8 ms·

Child pornography: illegal Copyright infringement: illegal censoring child porn websites: right, censoring copyright infringement website: wrong. Not sure I

Child pornography: illegal Copyright infringement: illegal censoring child porn websites: right, censoring copyright infringement website: wrong. Not sure I understand the difference? Either you're for censorship of websites, or you're against it, you can't pick and choose.

runjake 15y ago
You're thinking in legal terms, but in this case, the argument is one of morals. CP and CI are galaxies apart morally, imho. Also, people's views on copyright infringement seem to immediately swell when it's their copyright being infringed upon.
Dylan16807 15y ago
Hosting illegal things: bad Saying where to get illegal things: under dispute
- fredley 15y ago
  Linking is not a crime.
  - salvadors 15y ago
    That's a nice slogan, but it doesn't match the UK law. Linking can be a crime.
    - fredley 15y ago
      Either it is or it isn't. If it is, a lot of search engines are in big trouble. Google links to almost every piece of illegal content on the web. You also have to think carefully about what a link is. Is a magnet link - essentially a hash of the content itself - a link? If so is posting the checksum of a piece of software copyright violation?
      - weavejester 15y ago
        Unfortunately the law isn't so black and white, and depends a lot upon intent. Thinking about the technicalities isn't so important; what matters to the court is whether the individuals involved intended to commit a crime.
        jiggy2011 15y ago
        Yes, I think the fact the google links to basically everything would work in their defense. It would be like prosecuting the people who print the telephone directory for advertising drug dealers because some of their numbers are listed.
        DanBC 15y ago
        Upthread people are mentioning images of child sexual abuse. It's important to mention that in the UK this is an absolute offence. If the image is in your possession then it doesn't matter how or why it's there - intent is irrelevant. This is important for people responsible for various servers, for example.
        weavejester 15y ago
        Intent still matters. For instance, say someone emails you a image and then contacts the authorities. If merely having such an image in your possesion was an automatic "go to jail, do not pass go", you can be certain there would be a lot of politicians and other unpopular individuals being led away in cuffs.
        DanBC 15y ago
        You either possess the image or you do not. It is a strict liability offence. There are narrow exemptions - "I did not view the images and I did not know they existed" is one; "The images were unsolicited and I did not keep them" is another. (See page 4) (http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/3249_Child_pornography_response_May_05.pdf http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/3249_Child_pornograp...)
  - fromhet 15y ago
    Is that true for CP too?
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      Lets see: http://4chan.org http://4chan.org I'll let you know if I get arrested.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Probably not, no. In the US, it's more likely to constitute the tort of contributory infringement. Someone should make a "10 Commandments of Nerd Legal Misunderstandings"; #2 or #3 would be "in the law, intent matters hugely".
baddox 15y ago
Child pornography: should be illegal Copyright infringement: should not be illegal
- Flenser 15y ago
  So if companies wanted to infringe the copyright of GPLed code that should be allowed?
  - praptak 15y ago
    Yes, if in exchange for that everybody is allowed to infringe on their copyrights. And tivoization should be illegal.
    - jiggy2011 15y ago
      That seem kind of arbitrary , you want the government out of one thing but you want them into something else. If there was no copyright or patents then tivoization would be irrelevant anyway as the hardware could be easily copied.
      - trotsky 15y ago
        things that I like doing::should be legal things I don't like other people doing::???
  - J3L2404 15y ago
    And they should be allowed to infringe on your personal data too because it's digital and therefore easily copied. And now we get to the crux of the argument. Just because everyone will eventually die does not mean you should stop seeing a doctor. Even worse message boards saying you shouldn't even be allowed to go to the doctor!
- kaolinite 15y ago
  Copyright infringement should and must be illegal but it also must be put into perspective. Using copyright infringement to justify censorship, deportation of citizens, multi-million-dollar fines and lifetime prison sentences - that's a symptom of a broken judicial system and governments with bad priorities / corruption. Downloading films + music for personal use? Should get warnings and eventually a small fine if the issue persists (not £X per file downloaded - a download != a sale). Commercial copyright infringement? Large scale should result in a few years of jailtime at the most + seized profits. Smaller scale should vary but should be lenient with profits seized.
ticks 15y ago
I'm pretty sure the former is criminal (i.e. illegal), whereas the latter is unlawful, hence why businesses have to chase copyright infringement - rather than the authorities doing it for them. The authorities only step in when it becomes a commercial operation or the activities are linked to other crimes.
corin_ 15y ago
First off, I'd argue that creating an open space for people to share downloads (that aren't hosted on this open space) is not illegal. Second, even if by law it is, legality isn't binary. Both murder and stealing a bottle of milk from a shop are illegal, you wouldn't say "either you're for life inprisonment or you're against it, you can't pick and choose" would you? Not only can we pick and chose, our legal systems do pick and chose, and they always have done.
- TomGullen 15y ago
  I don't think linking should be illegal, but en mass linking with the blatant intent for people to exploit linked to resources... perhaps it should be? I don't know. RE: your point that open space for people to link to shouldn't be illegal, is it ok then to create a CP linking website? Would you be OK with this?
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    >is it ok then to create a CP linking website? // Strictly speaking I don't think it would be illegal as long as no content on the site itself contravened the law. If you can differentiate it from a search engine that gives the links in SERPs then I'd back it being made illegal though - if you can't then Google/Bing/etc. are illegal if you can make the SERPs return a link to illegal content. Indeed a link site would be useful for the police as they'd have their job done for them to some extent. A site owner with only links would on the balance of probabilities have visited child pornography sites and so, in the UK at least, have broken the law. This could lead to some verification being required for registering domains. Maybe then only domains verified by a domain registry as traceable to a person would be allowed to be routed. That could be automated. I'm not saying that's how things should go but it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to think that things could go that way? What I'd like to see in general is some balance. There needs to be a quid pro quo to tightening copyright restrictions. Giving us fair use privileges in the UK, like being able to make backups, format shifting and such would be a start. A reasonable copyright term, equable to patent terms would be better. If no such effort is made then it's all just business buying laws to suppress the masses AFAICT.
DanBC 15y ago
Making, distributing, or possessing images of child sexual abuse is a criminal offence. It's also an absolute offence. Copyright violation (unless as part of trade) is a civil offence.
cft 15y ago
Child pornography has REAL VICTIMS: children that are being exploited and their lives are RUINED FOREVER. There is no such thing for copyrights: did J.S. Bach write music in anticipation of licensing revenues? Is he a victim because he had no licensing revenue at that time? Is that comparable to an exploited 7 year old child?

runjake 15y ago

You're thinking in legal terms, but in this case, the argument is one of morals. CP and CI are galaxies apart morally, imho. Also, people's views on copyright infringement seem to immediately swell when it's their copyright being infringed upon.

Dylan16807 15y ago

Hosting illegal things: bad Saying where to get illegal things: under dispute

fredley 15y ago
Linking is not a crime.
- salvadors 15y ago
  That's a nice slogan, but it doesn't match the UK law. Linking can be a crime.
  - fredley 15y ago
    Either it is or it isn't. If it is, a lot of search engines are in big trouble. Google links to almost every piece of illegal content on the web. You also have to think carefully about what a link is. Is a magnet link - essentially a hash of the content itself - a link? If so is posting the checksum of a piece of software copyright violation?
    - weavejester 15y ago
      Unfortunately the law isn't so black and white, and depends a lot upon intent. Thinking about the technicalities isn't so important; what matters to the court is whether the individuals involved intended to commit a crime.
      - jiggy2011 15y ago
        Yes, I think the fact the google links to basically everything would work in their defense. It would be like prosecuting the people who print the telephone directory for advertising drug dealers because some of their numbers are listed.
      - DanBC 15y ago
        Upthread people are mentioning images of child sexual abuse. It's important to mention that in the UK this is an absolute offence. If the image is in your possession then it doesn't matter how or why it's there - intent is irrelevant. This is important for people responsible for various servers, for example.
        weavejester 15y ago
        Intent still matters. For instance, say someone emails you a image and then contacts the authorities. If merely having such an image in your possesion was an automatic "go to jail, do not pass go", you can be certain there would be a lot of politicians and other unpopular individuals being led away in cuffs.
        DanBC 15y ago
        You either possess the image or you do not. It is a strict liability offence. There are narrow exemptions - "I did not view the images and I did not know they existed" is one; "The images were unsolicited and I did not keep them" is another. (See page 4) (http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/3249_Child_pornography_response_May_05.pdf http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/3249_Child_pornograp...)
- fromhet 15y ago
  Is that true for CP too?
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    Lets see: http://4chan.org http://4chan.org I'll let you know if I get arrested.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Probably not, no. In the US, it's more likely to constitute the tort of contributory infringement. Someone should make a "10 Commandments of Nerd Legal Misunderstandings"; #2 or #3 would be "in the law, intent matters hugely".

baddox 15y ago

Child pornography: should be illegal Copyright infringement: should not be illegal

Flenser 15y ago
So if companies wanted to infringe the copyright of GPLed code that should be allowed?
- praptak 15y ago
  Yes, if in exchange for that everybody is allowed to infringe on their copyrights. And tivoization should be illegal.
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    That seem kind of arbitrary , you want the government out of one thing but you want them into something else. If there was no copyright or patents then tivoization would be irrelevant anyway as the hardware could be easily copied.
    - trotsky 15y ago
      things that I like doing::should be legal things I don't like other people doing::???
- J3L2404 15y ago
  And they should be allowed to infringe on your personal data too because it's digital and therefore easily copied. And now we get to the crux of the argument. Just because everyone will eventually die does not mean you should stop seeing a doctor. Even worse message boards saying you shouldn't even be allowed to go to the doctor!
kaolinite 15y ago
Copyright infringement should and must be illegal but it also must be put into perspective. Using copyright infringement to justify censorship, deportation of citizens, multi-million-dollar fines and lifetime prison sentences - that's a symptom of a broken judicial system and governments with bad priorities / corruption. Downloading films + music for personal use? Should get warnings and eventually a small fine if the issue persists (not £X per file downloaded - a download != a sale). Commercial copyright infringement? Large scale should result in a few years of jailtime at the most + seized profits. Smaller scale should vary but should be lenient with profits seized.

ticks 15y ago

I'm pretty sure the former is criminal (i.e. illegal), whereas the latter is unlawful, hence why businesses have to chase copyright infringement - rather than the authorities doing it for them. The authorities only step in when it becomes a commercial operation or the activities are linked to other crimes.

corin_ 15y ago

First off, I'd argue that creating an open space for people to share downloads (that aren't hosted on this open space) is not illegal. Second, even if by law it is, legality isn't binary. Both murder and stealing a bottle of milk from a shop are illegal, you wouldn't say "either you're for life inprisonment or you're against it, you can't pick and choose" would you? Not only can we pick and chose, our legal systems do pick and chose, and they always have done.

TomGullen 15y ago
I don't think linking should be illegal, but en mass linking with the blatant intent for people to exploit linked to resources... perhaps it should be? I don't know. RE: your point that open space for people to link to shouldn't be illegal, is it ok then to create a CP linking website? Would you be OK with this?
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  >is it ok then to create a CP linking website? // Strictly speaking I don't think it would be illegal as long as no content on the site itself contravened the law. If you can differentiate it from a search engine that gives the links in SERPs then I'd back it being made illegal though - if you can't then Google/Bing/etc. are illegal if you can make the SERPs return a link to illegal content. Indeed a link site would be useful for the police as they'd have their job done for them to some extent. A site owner with only links would on the balance of probabilities have visited child pornography sites and so, in the UK at least, have broken the law. This could lead to some verification being required for registering domains. Maybe then only domains verified by a domain registry as traceable to a person would be allowed to be routed. That could be automated. I'm not saying that's how things should go but it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to think that things could go that way? What I'd like to see in general is some balance. There needs to be a quid pro quo to tightening copyright restrictions. Giving us fair use privileges in the UK, like being able to make backups, format shifting and such would be a start. A reasonable copyright term, equable to patent terms would be better. If no such effort is made then it's all just business buying laws to suppress the masses AFAICT.

DanBC 15y ago

Making, distributing, or possessing images of child sexual abuse is a criminal offence. It's also an absolute offence. Copyright violation (unless as part of trade) is a civil offence.

cft 15y ago

Child pornography has REAL VICTIMS: children that are being exploited and their lives are RUINED FOREVER. There is no such thing for copyrights: did J.S. Bach write music in anticipation of licensing revenues? Is he a victim because he had no licensing revenue at that time? Is that comparable to an exploited 7 year old child?