Slashdot Mirror
Man Arrested For Linking To Online Videos
SonicSpike writes "In a case against a New York website owner, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is claiming that merely linking to copyrighted material is a crime. DHS, along with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), seized Brian McCarthy's domain, channelsurfing.net, in late January. The site has now been replaced with a government warning: 'This domain has been seized by ICE — Homeland Security Investigations, Special Agent in Charge, New York Office.' The advocacy group Demand Progress has claimed that McCarthy never reproduced copyrighted material, and that his website simply linked to other sites. A criminal complaint obtained by the group seems to acknowledge that agents knew that McCarthy was running a 'linking website.' While the criminal complaint alleges that McCarthy did engage in the 'reproduction and distribution' of copyrighted material, it is never clear that he actually reproduced any of the specified broadcasts."
McCarthy was arrested last week. Relatedly, TorrentFreak has posted a list of reasons why these domain name seizures are unconstitutional.
Do not follow that TorrentFreak link. Big Brother is watching.
Great use of federal resources
Why is copyright infringement an issue of homeland security?
The DHS has a mission, to protect the riches of corporations.
Google should move fast to an other country fast, since all the links to copyright they show in search result...
I hate when MPAA / RIAA and now DHS (!?) target only, single person when big companies does the same thing
Looks like TorrentFreak is making the same bad assumption that most US citizens continue to make. That is, assuming that "constitutional" matters one whit anymore to the US government or the people who run it.
"Remember when I said I would never lie? Well, that was the first time."
The annual deficit is $1,400,000,000,000. and they are wasting money on crap like this?
Domain name seizures cause damage. We should be able to route around it. Frankly, I don't want to care whether it's unconstitutional or not, I want it to be technically infeasible.
Back up 2 steps and look again: who links the most?
Who they're really after? Who is pulling the strings? Call me paranoid, I don't care, but maybe we should look behind the curtains...
That said, the Police is so stupid at times. Back in 60s-70s, when the authoritarian climate peaked, they were ordered to persecute communist people, so they used to invade universities to check whether students had "subversive" material.
One unfortunate dude was then arrested for having books about Cuba -- these were titled "Cubism". 8-\
Wow, I feel so much more secure now that they have stopped this dangerous terrorist from endangering my country!
AccountKiller
This is it folks.
Notice that the summary talks about "linking to videos". However, as we now know, both words and pics of any kind are copyrighted from the moment someone creates them. Reply with Quote? Look! It's a copy! Hotlinking pics? Linking!
For the third time I'll float my "subset" theory. They started small with "SomeGuy" (subset of everyone) and "SomeCategory" (videos, subset of all copyrighted items). This has the effect of keeping people looking at trees and not forests, and posts which deal with the grand plan get downmodded.
Linking to copyrighted works? If they can convince the Supreme Court to let this stick, there's the Ice Cannon they want to use againt the entire web. We're beyond copies now. If you can't link to anyone at all, ever, (because it's not you, and all items are copyrighted instantly), then forget Net Neutrality, that is the end of the net.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
by making everything illegal, they don't need to have a real reason to search or block something.
he was linking to torrent material, but all internet pages are copyrighted...
Copyright linker: "Looking to find a lot of copyrighted material for free? Walk down this street, turn right, then left, and it's right there. In the building marked "library"".
Undercover Police officer: "You're busted."
Copyright linker: "Whaaaat?"
Undercover Police officer: "For aiding and abetting copyright infringers."
quote "By contrast, Ticketmaster's suit challenges the backbone of the Internet, namely the ability of one Internet user to simply link his or her page to other pages, without changing the linked pages in any way." http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/linking/linking/link3.html
pretzel_logic
They use anti-terrorism for all sorts of things in the UK like throwing a party member out of a political meeting because they heckle.
thou discernest my thoughts from afar
facebook for example, and the song isn't one of the "official" upload form a record label, I'm liable?
Makes me glad I don't live in the US.
Unless they can prove he produced those videos and linked to them, I'd say this case has no chance to win and will be end up as one of those "so this is where tax money is being wasted..."
the entire entertainment industry thinks everyone has an obligation to buy their dreck. fuck em i hope the entire movie & music industry dies...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
I have a friend that was also arrested by ICE in a case of double jeopardy. We're still fighting for him. ICE needs some sort of accountability.
All the illegal immigrants in the country that they say they have no budget to do anything about and the ICE who is supposed to be dealing with it has resources for this, which has no bearing on immigration or customs? Makes me proud to be an American :(
But it was pulling stunts like this that got the Labour party voted out at the next election. People realised they'd lost touch with reality. Not saying the current lot are any better, in fact they might be worse (hey, politicians, eh?) but at least we had the option to vote out the last lot when they got too crazy.
Thats a fairly broad stick. Everyone links to copyrighted materials everyday.
By the looks of Slashdot's (c) blurb i could be linking to materials owned by a dozen people by posting a single link. I link to a few stories throughout the day. Looks like i better stop before I see an ICE badge. "All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by Poster. The rest © 1997–2011 "
btw....i might be taking this way off topic, but itsnt it bad form for ICE to use an image of their shield? I think it might have been a slashdot story, but i vaguely remember an article talking about how horribly illegal it was for someone to reproduce the FBI shield and, in fact, the FBI doesnt do it or allow it.
Well, even classical music takes seven chords to wind down.
If the entire US went black instantly, the we'd take the rest of the web with us because no one else is yet ready to be the new hub of the web to entirely replace 15 years of US Web legacy overnight. It would be funny, really - instant national solidarity "to obey the law". Asia, then Europe is ahead of USA on the time zones - if we did a total blackout at about 9PM on a Sunday, the freakout would be felt around the world.
Bonus to someone's question: Bureau of WTF: Web, Trademarks and FUD.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Doesn't this make linking to practically any website in the world illegal? If you look at the bottom of most web pages you see the copyright sign. If linking to copyrighted material constitutes infringement does this mean the end of hyperlinking for the internet?
I am glad that the Department of Homeland Security has arrested this terrorist. I feel much safer now when I travel because I know that my vehicle will not be subjected to unauthorized and possibly copyright infringing links. I am glad that my tax dollars have been used to eradicate this type of horrible crime, and that further funds will be spent both to destroy quality of life of this dangerous criminal, yet keep him alive, housed and fed for many years to come. And if you can't detect the sarcasm in this post, you really should not be on the internet...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
What percentage of videos linked from McCarthy's site infringed copyright?
A single act of linking to copyrighted material is not criminal, but if you systematically do it, aren't you "inducing infringement?" That's copyright infringement under current law.
Now, I don't believe that this should be criminal, but it's hard for me to believe that encouraging and aiding infringement should be perfectly legal. I just believe that McCarthy should be facing a civil suit rather than a criminal one.
On a side note, I love how the linked article blames this on "conservatives." What does the Obama DHS have to do with conservatives? It's like he believes Bush is still President or something. Actually, we should start that as a conspiracy theory.
Obama is just a puppet!!! Bush is still President!!!! (Hey, people believe in 9/11 "truth" and Obama's "Kenyan birth," right? This isn't that much more unbelievable.)
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
The letters might be free, but the pattern you posted is copyrighted.
Officer: You sir, need to come with us.
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
"This domain has been seized by ICE â" Homeland Security Investigations"
Those government guys aren't so good at the acronyms.
You could correctly argue that way. In fact Google News (and /. for that matter) not only link to copyrighted material. They even copy part of the copyrighted material directly. I guess search engines could be excused, because robots.txt could forbid it.
Luckily there is no strong WSOAA (Web Site Operators Association of America) to lobby the government for ignore common sense AND law.
Of course some French newspaper sued google for copyright infringement once (links to news stories), so it goes to show stupidity (or greed) thrives everywhere.
If you persist in electing assholes (or failing to campaign against them hard enough), you'll get this kind of activity going unchallenged.
The problem is that you elect *ONE* person to represent you.
Don't want to elect a religious nut? Then you are automatically voting for government controlled health care, no matter what's your opinion on that.
And no matter how you feel about "intellectual property" you are sure to vote for someone who has funding from the big media corporations, unless you vote for some fringe candidate who will have some weird ideas of his own.
A Congress that decides everything made sense in an age when a letter took weeks to get from a village to the capital, but those times are long past. We have no more need of someone to "represent" us in drafting legislation.
Seems Google has one or two gazillion links to all kinds of stuff.
Finally Eric Schmidt in jail, it's almost worth it. hehe
This is another instalment of the long-awaited crunch as the Web's refreshing informality and common sense collides with the institutionalized imbecility of the law. Tim Berners-Lee made his views unmistakably clear nearly 20 years ago: see http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkMyths.html. The basic principle is that, if you don't like the way the Web works, you should just ignore it. No one forces anyone to publish a Web site; but, if they do, it is an implicit invitation to anyone else anywhere to read it - and link to it.
However, it was only a few years later (probably about 1998) that the vast mass of money-grubbing freeloaders (sorry, the "business community") discovered the huge untapped mother-lode represented by the Web. "Hey!" they cried jubilantly, "Just look at this immense opportunity to make stacks of money that some stupid sucker has just given us - completely free of charge, too". Those were the same guys who soon began complaining that the Web's design was not optimized to help them make as much money as possible with no effort.
It was around 1998, too, that I stumbled across a law company's Web site somewhere in the USA that laid down strict legal principles for creating Web sites. One of these rules was that every single hyperlink required a separate legal agreement - negotiated by a reputable law firm, naturally.
The worst of the matter is that the reptiles (sorry, lawyers and politicians) can always change the law in any way they like. It's their game and their ball, and they are apparently absolutely unaccountable to anyone sane or educated.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Microsoft's Link to Ticketmaster Site Spurs Trademark Lawsuit
Computer & Online Industry Litigation Reporter, May 6, 1997, Pg. 24087
A suit from 1997? I have to guess that Ticketmaster didn't win or we all would have heard about it by now.
Why not just do the obvious. Make the MPAA and RIAA a legislative branch of the US Government and give any employee full police Power. Let them arrest you at will. It will save the taxpayers all of that expense of calling the real police every time they need to do something like search someones belongings or arrest someone. - And yes, this is sarcasm. Sad but some dimwits in this country probably read that and said "Good Idea" it would lower taxes!
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
According to http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/dhscomplaint/ the subject is actually accused of EMBEDDING, not linking. That is, he is alleged to have embedded copyrighted video streams (and/or their surrounding pages) inside his own site with surrounding ad content, instead of linking the user to the actual hosting web site. The major mistake by ICE appears to be a failure to actually use the word "embed" in their complaint. I would expect a takedown or lawsuit if I did this, so it's difficult for me to be surprised. Of course, that's no reason not to retrieve the links from the Internet Wayback Machine and (properly) link them from all of our home pages.
...is linking to an article that fails to mention how McCarthy has made made over $90,000 in ad revenue from his website.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/illegal-tv-streamers-heres-how-the-feds-will-hunt-you-down.ars
His website was dedicated solely for the purpose of copyright infringement
Why is copyright infringement an issue of homeland security? It is a federal law, it has to be assigned to someone, and The United States district courts has exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over copyright cases. IMO, you should learn about copyright law and history - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law
The systematic creation of an overarching "security" apparatus was every only for one purpose and that was to be used as a weapon in the defense of corporations.
Then, he was convicted of tax evasion. It was the only crime that could be proven. Today, they would nail him with a "domestic terrorism" charge. It was en Vogue for a while to use RICO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act on mafia folks. I'm surprised that prosecutors aren't using anti-terrorist laws against organized crime. If the DHS is snooping around for naughty links, they are probably monitoring mob activities, as well.
I can hear the District Attorney: "This man, and his goons, are trying to destroy the American Way of Life!"
There ain't no jury in the USA who would find him "not guilty."
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Google is in trouble. Unless the law is different for those who have wealth and power. ;)
"Unless?" Awww, the fact that you entertain the concept, even in jest, is just adorable. That's like saying "x will happen, unless kittens are cute."
After reading the "criminal complaint" filed by agent Brazier it looks like he describes channelsurfing.net in detail, he definitely did his research. Maybe I missed it but it doesn't look like he ever even attempts to vaguely site of anything. Not once after any of the "evidence" he has laid out in the complaint does he actually say why he thinks it is in fact illegal, nor does he ever describe why channelsurfing.com should be legally responsible for the copyright infringement that he discovered on the internets. For example, something along the lines of... "'Linking websites' do this, and this... which is illegal of course since residents of Deer Park, Texas, as of June 1980, are longer protected by the US Constitution" would have really given this "complaint document" some needed weight... but still a very interesting persuasive essay so I will give you a B+
If you follow me on twitter (@nothingrightcom, just for the record), or if you follow anyone who regularly posts something other than what they had for lunch or that they are out of the shower now and feel good, you will see links to articles that link you to information. Does this mean these people, including myself, are guilty of copyright infringement?
No, the problem here is that Mr. McCarthy was trying to make a profit with someone else's content and––probably the most important point––he was clearly operating on a commercial scale.
So where are they on all this recent activity?
Dude, where's my packet?
I haven't read the law but can I also get the DHS to take down sites that use my copyright photos without permission?
totally incorrect. In fact without the massive amounts of spam generated by the US the net would be better off.
Go dark, we'll be fine.
(speaking as someone who works for a backbone provider...)
From the Chilling Effect FAQ. "So far, courts have found that deep links to web pages were neither a copyright infringement nor a trespass. "
Chilling Effects is a creation of various legal organisations and the explicitly cite this complaint so I think we can trust their legal opinion.
Gee... I wonder who controls almost all of the media in the U.S.
I wonder which 'special' group of people never do manual labour, like picking crops, building houses and highways, or building cars and televisions, other 'useless' things like that...
It couldn't possibly be 'the chosen', could it? You know, the people who make a living from whining about how horribly everybody else treats them?
Could it possibly be - the Jews?
The Jews control the media, therefore they control what YOU get to see of the entire world, and form your opinions for you. Hence you knee jerk react to protect the very people who have enslaved you. Sickening.
I wonder if ICE is going to start going after college professors next? I know quite a few professors that put PDF copies of their publications on their websites, because linking to the paper on the publisher's website involves a paywall (unless you're inside the campus's "ivory tower"). Of course, the key difference here is that many of these professors are hosting the files on the sites themselves, and not linking to them. Then again, the other key difference here is that the papers are their own papers, so most authors laugh at the publisher trying to claim "copyright" on something like this,. . . Still, seeing as how the publishing industry is struggling to figure out their business model in this century just as much as the music & movie industries are, I wouldn't be surprised to see them go after a few professors, "to make a point".
So how does ICE have any authority to do this? Next thing they'll have the EPA taking websites for polluting the internet.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
George Bush is using telepathic mind waves to control Barack Obama!
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Just imagine that by some sponsorship, sorry, quirk of the legal system linking to copyrighted material would become illegal. How exactly would those marketing droids then propose to support product reviews and forums? Or establish that golden "guerilla marketing" wave that sometimes sells products?
This is insanity, from whatever angle you look at it. DHS involved in copyright? Copyright holders now deprived of marketing capital? Hello? What exactly have these people been smoking?
Insert
I don't understand: how is this a threat to "homeland security"? Are the terrorists now threatening us with low-quality US television programming?
You're right, she has little interest in terrorism except where it empowers her department. It has nothing to do with "selling out to corporate America." If you knew anything about Customs, which you obviously don't, you'd know that Customs/ICE brings in a few dozen dollars to the treasury for every dollar it receives in base funding. Customs, not the IRS, was the original revenue-generating service of the federal government.
The reason that DHS is pursuing this is that corporate America's interests coincide with Customs/ICE's revenue-generating ability. If Customs didn't stand to make oodles of money for the treasury, they would be pursuing other work because their revenue-generating potential is simply too important to the federal government to waste on something that some lackeys in the DoJ could handle.
I wonder if the DHS has ever heard about http://video.google.com/ or youtube... They link to millions of videos that infringe copyright.
Seriously though, shouldn't the DHS be out doing their actual job (providing homeland security) instead of moonlighting for the entertainment industry?
Do these people have any idea how many people on Facebook post links to their favorite music videos? Of course they do.
Well - we differ on our view of government, I suppose. Have you looked at how ACTA is being handled by the US government? Until recently, even the existence of the discussions was secret, and the content of those discussions top secret. Who is discussing, anyway? RIAA, MPAA, and other alphabet soup people - not people, or civil liberties organizations, or even constitutional lawyers, or lawyers of any other type. (sure, there are lots of lawyers involved, each representing the interests of one corporation, or group of corporations or another) There aren't even any lawyers from academia involved. It's all corporate run.
But, you bring up a way of looking at things that I had neglected. The government has been pretty nearly insolvent for most of my life (over 5 decades now) so they need SOME way of making money. Doesn't matter how wrong and immoral the methods might be - they need to make money to avoid bankruptcy.
Well, I'm prepared to do my part. I'll get in line, right behind the Baby Boomers to get my euthanasia shot, so that the Social Security pyramid scheme doesn't have to pay me anything. Where's that line again?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
If I have a page that links to copyrighted material*. . . am I in violation? If I have a page that links to a page that has copyrighted material*. . . am I in violation? If I have a page that links to a page which links to a page that has copyrighted material* . . . am I in violation? Now how do I get this into a recursive algorythm? If a page with copyrighted material* links to my page . . . am I in violation? copyrighted material* I will let others determine the nature of the violoation of the copyrighted material and whether or not it was authorised to be posted by said copyright owner.
I wonder if one can get around being a "linking site" by simply removing the HREF's, leaving just the text of the links. Then one would have to copy/paste instead of just clicking.
Yes, the IRS is the internal revenue service. Is it possible that import/export generates more revenue than the GDP? Well, if you consider contraband, probably. It has always been the revenuers that catch the biggest fish. DoJ still has to perform the prosecution though. DHS/ICE are just the cops. They are getting their orders from above. Though there's always the possibly of a turf war amongst them for a bigger piece of the action
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Looks like Google is going to the gallows with Jeeves!
In so far as all web content is copyright by the author, linking to any page, including the root page of the web site would also be illegal. This charge, if upheld, would completely finish the the World Wide Web.
The End!
I wonder if one can get around being a "linking site" by simply removing the HREF's, leaving just the text of the links.
Actually, yes, they can. When 2600 lost the DeCSS case they converted the links to text. The courts had no issue with this, as the order was to remove the links. Removing hyper-links are easy, it takes a lot more to get a court to remove text.
The way things are going downhill in the US, it'll soon be time for UN to declare a No Fly zone over the US to save its citizens from the Govt. Makes me really sad sometimes. And i am not in the US.
I believe the government is applying the wrong standard with respect to Web Links (URL's) and copyrights. They claim that creating a link creates a copyright. However, I strenuously believe that people are confusing the idea of "creating a copyrightable work" with the "mechanism of indexing and accessing" a work. URL's are no more copyrightable than the Dewey Decimal label is on a book in the public library. The fact that links (URL's) are a little more high-tech than the Dewey Decimal label on a book does not change it's fundamental essence.
The question is, could ICE or any government authority shut down or *confiscate* the Dewey Decimal label on a public library book simply because you referenced that book (or other material) by its *Common Cataloging System INDEX* in some public manner???
Linking to a web site is no different than saying "Go read this book at the public library, here is it's catalog number". An link *in and of itself* does *NOT* provide or imply *ACCESS* to the item, rather simply a pointer to it's location. Likewise, the idea of "Deep Linking" is no different as it is simply saying "Go read book XYZ on page 37".
The notion that the link (URL) itself provides "meaning" is simply ludicrous-- of course it does. And in a manner that's long been established as LEGAL and USEFUL and USED by libraries and media referencing systems all over the world-- for well over a hundred years, and probably longer than that. Even the United States own Library of Congress uses indexing schemes to catalog and reference their materials. The fact that a link contains meaningful information is a fundamental property and the very essence of creating a referencing catalog scheme. You can take the Dewey Decimal label from any book, for instance, and discern meaningful information about the nature of the work referenced simply by knowing the algorithm (naming / numbering conventions) incorporated by the scheme. The fact that web links (URL's) have the ability to be more descriptive is a function of the *INDEXING* mechanism, even if it is somehow technically made available to the author to suggest. It is no different than an author attempting to influence the librarian to catalog the material in one section rather than another.
Moreover, the courts have upheld many times that it is NOT a copyright infringement to publish a REFERENCE work containing even literal quoted passages from the original source as long as it is constructed in the manner of a catalog, all quotations are duly cited, and the work is "transformative". In other words, stands alone apart from the original quoted work in a substantive manner. In the case of linking to a web site, the author (person doing the linking) is not necessarily even quoting anything other than the INDEX of the cataloging method used to house and access the material. However, even if the title, author, etc. of that work were referenced, it is no different than going to the public library and pulling up the "link" to the exact same information stored in their card catalog system. In fact, in many cases, the card catalog even contains a brief synopsis of the source material, quotations, or other direct passages from the original material.
Finally, even if the person who put the links up online and then proceeded to laugh and make jokes or otherwise reference them, *that very act* begins a transformative process which is IN ITSELF a *copyrightable* element! So creating a page and linking to other sites *IS* in and of itself, a copyrightable act! And the more that is said in reference to those links, provided they do not incorporate substantive direct quotation of the material-- the *better* the argument that a new copyrightable work is being derived. There is tons of relevant precedent in the application of "Fair Use", "Derivative Works", "Satire" or "Parody", etc. to give someone an extremely good legal footing to claim that a substantially new work is being created, if incporporated into a larger framework. However, that said, simply claiming "Fair Use" or a
I'm thinking nothing less than a constitutional amendment is needed to stop this kind of bull, and to radically reform intellectual property law which, since it is in the US Constitution, can only be changed by constitutional amendment. The original argument against the Bill of Rights was that it was unnecessary, that everything granted in there was already implicitly granted in the Constitution. Over the years, we've seen how fools twist and outright invent interpretations and expansions for their own ends, and how vital the explicit language of the Bill of Rights has been in stopping much of that. It is almost inconceivable that the venerable idea of the public library could be threatened, yet this is not impossible in the current climate.
We have Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion, and Assembly. We need a Freedom of Knowledge Amendment.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Linking to illegal material in cyberspace is the equivalent of aiding and abetting a criminal in real space.
However, as a taxpayer, I am quite angry that my tax dollars are being used to prop up the media companies. It's like Haus and Little Joe left the gates open on the Ponderosa and all the cattle got out. Now, Ponderosa cattle are roaming all over the country-side and my taxdollars are being used to round-up the cattle.
"merely linking" is understating this guy's involvement... and, if what he was doing was good stuff, the people who are writing about his activities wouldn't be trying to downplay his involvement, they'd be yelling how great his work was in full detail. Sorry, I just don't buy into the "Freedom to Steal" dogma.
Okay, I hoped it wouldn't come to this, but I have to break out the heavy artillery.
Last year, at university, in a course titled "International Conflicts in the Post-Bipolar Era", we investigated this incident in depth, so let me give you the reasons:
There were both official and unofficial reasons for the invasion. Let's see the officially given reasons first: WMDs and terrorism.
WMDs were a reason because there was a period between 1998 and 2002, during which the execution of UNSC 687, the resolution that ended the second Gulf War of 1990-1, was suspended. The resolution mandated the destruction of stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and all missiles with a range greater than 150 km. In 1998, Saddam had enough of the oversight, and expelled the weapons investigators, only allowing them to return in 2002 due to Russian persuasion. In January 2003, the investigation reported no signs of WMDs, but given that there were four years of unsupervised activity, more time was needed to assess the situation completely.
Terrorism and its support, however, was an ideological pretext, driven by the fact that there were few countries not expressing sympathy with the US after 9/11, one of them being Iraq. Most of the evidence was tenuous, and ideologically, Saddam was rather distant from Ossama, but given its dealings with Iran and Syria, the chance that Iraq indeed supported various terrorist groups, even if indirectly, was rather high.
Moving on to the unofficial reasons, we find three of them: making an example of rogue states, setting off a democratic domino, and hydrocarbons.
I don't think I need to waste my bit-breath on making an example. Let's just say it worked, and it was a major reason Libya returned into the international community (until recently, that is).
Same goes for the democratic domino, it might have taken some time to get rolling, but we're seeing its effects now.
As for hydrocarbons, the thing is, there's really no telling how much is there actually, but it might be more than Saudi Arabia. The problem here was that around the turn of the millennium, US corporations were forced out of Iraq, which necessitated a change of regime. The fact that this change of regime happened to coincide with the deposition of a dictator was just an added bonus. The reason for the necessity was that US oil import is expected to rise in the near future, and steady supplies are/will be needed. BUT! Only about a quarter of the oil imports come from the Middle East, the rest from Canada (a whopping 25.6%!), Mexico, Nigeria, Venezuela, with Saudi Arabia being only the fifth on the list, and Iraq being only 11th, with a measly 2.3% of the total oil import. However, that does nothing to change the fact that the relations with Saudi Arabia soured prior to the war, and stable relations were needed with its eventually possible replacement, therefore a change of regime was required in Iraq.
So there you have it, a comprehensive breakdown why the US invaded Iraq in 2003. Legitimacy is another question, which would require another post of similar length, and a crash course in international law to be effective, for which I sadly don't have the breath.
As for mercenaries, naturally, the US took advantage of them to augment its military, namely the Blackwater private military company (renamed Xe Services in the aftermath of a severe humanitarian law violation during the Iraq War). However, even US forces have to answer to a court, as well as any terrorists they apprehend, despite Bush's 'unsigning' of the Treaty of Rome, signing "The Hague Invasion Act" in its stead, as President Obama has stated his intent to again cooperate with the ICC. So no, no terrorists.
And don't say "it's all business", without knowing the legal and historical backgrounds for the incident!
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
This is rather silly. Here's the real issue, it's not that he was linking, but he was likely making money off the site directly (be it loads of ads for counterfeit garbage or porn, or whatnot.) Google's search engine returns results based on keywords, most of those links won't be for infringing material if those sites get buried by review sites and wikipedia clones. These link engines ONLY return links to infringing material, so the only purpose of the site is to facilitate piracy.
If someone wants to run a legitimate torrent linking site, they'd have to moderate and review every file accepted, which isn't something these guys running these sites want to do. These guys just want to make money off of it, who gives a **** if it's legit or not. Google and Bing don't return torrents unless you're explicitly looking for them, and usually only link to these link sites anyway.
If this sort of activity were truly illegal, then every single search engine on the internet (Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc) would also have to be seized and their employees arrested. It's bullshit and it needs to STOP, NOW.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
If just linking is a crime, then I would argue entrapment by the ISP as they set up the conditions to link in the first place.
He didn't infringe copyright. He didn't make that ad revenue from infringing copyright.
If a news program sells adverts, while reporting on killings, muggings etc. it did not make money from killing and muggings, because it DID not kill or mug people.
He did not infringe copyright.
The IP 'Czar' DID infringe civil liberties and free speech and should be sacked.
Same goes for the democratic domino, it might have taken some time to get rolling, but we're seeing its effects now.
I would rather say that the Iraq War prolonged the status quo in the other countries for another five years. With the low oil price at the beginning of the 21th century most autocrats in the Middle East would not have been able to sustain their rule. The Soviet Union broke down to the low oil price at the midst and end of the 1980ies, and the same would have happened in the oil rich states of the Middle East in the early 2000s. Ever wondered why the non-oil-states Tunisia and Egypt are the ones breaking down while the oil rich Libya currently seems not to be able to finally topple al-Gaddaqi?
No, the high oil price following the Iraq War was a boon to the autocrats. It increased the oil price and allowed the autocrats to amass enough money to buy time from their population and weapons from us.
Spaghetti monster bless america! Again.
Posting as AC because I am afraid of america, and this is an america-centric site.
So when will anonymous or other groups make a coordinated attempt to post links to copyrighted material to all the major media sites like fox, nbc, nytimes, etc?
There is a standard being worked based on the Bitcoin implementation that bases the domain granting on proof of work.
http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1790.0 (BitDNS Discussion)
Join the conversation if you will. As a matter of fact, the only discussion is either to separate the blockchains or have them mixed. :)
Educate yourself of the Bitcoin and POW technologies and post more insightful comments over the forums.
You can believe what you choose to to believe. If you actually fall for that bureaucratic prattle, all I can say is, keep the faith. It is such utter nonsense, no logical argument can be made against it. The pirates have good lawyers that can make an articulate, elegant case for war, that's all. But a smooth talking pirate is still a pirate, and what you're effectively saying is that he has a nice smile. Sorry babe, homey don't play that. They are all shit throwing monkeys.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
That's the heart of the matter right there.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
I did not make a case for or against war, merely gave you the actual reasons it happened. Legitimacy is another thing entirely, the American lawyers even proposed that the 2003 invasion was not actually a new war, but a continuation of the 1990-1 war, as Iraq was still in violation of UNSC 687, due to the break in disarmament. Naturally, this was rejected by the rest of the UN.
However, now that I cleared up why the war happened, would you mind telling us how copyright infringement figure into it or how the 2003 Iraqi War figures into copyright infringement?
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
I'm just saying anything can be used to start a war. It just has to begin with somebody resisting an arrest (even for copyright infringement), and it can snowball from there. That's why all that mumbo-jumbo means nothing to me. The reach of the US and all the other imperial powers is global. Let's stop playing this silly game about "law" and such. There is no law. There are only contracts. And the worlds' militaries exist to enforce contracts.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Neither Bush nor Obama can remove or commit the US to any treaty. All treaties need to be ratified by the US congress (senate) before the US can be committed or removed. This ratification process is well known and almost all treaties make a provision for signing with intent to ratify.
The ICC is a complete loser in my opinion and the opinion of the US ever since it's creation. The reason why is because it intends to violate fundamental human rights by making law post facto and applicable by governments outside the competent jurisdiction of those subject to it. Those are two concepts that violate the very principles that lead to the separation from England and the forming of the United States. Other countries might be open to that, they certainly have the right to be. They can even become a fascists communist cross dressing dictatorship monarchy for all I care, as it's their right of their society. But what isn't their right is the ability to force others into that same mind set through an international criminal court that picks and chooses what laws it is willing to enforce as criminal without the implicit authorization by laws existing on the books of the country in which the person is a citizen of or within the jurisdiction of. No country should give up it's right of sovereignty in the manner at all.
That's why all that mumbo-jumbo means nothing to me.
Agreed, if you can't understand the framework of the current system, there's no point in this debate, since you'll never see the whole picture, only your twisted interpretation of it.
I could break down Ius ad Bello (Right to War) to the treaties that established and evolved it to the point it is now, but that's way beyond the time I have for you, and probably way over your head too, if you can believe "somebody resisting an arrest (even for copyright infringement)" can start a war.
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
The ICC does not make ex post facto laws, only applies laws that are already part of the international legal system. The ICC also has no jurisdiction over countries not party to the Statute of Rome, unless a the country willingly subjects to it for the duration and scope of the case in question. This latter means that no unrelated accusations can be brought against the country in question or weaseled into the case. Also, it is solely additional to national systems: it can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes.
As for human rights, would you mind telling me exactly which ones does the ICC, a body established by the United Nations, the supreme body safeguarding human rights in the world, violates?
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
No, it doesn't. The issue isn't about linking to copyright content - it's about linking to sites that distribute copyrighted content without permission, and furthermore, doing so knowingly and benefiting from it. Generally, websites have permission to distribute their copyright content (e.g., the New York Times website has permission to distribute the copyrighted content of the New York Times), so there's no copyright infringement on the website, and so no contributory infringement in linking to it.
*clicks like button* - OOPS!
Privacy is terrorism.
If by "heart of the matter" you mean "a continuing misunderstanding on Slashdot." This isn't about linking to copyright content - it's about linking to content that infringes copyright, and that's a big difference.
I'm not going to argue about the rest of your arguments, but I will take the claim that the democratic domino started in Iraq with a pinch of salt. That sounds, to me, like pure speculation. Not that there is anything wrong with speculation, but to put it as fact is misleading to others.
James
GP actually wrote (quoting in snippets, but I don't think I'm falsifying his arguments):
Moving on to the unofficial reasons, we find three of them: making an example of rogue states, setting off a democratic domino, and hydrocarbons.
I don't think I need to waste my bit-breath on making an example. Let's just say it worked, and it was a major reason Libya returned into the international community (until recently, that is).
Here GP concedes that access to Iraqi oil was a reason for the war. It becomes more explicit later on:
As for hydrocarbons, the thing is, there's really no telling how much is there actually, but it might be more than Saudi Arabia. The problem here was that around the turn of the millennium, US corporations were forced out of Iraq, which necessitated a change of regime. The fact that this change of regime happened to coincide with the deposition of a dictator was just an added bonus.
A less generous interpretation of these words is "yes, we invaded Iraq for the oil". A rather piratical act, and so I don't see where GP and you really disagree.
Since I've started this post, I might as well comment on the other two unofficial reasons:
-Making an example: Yes, the US have demonstrated that they can beat a second-rate middle east power. I doubt if it was really worth the cost, because I think the deterrence effect is offset by the USA damaging its reputation.
-Starting a democratic domino: Sorry GP, but I doubt the invasion of Iraq has started the recent uprisings in North Africa. Because I don't see the connection between a superior invader toppling one dictator and the people in other countries being encouraged to do the same. Feel free to enlighten me though.
C - the footgun of programming languages
He did distribute copyrighted material through links. A link is the medium similar to a DVD in the trunk of shady alley. And come on guys, there's no defense for this guy. He knowingly built a business model on storing and allowing easy access to other's copyrighted material. That was the sole purpose of his website. It wasn't a search engine like Google.
I do understand the framework. And precisely what I am saying is the frame is fucked up and must be ripped down. Babble all you want about the right to war, but remember it's not a one way street. There's also the right to fight back. The state shall never enjoy any more rights than any particular individual. War is always justified to beat back the authority. I have the same right to wage war against any state.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Link please.
Except the summary is deceptive (how unusual for /.). The issue is creating a site solely with the intention of linking to sites that are illegally distributing copyright material. I think the thing that compounds the issue here is he was making money from it as well.
Perhaps if politicians were culled? If there was a poll at the end of their term, and those that had not held to their election promises were executed, there might be some selection pressure for a better class of politician.
Sorry for the second reply, but it needs to be asked.. again and again apparently. It's an old question. You may have heard it:
"What do you call it when the assassins accuse the assassin?"
You might never hear used as a pretext for starting a war, but since most, if not all wars are about economic, commercial plunder, copyright is as good as any other reason to start one. See first a country that doesn't respect another's copyright will meet up with economic "sanctions", then an embargo, later a blockade, which is considered an act of war by some. Now, don't you think that people who try to run the blockage are going to be shot if they don't obey an order to stop and be boarded? And if the blockade fails, don't think for a second that the final option won't be considered.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
You, sir, are an idiot - like most americans seem to be.
"No one else is yet ready to be the new hub of the web"
Haha!
What the fuck makes americans think they are somehow better than others?
If the USA vanished right now, the world would be a much much much MUCH MUCH better place.
I am not a lawyer and therefore I'm very afraid of making a comment to your post... Not because it may link to or have embedded copyrighted materials, but for the slight chance you might actually be right.
so I link to http://www.icefilms.info/ or link to http://demonoid.me/ or http://www.kickasstorrents.com/ is slashdot now illegal? what a joke, this is stupid, links should never be illegal
As we all used to say: "It doesn't matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in!".
Yes, it does. It does so because of the specific reason you listed. You see, international laws, which are basically a collections of treaties countries may have signed but enough have and they have been around long enough that it's expected to be the norm in the world community. The problem comes because they do not spell out specific infractions, they spell out specific results of actions. Take crimes again humanity which is fully included in the ICC jurisdictional mandate for instance, It has an open ended clause that states
That is specifically open to interpretation. It is specifically, people sitting around and deciding that something that's happening, is all the sudden not acceptable. And instead working by treaty or other diplomatic means to create an end to it or show them how degrading the acts are, the ICC can issue indictments and hold charges for something that was not against any specific written law until it was imagined to be a violation. This has already happened with Bahr Abu Garda who ended up getting the charges dropped. There are other instances, but when someone is charged in the ICC, the indictment does not read, violation of ordinance 222.02 whatever, it reads act done (like organizing a rebellion that failed and turned bloody) which is now interpreted as crimes against humanity or war crimes. The problem is, people generally see civil war as a right of the populous, not a bad thing in which we punish the loser.
You are partly right. The ICC can get inferred jurisdiction by referral from the UN whether a country agreed, signed or not. It's also not additional to the national system entirely. If the court determines, that the national system isn't addressing the problem satisfactorily enough, it can prosecute on it's own. This also brings in the failing concepts of twice put in jeopardy where someone could be trialed and acquitted in their national system and the ICC could step in with fresh proceedings over the same acts. That's a major fail in my book. The idea of justice is not shopping around until you can find a court that will convict. If they run the gauntlet once, whatever happens is sufficient.
Subjecting people to post facto law, subjecting people to Double jeopardy, just to name a few.
But seriously, you are actually sitting there with a straight face claiming the UN is the supreme body safeguarding human rights in the world? They sat on their hands and counted the warts on their knuckles when innocent people were being slaughtered in Rwanda and Uganda. They sat there and tolerated humanitarian aid shipments being intercepted by war lords in Somalia letting the people intended to be helped starve until they decided to attack the aid workers directly. The UN said just a few words but refused to do anything else (protecting) when China machine gunned up to 8 hundred civilians protesting a crappy life in Tienanmen Square. The UN, or rather participants in the UN, includi
' You are all presumed guilty .. do not ask questions ! your government loves you, so shut-up slave and do as you're told, because we are your masters and you are all stupid slaves .. no go away quickly, you are interrupting me from counting my money .. ' as i was saying to my old friend Mr Orwell many years ago ..
Yeah, cited 24 times in these comments below.
Obama, ONCE!
Libs never learn anything about libs - "They eat Their Own, First" while blaming their appetite on conservatives.
George Bush never did a darn thing with the Internet, he left it ALONE!
This is illegal because it's not specifically authorized by the Constitution. And I don't mean that the document doesn't mention the Internet, I mean that it's someone else's property, and that was not due process in a court room with a jury.
How can someone be brought to court for links to something that is not setup with user name and password, then google should be brought to court too.....i think this is more because he was reproducing the material on his own site or something, because you can't download something that requires username password from just a link, unless the other website was totally crappy to begin with....
Silly Rabbit, the law is *always* different for those who have wealth and power.
for the Republicans. During wartime, people vote conservative. Plus you can get away with just about anything during war (Haliburton No bid contracts, Torture, Goldman Sachs bailout + letting their one real competitor Bear Sterns die, etc, etc).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If someone asked me for directions to the library, or to a shop selling CD's, then I may be in contempt of copyright, even if the person decided to not venture there. SHAME on the US Legal System
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
No it does not make linking to any website illegal. It makes it inconvenient to set up, but it's still possible to legally link to sites with copyrighted material.
Just acquire permission from the original copyright holder to link to their site.
Inconvenient, yes.
Impossible, only when the copyright holder refuses to acknowledge your request.
And this is why we have the WTO (or as we used to joke, WTF). Although copyright is not exactly the WTO's cup of tea, as long as it's actually trade related, it will be enforced (See TRIP). You really don't understand the system if you think any country would go to war over piracy. War is insanely expensive, ruins international standing, and leaves the aggressor liable to backlash from the UN, possibly in the form of an authorized counterstrike. The international community, while not without its flaws, is prepared to handle any situation you can throw at it, including mass piracy.
From my side, this is the last point I will make, for I have long learned (and often forgot) the old saying: "Duel not with idiots: they will drag you down to their level, and beat you with their experience!"
EOL
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
All wars are about piracy. I know you like to believe all that fancy talk, but that's what it boils down to. We fight our wars for money, and to plunder those weaker than us, period. Your leader, Jim Jones is calling you..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Oops forgot:
War is insanely expensive...
Not to worry, your kids and grandkids will pay for it. You can enslave them with your debts. And there's always the cost/benefit ratio. Is the war more expensive than the expected plunder?
Reputation? Please! Who needs a reputation when you control the world's money supply. This isn't some hoity toity Hollywood bridge club here. They are criminals. Smooth talking thugs that have you all.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
... when the CIA kidnapped him, disappeared him to Afghanistan, and they tortured him.
So please, mock my rogue nation all you want. But don't forget to boycott it, too.
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
You see, international laws, which are basically a collections of treaties countries may have signed but enough have and they have been around long enough that it's expected to be the norm in the world community. The problem comes because they do not spell out specific infractions, they spell out specific results of actions. Take crimes again humanity which is fully included in the ICC jurisdictional mandate for instance, It has an open ended clause that states
"Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health."
You can only run afoul of that clause by "intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health." If that clause, as written, is broad enough to include what you're doing, then you are violating human rights. No, it does not matter where the person was apprehended or what they were doing. Torture is always a human rights violation and that is just the definition of torture.
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
If they had arrested Eric Bauman instead, nobody would be complaining.