6 ms·

I hate to say it, but looking at the list of sites that were blocked, good riddance: http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-search-engine-dom

I hate to say it, but looking at the list of sites that were blocked, good riddance: http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-search-engine-domain-and-more-101126/ http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-sea... Sites like these are the scum of the internet, run by the scum of the earth. I'm not familiar with every site personally, but I have little doubt that they were all involved in flagrant copyright infringement. And looking at torrent-finder.info, I have no doubt that 99.99% of the people going to that site were going there for the purpose of stealing stuff, not finding linux distros. The cheeky incredulity with which fans of these sites say "it's not their fault that everyone that uses their site is using it to traffic stolen goods!" is laughably transparent. The western world is moving away from manufacturing physical goods, and these idiots using file sharing are making damn sure that nobody produces content either. What's going to be left? Finance? There's a totally legitimate slippery slope argument to made for not blocking websites, and this story does smell bad in terms of legal due process, but I have a really hard time feeling sorry for the degenerates who ran theses sites.

gojomo 16y ago
these idiots using file sharing are making damn sure that nobody produces content either We've had widespread unauthorized sharing of audio for over 10 years now. Is less new music being produced today? Or is more? We've had widespread unauthorized sharing of video and movies for nearly as long. Are fewer TV series being created, fewer channels being launched, fewer movies made today? Or more? There may be issues that arise if most people receive their entertainment via no-fee digital copying -- but underproduction of content does not, from the evidence so far, seem to be one of them. good riddance... Sites like these are the scum of the internet, run by the scum of the earth. First they came for the domains of the scum of the earth, and I said 'good riddance', because I'm not scum. Then... Put aside for a moment the allegations or apparent uses of these domains. Is it a good idea to enable punitive seizure of property without any legal hearing?
- grantheaslip 16y ago
  Are you saying that if we stop paying for content, more is going to be produced? For music, it's possible that it could be true (though I don't completely buy it) because of concerts and the fact that music is pretty low-budget, but if nobody pays for TV shows and films, they're not going to be made, at least those that require huge budgets and crews. And either way, it's not our place to break the law because we're convinced we know better than the people we're stealing from. If musicians decide to give away their music and make money from concerts, fine, but for the most part they haven't, at least not yet. And yes, I agree that this incident is problematic, but I think that they've probably done the right thing for the wrong reasons. The law is slowly evolving to meet these 21st century problems, but things take time. I personally don't see a huge difference between a website selling counterfeit goods and a physical store selling counterfeit goods, and I wouldn't have much of a problem with a store being shut down the moment it was caught openly selling counterfeit goods rather than after the trial. I'm sure I'm missing a lot of details here, and I'm not at all well-versed on this stuff, but I think people tend to be way to quick to defend individual scumbags who are openly and knowingly distributing stolen and counterfeit goods whenever the internet is involved.
  - gojomo 16y ago
    Fees paid per copy are only one traditional way to compensate creators. Copy fees don't work so well once digital technology becomes ubiquitous, and may be viewed by future generations as barbaric, because such fees may deny minds the education and culture they crave based on an arbitrary monopolistic price, unrelated to the cost of either original production or reproduction. If per-copy fees were the only way to get necessary creative production, as you seem to suggest, that would be one thing. But your theory doesn't yet seem to be playing out. Rising piracy has loosely correlated, over the past decade-plus, with even more creation of the pirated types of content. So the siege and retribution mentality -- "never mind due process, line the scum up against the wall and let 'em have it!" -- doesn't make any sense.
    - grantheaslip 16y ago
      Again, this isn't your decision to make. These companies may be acting in a way that you consider counter-productive (and you may be right), but that doesn't give you the right to take their content in a way that they haven't allowed.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  We've had widespread unauthorized sharing of video and movies for nearly as long. Are fewer TV series being created, fewer channels being launched, fewer movies made today? Or more? Post ho ergo propter hoc fallacy, there. The technology of making a film/video has become vastly cheaper than it used to be. This has been a far bigger influence on the economics of production than the ability to get copies via unauthorized sharing. On the other hand, it's a lot harder to make your money back than it used to be. File-sharing is partly responsible, but is only one factor among several. First they came for the domains of the scum of the earth, and I said 'good riddance', because I'm not scum. Yes, losing your domain is just like being sent to a concentration camp. I'm not asking you to support this (I don't) but let's keep a little sense of perspective here, shall we?
  - gojomo 16y ago
    The Niemoller snowclone isn't meant suggest the endgame here is like a concentration camp. (If you complete it in your mind, that's not the last line.) Rather, that if you cheer this tactic on now, simply because now it's used against 'scum', you shouldn't be surprised if this tactic gets abused more broadly against disfavored groups in the future. Did you fail to file your proper FEC election-expenditure reports for candidate advocacy blogging? Away with your domain name! In a back-tax dispute? Away with your domain name! Are you a troublemaker who's publishing unauthorized video of a TSA checkpoint? Away with your domain name! The authorities should have to win a case, rather than just allege wrongdoing, to wipe a website completely from the net.
    - anigbrowl 16y ago
      The authorities should have to win a case, rather than just allege wrongdoing, to wipe a website completely from the net. Leaving aside the fact the website hasn't been wiped, as such, in what sense is ICE's procedure insufficient? They've obtained a valid court order, supposedly, so it's been approved by a judge. And like it not, dealing in certain kinds of merchandise makes both merchandise and assets subject to seizure, using laws which have been on the books a long time (and were thus known to the domain owners). The idea that customs officers have in rem jurisdiction (over things rather than people) in certain circumstances is a very old one. Here;'s an example of an issued warrant for seizure of domains made earlier this year, along with a (brief) explanation of in rem jurisdiction. http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/30/Warrant.pdf http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/30/Warrant.pdf http://law.onecle.com/constitution/amendment-14/41-actions-in-rem.html http://law.onecle.com/constitution/amendment-14/41-actions-i...
thevectorist 16y ago
> What's going to be left? Finance? Advertising. It seems to me that money from advertising pays for most content nowadays.
- grantheaslip 16y ago
  Advertising for what? Other content that's also supported by advertising? Someone has to be paying for something at some point in the chain for advertising to make sense.
nchlswu 16y ago
with sites like "handbagcom.com" I can see your point But w.r.t content, sites like DaJaz1 or OnSmash were more or less embraced by the industry (industry relevant to their product). Labels would submit content and bloggers would voluntarily with hold music from their reader even with a leak. It was a (relatively) good relationship. It demonstrates how these sites /can/ be embraced.
jscore 16y ago
It's a good contrarian point, but why downvote? He's not trolling but just stating some good points. Take a look at the list of sites closed. Last time I checked I don't remember that selling unauthorized content is legal. louis-vuitton-outlet-store.com lv-outlets.com lv-outlets.net lv-outletstore.com Or is everyone drinking the same Kool Aid that US is now a police state?
- _delirium 16y ago
  I downvoted it for the uncivil language. Surely it is possible make a contrarian point without peppering one's rant with "scumbags", "idiots", "degenerates", etc.? Maybe that would be acceptable language if we were talking about serial killers or people engaging in torture, but surely we can have a more rational, level-headed debate about file-sharing on all sides?
  - grantheaslip 16y ago
    I consider people who live their lives leeching off the work of others degenerates and scumbags, and those who defend them idiots (especially because, in the long run, they're not acting in their best interest). I use civil language talking to people who I respect.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
joe_the_user 16y ago
I hate to say it, but looking at the list of sites that were blocked, good riddance The problem is not never who blocked but how and why they were blocked. Freedom speech only means something if it's freedom for those whose speech we dislike. It's natural that those who are angling for wide-ranging control would start by attacking "the scum of the Internet". In this instance, being able to take down website essentially without due-process means that ICE has a tool which can be used on many other targets.
- grantheaslip 16y ago
  This isn't about freedom of speech, it's about freedom to sell stolen and counterfeit goods. You're trying to turn this into something it's not.
  - sukuriant 16y ago
    No. Something it could turn in to without much of a stretch.

gojomo 16y ago

these idiots using file sharing are making damn sure that nobody produces content either We've had widespread unauthorized sharing of audio for over 10 years now. Is less new music being produced today? Or is more? We've had widespread unauthorized sharing of video and movies for nearly as long. Are fewer TV series being created, fewer channels being launched, fewer movies made today? Or more? There may be issues that arise if most people receive their entertainment via no-fee digital copying -- but underproduction of content does not, from the evidence so far, seem to be one of them. good riddance... Sites like these are the scum of the internet, run by the scum of the earth. First they came for the domains of the scum of the earth, and I said 'good riddance', because I'm not scum. Then... Put aside for a moment the allegations or apparent uses of these domains. Is it a good idea to enable punitive seizure of property without any legal hearing?

grantheaslip 16y ago
Are you saying that if we stop paying for content, more is going to be produced? For music, it's possible that it could be true (though I don't completely buy it) because of concerts and the fact that music is pretty low-budget, but if nobody pays for TV shows and films, they're not going to be made, at least those that require huge budgets and crews. And either way, it's not our place to break the law because we're convinced we know better than the people we're stealing from. If musicians decide to give away their music and make money from concerts, fine, but for the most part they haven't, at least not yet. And yes, I agree that this incident is problematic, but I think that they've probably done the right thing for the wrong reasons. The law is slowly evolving to meet these 21st century problems, but things take time. I personally don't see a huge difference between a website selling counterfeit goods and a physical store selling counterfeit goods, and I wouldn't have much of a problem with a store being shut down the moment it was caught openly selling counterfeit goods rather than after the trial. I'm sure I'm missing a lot of details here, and I'm not at all well-versed on this stuff, but I think people tend to be way to quick to defend individual scumbags who are openly and knowingly distributing stolen and counterfeit goods whenever the internet is involved.
- gojomo 16y ago
  Fees paid per copy are only one traditional way to compensate creators. Copy fees don't work so well once digital technology becomes ubiquitous, and may be viewed by future generations as barbaric, because such fees may deny minds the education and culture they crave based on an arbitrary monopolistic price, unrelated to the cost of either original production or reproduction. If per-copy fees were the only way to get necessary creative production, as you seem to suggest, that would be one thing. But your theory doesn't yet seem to be playing out. Rising piracy has loosely correlated, over the past decade-plus, with even more creation of the pirated types of content. So the siege and retribution mentality -- "never mind due process, line the scum up against the wall and let 'em have it!" -- doesn't make any sense.
  - grantheaslip 16y ago
    Again, this isn't your decision to make. These companies may be acting in a way that you consider counter-productive (and you may be right), but that doesn't give you the right to take their content in a way that they haven't allowed.
anigbrowl 16y ago
We've had widespread unauthorized sharing of video and movies for nearly as long. Are fewer TV series being created, fewer channels being launched, fewer movies made today? Or more? Post ho ergo propter hoc fallacy, there. The technology of making a film/video has become vastly cheaper than it used to be. This has been a far bigger influence on the economics of production than the ability to get copies via unauthorized sharing. On the other hand, it's a lot harder to make your money back than it used to be. File-sharing is partly responsible, but is only one factor among several. First they came for the domains of the scum of the earth, and I said 'good riddance', because I'm not scum. Yes, losing your domain is just like being sent to a concentration camp. I'm not asking you to support this (I don't) but let's keep a little sense of perspective here, shall we?
- gojomo 16y ago
  The Niemoller snowclone isn't meant suggest the endgame here is like a concentration camp. (If you complete it in your mind, that's not the last line.) Rather, that if you cheer this tactic on now, simply because now it's used against 'scum', you shouldn't be surprised if this tactic gets abused more broadly against disfavored groups in the future. Did you fail to file your proper FEC election-expenditure reports for candidate advocacy blogging? Away with your domain name! In a back-tax dispute? Away with your domain name! Are you a troublemaker who's publishing unauthorized video of a TSA checkpoint? Away with your domain name! The authorities should have to win a case, rather than just allege wrongdoing, to wipe a website completely from the net.
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    The authorities should have to win a case, rather than just allege wrongdoing, to wipe a website completely from the net. Leaving aside the fact the website hasn't been wiped, as such, in what sense is ICE's procedure insufficient? They've obtained a valid court order, supposedly, so it's been approved by a judge. And like it not, dealing in certain kinds of merchandise makes both merchandise and assets subject to seizure, using laws which have been on the books a long time (and were thus known to the domain owners). The idea that customs officers have in rem jurisdiction (over things rather than people) in certain circumstances is a very old one. Here;'s an example of an issued warrant for seizure of domains made earlier this year, along with a (brief) explanation of in rem jurisdiction. http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/30/Warrant.pdf http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/30/Warrant.pdf http://law.onecle.com/constitution/amendment-14/41-actions-in-rem.html http://law.onecle.com/constitution/amendment-14/41-actions-i...

thevectorist 16y ago

> What's going to be left? Finance? Advertising. It seems to me that money from advertising pays for most content nowadays.

grantheaslip 16y ago
Advertising for what? Other content that's also supported by advertising? Someone has to be paying for something at some point in the chain for advertising to make sense.

nchlswu 16y ago

with sites like "handbagcom.com" I can see your point But w.r.t content, sites like DaJaz1 or OnSmash were more or less embraced by the industry (industry relevant to their product). Labels would submit content and bloggers would voluntarily with hold music from their reader even with a leak. It was a (relatively) good relationship. It demonstrates how these sites /can/ be embraced.

jscore 16y ago

It's a good contrarian point, but why downvote? He's not trolling but just stating some good points. Take a look at the list of sites closed. Last time I checked I don't remember that selling unauthorized content is legal. louis-vuitton-outlet-store.com lv-outlets.com lv-outlets.net lv-outletstore.com Or is everyone drinking the same Kool Aid that US is now a police state?

_delirium 16y ago
I downvoted it for the uncivil language. Surely it is possible make a contrarian point without peppering one's rant with "scumbags", "idiots", "degenerates", etc.? Maybe that would be acceptable language if we were talking about serial killers or people engaging in torture, but surely we can have a more rational, level-headed debate about file-sharing on all sides?
- grantheaslip 16y ago
  I consider people who live their lives leeching off the work of others degenerates and scumbags, and those who defend them idiots (especially because, in the long run, they're not acting in their best interest). I use civil language talking to people who I respect.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]

joe_the_user 16y ago

I hate to say it, but looking at the list of sites that were blocked, good riddance The problem is not never who blocked but how and why they were blocked. Freedom speech only means something if it's freedom for those whose speech we dislike. It's natural that those who are angling for wide-ranging control would start by attacking "the scum of the Internet". In this instance, being able to take down website essentially without due-process means that ICE has a tool which can be used on many other targets.

grantheaslip 16y ago
This isn't about freedom of speech, it's about freedom to sell stolen and counterfeit goods. You're trying to turn this into something it's not.
- sukuriant 16y ago
  No. Something it could turn in to without much of a stretch.