

Abuse?

[BinaryWolf]

Sounds to me like just another case of abusing power. The Feds are just taking advantange of the Patriot Act to get all the information the want/need.

Very Interesting, But Quite Old

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone notice this bit on the SG-1 Archives forum post about this:

Posted: Mar 30 2004, 11:46 PM

Surely this is interesting and all, but VERY outdated. I would think there is quite likely some more current information available. What has happened in the last four months?

One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup

[Robotech_Master]

*BREEEEEET!* Blatant FUD, twenty-yard penalty!

Firstly, as one of the comments on the MetaFilter page on the article points out,

The Patriot Act amended many laws that were already on the books that were not directly related to "national security." (Amendements to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act are just one example.) Waving that flag around is just a misunderstanding of the Act.

Secondly, other comments on that same page (as well as the US DOJ press release) point out what the somewhat self-serving press release does not: sg1archive was hosting copies of Stargate episodes for download. Directly; apparently Mr. McGaughey wasn't even smart enough to use an peer-to-peer intermediary so he could claim he was just linking, not hosting.They were apparently low-rez rips intended to allow fans to catch up on missed episodes but not something you'd want to keep, but I'm afraid that's not a positive defense to copyright infringement. Neither is "But we were helping sell the DVDs" (despite what peer-to-peer folks would have you believe) or "Gee, but the people who made the show liked my site, really!"

It's a shame that his computer equipment got trashed, but the FBI (and other law-enforcement agencies) are somewhat prone to do that over the course of an investigation. If you don't even check online FAQs about what constitutes copyright infringement (anime fansub and fanfic FAQs were doing an adequate job of covering that more than ten years ago; I'm sure there are even more comprehensive ones out there by now that would have told him this was Not a Good Idea) before you go ahead and do it anyway, you deserve what you get. This is not another Steve Jackson affair, folks.

And I won't even go into what a Google Groups search on Mr. McGaughey turns up...though if you click on that link, the blurbs from the posts it displays are fairly instructive without even clicking on any of the articles to display the full text.

I only wish I hadn't kicked in $5 to the guy's legal defense fund before I found out about all this. Oh well, it'll teach me to do a little research first next time.

Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup

[Anonymous Coward]

Waving that flag around is just a misunderstanding of the Act.

Which just goes to show that the act's promoters were basically lying, since that's the flag under which they sold it.

Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup

[kai5263499]

It's a shame that his computer equipment got trashed, but the FBI (and other law-enforcement agencies) are somewhat prone to do that over the course of an investigation.

I can understand damaging a component if it were hindering their invistigation. But prying open an iBook with a screwdriver, damaging the screen?
That's just plain evil.

Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup

[Robotech_Master]

Waving that flag around is just a misunderstanding of the Act.

Which just goes to show that the act's promoters were basically lying, since that's the flag under which they sold it.Then you'd have to accuse Congress of lying about just about every law they pass, given how many riders that are completely unrelated to the main thrust of the act get slapped onto bills of all kinds these days.

Complete text of the PATRIOT Act available here, BTW.

Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup

[kwoff]

Then you'd have to accuse Congress of lying about just about every law they pass

I hereby accuse Congress of lying about just about every law they pass. All in favor, say aye.

Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup

[schmaltz]

The Patriot Act amended many laws that were already on the books that were not directly related to "national security."

It would be nice for you if that were the whole story, but it's not. It should be written "amended many laws that were already on the books so that the FBI wouldn't need to be distracted with pesky Constitutional requirements such as judicial oversight.

Whether this guy willingly broke copyright law, which it sounds like he did, is another matter. Whether copyrights, previously litigated, should be a matter for door-kicking-in police/feds, is an issue that needs to be revisited.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup

[Alranor]

Well, in their defence, didn't one of them state in Fahrenheit 9/11 that they don't even bother to read the text of the laws they pass?

So they may not all be liars, some of them may merely be incompetent morons with the intelligence of the common garden slug.

Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup

[Fred_A]

Garden slugs do fill a useful ecological niche. Stop being nasty to them.

Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup

[martijn-s]

And I won't even go into what a Google Groups search on Mr. McGaughey turns up...though if you click on that link, the blurbs from the posts it displays are fairly instructive without even clicking on any of the articles to display the full text.

You really should have clicked on the posts, because they have all been written by the same person! Talking about FUD! (but I agree with your point in general)

Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup

[Decius6i5]

This is not another Steve Jackson affair, folks.

I certainly wish this person had posted a copy of their warrant, and pictures of the equipment. There is so much that they could do to shore up their story. However, if their story is correct this certainly is "another Steve Jackson affair."

The important point thing about the Steve Jackson case had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he was guilty. The case was an example of hundreds of cases that were occuring all over the country at the time that shared two common characteristics:

1. Law Enforcement had no idea what they were talking about. (They thought a role playing game was a handbook for computer crime.)

2. The investigation was intended to be punative. They show up, seize everything they can possibly get their hands on, destory as much of it as possible, hold onto it for as long as possible, and do everything in their power to make the court proceedings as expensive as possible. At the end of the day if the suspect is innocent it doesn't matter, everyone who is targetted by investigations like this is left completely broke and unemployed with tarnished reputations in their communities. Ruined.

Now let me be completely clear on this second point. There are those in law enforcement who beleive that they need to deal with suspects as harshly as possible to send a message that people should stay away from crime. They are dead wrong. Punative investigations are unconstituional. The judicial branch meters out punishments, not the executive. When the executive steps outside the bounds of its constituional authority and starts attempting to punish people who have yet to be convicted of a crime the whole balance of our system is undermined. Innocent people are caught up in the frey.

When you have punative investigations pursued by law enforcement agents who have no idea what they are talking about the result is a very dangerous government organization that is completely out of control. An angry drunk with a baseball bat.

Steve Jackson Games was simply a particularly good place to draw a line in the sand. Thats why you are familiar with it.

If this account is correct, then this case has all the hallmarks of such a situation.

Clueless law enforcement/investigators: On the MPAA side, a completely incompetent attempt to serve a cease and desist notice. One has to wonder if this wasn't intentional. How hard is it to get this right? Didn't they get a bounce message? On the FBI side, a totally bizzare analogy between a Scifi fan club and organized crime in the warrant application!

Punative Investigation: You have to really try to smash an LCD screen, or you have to be so negligent in your handling of the equipment that you might as well have tried. Note also that they seized things like "girlfriends laptop" which are technically covered by their warrant but really have nothing to do with their investigation. Note also that they chose a court venue on the other side of the country.

Three comments:

1. Law Enforcement agents who operate this way do so consistently. We can look forward to lots more stories like this.

2. The FBI is usually much more professional then this. Its a shame. They are sending a very bad message about themselves here. Intellectual Property on the internet is an extremely controversial and visible topic. These cases are going to get a lot of attention. They should be handling this more carefully.

3. The decision to move Copyright cases into the criminal justice system was bad law. This case is exactly why. This whole thing could have been dealt with via a properly delivered C&D. It would have cost far less taxpayer money. We do not need our federal security forces out smashing computers for the MPAA!!

Now...

[gregoryb]

Sigh... well, at least there's some more evidence to cite _against_ the Patriot Act, so when its supporters challenge "Show me evidence of who it's actually hurting and rights its infringing.", we can point at specific things.

It's still illegal?

[jlgolson]

Is copyright infringement a terrorist act?

No, but it is still illegal.

Am I the only one who thinks people shouldn't break the law?

Just because you don't agree with the law doesn't mean you should break it. CHANGE it.

Re:It's still illegal?

[deimtee]

It is my understanding that copyright infringement is actually a civil matter, roughly equivalent to breech of contract, and not a criminal matter at all. Therefore, no it is not illegal, but it is sue-able.

Re:It's still illegal?

[jlgolson]

See this from above. Seems like he was doing worse than just posting pictures without permission.

Here goes Slashdot blowing things out of proportion again. I'm shocked.

Has anyone here actually read the USA Patriot Act? Or the 9/11 Commission report? Or written their Congressman?

Everyone just bitches on Slashdot. No wonder nothing ever changes.

Re:It's still illegal?

[jlgolson]

Incorrect.

Copyright infringement can be either a civil or a criminal matter, partially depending if someone was making money from the infringement.

Re:It's still illegal?

[Oddly_Drac]

"Just because you don't agree with the law doesn't mean you should break it. CHANGE it."

Hi America, this is England. We just noticed that your war of independance was illegal and we'd like our colony back.

Hugs'n'Kisses,
England.

PS. You can keep Utah and Oregan

Re:It's still illegal?

[steveshaw]

Well, you'd be wrong about that.

Wow

[The-Bus]

This is certainly the next step down in the slippery slope. Can you imagine the FBI then subpoenaing PayPal and getting the names and addresses of everyone that contributed?

Change the damn law

[Lord Grey]

... the FBI invoked a provision of the USA Patriot Act to obtain financial records from his ISP.

The reality is that law enforcement in the United States is going to use every tool at their disposal to try to catch the bad guys, provided the tool doesn't cost too much. Laws can be invoked for (basically) free, so they get used, abused and stretched a lot.

This Patriot Act thing really needs to be refined. While parts of it may be good, it's worded so that it can be invoked in far too many cases. This escapade with The Stargate SG-1 Information Archive is just the latest example.

Will the law be redefined? The Powers That Be won't do it on their own, as the Patriot Act is (according to their collective mentality) too good a tool to throw away or change. The public needs to call for the change, loudly.

Look at this

[Almace]

Gee hosting episodes of a show on your website never causes any problems. How evil of them to enfoce thier copyright.

Re:Look at this

[optimus2861]

They could've enforced their copyright by gentler means; did they ever just ask him to take the files down? If he told them to piss off, then they could start legal proceedings; and why not a civil suit? It probably could've been settled for $10K or less along with an agreement not to do it again. Why sic the feds on him? Now the poor bastard has to fight off federal prosecutors and risk serving jail time along with a criminal record -- all for hosting files on a webserver. Yes, this is a real danger to society we're dealing with here!

Either there's still a chunk of story we're missing, or MPAA/FBI have blown this way out of proportion.

Re:Look at this

[Oddly_Drac]

"How evil of them to enfoce thier copyright."

You might figure out at some point that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is the government organ for handling internal federal problems, and currently is enagaged in everything from counter-terrorism thru to tracking down bank robbers. Enforcement of copyright is generally down to a civil action rather than getting a government body to kick your doors down. For one thing, every taxpayer is now engaged in protecting the copyright holders, so now you're not only buying their products, but paying for them to keep the prices where they want them.

Next time someone detonates a large-ish bomb in a city centre, think about whether the FBI's manpower is better spent working for the good of society or the good of a corporation.

As for the moral aspect of it, usually it's considered polite to send some contact first, and generally to a postal address. Getting a PI to serve papers has to be easier on the taxpayer than invoking an anti-terrorism law, just not as scary.

Re:oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, the reason for all this is that the guy offered every episode for download, from his site, in ASF and DIVX format.

Just see the Internet Wayback machine for proof.

We are defending this guy why?

This is what...

[cOdEgUru]

the rest of the country dont think would happen, or hopes never happen. These isolated incidents are just the harbingers of numerous other instances where FBI and other law enforcement agencies under the clout of Ashcroft will use their newfound power, power that was bestowed on them by our representatives, in the name of making this nation more secure against faceless terrorists, to serve their corporate masters.

What we as a collective need to do, and need to do now, is to take a look at the ambiguities in this act, and the scope of it and put down strict guidelines as to when and where it could be enforced and put some damn oversight while you are at it.

The Govt has cleverly chosen depictions of late night arrests and mysterious black cars/helicopters as the evidence of a communist/totalitarian regime. They hope you would never equate that with Feds in uniforms. They hope to turn your attention to daily terrorist warnings, to turn your attention away from the extent to which these antiquated laws can be abused.

You all have a clear choice this November. Even if that choice is starkly different from the other half of the nation, act now to ensure you still have civil liberties when all this is over.

Re:This is what...

[Erwos]

"You all have a clear choice this November."

Do we? I keep forgetting that /.'ers convieniently ignore the fact that Kerry isn't repealing the PATRIOT Act. Go to JK's website, do a search for "patriot act". There's no talk of repealing it, only "enhancing" it. And we all know what "enhance" means to a politician: take out the obviously scary stuff, and put in less-obvious scary stuff. I mean, the talk of "intelligence sharing" and "terrorist lists" should be raising big red alarms in your heads, but since Kerry's not Bush, it doesn't... or something like that.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2 00 4_0417a.html

If you think Kerry is just going to hand you everything you wanted on a silver platter because he's "not Bush", you're foolish and naive. You'll have civil liberties and rights with whomever wins. I find it repugnant how members of both parties have resorted to scare tactics at this point.

-Erwos

Re:This is what...

[cOdEgUru]

Ok..

The Patriot Act and its proponents has done a fantastic job in making America feel safer under its umbrella, hence I would not go deep in to why Patriot Act and other regulations wont keep americans any safer (it will probably save the land, but not its citizens who choose to travel beyond its boundaries). What I believe would keep its people safe is when its Govt decides not to trample over the collective will of the rest of the world over starkly contrasting priorities and beliefs.

You are admitting that Kerry does want to take out the obviously scary stuff while leaving some behind. We have an administration who is backing the law in its current state, with all the scary stuff thrown in, and they want to make it Permanent!!!

Bush had his shot at the White House. He could have chosen to unite the country on the wake of 9/11. He took the path of the religious right, choosing to align himself with right wing nuts like Falwell and folks like Apostolic Congress. He chose to wage a crusade, he chose to go to war over vague notions as to what a WMD is. He chose to divide this country, rather than unite it.

Kerry might do a double take like Bush when he becomes President, but my perspective of him is more of a statesman, of a masterful politician, a man who chooses his words wisely, a man who did not have the Presidentship handed to him on a platter. Him, I can trust, atleast for the next 4 years. Bush, I have lost that trust.

Re:This is what...

[alita69]

Actually, Kerry just wants different scary stuff. He's all in favor of things that even Ashcroft was against. Which is kinda scary, if you think about it. Check out: http://www.reason.com/hod/jb072604.shtml for some starter info. You can find a lot more if you bother looking at his voting record. Sorry, but under Kerry it'll be Reno all over again. And there isn't a whole lot to choose from between Reno and Ashcroft. Me? I'll vote Libertarian.

Re:This is what...

[DeekGeek]

...was selected and set up by the mayor, a republican.

You are misinformed. The mayor of Boston is a Democrat. The governor is a Republican, and went on record saying that his job was to make sure the convention was safe, and that the participants had a good time. He then joked that he also wanted them to ultimately be unsuccessful.

Re:This is what...

[0x0d0a]

Nader is not the Libertarian candidate. You're just repeating the Democratic propaganda that a vote for anybody other than Kerry is a vote for Bush.

It's not simply propaganda. It's a very real issue -- nobody but a Republican or a Democrat will win this election.

I will happily agree with Michael Moore that the country needs voting reform and a change in the voting system to help promote smaller parties. However, refusing to accept the reality of the current voting system just plain doesn't help anyone. The time for that was the past four years, when you could campaign for and push your Senate and House representatives for voting reform. Now it's too late -- the vote is upon us, and it's going to use the traditional system.

A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader, and a vote for Michael Badnarick www.lp.org is a vote for Michael Badnarik, and their respective parties.

Yes, but the practical effect is one half of a vote to help retain Bush in office.

I just don't understand the liberals that keep whining about how scary the government is and yet they want to disarm the people.

Again, I think that it would be just spiffy if we could be a direct democracy on issues like retaining gun rights. But we *aren't* -- we will have a single powerful administration that will decide one way on the other on *all* of our issues. Pretending that that isn't the case doesn't help anyone.

Ultimately, you have to weigh the merits of a Bush administration against a Kerry administration, because one of those two people will be sitting in the White House for the next four years. Anyone that votes Green or Libertarian simply does not provide their input into choosing the next administration of the United States, and into foreign and domestic policy for the next four years. That may suck, but until vote reform goes through, that's the way things are going to be.

need more info...

[natron 2.0]

I am not sure we are getting the full story here. I think he obviously did something to trip up the MPAA and cause the to play the "patriot act card". I am not saying the MPAA or the FBI is right for what they are doing but he must have done something to get thier attention.

Actually..

[Digitus1337]

There is no real definition for a 'terrorist', which gives the US government any amount of power that those in charge see fit to use. I could be labeled a terrorist just for typing this!

Re:As I saw someone say recently ...

[Fredrik Leijon]

Land of the free
home of the slave

http://home.student.uva.nl/marlies.meijer/biohazar d/bioflag.gif

The other side of history!

[eske]

from boingboing:
Matthew sez, "There's a press release on the US DOJ site from April 2004 describing the charges. From this, you can learn the guy's name: "Adam Clark McGaughey". (link: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/pr2004/050.html)

The funny thing is that after searching google groups for "Adam McGaughey", you find a bunch of people that seemed to have been ripped off by him around 2002 on some SG-1 sites (as well as ebay) (make sure you sort by date to get more recent stuff). (link: http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8& scoring=d&q=%22Adam++McGaughey%22&btnG=Search)

I won't comment on any of the stuff here, but it's some interesting extra information that adds to the story.

So lets clap the horses...

MPAA == Unscupulous Liars

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

It's very clear from the article that the MPAA committed outright fraud and lied to the FBI.
They also abused laws and I would not be surprised if they were the ones that damaged the equipment.

Perhaps the FBI are in leauge with them. How else could such gross incompetance be explained.

The MPAA should face charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and the FBI should be put under review.

Oh wait. This was a little guy and the MPAA has a lot of money. Ergo, the law does not apply. They probobly threatened the guy with legal action when he asked for his stuff back.

Expect such underhanded dealings when the MPAA drags 12 year olds/protestors/Apple/Independant Movie makers into court.

Funding a terrorist organization

[dykofone]

If you would like to contribute to the SG1Archive.com Legal Defense Fund, please make a paypal donation by clicking the button below.

The FBI claimed that SG1Archive was part of an international conspiracy, raided his home, and used the Patriot Act to obtain his financial records. Man, I'd hate to see what they do to the people that fund this kind of site...

Kidding aside, I'm kind of curious as to what happened. This is definitely a biased article, but what were the official charges brought against him, where do the chargest stand now, and why did the MPAA get the feds instead of just sue?

Re:Funding a terrorist organization

[Digz]

If the Google Groups archive is correct, he appears to have been defrauding international customers by selling them region-free DVD players and not delivering. Sounds like an international conspiracy to me (which would be a conspiracy to defraud that reached across national borders).

Here comes a rant

[grunt107]

How many times will the misuse of this 'Patriot' act occur before we get enough politicians to support its repeal (I would say rework but IMO the partisanship in America will prevent that)?

Proof that this act was dangerous came in the 1st weeks when the Vegas strip-club owner got arrested. This act has also been used against kiddie-porn and drug traffickers. Although I like the fact that these bastards get caught, the ends do not justify the means.

This case proves that government and business have gotten to intermingled and inbred, and every politician aligned with these afronts needs voted out. Normally, I would say the erroneous affadavit would lead to his acquittal but I cannot predict our justice system anymore.

As soon as this guy can afford it, a massive counter-suit against the MPAA, MGM, and the government needs to be filed.

Re:Here comes a rant

[Exatron]

And it only cost every citizen their rights to due process and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The Patriot act didn't even help catch these people, it just let some legal officials tack on a few extra charges.

Wayback machine

[mattso]

Looks like up until Jan 2002 he was actually linking copies of all the shows as ASF and AVI files. It's hard to tell if he hosted any of them, but the site does claim some of them came from the site itself.

In Jan 2002 the site "changed" into a fan site/info site.

http://web.archive.org/web/20011012011922/www.sg1a rchive.net/

Not the point! Think about INDUCE.

[argent]

You're seriously missing the point.

The point is not that he was or was not breaking the law. The point is that this is yet another case of a law being applied outside its original scope.

Every time some new law comes up, people say "what if the law's abused, how about putting in some clauses describing how it's supposed to be applied, so it can't be abused". The lawmakers and other defenders of the purity of our bodly fluids say "CLEARLY the FOO act would never be used for BAR, and your clause would allow some tiny fraction of FOOmeisters to go free!"

So what happens? You get the DMCA being used to enforce toner cartridge and service and support monopolies, RICO being used against churches, and so on...

So here we have the INDUCE act. People have pointed out that it could make VCRs and iPods illegal. Apologists argue that they'd NEVER ban a USEFUL technology, they'd only go up against BAD people who are pushing CRACKING SOFTWARE and PIRACY NETWORKS and scary stuff like that.

Wrong. If a law can be applied in any way... however inappropriately... it will be. Whether it's the Alien and Sedition Act, the PATRIOT act, RICO, the DMCA, or INDUCE... laws like these are an attorney's field of dreams.

Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE.

[jimicus]

The Patriot Act, at it's core was designed to prevent people from breaking the law.

So, what you're saying is, people can be prevented from breaking existing laws by passing a law against it?

That explains quite a bit....

Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE.

[arkanes]

First off, you really need to read something about the Constitution. I can't blame you that much, cause it's a failing lots of people have. I'll start with the most obvious one: LACK OF AN EXPLICIT DECLARATION IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS DOES NOT MEAN THAT A RIGHT DOES NOT EXIST. The Constitution spells out the powers of state and federal government, not limit! The Bill of Rights is actually redudant (and was considered by some of the founding fathers to be harmful), because it's NOT NECCESARY. It's there as a signpost - "These are rights that we consider especially important". Sadly, people through the years have come to take the existence of the Bill of Rights as some sort of definition of your rights.

The Patriot act, at it's core, was designed to remove many of the limitations on law enforcement. If all you really care about is catching criminals, rather than about personal rights or privacy or any of that other stuff that gets in the way, then where you really want to live is in a police state. We've had those and most people didn't like them very much. The protections were there for a reason. The Patriot act was a bald manipulation of public emotion over 9/11 to pass a bill that had been shot down dozens of times over the last few years and decades. It's certainly true that there's nothing restricting those powers to use against terrorism (which was pointed out at the time the bill passed, and ignored). It's passing was dishonest at best.

Now, as for catching criminals - nothing in the patriot act was needed to "catch" this guy. In fact, a simple C&D from a lawyer directly to him probably would have been sufficent. One to his ISP certainly would have been. Unless there's (a lot) more to this case that we don't know about, like he was using the SG-1 fansite as a cover for child porn or sale of nuclear weapons or something, then the amount of force used against him was totally out of line. If there is more than we know, then we should know it - it should have been on the search warrant and it should be in the court case.

The people are not supposed to be accountable to the government! It is supposed to be the other way around. The police/FBI/CIA/etc are there for YOUR benefit, and they are not supposed to be able to act in secrecy and without public justification.

Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE.

[hkmwbz]

"If he was stealing TV shows"

Are you saying that he took away SG from the copyright holders so they could no longer sell or distribute it? Interesting. How does one go about doing this with digital media? I had the impression that making a copy of something didn't destroy the original. But hey, if he stole it, then it must have been removed from the copyright holder's possession somehow. Can't wait for you to explain to me how he did it.

Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE.

[smooth wombat]

LACK OF AN EXPLICIT DECLARATION IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS DOES NOT MEAN THAT A RIGHT DOES NOT EXIST.

For those that aren't aware, the poster is referring to the 9th Amendment which states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE.

[FearUncertaintyDoubt]

In the words of Alexander Hamilton, "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

He was referring to what he saw was the lack of need for a bill of rights -- since Congress only had the power outlined in the Constitution.

And Georgia was one of the leading opponents of the bill of rights. They argued that if we list them out, some idiot in the future will think that our rights are limited to just those. The counter-argument to that was, look, we've made this constitution so pure and perfect that it is a machine incapable of producing tyranny, so there's no need. The reality is that we don't even have the rights enumerated in the Constitution, never mind the other natural rights that were never explicitly listed because no one thought we'd ever have a government so corrupt as to trample them.

Re:oh dear

[91degrees]

Uhh, the reason for all this is that the guy offered every episode for download, from his site, in ASF and DIVX format.

Well spotted that man.

We are defending this guy why?

Here we see the dangers of only getting one side of the story. That said, this is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They could have simply demanded the ISP remove access to the material. Anti-terrorism measures should not be used for a relatively minor crime.

Re:The FBI hates all of you.

[media_Assassin]

Originally posted by The I Shing
That's what Adam McGaughey did wrong... rather than just watch a TV show and enjoy it silently in the comfort of his home, he put a website telling about how much he enjoys the TV show, and included information about it, and helped to organize fandom of the show, which the FBI considers a no-no.

Ummm - no - what he did was host .zip archives of the copyrighted cable show which the FBI considers a no-no.

Do Further Research!

[prezkennedy.org]

This article just goes to show that sometimes a little more research into the topic at hand might bring up some juicier tidbits. After reading *just* McGaughey's website I thought "wow that's horrible", but after reading some of the stuff mentioned on Google Groups and elsewhere has lead me to believe this guy is just a scammer getting busted (or raising the stakes even higher). Slashdot has just sent an avalanche of unsuspecting users to his website, and no doubt there will be a few suckers donating to his "cause".

Only one side of the story

[{tele}machus_*1]

I'd like to point out two things to all of you throwing up your arms in dismay about the alleged abuse of the Patriot Act in this case: the linked article is hosted at sg1archive.com, and it clearly is anything but fair and unbiased. The article makes it seem as if this gentleman never did anything except run fan forums and provide information about the show. However, one of the other posters here on Slashdot used the Wayback Machine to find out that this guy was hosting copies of episodes, which is unquestionably copyright infringement.

I also observe that the "article" asks for donations to this guy's legal defense fund. Before anyone clicks to donate, I suggest that you consider that the "article" is a clearly biased view of the facts. He admits to no wrongdoing, but even a Slashdot poster has been able to show that this guy has some culpability. Shame on Slashdot for accepting this submission and allowing it to be passed off as truth.

OY MODS!

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems you don't have to dig too far to find out this is a scammer, and shouldn't really be an argument about the PATRIOT act. And worst of all, now he's been hit by the FBI, he's making a scam out of it and asking us to donate to his "defense fund". How many slash dot reader have already donated without reading the comments below? Couldn't the main text could do with an edit?

Re:OY MODS!

[Jim Starx]

Whether he's guilty or not doesn't matter. The point is that when the patriot act was passed the gov't said don't worry, this is just so we can prosecute terrorists, we have no reason to use this in everyday investigations. And now they are using it in everyday investigations.

Do a little research

[weez75]

Before blindly jumping on this guy's bandwagon run over to BoingBoing to read about how this guy started ripping people off on eBay and newsgroups starting in 2002. You may think twice before buying a shirt or contributing to his legal defense.

While I don't think this is an appropriate use of the law, this guy is surely no angel. Terrorist? No way, but he doesn't sound like a real nice fellow.

Re:Do a little research

[Ashton7]

This man, Adam, aka Arcady, actually ripped me off *personally* for over $300.00. A few years back he was selling DVD players on his website and I ordered one. It arrived broken. He told me to return it for a replacement. I did so. A replacement never arrived. Another friend of mine who ordered from him simply never received their DVD player *at all*. I filed a complaint against him with the States Attorney of Arizona (which was where he was living at the time). I see he is now living in a different state. I doubt I'll ever see my money again but frankly I hope they throw the book at him and I surely hope no one trusts him with one thin dime of *their* money. BTW, after a Cease & Desist was filed against him demanding he stop hosting downloadable copies of the Stargate episodes, he not only moved his server overseas, he started up a mailing list to tell people where they could find the downloads and he simply kept moving the downloads over and over again, complaining about being "harassed" by the MPAA all the time. How dumb was *that*?

He had links to DIVX's of the shows while DVD

[sjs132]

Pulled from the forum on the site:

Now lets be a little objective here. Newcomers don't know but those that have lurked around for quite a while (myself) and have appreciated the site for a number of years know. The REAL reason for this lawsuit was that divx bootlegs of nearly (all?) every episode, up until a couple years ago, were available here for download. THAT'S why he got raided. So don't let the one sided story that's on here fool you. If it were truly for linking to legitimate dvd sales, I would be standing in line to donate to the legal fund. As it stands, it's a legitimate lawsuit.

Oh... and of course... don't believe ME... Check it out for yourself. The internet wayback machine has the pages archived.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010418190842/...sg1ar chive.com/

Just click on the links for the seasons and you can see that they were available for download via ASF and DIVX.

Now, the FBI probably was involved because of the overseas links to the DIVX contents when he was originally sent a "Cease & Desist." But, INAL...

Point is, there was copyright infringment, I'm sure the DCMA would have been the better act to follow, I don't know why they pulled the patriot act, other than it's another "TOOL" at their disposal....

BTW, the fact that this was from 2002, and it is just now being brought up, makes you wonder if it wasn't a planted story because of a certain election that is going to be playing out soon...

You know, FUD by the DNC? - Interesting thought, thats all I submit, no flames please, not trying to make any political points...

Um, wow

[daveschroeder]

What the summary and the biased sob story from Adam, otherwise known as "Arcady" leaves out is that he was hosting full length versions of every SG-1 episode for download . This isn't some nebulous copyright infrigement case of him using logos or names improperly. He was unabashedly and blatantly hosting copyrighted content, i.e. the shows themselves, for download. Somehow he neglects to mention that in his little bullshit "summary", and that when he was ordered to stop, he moved the episodes to a server overseas (and of course slashdot swallows the PATRIOT garbage hook, line, and sinker). The charges were felony trafficking of counterfeit goods and misdemeanor copyright infringement.

Re:Um, wow

[maxpublic]

He was unabashedly and blatantly hosting copyrighted content

And as a taxpayer, one of the folks who supposedly gets to decide the mission of his government bodies (including the FBI), I really don't give a fuck what TV show the guy was illegally hosting on his site. I'd much rather the FBI (which, remember, I support with my tax dollars) goes after REAL criminals and not copyright infringers.

Copyright infringement is a case for civil, not criminal courts. Anything else is a waste of my tax dollars.

Max

Re:Um, wow

[Lord_Dweomer]

"leaves out is that he was hosting full length versions of every SG-1 episode for download "

Yeah, so lots of people have pointed this out and um....I hope its not to tasteless to ask.......but um....could someone link to the files already?

FUD ALERT

[Brightest Light]

Many other sites are currently serving content of questionable legality
If that isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. Have a look here, at the episodes of the show that Mister McGaughey kindly put up on his site for download. I certainly do not see this as a case of busting fansites; it seems to me that the MPAA has a legitimate complaint here.

How he has interpreted the feelings of the show's creators/actors does not matter; their feelings and opinions count for nothing if they don't hold the copyrights to the show (which they clearly do not).

Perhaps the FBI did step over the line here, but from reading the Patriot Act (which you can find here) one can see that the FBI is simply using the tools they've been given to bust the bad guys (the ranks of which this gentleman belongs to). If you feel that the Patriot Act is a bad thing, write your congressman. Join the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But don't sit here on Slashdot and bitch, you're not changing anything.

Re:FUD ALERT

[drooling-dog]

But don't sit here on Slashdot and bitch, you're not changing anything.

The airing of grievances in a public forum (like Slashdot) is an essential part of achieving change. Nothing happens until a critical mass of people become aware.

Re:FUD ALERT

[teromajusa]

If you feel that the Patriot Act is a bad thing, write your congressman. Join the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But don't sit here on Slashdot and bitch, you're not changing anything.

How about joining the ACLU and bitching on Slashdot? The article may not give both sides of the story, but regardless of whether the guy is a 'bad guy', its not ok for the FBI to take legislation specifically drafted to fight terrorism and use it whenever they see fit. And I don't see any problem with bitching about things that are wrong.

Re:FUD ALERT

[some guy I know]

It's not the "Patriot Act"; it's the "USAPATRIOT Act".
It has nothing to do with patriotism, so calling it the "Patriot Act" is misleading.

Re:FUD ALERT

[Brightest Light]

Except the problem is that whining on /. is not going to do anything to increase awareness. Bitching about nearly anything here is preaching to the choir. Writing one's congressman is increasing awareness. Passing out fliers/etc is increasing awareness. Posting rants on Slashdot about how the FBI/RIAA/MPAA/etc is evil is not going to do anything to help us reach this "critical mass" of people. I agree that airing of grievances in a public forum is essential to democracy; but airing grievances to people who know full well that the Patriot Act/etc is a bad thing does nothing to help matters any. If you want to increase awareness, go tell 5 of your friends (those who do not read Slashdot) why you think $issue_of_the_day is important. Explain to them why it matters, and make them aware of how it affects everybody's lives.

Re:FUD ALERT

[wo1verin3]

Slashdot comments are NOT indexed by google!

From http://slashdot.org/robots.txt

Disallow: article.pl
Disallow: comments.pl
Disallow: journal.pl
Disallow: messages.pl

Re:FUD ALERT

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Perhaps the FBI did step over the line here, but from reading the Patriot Act ...one can see that the FBI is simply using the tools they've been given to bust the bad guys (the ranks of which this gentleman belongs to).

When people first started warning that USA-PATRIOT granted the government absurdly broad powers, its supporters replied, "Oh, don't worry about it, it's just to go after terrorists -- they won't use it in other kinds of cases." Now that it's being used as a blunt instrument against people who are not terrorists by any reasonable definition of the word, we're being told, "Well, what can you do, it's the law." Great.

If you feel that the Patriot Act is a bad thing, write your congressman. Join the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But don't sit here on Slashdot and bitch, you're not changing anything.

Talking about these things, getting the word out, does have an effect -- in the long run, more of an effect than any single letter or donation. FWIW, I was an ACLU member before /. existed, but I had never even heard of the EFF before I started reading /., and I joined them largely because I was impressed by other posters' positive reports about their activities. Electronic forums like /. and K5 are, to some degree, the modern equivalent of the Green Dragon.

Re:FUD ALERT

[rpg25]

Actually, I don't agree with this claim; whining on /. about this case may be very important. Here's why:

If we're going to write to our Representatives and Senators about problems with the Patriot Act, we need to have a good understanding of the issues.

I haven't been able to discern the details yet, but if it is true that the Patriot Act was used to bust this guy, then it's an important thing for us to know about. Why? Because it gives us a concrete example to cite when we write our Senators and Representatives to say that the Patriot Act is being abused for non-counterterrorism purposes.

Note that there are a load of "if's" in the above! All we have so far is one person's assertion that the Patriot Act was abused to bust him. We need to get some kind of corroboration before using this example in letters. Letters citing this case could blow up in our faces if it turns out there was no Patriot Act abuse.

Re:FUD ALERT

[LuYu]

I have to agree with this and to add that if the Patriot Act was used, I do not care what sort of criminal this guy might have been. He is innocent to me.

I agree that the government should track and jail scumbags. This guy sounds like a real scumbag. However, there is a reason we have the rights we were given in the Constitution, and the FBI is wrong to make use of inappropriate laws in order to make it more convenient to catch someone. I really do not care if the guy has a rap sheet that streches from Texas to Canada. Copyright infringement is not a terrorist act (even if Jack Valenti may think so).

Re:FUD ALERT

[demachina]

I don't think it really matters what the target of this investigation did or didn't do, except the key fact that it had nothing to do with terrorism. They key point here is it shows how much the Patriot act broadened the DOJ's powers in areas that have NOTHING to do with preventing terrorism.

On a tangent here is an interesting article on Homeland Security trying to enforce security through obscurity in the physical world and the virtual world too. Someone walked around the DNC and took photos of all the weaknesses in the security in Boston and posted it on a list on Yahoo. Homeland security shut down the list and is collecting the names of everyone on the list and everything said. Should give you pause before joining any list in these dangerous times. These actions are designed to silence everyone who is critical of the government.

Welcome to the slippery slope. Watch that first step.

Re:FUD ALERT

[Jim Starx]

The patriot act was a collection of general powers, not a collection of only-in-terrorism-cases powers.

And there in you see the problem. The entire point of everyone bitching about the patriot act was because they didn't think the gov't should have these powers for use in every day investigations. But the gov't just said hey don't worry, well never use this against normal criminals, we just need this for terrorists. Low and behold.... they lied.

Re:FUD ALERT

[lusid1]

Wait a sec. Lets be clear about one thing. The patriot act was not drafted to fight terrorism. Terrorism was just the sugar coating used to sell it. It's simply an accumulation of powers the government has wanted for a long time, and they took advantage of the national state of terror to aquire them.

Re:FUD ALERT

[b-baggins]

Your personal disagreement with a law does not make it an inappropriate law, unless you were recently appointed king.

Secondly, the Patriot Act is nothing more than streamlining the search warrant, wiretaps, and property seizure laws to bring them in line with modern technology.

Slashdotters constantly whine about how out of touch with technology gov't is. That is until it comes to law enforcement. Then they want the cops to be restricted to using laws designed for 1960 on criminals using technology from 2004.

Re:FUD ALERT

[bugnuts]

Actually, the cops should be restricted to using laws designed for 1700's, not the 1960's. It's called "checks and balances" and is a fundamental concept to prevent the corruption of any particular branch of government.

Secondly, the Patriot Act is nothing more than streamlining the search warrant, wiretaps, and property seizure laws to bring them in line with modern technology.

The patriot act streamlines, only in as much as it removes essential checks and balances by different branches on the executive branch and allows them to bypass the judicial branch. If you think modern technology requires a corrupt and abusive executive power, then you win. But everyone loses when faced with the image of "jack-booted thugs."

Re:FUD ALERT

[Audacious]

Slashdotters constantly whine about how out of touch with technology gov't is. That is until it comes to law enforcement. Then they want the cops to be restricted to using laws designed for 1960 on criminals using technology from 2004.

I do not think this is quite true. The Patriot Act does not say to throw out all of your 1960's equipment and to buy new equipment created in the 21st century. Nor does it say to stop using the laws which were written in the 1960s. It simply broadens those laws as well as loosens the restrictions on when and how the laws can be applied.

Such as wire taps. It used to be that all wire taps (because of Watergate) had to be requested - now they do not. The reason being that in Watergate (1970s if I remember correctly) wiretaps were used by the republicans against the democrats illegally and I believe it was the FBI who did it under direction of the White House staff and/or president.

Now, not thirty years later, wiretaps can again be done without restraint so long as it can be construed to be in defense of the nation. (Which is strange because the republicans are again in office and it means we can have another Watergate and say it is justified because of a terrorist threat.) Also, suspected terrorists can be taken in and held without recourse for an indeterminate amount of time. (As has already happened.)

So basically, we want the cops to be restricted so that they play by the same rules we would have to play by if we were playing at being cops. That being - that there should be equitable checks and balances between the need to investigate possible problems as well as to retain our liberties. "And how," you ask, "do we do that?" Simple - we need a check and balance system which allows someone (say a judge) to decide if a certain action should or should not be taken. Which is (more or less) what we had before the Patriot Act came along.

To be fair though, we could use some changes. The FBI, CIA, NSI, CG, DPS, PDs, FDs, armed forces, and all other emergency agencies should all operate under one system. The reason they didn't was to make it harder to create a Police State. The reason they should is so known offenders can not disappear as easily as they can. So some changes - yes. Police State - no. Yanking people into who-knows-where who say things outside of what someone else considers to be the norm - no. Arresting people who steal - yes. Not using standard practices to do so - no. (ie: Sending Certified, Return Receipt letters to people when dealing with cease and desist matters [instead of E-MAIL!] or a courier if the person refuses to sign for the letter.) And the most controversial part - involving the FBI - yes - IF, as in this case, the person or persons were trafficing across state boundaries. When that happens - it becomes a federal offense and a matter for the FBI. With or without the Patriot Act.

Re:FUD ALERT

[X-rated Ouroboros]

That must be some good crack you're smoking.

They didn't create laws around wiretapping because it was technologically difficult at one time to do it. It has never been terribly difficult to spy on someone, from a technological point of view. The laws were put in place to make it difficult to spy on someone, from a legal point of view.

That was the point, to make spying on people difficult. That technology has made it even easier to illegally spy on people in 2004 compared to the ease with which you could illegally spy on people in 1960... isn't a very convincing argument to make the spying legal, or remove oversight.

It would not be difficult to ammend existing wirerap laws to include new technology, or develope caselaw to extend the application of existing law.

Re:FUD ALERT

[The AtomicPunk]

If you feel that the Patriot Act is a bad thing, write your congressman [aclu.org]. Join the American Civil Liberties Union [aclu.org] and the Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org]. But don't sit here on Slashdot and bitch, you're not changing anything.

I think you left out an essential one: Join the Libertarian Party.

Yeah, yeah, the [insert your favorite of the big two parties here] party was only kidding when they voted overwhelmingly to pass the patriot act, they're real nice guys, and they promise they won't do it again.

Let's face it, if we keep voting for democrats and republicans, this crap will never end.

Police State Wish List Act

[Michael_Burton]

Copyright infringement is not a terrorist act. The USA PATRIOT Act wasn't designed to fight terrorism. It was just sold as a law to fight terrorism. (If I were the wild-eyed type, I'd say the PATRIOT Act is a terrorist act.)

Virtually every provision of the USA PATRIOT Act was on John Ashcroft's Police State Wish List well before the terrorist attacks of 9/11 ever happened. After the attacks, it didn't take long to wrap every rotten proposal up with a great big red-white-and-blue ribbon and ram it through Congress. Ashcroft demanded it be passed within three days with no amendments. In the heat of that moment, only a handful of legislators from either side of the aisle dared to suggest that we should be more careful with our liberty.

Easy come, easy go, I guess.

Re:Police State Wish List Act

[Rayonic]

> (If I were the wild-eyed type, I'd say the PATRIOT Act is a terrorist act.)

I guess you are the wild-eyed type, because you pretty much just said it.

Or would you be okay if GWB said, "If I were the conspiracy type, I'd say that John Kerry eats babies."

Would you be quiet if the president said that?

Re:Criminal?

[Mordaximus]

Fraud is not however. As pointed out by a previous poster, the site owner has allegedly commited fraud Several Times

I suspect that he stands accused of Copyright infringement for hosting episodes on his server, but also for fraud.... However, he wouldn't get much sympathy or paypal donations for your fraud legal defence fund...

Smells bad....

[TapeCutter]

Third click after typing his name into google I find a forum on sg1archive.net. Quote: "The creatior of that web site,Adam McGaughey (aka Arcady) has frauded me and at least 1 other person i know of out of $265 each for a dvd player he was selling. I am posting this so that if anyone else has been frauded by him you can countact us at urs234b@yahoo.com If you could take 20 minets of your time to help me get back at him pls email me. Thanks ChrisR "

The down side of the long slow bell curve

[zooblethorpe]

I was going to moderate this comment, but I found there's no "sad" category. This is spot-on (heck, I've already left), and the sentiment needs to be better known. Sure, the US has lots going for it -- but so many of the positives seem more like historical legacies slowly being choked to death by the corporate greed and public complacency that has enveloped the country.

And now I embark on some very general theorizing, so bear with me.

Historical comparison:
The Islamic world was a major intellectual force from around 700 to what, 1300 or so? They brought us algebra, among other things. But this drive for knowledge got choked off -- the Powers That Be decided that the spirit of inquisitive examination of the world had learned "enough", and the screws were tightened. And now it seems we are seeing signs of the same choking in the West, driven largely by the US, with greed as the engine.

Suffice it to say I am dismayed. I dearly hope someone (a very many someones) will prove me wrong, but it will take years of very different behavior in the US to bring me around.

Patriot Act is like RICO, squared

[Jeremy Erwin]

Organized crime associations derive a large part of their incomes from a number of shady economic activities-- sports betting, sales of pornography, cigarette smuggling, the numbers game, and the production of counterfeit goods. Under the RICO laws, the penalties for such minor crimes could be vastly increased, if the prosecutor could show that this activity was somehow tied to a certain predicate acts and a pattern of illegal activity.

Terrorist organizations are believed to sometimes engage in similar activities. It's easier to prosecute such cases and easier to secure funding if the case is treated as a "potential terrorism" case.

Remember those anti-drug tv advertisements that ran a few months back. The odds are that ones local drug supplier are not connected to a terrorist organization. But the remote possibility raised by that series of ads might have convinced some that they might "just say no..."

Response doesn't fit the crime

[no_such_user]

It's a shame that his computer equipment got trashed, but the FBI (and other law-enforcement agencies) are somewhat prone to do that over the course of an investigation.

What? It's okay to have your property seized and trashed -- OVER A TELEVISION SHOW?! If what you say is true, then sure, he's an idiot. But shouldn't there be a difference in response between being under suspicion of terrorism, kiddie porn, or murder, versus under suspicion of trading low-quality (or even high-quality!) dubs?

If you're not going to donate to this guy's legal fund, you can at least throw a letter the way of MGM's consumer affairs department.

YOU are FUDding here! (mod me up)

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out the DATE on that archive snapshot!

The guy was asked KINDLY by the MPAA to take down the episodes (which were of very crappy quality to begin with) and he DID so. That was in 2002, if I remember correctly. I've followed the site's development over the years and they haven't done anything illegal since then. Apart from posting a few spoilers here and there for overseas fans.

So it's you who's spreading FUD here.

Re:YOU are FUDding here! (mod me up)

[twiggy]

I'm really upset that this article made /. and here's why:

First: Re "YOU are FUDding here!" -- no, he's not. Read the guy's post about the raids etc for a minute and forget about whether you liked his site or liked Stargate. It's totally misleading crap that doesn't even remotely mention that the raid was related to him (even at one point in the past) having hosted entire episodes. No, he makes it out to be an issue of linking to amazon that got him raided by the FBI.

Second: Giving this /. volume traffic, a bunch of dumb monkeys are going to paypal this clown $5 or $10 or whatever, and he's going to pocket it and/or use it for his legal defense. He doesn't deserve $5 or $10, even if he was somehow magically innocent, or even if you argue that "hey, he took the clips down and they still raided him!". He wrote a misleading post trying to get money from the public while not admitting one iota of the truth about the situation.

Also, as people mentioned there's discussion over at metafilter, and someone there stated that he knew he was going to be raided and had been moving around quite a bit before it happened, etc...

The ONLY valid point of discussion here is whether or not the PATRIOT act should be used, and if measures / activism need to be taken to get it repealed. Linking to this scammer's donation/"help my sorry ass" site without even realizing what a scammer he is, however, is upsetting to me.

Re:YOU are FUDding here! (mod me up)

[Erasmus Darwin]

"The guy was asked KINDLY by the MPAA to take down the episodes (which were of very crappy quality to begin with) and he DID so."

From what I've heard, he just made the episodes a little less public. Apparently, the archive of episodes was still being hosted and still being updated with newly aired episodes. The only catch is that the files weren't linked off of his site. Instead, the files used a predictable naming scheme, and details on how to find the files was given out via word-of-mouth.

Re:YOU are FUDding here! (mod me up)

[syberanarchy]

So the ends justify the means? What the fuck about due process? Do you really value copyright over the due process of law?

That's what this is about. The government, bought and paid for by the folks in the cartel, bowing to their masters. If I have to explain to you why this is fucked, I am wasting my time - THE GOVERNMENT IS PROSECUTING COPYRIGHT CASES WITH A LAW MEANT TO PREVENT THINGS LIKE PLANES CRASHING INTO BUILDINGS!!!

Of course, that's probably a moot point to types like you, who will gleefully state that hey, the US govt can do anything they want with their laws, it's their intellectual property, and if you don't like it, you don't have the right to make them do anything...

Oh wait...

that's why God gave us advertisers

[karb]

Have you all learned nothing?

TV shows need advertisers. Companies that pay for the program so they can take a short moment to promote themselves.

So if you tell them that, because of their support of a particular program, you will, in fact not patronize them, it will get their attention pretty quick.

I know this article tries to sympathize with the people who work directly on the show, and a boycott would hurt them too. But the copyright holders only understand discourse in the form of money. There needs to be a monetary penalty for the mistreatment of fans. Start boycotting the advertisers and tell them know why.

Re:oh dear

[sjames]

It's not a matter of defending him. It's a matter of objecting to the FBI invoking 'terrorism' to avoid due process in a case that clearly has NOTHING to do with terrorism.

Further, it's a matter of objecting to a criminal investigation of what should be a civil matter. In addition, it's a matter of objecting to the FBI wantonly destroying or outright stealing his property for no good reason (yes, stealing! If they take it for investigation, then don't return it within a reasonable amount of time, ethically, it's theft). Surely the FBI should know that stealing is wrong!

He SHOULD have recieved a cease and desist by registered mail. If (and only if) he chose to ignore that, he should have recieved a summons. The FBI should have had nothing to do with it, there should have been no search and siezure, no vague mumblings about international conspiracies, no destroyed hardware, etc.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I'm not objecting to him facing negitive consequences for posting episodes on his website. I'm objecting to the FBI abusing it's power, neglecting it's responsabilities, and lying to the courts.

Re:oh dear

[kfg]

We are not defending him. We are defending you.

KFG

FBI defense: Stargate program is real

[FerretFrottage]

Maybe the FBI thought the SG program was for real and that the gate posed a serious risk to national security. If so, the problem should have been turned over to the TSA.

Material support?

[Tackhead]

>
>Donate
> Buy T-Shirt

1. Donate to legal defense fund / Buy T-shirt.
2. Get charged with providing material support for terrorists.
3. ???

I think I'll pass.

I preferred it when #3 was "Profit!", even though I still haven't solved for the old #2.

On the other hand...

[SuperKendall]

We're also smart enough to see that Kerry is no different than Bush, a fact that seems to elude Kerry supporters and other democrats.

When you are not voting for something, but against something - often the replacement is not what you expect.

Slashdot comments ARE indexed by Google

[Exmet Paff Daxx]

see?

Google searches for many hot button issues including the DMCA often return a Slashdot comment as a top hit. Here is one awesome search that returns nothing but wisdom, by the way.

It only indexes the cached version, not the dynamic version, as you (tried to?) point out. HTH HAND!

patriotic duty

[Doc Ruby]

"I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." - Voltaire

People might defend the guy without deciding whether he's worth defending. OTOH, the government is prosecuting the guy as a terrorist, justifying an invasion of his privacy (financial records) unwarranted by the act of which he's merely accused, not even convicted. Now that the "Patriot" Act is used to prosecute mere copyright violation, Slashdotters can choose to defend our rights to privacy by protecting our rights to copy, even when the copyright violation is valid. Even we nerds and geeks who make our living from copyright protection are more threatened by unjust laws like the "Patriot" Act. If only the rest of the population would participate in such central decisions of our democratic society, with the degree of organization that counterbalances the lawyers at the "Justice" Department, we might actually resolve some of these issues, and debunk these false choices.

Wrong -- Kerry opposes the PATRIOT Act

[0x0d0a]

Do we? I keep forgetting that /.'ers convieniently ignore the fact that Kerry isn't repealing the PATRIOT Act.

You, sir, are full of shit.

Kerry supports letting the PATRIOT Act expire, Bush supports renewing it.

Re:Wrong -- Kerry opposes the PATRIOT Act

[Erwos]

Um, the problem essentially boils down to:
1. You posted an ambiguous statement from CNN.com. The way _I_ read it was that Kerry supports keeping the PATRIOT Act in a form that lets it expire without Congress specifically voting as such. This is not _at all_ the same as saying "I will let it expire".
2. Kerry's OWN WORDS contradict what you just linked to, if we go with your interpretation.

I think someone's full of it, but it's not me.

-Erwos

Re:What is the Patriot Act for anyway?

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

Well, no, I suppose not, considering the "and for other purposes" pretty much translates to "and a bunch of stuff we don't care to enumerate in the preamble where people might notice what we're really up to..."

RTFL

[Goobermunch]

Has anyone here actually read the PATRIOT Act? It was kindly linked in earlier in the thread. Here's some relevant parts: 18 USC 2516 was amended to permit wiretaps relating to computer fraud and abuse. There's no language in this amendment limiting its application to terrorism. 18 USC 2703 was amended to permit the government to obtain a significant amount of information from a "provider of electronic communication services," including name, address, connection times, length of service and type of service, phone number or IP address, and credit card number or bank account. All it takes is an administrative subpoena. There's no language in either the amendment or the statute itself limiting its application to terrorism. (This one is one of the provisions exempt from the sunset clause). Not all of the PATRIOT Act was designed to deal with terrorism. Some of it was designed to allow the FBI greater access to information they couldn't get elsewhere. You might well point this out to your Senators and Representatives when you write your letters. That said, there's little point in raging that they're using "provisions of the PATRIOT Act" in a non-terrorist case. The powers they're using aren't limited to that purpose. They're part of the expanded powers of your government. --AC

I hate bullshit

[leereyno]

The question I have, which the actual article cleverly ignores, is whether or not he was doing something illegal or not. Advertising and promoting the sale of DVD's doesn't make up pirating them in the first place. Clearly the fact that gestapo has abused its powers in pursuing this case is a bad thing, but that isn't the same thing as the MPAA and the FBI ganging up on an innocent fan for their own amusement.

If this guy was hosting pirated copies of the show then he needs to be called to task for that. If the FBI abused the patriot act in the process of their investigation then they need to be called to task also. The FBI's wrong-doing doesn't make this guy right.

I'll not give him one thin dime for a "defense fund" if he is going to side-step the question of his guilt. I'd much rather put that money towards fighting the patriot act itself.

Lee

Re:No, I think the patriot act is terrorism!

[syberanarchy]

I can't believe that the americans don't see that those actions of the MPAA and FBI are highly criminal, and that thos organizations have similar terroristic skills than bin laden or bush.

For the same reasons that the Romans were blinded to the corruption in their own society. Because they were too doped up on bread, wine, and circuses.

Our modern equals of this would be:

Reality TV
Fast food
Disposable pop music
Hollywood blockbuster fx films
Sport Utility Vehicles
Decoy issues (Gay marriage, War on Terror)
The white fucking picket fence.

Re:I don't buy it

[syberanarchy]

Why would the major outlets want to draw attention to this?!

CNN is owned by AOL-Time Warner, which owns major movie and music labels.

Fox is one of the MPAA's largest members, and...

...MSNBC is a joint venture between a television broadcast network and Microsoft, which has a vested interest in working with Hollywood on the widespread distribution of DRM.

They have no reason to tell you about this, for the same reason that the murderer doesn't inform the cops of the crime that just happened, and the adulterer doesn't inform his wife of his little "business vacations'" true purpose.

Reminds me of RICO

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress, then: "RICO will only be used to go after the mafia"

Fact, now: RICO is used on ordinary citizens over 10,000 times per year.

RICO is a prime funding tool employed by law enforcement agences all over the country. Property stolen from innocent citizens by police, acting on leads from criminals try to 'cut a deal', do not have to be returned. Write an article in a local paper criticizing a local police, or politician, and you could be the victime of 3:00 AM raid. Even if the lead fingered a real criminal, but gave an inaccurate address, the victims of the RICO raid still lose their property. If you are lucky enough not to be shot and killed (some have been), you can set on the front sidewalk in your pajamas and watch the your 'protectors' take your house, car, and personal valuables as 'guilty property', while neighbors gossip about what you could have done to 'deserve' such treatment. Even with the help of lawyers, which you now can no longer afford, you rarely ever get your property, or reputation, back. The only ones immune from RICO are the politically correct politicians.

A Letter to your Congressperson

[Kwil]

The following letter is hereby placed in the public domain. Please feel free to copy it, make what modifications are needed and send it to your Congressperson.

--------

The Hounorable (insert full name of your representative)
(insert Rm.#),(insert name of)House Office Building
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative:

I am writing to you about the recent use of the Patriot Act by the FBI to execute a warrantless search and seizure upon Mr. Adam McGaughey, owner of the SG1Archive.com website at the behest of the MPAA.

While I do not endorse copyright infringement as allegedly practiced by Mr. McGaughey, I deplore the use of my tax-dollars being used on the behalf of the MPAA rather than having them pursue their litigation through civil means.

However, what I am most concerned about is that the FBI has used the provisions in the Patriot Act to execute a warrantless search and seizure in a case where there was no imminent or life-threatening danger or possibility of terrorist activity. This is an abuse not only of the Constitution of our great land, but also of your good word and trust as you were assured, and so assured me, that the Patriot Act would never be used for the prosecution of ordinary criminals.

I am making you aware of this situation so that you may take action on my behalf to ensure that this does not happen again, and that I may feel secure in my choice of voting for you in the next election.

Thank you for your time.

(insert signature and full name & address)

We're not consumers

[Tony]

Why should I pity the large corporations who have a habit of thumbing their nose at both the law and the consumers?

I agree with most of what you say, to some extent. But, we're citizens, not consumers. As soon as you let them label us as consumers instead of citizens, they win.

As citizens, we control them. As consumers, we are controlled.