You can't really "steal" a copyright unless you actually re-registered it in your own name somehow, perhaps by creating a fake memorandum of transfer. I don't see anyone depriving them of the copyright itself, just infringing upon some of the exclusive rights granted to them by copyright. At least, assuming the submitter wasn't authorized by the copyright holder. I sincerely doubt that they do have any such authorization, but Engaget and anyone they chose to inform are the only ones who have actual knowledge of that fact one way or another.
Here's the essence of the rationale I wanted to refer to -
Actual child pornography is an artifact of the illegal abuse of children. That distinguishes it from other pornography, the production of which is legal. Child pornography is more like the fabled snuff film in which someone is murdered on camera. It's an artifact of not mere harm, but criminal harm. To me, possessing it is the equivalent of buying and possessing a child's severed head on a plaque for your wall.
> The cops are in on the conspiracy, they have their share of the guilt for the results.
As far as moral guilt goes, I feel you. I don't like the idea of the cops operating CP sites, I'd rather these all died. I can see the case for harm minimization though--the pedos would just move to other sites if they killed it. They're not involved in the creation of new CP, which is, at least in my mind, even more wrong than possession. So it doesn't sit well with me at all, but on the other hand, there is a reasonable case here that they've minimized the harm to the public by catching people creating new CP even as they permit a different evil to exist for a while longer.
That said, as far as legal guilt goes? No. Within limits, the cops can commit crime during a sting. The cops didn't do anything to the site as far as I know, they just let it continue to exist while they rounded up users.
How exactly do you think this constitutes entrapment? What, precisely, did the FBI allegedly do here that forced people not already predisposed to visit CP sites to visit their sites? It seems to me that you're simply promulgating an old myth about entrapment, in that merely giving someone the means to commit a crime they were already predisposed to commit is 'entrapment', when this is not so. If that's what you think, please read this guide written by an actual lawyer.
There's a reasonable discussion of harm minimization here as to whether the interest in catching predators using the sites outweighed allowing them to continue to exist, but the idea that giving would-be criminals an opportunity to commit crime somehow constitutes "entrapment" is one of the most common myths.
Now, it is true that the standard reasoning given for why possession (as opposed to production) of child pornography is illegal is very much at odds with the idea of keeping the site live, in that they're ostensibly re-victimizing those portrayed in the CP sites they permit to live. However, that is by no means the only rationale as to why mere possession should be illegal. But if you want to argue that, you'd do well to discuss it in more detail rather than simply dashing off some ill-premised missive regarding an FBI operation that happened months ago.
Lots of government announcements impact the share price of companies. If this leads companies to do things like bilk the citizens of the US out of less money to avoid getting called out, I don't think many people are going to have a problem with it, aside from those who are looking for problems to have.
Inasmuch as this is a problem, it's because the value of companies is so speculative, i.e. what can I get another sucker to pay for this thing, rather than objective, e.g. what dividends does this pay?
You seem to believe that this election will unleash new bigotry. You might even be right, with respect to people like the 4 who kidnapped the disabled man in Chicago.
But that aside, your side lost not because people suddenly love bigotry, but because the Left lacks any awareness of how bigoted it has become.
They can argue against the evidence in court. The evidence they found has led to multiple referrals for prosecution.
I doubt you'll be satisfied no matter what evidence is presented, but frankly, your opinion doesn't matter. The only opinions that do matter are those of the various legal and regulatory bodies this has been referred to. It's quite unusual to refuse a referral from Congress, so I expect the courts will be sorting this out before long.
> How is the name date or place relevant? It's the dialog that's fake.
I will enjoy seeing if they argue this in court. You can disbelieve the evidence all you want, but as one might know from the "Criminal and Regulatory Referrals" section, this will get split into pieces and a number of criminal and regulatory bodies will now comb over the evidence of the allegations which fall under their jurisdiction.
The report I read had patients tricked into giving consent, it had them making large profits from selling particular parts and modifying the procedure to procure those parts (who cares about the patient?) and it says they have videos. Some of the information indicates that these modified procedures result in birth, which means it's legally a baby, no matter how much you'd rather dehumanize them.
By my count, that's both "caught" and "selling baby parts."
> do the needful and take an esl class currycakes
Thank you. Knowing that bigots like you hate me makes it more worthwhile.
It gives names, dates and places that can be corroborated. It references video evidence, some of which is easily available online. It mentions a large number of government audits. It talks specifically about profiting from the sale of human tissue, as well as violations of important patient protections like informed consent.
Someone who made it to the end would probably describe it as a 413 page report, though.
That's made in cooperation with the LEOs, at least after the first two episodes. Journalists don't have special rights. Pretending to be a 12-year-old online isn't illegal, anyhow, though seducing one is.
The real question is what acts are on camera or captured in email.
"Playing along" with a sting operation is dumb, though, if you take acts in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy. You're not a LEO. You don't have immunity. You should simply refuse to take part and instead film the people allegedly goading you into it. You can find a guide to the law on the subject here.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that's simply copyright infringement.
You can't really "steal" a copyright unless you actually re-registered it in your own name somehow, perhaps by creating a fake memorandum of transfer. I don't see anyone depriving them of the copyright itself, just infringing upon some of the exclusive rights granted to them by copyright. At least, assuming the submitter wasn't authorized by the copyright holder. I sincerely doubt that they do have any such authorization, but Engaget and anyone they chose to inform are the only ones who have actual knowledge of that fact one way or another.
As a correction to the above, I should have linked more specifically to this comment by Ken:
https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/17/randazza-legalize-child-porn/#comment-1352363
Here's the essence of the rationale I wanted to refer to -
> The cops are in on the conspiracy, they have their share of the guilt for the results.
As far as moral guilt goes, I feel you. I don't like the idea of the cops operating CP sites, I'd rather these all died. I can see the case for harm minimization though--the pedos would just move to other sites if they killed it. They're not involved in the creation of new CP, which is, at least in my mind, even more wrong than possession. So it doesn't sit well with me at all, but on the other hand, there is a reasonable case here that they've minimized the harm to the public by catching people creating new CP even as they permit a different evil to exist for a while longer.
That said, as far as legal guilt goes? No. Within limits, the cops can commit crime during a sting. The cops didn't do anything to the site as far as I know, they just let it continue to exist while they rounded up users.
Memory problems, actually. I was thinking about Ken's reply in the comments (which Randazza used to agree with) and I conflated the two.
The part I was thinking of isn't the article, but this comment:
https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/17/randazza-legalize-child-porn/#comment-1352363
Even a hardcore libertarian can find reasons why possession of CP should be illegal.
How exactly do you think this constitutes entrapment? What, precisely, did the FBI allegedly do here that forced people not already predisposed to visit CP sites to visit their sites? It seems to me that you're simply promulgating an old myth about entrapment, in that merely giving someone the means to commit a crime they were already predisposed to commit is 'entrapment', when this is not so. If that's what you think, please read this guide written by an actual lawyer.
There's a reasonable discussion of harm minimization here as to whether the interest in catching predators using the sites outweighed allowing them to continue to exist, but the idea that giving would-be criminals an opportunity to commit crime somehow constitutes "entrapment" is one of the most common myths.
Now, it is true that the standard reasoning given for why possession (as opposed to production) of child pornography is illegal is very much at odds with the idea of keeping the site live, in that they're ostensibly re-victimizing those portrayed in the CP sites they permit to live. However, that is by no means the only rationale as to why mere possession should be illegal. But if you want to argue that, you'd do well to discuss it in more detail rather than simply dashing off some ill-premised missive regarding an FBI operation that happened months ago.
They sound like good laws. I just hope they pass.
Try the Pocky with almonds, if you haven't. It's good.
Lots of government announcements impact the share price of companies. If this leads companies to do things like bilk the citizens of the US out of less money to avoid getting called out, I don't think many people are going to have a problem with it, aside from those who are looking for problems to have.
Inasmuch as this is a problem, it's because the value of companies is so speculative, i.e. what can I get another sucker to pay for this thing, rather than objective, e.g. what dividends does this pay?
It makes it hard to believe no one is after Assange, given the secrets he's leaked.
You seem to believe that this election will unleash new bigotry. You might even be right, with respect to people like the 4 who kidnapped the disabled man in Chicago.
But that aside, your side lost not because people suddenly love bigotry, but because the Left lacks any awareness of how bigoted it has become.
> whatever you think of Snowden, he worked with actual journalists
So did Wikileaks previously. I guess everyone just forgot that part where they were originally working with the NYT & co.?
> So far there's no evidence that anyone was persecuting Assange.
You forget about this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
They can argue against the evidence in court. The evidence they found has led to multiple referrals for prosecution.
I doubt you'll be satisfied no matter what evidence is presented, but frankly, your opinion doesn't matter. The only opinions that do matter are those of the various legal and regulatory bodies this has been referred to. It's quite unusual to refuse a referral from Congress, so I expect the courts will be sorting this out before long.
> No, it means you'll get paid more, but spend the difference on anime pillows and Pocky.
I hope that was intended as a joke, but that stereotype was pretty crass.
> How is the name date or place relevant? It's the dialog that's fake.
I will enjoy seeing if they argue this in court. You can disbelieve the evidence all you want, but as one might know from the "Criminal and Regulatory Referrals" section, this will get split into pieces and a number of criminal and regulatory bodies will now comb over the evidence of the allegations which fall under their jurisdiction.
> lot's of people in jail for a long time i guess with all that proof.
Does the timing of the release of the report not tell you anything? :)
FWIW, I don't really care about your words. I've already been called every racist epithet there is by people like you.
I wonder if we'll find any docs as good as the ones that have shown up in the FBI vault recently?
You remind me of this guy right now.
The report I read had patients tricked into giving consent, it had them making large profits from selling particular parts and modifying the procedure to procure those parts (who cares about the patient?) and it says they have videos. Some of the information indicates that these modified procedures result in birth, which means it's legally a baby, no matter how much you'd rather dehumanize them.
By my count, that's both "caught" and "selling baby parts."
> do the needful and take an esl class currycakes
Thank you. Knowing that bigots like you hate me makes it more worthwhile.
Is that why they were freaking out over this?
Because they were going to sting him?
I'm trying to figure out how, exactly, that makes sense.
It gives names, dates and places that can be corroborated. It references video evidence, some of which is easily available online. It mentions a large number of government audits. It talks specifically about profiting from the sale of human tissue, as well as violations of important patient protections like informed consent.
Someone who made it to the end would probably describe it as a 413 page report, though.
That's made in cooperation with the LEOs, at least after the first two episodes. Journalists don't have special rights. Pretending to be a 12-year-old online isn't illegal, anyhow, though seducing one is.
The real question is what acts are on camera or captured in email.
> Is that like the Planned Parenthood people who were "caught" selling baby parts, except they weren't?
The Selectc Investigative Panel Final Report seems to contradict you on that one.
"Playing along" with a sting operation is dumb, though, if you take acts in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy. You're not a LEO. You don't have immunity. You should simply refuse to take part and instead film the people allegedly goading you into it. You can find a guide to the law on the subject here.