Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Purpose and intents (Score 1) 270

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.

Comment Re:Purpose and intents (Score 1) 270

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.

Comment Re:Sure, if it includes EVERYBODY (Score 1) 467

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?

Comment Re:Obvious issue in a no-privacy world (Score 1) 467

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.

Comment Re:DHS (Score 1) 308

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.

Comment Re:DHS (Score 1) 308

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 isn't on their side.

[blah blah blah]

But, back to the topic at hand: think how many other cases have been thrown out due to procedural mistakes (and how many sanctions have been levied) - yet DHS is allowed to make so many procedural mistakes (some which are direct violations of the Constitution) with NO penalties?

Name the violations of the Constitution in this case, including what unconstitutional thing DHS did, what clause of the Constitution it violated, and at least one case supporting the interpretation that that's a violation. Name one.

If these people/companies/whatever are guilty... penalize them. To the fullest extent of the law even. But only THROUGH FOLLOWING PROPER PROCEDURE AND THE LAWS & CONSTITUTION OF THIS LAND. Get it now?

I don't see why you need to yell. It's not my fault you have no grasp of criminal procedure yet insist on lecturing others about the law. It's especially not my fault you continued after this fact became painfully obvious three posts ago.

Obligatory Disclaimer: IANAL, but I read a lot of law, both case law and statutes.

Comment Re:unplusgood (Score 1) 308

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)

Comment Re:DHS (Score 1) 308

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.

—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?).

Slashdot Top Deals

To restore a sense of reality, I think Walt Disney should have a Hardluckland. -- Jack Paar

Working...