Because we all know the internet is only about piracy.
Kidding aside, this is NOT to bring back the useless argument about piracy as i know i don't want to go down that path again myself, but to bring up the government's view of our freedom.. If this case holds it would mean the end to sharing of information as ALL content is copyrighted, even if its public domain. Using this they could then shut down nearly any opposing view, such as news sites, any search engine, 'bad' forums, or at the least can block access to them if they are outside the US, with the 'access' rules also being enacted ). Technically even online libraries would be illegal using their concept.
They will also arrest anyone that discusses what is shut down since they are a threat to the security of the US ...
And they said that it could never happen again. ( thinking total takeover here.. ) When does the book burning start?
quote
You may want to think twice the next time you share a link to your favorite video.
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."
"It is unlawful to reproduce copyrighted material, such as movies, music, software or games, without authorization... First-time offenders convicted of a criminal felony copyright law will face up to five years in federal prison, restitution, forfeiture and fine."
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."
"Based on my participation in the investigation leading to the February 2011 Seizure, I know that Channelsurfing.net was a 'linking' website," special agent Daniel Brazier wrote in the complaint.
"Based on my training and experience, I know that 'linking' websites generally collect and catalog links to files on third party websites that contain illegal copies of copyrighted content, including sporting events and Pay-Per-View events," he added.
The special agent detailed 17 copyrighted sports programs he was able to watch when he "clicked on links" at channelsurfing.net.
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.
"Under that sort of thinking, everyone who's sent around a link to a copyrighted YouTube video is a criminal," Demand Progress warned, calling the prosecution a "radical shift" in the way the government polices the Internet.
The Phoenix Independent Examiner's Chris Greenwood expressed concern about what the case meant for freedom of expression on the Internet.
"You see, when you shut down the last truly free medium that absolutely anyone can use to call for justice, freedom, or democracy where they don’t exist, you leave the communication to the wealthy, who can afford the ad space in print media and air time on television and radio," he wrote.
"Bryan McCarthy is being used as an example," Greenwood added. "Someone who possesses no copyright material, broadcasts no copyrighted material and duplicates no copyrighted material is being held by authorities because he has a site that indicates to people that there are people who are possessing, duplicating and reproducing potentially copyrighted material for others to watch."
Really anything new there? Google Images have always had the disclaimer that their image search results "may" have copyright protection. This is done because Google's attorneys realize the legal ramifications. When things are copyright protected, anyone/everyone has ALWAYS supposed to need to get the owner's permission before using them.
Virtually every legit news article is also copyrighted if you read the fine print on their websites.
There was a discussion here many years ago, even before file sharing became popular, about copyrighted photo use, and the general gist was that even under puplic use doctrine, the copyright was still in effect, and permisssion, if the long held and well documented laws were followed, would still need to be obtained before reprint, use, or alteration was done. Seldom are legal means pursued, simply because the owners would be tied up in court continuously, but their right to go that route has always been in effect, and the law enforcement arm has always had the legal right to go that route as well, so there is nothing really new here that I can see.
I've always found it ironic, that those who fear they are losing an assumed right, never mention the legal, well documented, time honored, court scrutinized rights of those who actually own the materials.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-13-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:34 AM
Gokart Mozart Member
Posts: 12143 From: Metro Detroit Registered: Mar 2003
I've always found it ironic, that those who fear they are losing an assumed right, never mention the legal, well documented, time honored, court scrutinized rights of those who actually own the materials.
Umm you missed the point completely of what they are doing ( and that upfrong i was trying to stay away from the 'piracy discussion' since that is a no-win discussion ). Here in their statements the DHS is saying that linking to ANYTHING copyrighted is illegal, and grounds to be arrested. And every bit of content that is created is copyrighted by default. Beyond this, we aren't even talking the actual item, just a link to where it might be. In the opinion of the DHS if i add link to my site to find the download of a FreeBSD iso that is hosted on the FreeBSD I have committed a crime, regardless of what the project feels about it. If i have a FaceBook page and link to my sisters photo album on PhotoBucket, that is a crime. Amazon has links to books that they don't own the copy right too....
This is NOT about piracy. Its about control and removal of the rights of the people to communicate and disseminate knowledge, plain and simple. Hell, I'm sure they would extrapolate that if i posted a 3x5 card on the bulletin board at work that says 'you can get book xyz at the library' that would even be illegal, if they didn't approve of the book.
EDIT: And yes, i fully admit to being paranoid and mis-trusting of the federal government ( more than it appears... ) but i do have my reasons to look beyond the 'obvious' to see the underlying intent, which is always far more sinister and subversive.
[This message has been edited by Nurb432 (edited 03-13-2011).]
No, I did not miss it. Google's search results are direct links to 'possibly' copyrighted material. Links we use everyday to prove or disprove points of discussion, are often links to copyrighted news articles. We only "assume" we have the right to post those links, and some sites only assume they have the right to gather those links. They do not--nor do we. There is nothing new here other than the enforcement of previously existing law.
The real question, and the only question, is, are the laws viable or, are our assumptions viable?
I do it, you do it, we all do it, but if it is upheld in court that our assumptions are in error, then we must seek permisssion before posting links--period.
Avengador1 will have a full time job seeking permission, and would have a cow if WND tells him 'no'.
Avengador1 will have a full time job seeking permission, and would have a cow if WND tells him 'no'.
I agree, tho hes re-publishing stories verbatim, not just "credited excerpts" ( which is protected ) or simply linking back to the original source ( which should be protected )
IP: Logged
10:12 AM
Scottzilla79 Member
Posts: 2573 From: Chicago, IL Registered: Oct 2009
This sounds like they are trying to criminalize everything so they can selectively prosecute what they like.
It has been illegal for years to aid and abet criminal activity. The govt, both local, state, and fed has simply chosen to ignore prosection or even (for the most part) investigation of complaints--leaving it instead, upon the shouders of the owners to pursue the matter in the form of lawsuits--usually in civil court rather than criminal court where it should have been all along.
If this were print media (magazine or newspaper) there would be little doubt in anyone's mind*, but for some strange reason, people believe the fact that info and data is sent accross in digital form, that the law no longer applies. SCOTUS sez it does.
*Look in almost any book or printed article, and you will see a list of references, attributions, and such at the end to give credit to the owners and to stay within the law. Even in a reference volume that catalogs articles, which would roughly be the print equivilent of channelsurfing dot net, except those reference catalogs got permssion first..
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-13-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:07 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
What the hell does this have to do with homeland security? Oh, you're using the old acronym, DHS is out, now its the DOWDWTHWW - The Department of We Do Whatever The Hell We Want
Seriously when is the populous going to wake up and discover they have nothing to do with securing anything, and everything to do with being a catchall program for controlling the citizens?
It has been illegal for years to aid and abet criminal activity. The govt, both local, state, and fed has simply chosen to ignore prosection or even (for the most part) investigation of complaints--leaving it instead, upon the shouders of the owners to pursue the matter in the form of lawsuits--usually in civil court rather than criminal court where it should have been all along.
If this were print media (magazine or newspaper) there would be little doubt in anyone's mind*, but for some strange reason, people believe the fact that info and data is sent accross in digital form, that the law no longer applies. SCOTUS sez it does.
*Look in almost any book or printed article, and you will see a list of references, attributions, and such at the end to give credit to the owners and to stay within the law. Even in a reference volume that catalogs articles, which would roughly be the print equivilent of channelsurfing dot net, except those reference catalogs got permssion first..
The problem is that a *link* is not the content, even in partial form. Telling your friends "go over here to read about xyz" is now illegal, according to DHS, and you cant get permission from the 'owners' either as even if its OK with them, its illegal.
You may think its an overreaction and that isn't the 'intent', but i am 100% positive its just the beginning and total control of knowledge in the country is the ultimate goal.. I just refuse to stick my head in the sand and not see what is going on. Everything the federal government does is about encroachment on the citizens with the ultimate goal of complete control of us and every aspect of our lives.
[This message has been edited by Nurb432 (edited 03-13-2011).]
Make everyone a criminal and its much easier to control them. Oh and don't forget making everyone paranoid and afraid of everyone else...
And THAT is the plain truthful truth! The simplest of plans. With the direst of consiquences.
The Numbers are about to change...........
------------------ And they said one to another, "Behold, for here comes the dreamer. Come now, let us slay him and we shall see what then will become of his dreams." ~ Genesis 37: 19-20
It has been illegal for years to aid and abet criminal activity. The govt, both local, state, and fed has simply chosen to ignore prosection or even (for the most part) investigation of complaints--leaving it instead, upon the shouders of the owners to pursue the matter in the form of lawsuits--usually in civil court rather than criminal court where it should have been all along.
If this were print media (magazine or newspaper) there would be little doubt in anyone's mind*, but for some strange reason, people believe the fact that info and data is sent accross in digital form, that the law no longer applies. SCOTUS sez it does.
*Look in almost any book or printed article, and you will see a list of references, attributions, and such at the end to give credit to the owners and to stay within the law. Even in a reference volume that catalogs articles, which would roughly be the print equivilent of channelsurfing dot net, except those reference catalogs got permssion first..
So, by that logic, if the Card Catalog in my local library lists a book that has one incorrectly attributed article, then the librarians are as guilty as channelsurfing, or napster, for that matter?
Is the only way to legally link to something to get the owner's permission first? Or do you just have to attribute it properly in the link?
So, by that logic, if the Card Catalog in my local library lists a book that has one incorrectly attributed article, then the librarians are as guilty as channelsurfing, or napster, for that matter?
Is the only way to legally link to something to get the owner's permission first? Or do you just have to attribute it properly in the link?
If you go by what DHS said, permission means nothing and you are still a criminal even with permission, and DHS will take it upon themselves to take care of it. And yes, the entire card catalog is illegal, by its very nature. ( its why i mentioned libraries above )
IP: Logged
01:07 PM
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
The problem is that a *link* is not the content, even in partial form. Telling your friends "go over here to read about xyz" is now illegal, according to DHS, and you cant get permission from the 'owners' either as even if its OK with them, its illegal.
Possibly equate this to what we are taught to do in school. If we write a report or term paper on a given topic we are suppossed to create a list of the materials used as refference. Are we being taught to violate copyright laws in school? Do we have to contact the Encylopidia Brittanica Company and get permission to list the book of theirs we used as a refference?
