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.
Why is copyright infringement an issue of homeland security?
The DHS has a mission, to protect the riches of corporations.
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.
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
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."
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
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.
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?
They know you read this article, so its too late anyway. And remember, just having knowledge is now considered intent.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
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.
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"
*Sigh*. This old thing again.
Google will take down links if the content infringes copyright. There's no intent there.
Whether there was intent here I have no idea. Nor do I know if merely linking to infringing websites is a criminal offence, but the mere fact that Google does something similar does not mean Google is doing exactly the same thing. Intent matters.
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
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.
Sounds like a a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment.
It's like he believes Bush is still President or something.
If you look at the policies of the US government, you'd be hard pressed to tell that Bush isn't still President. Same shit, different guy.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Google is in trouble. Unless the law is different for those who have wealth and power. ;)
Exactly. It is about intent. Google intends to be an index of the web. These websites intend to link to copyrighted materials. And more importantly (I am presuming) to make money off of doing that via ads on the link-farm website. That's usually what really pisses off content creators: when they bust their ass to create something, and then some asshole co-opts their work AND makes money off of it.
Not all crimes are simply "if we can prove you did it, you are guilty". (That is called strict liability.) Many, many crimes have various components to them. The laws very often look something like this:
Anyone who shall be shown in a court of law to have,
-does this thing, AND
-while near this sort of place, AND
-while having this special responsibility, AND
-with some kind of particular intent,
beyond a reasonable doubt, shall be guilty of this crime. Except:
-where doing this thing was done to prevent this other thing, OR
-the thing was done by a bona-fide law enforcement agent while on duty, OR
-by a private citizen acting in a common-law law enforcement capacity, OR
-the accused immediately un-does what he did and informs a bona-fide law enforcement agency about it.
These are called elements of a crime. I don't know the particular law they are talking about here, but when Google and the others link to copyrighted material, they either haven't met all the elements of the crime, or they fall under one of the exceptions. The exceptions are what is called an affirmative defense. Some crimes have them, some don't. An affirmative defense means you say to the court "yes, I did do that thing, but I did it for this particular reason which makes it not a crime any longer." Like claiming self defense when charged with murder. "Yeah, I shot the guy, but he was coming at me with a knife." An affirmative defense also changes the burden of proof: the prosecution doesn't have to prove you did anything, because you admit to doing it. The defense now has to prove that they did it for that particular reason. Sometimes the law changes the burden of proof for affirmative defenses: where the prosecution might need to proove something beyond a reasonable doubt, an affirmative defense might only require a preponderance of evidence.
So this friend was arrested, charged and acquitted, and then ICE arrested him for the same crime all over again? Seems far-fetched. Note: if someone declined to prosecute, or the charges were thrown out (without prejudice), jeopardy didn't attach and that person can be re-arrested. Only if the charges are dismissed WITH prejudice can the person not be re-charged. Anyway, double jeopardy isn't the law enforcement agency's problem, technically. That is the domain of the courts.
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.
Do these people have any idea how many people on Facebook post links to their favorite music videos? Of course they do.
Is Iraq and Afghanistan any closer? The US can exercise its muscle where it pleases, in case you haven't noticed. The constitution is just an old relic from grade school history classes.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
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
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.
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.
If we were fighting terrorism, I could understand what you're saying. And coercing the "coalition" into playing along doesn't make it legitimate. The real pirates are the ones running the show.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
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
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!
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!
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.
*clicks like button* - OOPS!
Privacy is terrorism.
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