It cant be illegal to take a list of addresses from a phone book and then print them. You dont seem to be able to separate the knocking off (murder, illegal) from the printing of the list (printing, legal).
Printing a list is not even making a threat (which is illegal).
Interesting. It looks like all of these conditions can be met.
For example,
"does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity..."
Google makes money from Adwords displayed when you search for torrents, ISOs zips dmgs and evey other archive type. So if its good for Google, its good for Suprnova2.
"upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;"
This is doable, because google does it.
And like I said, uploading is not an issue, since this is a pure search engine, and nothing more, not in any way a "torrent site".
Google is a search engine -- it's eligible for the safe harbor under 17 USC 512(d)
So, if Suprnova were hosted in the usa, in order to take advantage of the above, they would need to:
1/ Stop allowing the upload of torrents.
2/ Create a system that spiders named folders on each users hard drive where torrents are stored.
3/ Call themeselvs a "search engine".
Then the criteria is met is it not? Suprnova would be simply spidering compters that are on the iinternet, just like Google does, and providing a search interface, and nothing more.
Same functionality, same list of torrents to download, no liability whatsoever.
As for who runs the trackers, this would not be Suprnova's affair, just as it was not while it was running in Slovenia.
The rule of thumb on the internet is "check the facts with Google".
Too many people think that american law and the insane proclamations of the RIAA and the MPAA are aplicable world wide - they are not.
If its legal to list files in Slovenia, then there is no reason why Supernova should shut down just because its illegal to list files in the usa. Slovenia is a soverign country. Its laws, like its territory, are inviolable and the business of Slovenians.
Finally, you never answered the part of my post about Google listing links to copyrighted software. Should Google be held accountable for that or not?
What that lawyer above failed to adress is the issue of Google. Google links to deCSS, and millions of copyrighted files, but no one clamours for it to be shut down.
How can posting a list of files possibly be illegal?
That is all that Suprnova ever did. Now, if its illegal to post a list of files, it must also be illegal to print one in a newspaper, or write one on a piece of paper with a pencil anad photocopy it.
If you go a google search for "index of" apache *.dmg* "port 80" you get lots and lots of links to copyrighted software. By your flawed logic, Google "is just plain illegal" because it provides lists of files just as Supernova did.
Printing a list can never be an illegal act. At least not in a free country it cant.
...Beginning in 2005, the Department of Homeland Security will issue new uniformity regulations to the States requiring that all Drivers Licenses and Birth Certificates meet minimal Federal Standards with regard to US citizen information, including biometric security provisions...
Its clear that the house should never pass a bill with more than 10 pages; these provisions were buried in a 3000 page bill, which no legislator read before voting.
Each congressman should be forced to read every page of the bills that they sign into law, and they should be made to sign each page indicating that they hare read the page.
Then again, no one in america cares about any of this, and for certain, at least 59,054,087 people will think that its a good idea.
Recently two women were arrested inside a police station in London. They were Police computer operators who were the girlfriends of criminals.
The criminals used these girlfriends to check out the identities of whoever they liked. Clearly, they could check if someone was, for example, a real criminal or not.
If $criminal then { do the deal } else { dont do the deal was how they could use it.
These people were hired to use terminals and the background checks did not (and probably could never) determine wether they had associates that were "criminals". This is one of the many many reasons why no government should collect and store data on ordinary citizens indexed with a unique number.
Then there is the leakage. If everyone is compelled to be on this system, then this card will be demanded everywhere, or you will not get service. That means that all the girlfriends everywhere there is a terminal connected to one of the data aggregation services will be able to build a profile of you for any purpose, without your permission. The unique number makes it all very easy.
That is a bad thing.
The stupid moron robot posters will say "but they can already do most of this without a state issued number". And so? that is not a reason to roll out, pay for and administer such a system. "They are already half way up your ass, so why not push it all the way in" is not a reason for anything to be implimented, save pulling it out.
Yes, they have. In France, you are asked for your ID in the most absurd of situations, like buying a SIM card.
Every form you fill out has to have your state number on it, or you dont get the service.
Please dont trott out the garbage "we do this in the states with our SSN and no one cares". What we are seeing in the USA is precisely what we want to avoid; a company, using all of this personal data related to one number, selling an outsourced surveillance service to the US government from outside its jurisdiction because such a thing is ILLEGAL in the continental USA.
For example.
We have more than "found out by now" you need to be aware of it. That means paying attention.
I hate to break your philosophical bubble, but having a piece of plastic issued to you does not mystically "indellably brand you with a single identity".
You are as thick as shit.
When the state assigns a unique number to you, referenced to your iris pattern AND photograph AND fingerprints, and then MANDATES that you show it whenever they want, that is, for all intents and purposes, BRANDING just like burning the flesh of a cow with an iron is. It is an INDELIBLE mark on you, by which your ownership/status/entitlement is verified. You, like the cow, do not have a choice as to wether or not you want to be branded; your owner says "i want to know where all my stock are, and so i brand them all with my initials". It is directly analagous.
I dont have to give you an example of a "horrible monstrosity" (like the rounding up of jews during WW2 who were identified as being members of a religion by their ID papers). It is enough that there are people who do not want to be a part of that system, but are being compelled to be by stupid people like you. That is enough of a horroble monstrosity, your totally immersive stupidity and ignorance, horrible in its face, and monstrous in its scope.
Thank God there is at least one person on Slashodot who understands clearly what this is all about; Tyranny.
It makes me sick to my stomach to read the robotic stock replies, "I havent got anything to hide", "They already use SSN, so why not", and all of these other assemply line arguments from these pathetic drones who couldnt think themeselvs out of a paper bag. They are unprincipled, stupid and are very much the cause of the problem, because if they refused to comply with a national ID card scheme, ANY scheme, it would die instantly. The ones I despise the most are the inured from birth saying, "It doesnt hurt me, Im used to it".
Let me spell it out for you; The State is not the definer of your identity. You do not even have one sole identity that is an artificial idea created by the state; people have reinvented themselvs since man walked on two legs; what you call yourself in your interaction with anyone else is your afffair, and it is not the right of the state to indellably brand you with a single identity, which of course, is entirely for their own purposes.
Anyone that acceps the state being the arbiter of their identity is a servant, a piece of property, and should be flushed down the toliet with the rest of the shit.
Re:What Disconnect?
on
The Music Man
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There is, actually, an exemption for sharing certain sound recordings and music via certain media such as analog cassette tapes. But that's not applicable to mp3s via websites and filesharing networks.
Says you. New York Fair use (now The New York Association of Copyright Stakeholders) say different:
I will quote again, for your benefit:
Recent Copyright Issues
Recent trends in the law in response to the internet and the advent of digital medium have assaulted Copyright. Among the recent laws passed which threaten Copyright is the Digital Millennium Act which Congress passed in 1998 in response to pressure from the broadcast and mass media industry in the US. Another law recently passed which attempts to destroy Copyright is the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act.
Since Copyright can not be legal without Fair Use, both of these laws, among others making rounds on the Federal and State level, are undermining the legal and moral foundation of Copyright. New Yorkers for Fair Use is an organization which is determined to protect the validity of Copyright law by protecting Fair Use and dispelling misinformation on Copyright.
We would like you to know, first and foremost what is a legal use of Copyrighted material and what is not.
First of all: Can I own an idea, song, work of art, writing or other creative work of abstract human intellect?
No - One can not own an idea, even if you created it. You can only own a limited license called a Copyright or patent to exploit your idea for comercial purposes, or not to exploit it if you choose to. Intellectual Property is a misuse of language often used to confuse people about their rights and responsibilities. It is similar to "The Democratic Republic of China" By supporting responsible Copyright legislation, you can best protect your rights under Copyright.
1. Copying a Copyrighted work.
2. Making an archive of Copyrighted works.
3. Editing a Copyrighted work.
4. Distributing a quote from a Copyrighted work within an original work for the purposes of discussing that work.
5. Giving a copy of a Copyrighted work to a friend without a charge or other monetary consideration.
6. Using the Copyrighted work without permission of the Copyright holder in a way the Copyright holder did not initially approve of in its sale of the work to you.
7. Destroying your copy of the Copyrighted work.
8. Travelling with the Copyrighted work into a different jurisdiction.
9. Selling your copy of the Copyrighted work.
1. Making a copy of a Copyrighted work and selling it.
2. Charging for the viewing a Copyrighted work without permission of the Copyright holder.
3. Amassing a database of Copyrighted works and charging for access to that database.
4. Mixing together Copyrighted works and selling your services for reading or playing that mix.
FBI Warning on Video Tapes. The FBI Warning about copying a video tape is a lie. Owners of Copyrighted material are allowed to copy the VHS Tape for their personal use. Copying is not a crime.
Ripping CD's to MP3 files. This is LEGAL. Copying legally purchased Copyrighted material is a protected act under the Constitution.
Making copies of a Copyrighted article for a class discussion and distributing them to the class. Legal and explicit under Section 107 quoted above.
Sharing an MP3 music file, or a cassette tape of music without charge. This is LEGAL unless your doing this as part of a business plan or promotion. You can have a website full of MP3's as long as it is not a business site, you are not selling ad space etc. If you can afford it, have fun.
Copying software in a business. Illegal - Don't do it.
Copying software you own for personal use. Legal if no money is passing hands.
Sell copies of software you own and no longer use. Legal as a second sale.
Quoting bad caselaw doesnt make your case by the way.
here is the part of the link in my post that you did not read:
Sharing an MP3 music file, or a cassette tape of music without charge: This is LEGAL unless your doing this as part of a business plan or promotion. You can have a website full of MP3's as long as it is not a business site, you are not selling ad space etc. If you can afford it, have fun.
Sharing MP3s is legal, both via websites and file sharing networks. Period.
Dowloading files that play what sounds like music is not illegal and niether is burning those files to a CDR.
Selling those burned CDRs IS illegal of course.
There is no disconnect in evidence there. And of course he is not in any way a "pirate" since "piracy" relates only to the selling of other peoples works, not the copying of files.
Slashdot Mirror
It cant be illegal to take a list of addresses from a phone book and then print them. You dont seem to be able to separate the knocking off (murder, illegal) from the printing of the list (printing, legal).
Printing a list is not even making a threat (which is illegal).
Put your thinking cap on BEFORE you post.
And review are here.
"Conspiracy to commit..."
Printing and disseminating a list does not count as conspiracy.
If that were the case, it would be possible to ban books that teach you all sorts of dangerous things.
I'd be impressed
Interesting. It looks like all of these conditions can be met.
For example,
"does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity..."
Google makes money from Adwords displayed when you search for torrents, ISOs zips dmgs and evey other archive type. So if its good for Google, its good for Suprnova2.
"upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;"
This is doable, because google does it.
And like I said, uploading is not an issue, since this is a pure search engine, and nothing more, not in any way a "torrent site".
but still 'not legal'
talking about an activity and doing it are two separate things.
Clickable links to actually get the file is far different from a text file
You dont know Perl do you?
Google is a search engine -- it's eligible for the safe harbor under 17 USC 512(d)
So, if Suprnova were hosted in the usa, in order to take advantage of the above, they would need to:
1/ Stop allowing the upload of torrents.
2/ Create a system that spiders named folders on each users hard drive where torrents are stored.
3/ Call themeselvs a "search engine".
Then the criteria is met is it not? Suprnova would be simply spidering compters that are on the iinternet, just like Google does, and providing a search interface, and nothing more.
Same functionality, same list of torrents to download, no liability whatsoever.
As for who runs the trackers, this would not be Suprnova's affair, just as it was not while it was running in Slovenia.
The rule of thumb on the internet is "check the facts with Google".
Too many people think that american law and the insane proclamations of the RIAA and the MPAA are aplicable world wide - they are not.
If its legal to list files in Slovenia, then there is no reason why Supernova should shut down just because its illegal to list files in the usa. Slovenia is a soverign country. Its laws, like its territory, are inviolable and the business of Slovenians.
Finally, you never answered the part of my post about Google listing links to copyrighted software. Should Google be held accountable for that or not?
2600
Indeed, and that decision was insane.
What that lawyer above failed to adress is the issue of Google. Google links to deCSS, and millions of copyrighted files, but no one clamours for it to be shut down.
Its called "Double Standards".
contributory and vicarious infringement
Suprnova was based in Slovenia.
Is there such a thing as "contributory and vicarious infringement" in Slovenia?
Do you practice law in Slovenia?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
How can posting a list of files possibly be illegal?
That is all that Suprnova ever did. Now, if its illegal to post a list of files, it must also be illegal to print one in a newspaper, or write one on a piece of paper with a pencil anad photocopy it.
If you go a google search for "index of" apache *.dmg* "port 80" you get lots and lots of links to copyrighted software. By your flawed logic, Google "is just plain illegal" because it provides lists of files just as Supernova did.
Printing a list can never be an illegal act. At least not in a free country it cant.
...Beginning in 2005, the Department of Homeland Security will issue new uniformity regulations to the States requiring that all Drivers Licenses and Birth Certificates meet minimal Federal Standards with regard to US citizen information, including biometric security provisions...
Because the federal government now controls the universal standard for Drivers Licences.
Its clear that the house should never pass a bill with more than 10 pages; these provisions were buried in a 3000 page bill, which no legislator read before voting.
Each congressman should be forced to read every page of the bills that they sign into law, and they should be made to sign each page indicating that they hare read the page.
Then again, no one in america cares about any of this, and for certain, at least 59,054,087 people will think that its a good idea.
How much business could Apple be loosing through misdirections to this site? Lets find out.
Small traffic...
Hmmmmmmm
This is /. ;what you really mean to say is that its rediculous.
"they are halfway up our asses in finland, so why not have it halfway up your ass in your country too?"
Honestly, dont post when you toke the crack.
Let me guess, your network was Sky in the UK? because thats a 100% accurate description of their "service".
What is wrong with it?
You Cant play the other shooters.
Shame on you!
9:46AM post, hence the horns, froth from overnight buildup of bile, puked up onto an ID card loving, state embracing DOOSHBAG.
There. Some more caps, and a deliberate spelling error for good measure.
Recently two women were arrested inside a police station in London. They were Police computer operators who were the girlfriends of criminals.
The criminals used these girlfriends to check out the identities of whoever they liked. Clearly, they could check if someone was, for example, a real criminal or not.
These people were hired to use terminals and the background checks did not (and probably could never) determine wether they had associates that were "criminals". This is one of the many many reasons why no government should collect and store data on ordinary citizens indexed with a unique number.
Then there is the leakage. If everyone is compelled to be on this system, then this card will be demanded everywhere, or you will not get service. That means that all the girlfriends everywhere there is a terminal connected to one of the data aggregation services will be able to build a profile of you for any purpose, without your permission. The unique number makes it all very easy.
That is a bad thing.
The stupid moron robot posters will say "but they can already do most of this without a state issued number". And so? that is not a reason to roll out, pay for and administer such a system. "They are already half way up your ass, so why not push it all the way in" is not a reason for anything to be implimented, save pulling it out.
Yes, they have. In France, you are asked for your ID in the most absurd of situations, like buying a SIM card.
Every form you fill out has to have your state number on it, or you dont get the service.
Please dont trott out the garbage "we do this in the states with our SSN and no one cares". What we are seeing in the USA is precisely what we want to avoid; a company, using all of this personal data related to one number, selling an outsourced surveillance service to the US government from outside its jurisdiction because such a thing is ILLEGAL in the continental USA.
For example.
We have more than "found out by now" you need to be aware of it. That means paying attention.
I hate to break your philosophical bubble, but having a piece of plastic issued to you does not mystically "indellably brand you with a single identity".
You are as thick as shit.
When the state assigns a unique number to you, referenced to your iris pattern AND photograph AND fingerprints, and then MANDATES that you show it whenever they want, that is, for all intents and purposes, BRANDING just like burning the flesh of a cow with an iron is. It is an INDELIBLE mark on you, by which your ownership/status/entitlement is verified. You, like the cow, do not have a choice as to wether or not you want to be branded; your owner says "i want to know where all my stock are, and so i brand them all with my initials". It is directly analagous.
I dont have to give you an example of a "horrible monstrosity" (like the rounding up of jews during WW2 who were identified as being members of a religion by their ID papers). It is enough that there are people who do not want to be a part of that system, but are being compelled to be by stupid people like you. That is enough of a horroble monstrosity, your totally immersive stupidity and ignorance, horrible in its face, and monstrous in its scope.
Thank God there is at least one person on Slashodot who understands clearly what this is all about; Tyranny.
It makes me sick to my stomach to read the robotic stock replies, "I havent got anything to hide", "They already use SSN, so why not", and all of these other assemply line arguments from these pathetic drones who couldnt think themeselvs out of a paper bag. They are unprincipled, stupid and are very much the cause of the problem, because if they refused to comply with a national ID card scheme, ANY scheme, it would die instantly. The ones I despise the most are the inured from birth saying, "It doesnt hurt me, Im used to it".
Let me spell it out for you; The State is not the definer of your identity. You do not even have one sole identity that is an artificial idea created by the state; people have reinvented themselvs since man walked on two legs; what you call yourself in your interaction with anyone else is your afffair, and it is not the right of the state to indellably brand you with a single identity, which of course, is entirely for their own purposes.
Anyone that acceps the state being the arbiter of their identity is a servant, a piece of property, and should be flushed down the toliet with the rest of the shit.
Says you. New York Fair use (now The New York Association of Copyright Stakeholders) say different:
I will quote again, for your benefit:
Quoting bad caselaw doesnt make your case by the way.
here is the part of the link in my post that you did not read:
Sharing MP3s is legal, both via websites and file sharing networks. Period.
Dowloading files that play what sounds like music is not illegal and niether is burning those files to a CDR.
Selling those burned CDRs IS illegal of course.
There is no disconnect in evidence there. And of course he is not in any way a "pirate" since "piracy" relates only to the selling of other peoples works, not the copying of files.
but I don't recall which one
It was in:
"The Beauty of Fractals", H. O. Peitgen P. H. Richter, Springer -Verlag Berlin, page 152
the diagram says 1980.