There isn't. Some AC and I just want people to be aware that he's out there making a bunch of other trollsome posts, some of which are getting modded up by unaware moderators. That's all.
This account is yet another sockpuppet for commodore64_love. We all have gotten sick of c64love due to his increasing tendency to troll in recent months, and as a result he has negative karma and can only post once per day, or something like that. Problem solved, right? NO! He has created a legion of sockpuppet accounts, including C_amiga_fan, commodore_6502, theaveng, and now this one. The others have been modded into oblivion, as they deserve, but this one is, somehow, able to post at Score: 2. This is possibly due to a recent misleading post which several mods hit +1 Insightful on (because it sounded good at first read) without bothering to check the source and discover the original source conveys the opposite sentiment to that which cpu6502/c64love is pretending it conveys. So, without further ado, please go take care of this problem if you care about this community we call Slashdot and don't wish to see it ruined by mindless trolls.
This account is yet another sockpuppet for commodore64_love. We all have gotten sick of c64love due to his increasing tendency to troll in recent months, and as a result he has negative karma and can only post once per day, or something like that. Problem solved, right? NO! He has created a legion of sockpuppet accounts, including C_amiga_fan, commodore_6502, theaveng, and now this one. The others have been modded into oblivion, as they deserve, but this one is, somehow, able to post at Score: 2. This is possibly due to a recent misleading post which several mods hit +1 Insightful on (because it sounded good at first read) without bothering to check the source and discover the original source conveys the opposite sentiment to that which cpu6502/c64love is pretending it conveys. So, without further ado, please go take care of this problem if you care about this community we call Slashdot and don't wish to see it ruined by mindless trolls.
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody.
The way you cut it off makes it sound like Jefferson thought IP was contrary to nature. In actuality, he thought IP had no natural justification but could have pragmatic justifications. If you want us to take you seriously, try being honest for once.
Actually isohunt is solely made to search other websites for torrent files. Torrent files are not illegal, and they are not copyrighted.
Actually, the torrent files are illegal if their sole purpose was to facilitate an illegal act (that is, transfer of infringing material). Furthermore, torrent files are copyrighted (automatically) by whoever created the torrent file.
In any event, I don't think "But he's doing it too!" has ever been considered a valid legal defense.
In criminal cases it has been, under very specific circumstances: only if you can show the court that the reason "he" isn't getting arrested is that law enforcement personnel are acting on a discriminatory motive. If you can show that, then you have a selective prosecution defense, but it's very, very hard to get that to fly; the prosecutor gets to present whatever non-discriminatory reasons they can think of (i.e. we only prosecute high-profile offenders in order to deter others, we just changed our policy to prioritize this type of crime, the guy that wasn't prosecuted was less dangerous, et cetera, et cetera) and these are almost always accepted by the court.
Of course, none of that applies to this case, which is a civil suit. Plaintiffs can choose to sue or not to sue whoever the hell they want.
I know there's laws for facilitating criminal law crimes, I wasn't aware there was a similar law for civil matters.
Commercial copyright infringement is a crime under the US criminal code. It is at the combined discretion of the copyright holders and the US DOJ whether to prosecute or to sue (or neither).
What % of IsoHunt searches are used for finding illegal torrents? What % of Google searches are used for finding illegal torrents? That's what will matter to the court.
Well, that and the fact that IsoHunt marketed itself as a way to find pirated content, whereas Google markets itself as a general-use tool.
Back in high school, the cops did a drug sting on campus.
Thankfully, copyright infringement is not a criminal category yet.
Since when? Willful copyright infringement on a commercial scale has been a crime for a decade and a half, at least.
They busted the drug dealers AND the people that told them how to find the drug dealers.
By that reasoning, we could lock up most politicians. They've been telling me there's child porn on the internet for years.
Only if the politicians told you specifically where to go on the internet. I'm assuming they didn't bust people merely for saying, "There are drug dealers somewhere in Jefferson High School."
Pirate Bay and IsoHunt's business models depend directly on people breaking the law, and to that extent they advocate and actively endorse such activity by others. If they did not, they would simply cease to exist, fading rapidly into obscurity.
By that logic, anyone company that makes a car capable of going faster than the speed limit is guilty.
No. Anyone making a car that people would only want to buy in order to drive it faster than the speed limit is guilty. You need to work on your analogies.
Ten and fifteen years ago, everyone went around saying they had ADD and ADHD. Now they go around saying they have Aspergers. You don't have aspergers, you fucking drama queens.
I nominate "being a man" as the next hip disorder to have.
Yeah, pretty soon 90% of slashdotters will claim to be male and Seumas will be just as incredulous.
If everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, was tracked, chipped, monitored, followed, & watched AND the information was 100% transparent and available to EVERYONE, then well... sure, it'd be a great place to live.
Why does ANYONE think that a society where all information about everyone was available to anyone would be a great place to live?
Why does ANYONE think that ANYONE and EVERYONE need to be in ALL caps?
What's wrong with them finding out about it if you're in the "no privacy" society? They should even include a "like" button so that you can leave a thumbs up:)
Of course, if they're married and the husband suddenly decides he cares about his wife's privacy (well, more is jealous of other people looking at his wife) despite signing up to live in no privacy land, that could be a potential issue..
I'm guessing the only people who sign up will be singles and swingers.
Drug seizures are quite a bit different... drugs... hmmm... illegal... seized.
That's why my example wasn't drugs getting seized. It was a car getting seized. Are cars illegal?
As are the tools used. How does one have to prove the illegality of drugs that are... illegal?
One doesn't have to prove anything. One has to show probable cause. In the example I actually gave, the one of a car that was supposedly used to traffic drugs, the police don't need to prove the car was a tool used for crime to get a warrant for seizure. All they need is for a judge to believe they have probable cause, and to issue a warrant to seize that car.
One does not. In this case, the illegality of the linking, and the intent or lack thereof have not been established. There's the difference.
Again, the intent doesn't have to be proved to conduct a seizure. It just has to be probable.
In addition, in the case of drugs, as pushed repeatedly during our "war on drugs", the argument has been made....
Sure, it's been made. Doesn't mean it's a good argument, or that courts will buy it.
that such represents a clear and present danger - exigent circumstances - requiring quick and immediate action *before* due process. NO such argument can be made here.
Funny, just yesterday I read four US supreme court cases rejecting the argument that drugs present exigent circumstances for purposes of search and seizure.
Those are the differences I rather inadequately was trying to point out above. (a) Drugs are illegal to peddle on the streets. Period. End of story. They are deemed dangerous and an exigent circumstance requiring immediate action to protect other PEOPLE. Linking to online content must be proven to be illegal for EACH circumstance BEFORE it (each act) is deemed illegal - and there are plenty of exceptions in the law making it legal under various circumstances - name one where peddling controlled substances on the streets is legal (besides being a cop in a sting operation). Leaving the links up does not harm people in any way covered under the Constitution.
So the Constitution now includes a list of types of harm that the police are supposed to promptly prevent? Snarkiness aside, none of this addresses my legal point at all, which was that crimes don't need to be proven before seizures take place, all that's needed is a warrant supported by probable cause (or in exigent circumstances, probable cause alone). That's the law. It's the same for drugs, guns, child pornography, and counterfeit designer handbags. The ICE agents got warrants in this case prior to conducting seizures. That's called following procedure.
You make a number of assumptions and have a number of misunderstandings.
First, Google has fought this battle.
Google has not fought this battle. Google doesn't knowingly link to infringing content, and when it becomes aware (through takedown notices that are necessary when there's no evidence of actual knowledge on the part of the OSP) it promptly unlinks (I know this from personal experience, having asked Google to unlink my employer's IP in the past).
That aside, as you admit, there is no case law that sides on such actions being illegal in a fashion that applies to this.
I don't admit any such thing. I showed you case law that contains some courts deeming it illegal and some deeming it legal.
Second, any company or individual who provides online services can be (and often is) considered a "service provider" - you are confusing an INTERNET service provider with an ONLINE service provider. Google is an OSP but not (or not really) an ISP.
No I'm not. None of the things I've said rely on "service provider" being defined to mean either "internet service provider" or "online service provider". All the things I've said could apply equally well to either type of service provider.
Third, you are assuming guilt of the parties involved in deciding they knew the links went to content that infringed. I am not saying they didnt (or shouldnt have) know(n). I am saying you are deciding you are the judge and jury. But, that's what the courts are for.
I'm not assuming anyone's guilt. When there's probable cause to believe the offense has been committed, and a warrant has been issued, a seizure can take place. It's just like when several witnesses see you dealing drugs out of a car, and the police go tell that fact to a judge, the judge issues a warrant, and then they seize your car. Guilt is not assumed; probable cause is established, which is a different standard.
Finally, thus, when you put this all together, it is (a) up to a court (not some random judge) to determine which factors make it willful infringement or not,
A COURT granted DHS the warrant to arrest the guy. ANOTHER COURT granted DHS the previous warrant to seize the domain.
(b) the takedown notice needs to be sent and either responded to (ie: material removed, counter notice, etc) or ignored.
Um...I don't know if you didn't read the part of my post that quoted the DMCA, or just don't understand legalese well enough to understand. If the former, please go back and read it. If the latter, why are you even participating in this discussion?
See the point? The DHS has been skipping numerous steps. The sanctions imposed are those that should apply after guilt is determined - which at the least would require a court case to determine that the OSP is KNOWINGLY providing links to illegal content - or at the other end of the spectrum, filing due to lack of a response (or incorrect response) to a takedown notice.
Seizing contraband is not a sanction. Seizing tools used to traffic in contraband is not a sanction. These are parts of the criminal procedure that go on long before guilt is determined. The Fourth Amendment covers them, but the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant (or exigent circumstances) based on probable cause. The Fourth Amendment doesn't require conviction (a determination of guilt) prior to seizure.
Please indicate which part of the DMCA or Constitution allows for DHS to ignore procedure.
Please indicate what evidence you have that DHS has ignored procedure.
There is no "compelling reason" "in the best interests" (etc) that allows such. The only reason there is, is to cater to big businesses.
Hey, man, I'm with you there. But just because it's catering to big business, doesn't mean the law
There was no invasion of Afghanistan. The legal government invited us in to assist in combatting a real terrorist problem in the country.
Are you talking about the government we put in place after we got there? The government in control at the time we invaded was the Taliban, as recognized by, oh, basically the entire world. (including our own government)
Slashdot Mirror
But what is the factual problem with his post?
There isn't. Some AC and I just want people to be aware that he's out there making a bunch of other trollsome posts, some of which are getting modded up by unaware moderators. That's all.
PS I have to admit plagiarism of this. Hopefully AC won't feel the need to sue me, as we're advancing the same cause.
This account is yet another sockpuppet for commodore64_love. We all have gotten sick of c64love due to his increasing tendency to troll in recent months, and as a result he has negative karma and can only post once per day, or something like that. Problem solved, right? NO! He has created a legion of sockpuppet accounts, including C_amiga_fan, commodore_6502, theaveng, and now this one. The others have been modded into oblivion, as they deserve, but this one is, somehow, able to post at Score: 2. This is possibly due to a recent misleading post which several mods hit +1 Insightful on (because it sounded good at first read) without bothering to check the source and discover the original source conveys the opposite sentiment to that which cpu6502/c64love is pretending it conveys. So, without further ado, please go take care of this problem if you care about this community we call Slashdot and don't wish to see it ruined by mindless trolls.
This account is yet another sockpuppet for commodore64_love. We all have gotten sick of c64love due to his increasing tendency to troll in recent months, and as a result he has negative karma and can only post once per day, or something like that. Problem solved, right? NO! He has created a legion of sockpuppet accounts, including C_amiga_fan, commodore_6502, theaveng, and now this one. The others have been modded into oblivion, as they deserve, but this one is, somehow, able to post at Score: 2. This is possibly due to a recent misleading post which several mods hit +1 Insightful on (because it sounded good at first read) without bothering to check the source and discover the original source conveys the opposite sentiment to that which cpu6502/c64love is pretending it conveys. So, without further ado, please go take care of this problem if you care about this community we call Slashdot and don't wish to see it ruined by mindless trolls.
The way you cut it off makes it sound like Jefferson thought IP was contrary to nature. In actuality, he thought IP had no natural justification but could have pragmatic justifications. If you want us to take you seriously, try being honest for once.
Actually isohunt is solely made to search other websites for torrent files. Torrent files are not illegal, and they are not copyrighted.
Actually, the torrent files are illegal if their sole purpose was to facilitate an illegal act (that is, transfer of infringing material). Furthermore, torrent files are copyrighted (automatically) by whoever created the torrent file.
In any event, I don't think "But he's doing it too!" has ever been considered a valid legal defense.
In criminal cases it has been, under very specific circumstances: only if you can show the court that the reason "he" isn't getting arrested is that law enforcement personnel are acting on a discriminatory motive. If you can show that, then you have a selective prosecution defense, but it's very, very hard to get that to fly; the prosecutor gets to present whatever non-discriminatory reasons they can think of (i.e. we only prosecute high-profile offenders in order to deter others, we just changed our policy to prioritize this type of crime, the guy that wasn't prosecuted was less dangerous, et cetera, et cetera) and these are almost always accepted by the court.
Of course, none of that applies to this case, which is a civil suit. Plaintiffs can choose to sue or not to sue whoever the hell they want.
What can you request them to take down? They don't host any content.
The links. Duh.
If outlook could only be used for sending death threats, then I suspect Microsoft would be in trouble.
That would be a truly awesome product.
facilitates copyright infringement
You say that like it's a crime.
Knowingly and intentionally facilitating commercial-scale copyright infringement is a crime.
I know there's laws for facilitating criminal law crimes, I wasn't aware there was a similar law for civil matters.
Commercial copyright infringement is a crime under the US criminal code. It is at the combined discretion of the copyright holders and the US DOJ whether to prosecute or to sue (or neither).
What % of IsoHunt searches are used for finding illegal torrents? What % of Google searches are used for finding illegal torrents? That's what will matter to the court.
Well, that and the fact that IsoHunt marketed itself as a way to find pirated content, whereas Google markets itself as a general-use tool.
Intent matters only in sentencing.
What? Wait...what? *boggles at the absurdity*
Back in high school, the cops did a drug sting on campus.
Thankfully, copyright infringement is not a criminal category yet.
Since when? Willful copyright infringement on a commercial scale has been a crime for a decade and a half, at least.
They busted the drug dealers AND the people that told them how to find the drug dealers.
By that reasoning, we could lock up most politicians. They've been telling me there's child porn on the internet for years.
Only if the politicians told you specifically where to go on the internet. I'm assuming they didn't bust people merely for saying, "There are drug dealers somewhere in Jefferson High School."
If the cops arrested you for apostrophe abuse, you would be convicted.
Pirate Bay and IsoHunt's business models depend directly on people breaking the law, and to that extent they advocate and actively endorse such activity by others. If they did not, they would simply cease to exist, fading rapidly into obscurity.
By that logic, anyone company that makes a car capable of going faster than the speed limit is guilty.
No. Anyone making a car that people would only want to buy in order to drive it faster than the speed limit is guilty. You need to work on your analogies.
I've seen kids who were diagnosed with ADHD or aspergers, and It amazes me how similar some of our behaviours are.
There's a good chance you actually have (an undiagnosed case of) one or the other.
Ten and fifteen years ago, everyone went around saying they had ADD and ADHD. Now they go around saying they have Aspergers. You don't have aspergers, you fucking drama queens.
I nominate "being a man" as the next hip disorder to have.
Yeah, pretty soon 90% of slashdotters will claim to be male and Seumas will be just as incredulous.
You don't have aspergers, you fucking drama queens.
Maybe not, but you probably do.
If everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, was tracked, chipped, monitored, followed, & watched AND the information was 100% transparent and available to EVERYONE, then well... sure, it'd be a great place to live.
Why does ANYONE think that a society where all information about everyone was available to anyone would be a great place to live?
Why does ANYONE think that ANYONE and EVERYONE need to be in ALL caps?
I bet somehow, someone thought the frequent buyer cards "inspire store loyalty."
They probably actually do.
What's wrong with them finding out about it if you're in the "no privacy" society? They should even include a "like" button so that you can leave a thumbs up :)
Of course, if they're married and the husband suddenly decides he cares about his wife's privacy (well, more is jealous of other people looking at his wife) despite signing up to live in no privacy land, that could be a potential issue..
I'm guessing the only people who sign up will be singles and swingers.
Drug seizures are quite a bit different... drugs... hmmm... illegal... seized.
That's why my example wasn't drugs getting seized. It was a car getting seized. Are cars illegal?
As are the tools used. How does one have to prove the illegality of drugs that are... illegal?
One doesn't have to prove anything. One has to show probable cause. In the example I actually gave, the one of a car that was supposedly used to traffic drugs, the police don't need to prove the car was a tool used for crime to get a warrant for seizure. All they need is for a judge to believe they have probable cause, and to issue a warrant to seize that car.
One does not. In this case, the illegality of the linking, and the intent or lack thereof have not been established. There's the difference.
Again, the intent doesn't have to be proved to conduct a seizure. It just has to be probable.
In addition, in the case of drugs, as pushed repeatedly during our "war on drugs", the argument has been made....
Sure, it's been made. Doesn't mean it's a good argument, or that courts will buy it.
that such represents a clear and present danger - exigent circumstances - requiring quick and immediate action *before* due process. NO such argument can be made here.
Funny, just yesterday I read four US supreme court cases rejecting the argument that drugs present exigent circumstances for purposes of search and seizure.
Those are the differences I rather inadequately was trying to point out above. (a) Drugs are illegal to peddle on the streets. Period. End of story. They are deemed dangerous and an exigent circumstance requiring immediate action to protect other PEOPLE. Linking to online content must be proven to be illegal for EACH circumstance BEFORE it (each act) is deemed illegal - and there are plenty of exceptions in the law making it legal under various circumstances - name one where peddling controlled substances on the streets is legal (besides being a cop in a sting operation). Leaving the links up does not harm people in any way covered under the Constitution.
So the Constitution now includes a list of types of harm that the police are supposed to promptly prevent? Snarkiness aside, none of this addresses my legal point at all, which was that crimes don't need to be proven before seizures take place, all that's needed is a warrant supported by probable cause (or in exigent circumstances, probable cause alone). That's the law. It's the same for drugs, guns, child pornography, and counterfeit designer handbags. The ICE agents got warrants in this case prior to conducting seizures. That's called following procedure.
You make a number of assumptions and have a number of misunderstandings.
First, Google has fought this battle.
Google has not fought this battle. Google doesn't knowingly link to infringing content, and when it becomes aware (through takedown notices that are necessary when there's no evidence of actual knowledge on the part of the OSP) it promptly unlinks (I know this from personal experience, having asked Google to unlink my employer's IP in the past).
That aside, as you admit, there is no case law that sides on such actions being illegal in a fashion that applies to this.
I don't admit any such thing. I showed you case law that contains some courts deeming it illegal and some deeming it legal.
Second, any company or individual who provides online services can be (and often is) considered a "service provider" - you are confusing an INTERNET service provider with an ONLINE service provider. Google is an OSP but not (or not really) an ISP.
No I'm not. None of the things I've said rely on "service provider" being defined to mean either "internet service provider" or "online service provider". All the things I've said could apply equally well to either type of service provider.
Third, you are assuming guilt of the parties involved in deciding they knew the links went to content that infringed. I am not saying they didnt (or shouldnt have) know(n). I am saying you are deciding you are the judge and jury. But, that's what the courts are for.
I'm not assuming anyone's guilt. When there's probable cause to believe the offense has been committed, and a warrant has been issued, a seizure can take place. It's just like when several witnesses see you dealing drugs out of a car, and the police go tell that fact to a judge, the judge issues a warrant, and then they seize your car. Guilt is not assumed; probable cause is established, which is a different standard.
Finally, thus, when you put this all together, it is (a) up to a court (not some random judge) to determine which factors make it willful infringement or not,
A COURT granted DHS the warrant to arrest the guy. ANOTHER COURT granted DHS the previous warrant to seize the domain.
(b) the takedown notice needs to be sent and either responded to (ie: material removed, counter notice, etc) or ignored.
Um...I don't know if you didn't read the part of my post that quoted the DMCA, or just don't understand legalese well enough to understand. If the former, please go back and read it. If the latter, why are you even participating in this discussion?
See the point? The DHS has been skipping numerous steps. The sanctions imposed are those that should apply after guilt is determined - which at the least would require a court case to determine that the OSP is KNOWINGLY providing links to illegal content - or at the other end of the spectrum, filing due to lack of a response (or incorrect response) to a takedown notice.
Seizing contraband is not a sanction. Seizing tools used to traffic in contraband is not a sanction. These are parts of the criminal procedure that go on long before guilt is determined. The Fourth Amendment covers them, but the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant (or exigent circumstances) based on probable cause. The Fourth Amendment doesn't require conviction (a determination of guilt) prior to seizure.
Please indicate which part of the DMCA or Constitution allows for DHS to ignore procedure.
Please indicate what evidence you have that DHS has ignored procedure.
There is no "compelling reason" "in the best interests" (etc) that allows such. The only reason there is, is to cater to big businesses.
Hey, man, I'm with you there. But just because it's catering to big business, doesn't mean the law
There was no invasion of Afghanistan. The legal government invited us in to assist in combatting a real terrorist problem in the country.
Are you talking about the government we put in place after we got there? The government in control at the time we invaded was the Taliban, as recognized by, oh, basically the entire world. (including our own government)