Last I heard (as I believe these scenarios have been tried in court already) it was determined that merely linking is not a crime.
"Last I heard" is no substitute for looking up case law. The case law on this issue is unsettled. However, generally if the intention of the link was that those following the link would participate in copyright infringement, then that act of linking is illegal.
There's actually steps in the DMCA that must be followed - like takedown notices. After that, then perhaps it can be argued that linking is a crime.
Those "steps that must be followed" only apply to service providers who are not actively aware of infringing material. If you purposely link to material you know is breaking copyright, you have no right to receive a takedown notice first.
—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection ( j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider—(1)(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing;...(3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity...
DMCA section 512(d). You have to both lack actual knowledge of infringement and respond expeditiously to a takedown notice to fall under this exception. If you fail (1)(A) (did you lack actual knowledge?), you fail the whole test and your link can be deemed infringing without even getting to (3) (did you respond to a takedown notice?).
Because in one case, they have a massive, well-funded legal department with which to contend. Can you imagine the uproar if the DoJ tried to seize Google.com?
Yeah, people would accuse the US of being worse than China. The media circus would be hilarious.
Why is copyright infringement an issue of homeland security?
The Coast Guard, the Secret Service and all other federal criminal investigation and police forces are now part of the Department of Homeland Security.
Not all. US Marshals, the FBI, and the ATF are all still parts of the Department of Justice.
Why is copyright infringement an issue of homeland security?
It's not, but ever since the part of the government in charge of enforcing customs (ICE) was placed in DHS, it's been that same part of DHS that seizes counterfeit goods and tools used for trafficking in counterfeit goods. They consider copyright infringement an act of counterfeiting. It's just a technicality of the bureaucracy.
It's legal for ICE to seize things that are part of a customs investigation. International trafficking in copyright-infringing materials is a customs issue. Linking to another site that has copyrighted content is probably a crime under the DMCA, and it's just the sort of "crime" that ICE has jurisdiction over.
Don't get me wrong, it's bullshit. I'm just saying I don't think it's an illegal seizure.
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.
Yah, but the government was able to convince half the population (US population) that we were fighting terrorism in Iraq (and probably more than three fourths were convinced that's what we were doing when we invaded Afghanistan). That was key. Given the way the media treated Saddam as identical to bin Laden, it wasn't hard for the government to do. I don't think the US government could convince anybody but tea partiers that Hungary poses a terrorist threat, and furthermore there are other countries with nuclear weapons who would strongly oppose us invading there, whereas there weren't any in the case of Iraq or Afghanistan.
Seriously... there are several scenes in that movie that are unbelievably bad. Pick your favorite!
What, you mean that ITS box you used in the '60s doesn't still have your account on it and a tape drive with your worm code still attached and functional? Come on, man!
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, good point.
What's strange is that Google News supposedly requires original content as opposed to just linking to others.
Yeah, Google News supposedly requires news too, yet it frequently links to Fox.
Many local news outlets will pick up and spread this piece of disinformation.
You think local news outlets read Slashdot? Really??
Journalism? We don't do that here, go look somewhere else.
Really? Has the DMCA been amended?
No.
Last I heard (as I believe these scenarios have been tried in court already) it was determined that merely linking is not a crime.
"Last I heard" is no substitute for looking up case law. The case law on this issue is unsettled. However, generally if the intention of the link was that those following the link would participate in copyright infringement, then that act of linking is illegal.
There's actually steps in the DMCA that must be followed - like takedown notices. After that, then perhaps it can be argued that linking is a crime.
Those "steps that must be followed" only apply to service providers who are not actively aware of infringing material. If you purposely link to material you know is breaking copyright, you have no right to receive a takedown notice first.
DMCA section 512(d). You have to both lack actual knowledge of infringement and respond expeditiously to a takedown notice to fall under this exception. If you fail (1)(A) (did you lack actual knowledge?), you fail the whole test and your link can be deemed infringing without even getting to (3) (did you respond to a takedown notice?).
Because in one case, they have a massive, well-funded legal department with which to contend. Can you imagine the uproar if the DoJ tried to seize Google.com?
Yeah, people would accuse the US of being worse than China. The media circus would be hilarious.
Why is copyright infringement an issue of homeland security?
The Coast Guard, the Secret Service and all other federal criminal investigation and police forces are now part of the Department of Homeland Security.
Not all. US Marshals, the FBI, and the ATF are all still parts of the Department of Justice.
Why is copyright infringement an issue of homeland security?
It's not, but ever since the part of the government in charge of enforcing customs (ICE) was placed in DHS, it's been that same part of DHS that seizes counterfeit goods and tools used for trafficking in counterfeit goods. They consider copyright infringement an act of counterfeiting. It's just a technicality of the bureaucracy.
It's legal for ICE to seize things that are part of a customs investigation. International trafficking in copyright-infringing materials is a customs issue. Linking to another site that has copyrighted content is probably a crime under the DMCA, and it's just the sort of "crime" that ICE has jurisdiction over.
Don't get me wrong, it's bullshit. I'm just saying I don't think it's an illegal seizure.
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.
Yah, but the government was able to convince half the population (US population) that we were fighting terrorism in Iraq (and probably more than three fourths were convinced that's what we were doing when we invaded Afghanistan). That was key. Given the way the media treated Saddam as identical to bin Laden, it wasn't hard for the government to do. I don't think the US government could convince anybody but tea partiers that Hungary poses a terrorist threat, and furthermore there are other countries with nuclear weapons who would strongly oppose us invading there, whereas there weren't any in the case of Iraq or Afghanistan.
See, you just don't understand the brilliance of any character played by Jeff Goldblum. He makes all of those things you mentioned trivial.
Where do we begin? Awesome despite the awful, but deserving of mention.
Seriously... there are several scenes in that movie that are unbelievably bad. Pick your favorite!
What, you mean that ITS box you used in the '60s doesn't still have your account on it and a tape drive with your worm code still attached and functional? Come on, man!
Telegraphs are not computers! -1 Offtopic!
To be fair, that's not bad for Scrubs.
...trying to formulate more mundane things like how computers will like in a few years or centuries is considerably more difficult.
Computers can't will. They are not sentient.
I was rather disappointed to find out that real UNIX systems aren't awesomely 3D.. though I still like them ofcourse.
Well, they can be. Just not by default.
Blinkenlights!
This.
Spew forth as many technical-sounding terms as possible to confuse the average person and make them think you know what you're talking about!
I think you've just recited HBGary Federal's business model.
s/because Clay or SGI wouldn't lend them their name/because Clay or SGI wouldn't pony up the cash for product placement/
FTFY
But William Gibson would? Somehow I doubt that.
Why do computers on TV have to display all the photos/fingerprints in its database when doing any kind of search?
Because otherwise the computer illiterate among the viewers won't understand that the computer is doing anything at all.
Also in NCIS, any time a file is deleted, it must be displayed on the screen in a sort of dissolving animation.
Naturally. Otherwise, how will the viewers know it's deleted?
Every time they showed a screen in Hackers I cringed. Also, that "RISC is good" comment from the lead actor made my skin crawl.
Even more than the "artificial intelligence RISC chip" comment in Mission Impossible?
You forgot a very important step:
???????
Yeah, that's the part that makes the whole plan work.
I'm sorry, but I'd shoot myself for having that name...
Not if you were British.