3 ms·

Is this a joke? I thought it might be serious until I read: ICE is not focusing its efforts just on web sites that stream dodgy content but those that link to t

Is this a joke? I thought it might be serious until I read: ICE is not focusing its efforts just on web sites that stream dodgy content but those that link to them Please tell me this is a joke. I don't know whether to laugh or be sad.

hsmyers 15y ago
Be sad. Until these over reaching idiots get taken down and taken down hard, they will continue to prop up the entertainment industry even though it is the public that is both paying the freight and the penalty.
adrianN 15y ago
AFAIK here in Germany you can get in trouble for linking to illegal content. That includes linking to software like AnyDVD that cracks encryption. I think heise.de, a big German tech-news site, got in trouble over that.
- pyre 15y ago
  I think the point of the parent post was that ICE is only focusing on people linking to 'illegal streaming sites,' but not going after 'illegal streaming sites' themselves, which seems somewhat backwards. That would be like the "War on Drugs" focusing on arresting people that point out where you can find drug dealers, but not bothering to go after actual drug dealers.
  - mattmanser 15y ago
    It didn't actually say that. Where does it say streaming sites? Do you go for the seeders or do you go after the torrent search engines? One is whack a mole, one is destroy the C&C. I know which one I'd choose. It's more analogous to ignoring the street level criminals and going after the Don, who never get his hands dirty any more but is directing all those that do. Edit: I'm not arguing for or against, just want to point out that there's no point going after the individual seeders.
    - pyre 15y ago
      > It didn't actually say that. Where does it say streaming sites? See: > ICE is not focusing its efforts just on web sites that stream dodgy content > but those that link to them I realize that I misread the quote to say that they were just going after sites that link to them though. I also don't understand how you are equating this with torrent search engines. Only some of the domains seized were torrent search engines.
  - ahlatimer 15y ago
    I think the point is that they aren't just going after illegal streaming sites, but also people linking to them. To use your analogy, they're going after drug dealers and people who tell you where you can find drug dealers.
    - carbonica 15y ago
      > people who tell you where you can find drug dealers. ... people who get paid to direct you to the nearest drug dealer, and only to drug dealers, organized by type of drug, quality, and potentially even with a rating system. These sites are more than just innocent passers-by. They aren't the "drug dealer," but they aren't just a dude on the street who bought drugs that one time and might know a guy. Where the line is drawn between facilitation and not facilitation, I don't know. But where some say "they're identical to Google," I personally see a very large, obvious distinction.
      - pyre 15y ago
        > But where some say "they're identical to Google," > I personally see a very large, obvious distinction. If Google's 'Product Search' links you to a website where you identity is stolen, is Google liable? Should the government 'crack down' on Google?
        carbonica 15y ago
        Again, if you are incapable of seeing the distinction between a general-purpose search engine which indexes the entire web and a website dedicated overwhelmingly to links to copyrighted content (including categorization features, rating systems, subsections devoted entirely to individual television programs), then we must just view the world differently.
        nl 15y ago
        Contributory copyright violation is a long standing element of copyright case law[1]. The parent poster is right under the current law (despite the downvotes). Google Product Search has numerous non-infringing uses, whereas a site that exists to do nothing more than link to pirated content will have a lot more difficulty in showing they aren't contributing to copyright violation. The biggest, most recent case involving this was Grokster vs MGM [2] The court found: We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties[3] Wikipedia has a good discussion of the ruling: Justice Ginsburg, joined by Kennedy and Rehnquist, claim that "[t]his case differs markedly from Sony" based on insufficient evidence of noninfringing uses. On the other hand, Justice Breyer, joined by Stevens and O'Connor, claims "a strong demonstrated need for modifying Sony (or for interpreting Sony's standard more strictly) has not yet been shown," primarily because "the nature of [...] lawfully swapped files is such that it is reasonable to infer quantities of current lawful use roughly approximate to those at issue in Sony.[3] The key point is * non infringing uses*. The court needs to be convinced that they exist, and this occurs on a case-by-case basis. You (and I) may not like this law, but that is how it currently is being interpreted. IANAL, etc. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_liability#Contributory_liability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_liability#Contribu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokster#The_history_of_the_case_in_the_U.S._courts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokster#The_history_of_the_cas... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd.#The_court.27s_decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_...
- muuh-gnu 15y ago
  Heise fought 6 years for the right to link to "illegal" Software while reporting about court decisions regarding that software. After countless lost proceedings in lower courts, they finally won at the end of 2010, where the Federal court (the highest instance below the constitutional court) decided in Heise's favor that links are an essential feature of the freedom of online press and thus protected. This sadly does not include linking in general, only news coverage, but it was an epic win for press freedom anyway, since it was de facto illegal for the last 6 years even for the press, due to all the negative decisions by the lower courts.

hsmyers 15y ago

Be sad. Until these over reaching idiots get taken down and taken down hard, they will continue to prop up the entertainment industry even though it is the public that is both paying the freight and the penalty.

adrianN 15y ago

AFAIK here in Germany you can get in trouble for linking to illegal content. That includes linking to software like AnyDVD that cracks encryption. I think heise.de, a big German tech-news site, got in trouble over that.

pyre 15y ago
I think the point of the parent post was that ICE is only focusing on people linking to 'illegal streaming sites,' but not going after 'illegal streaming sites' themselves, which seems somewhat backwards. That would be like the "War on Drugs" focusing on arresting people that point out where you can find drug dealers, but not bothering to go after actual drug dealers.
- mattmanser 15y ago
  It didn't actually say that. Where does it say streaming sites? Do you go for the seeders or do you go after the torrent search engines? One is whack a mole, one is destroy the C&C. I know which one I'd choose. It's more analogous to ignoring the street level criminals and going after the Don, who never get his hands dirty any more but is directing all those that do. Edit: I'm not arguing for or against, just want to point out that there's no point going after the individual seeders.
  - pyre 15y ago
    > It didn't actually say that. Where does it say streaming sites? See: > ICE is not focusing its efforts just on web sites that stream dodgy content > but those that link to them I realize that I misread the quote to say that they were just going after sites that link to them though. I also don't understand how you are equating this with torrent search engines. Only some of the domains seized were torrent search engines.
- ahlatimer 15y ago
  I think the point is that they aren't just going after illegal streaming sites, but also people linking to them. To use your analogy, they're going after drug dealers and people who tell you where you can find drug dealers.
  - carbonica 15y ago
    > people who tell you where you can find drug dealers. ... people who get paid to direct you to the nearest drug dealer, and only to drug dealers, organized by type of drug, quality, and potentially even with a rating system. These sites are more than just innocent passers-by. They aren't the "drug dealer," but they aren't just a dude on the street who bought drugs that one time and might know a guy. Where the line is drawn between facilitation and not facilitation, I don't know. But where some say "they're identical to Google," I personally see a very large, obvious distinction.
    - pyre 15y ago
      > But where some say "they're identical to Google," > I personally see a very large, obvious distinction. If Google's 'Product Search' links you to a website where you identity is stolen, is Google liable? Should the government 'crack down' on Google?
      - carbonica 15y ago
        Again, if you are incapable of seeing the distinction between a general-purpose search engine which indexes the entire web and a website dedicated overwhelmingly to links to copyrighted content (including categorization features, rating systems, subsections devoted entirely to individual television programs), then we must just view the world differently.
      - nl 15y ago
        Contributory copyright violation is a long standing element of copyright case law[1]. The parent poster is right under the current law (despite the downvotes). Google Product Search has numerous non-infringing uses, whereas a site that exists to do nothing more than link to pirated content will have a lot more difficulty in showing they aren't contributing to copyright violation. The biggest, most recent case involving this was Grokster vs MGM [2] The court found: We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties[3] Wikipedia has a good discussion of the ruling: Justice Ginsburg, joined by Kennedy and Rehnquist, claim that "[t]his case differs markedly from Sony" based on insufficient evidence of noninfringing uses. On the other hand, Justice Breyer, joined by Stevens and O'Connor, claims "a strong demonstrated need for modifying Sony (or for interpreting Sony's standard more strictly) has not yet been shown," primarily because "the nature of [...] lawfully swapped files is such that it is reasonable to infer quantities of current lawful use roughly approximate to those at issue in Sony.[3] The key point is * non infringing uses*. The court needs to be convinced that they exist, and this occurs on a case-by-case basis. You (and I) may not like this law, but that is how it currently is being interpreted. IANAL, etc. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_liability#Contributory_liability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_liability#Contribu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokster#The_history_of_the_case_in_the_U.S._courts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokster#The_history_of_the_cas... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd.#The_court.27s_decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_...
muuh-gnu 15y ago
Heise fought 6 years for the right to link to "illegal" Software while reporting about court decisions regarding that software. After countless lost proceedings in lower courts, they finally won at the end of 2010, where the Federal court (the highest instance below the constitutional court) decided in Heise's favor that links are an essential feature of the freedom of online press and thus protected. This sadly does not include linking in general, only news coverage, but it was an epic win for press freedom anyway, since it was de facto illegal for the last 6 years even for the press, due to all the negative decisions by the lower courts.