4 ms·

Courts got into the business of censoring websites when they found websites got into the big business of infringing other's rights. Usenet is not immune: http

Courts got into the business of censoring websites when they found websites got into the big business of infringing other's rights. Usenet is not immune: http://torrentfreak.com/newzbin2-the-mpaas-usenet-enemy-1-calls-it-quits-121129/ http://torrentfreak.com/newzbin2-the-mpaas-usenet-enemy-1-ca...

jrockway 13y ago
To me, the problem is that torrents are descriptions of how to get the content, not the content. It's like banning a chemistry textbook because you could learn how to make a bomb.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  the problem is that torrents are descriptions of how to get the content, not the content For all practical purposes, they have become the same thing. Courts are not obliged to accept carefully worded definitions when the technology involved is a mere instrumentality. Also, even if we do accept the description argument, you still have to consider that it's a description of how to obtain someone else's property. The first amendment doesn't give you the right to market detailed instructions on how to rob individual branches of a bank, for example, which is loosely analogous to IP infringement (insofar as physical currency is only a representation of a currency abstraction, this is actually a good parallel).
  - jrockway 13y ago
    The first amendment doesn't give you the right to market detailed instructions on how to rob individual branches of a bank, for example Citation needed.
    - chipotle_coyote 13y ago
      http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf Relevantly, the section reading: The Supreme Court held that "advocacy of the use of force or of law violation" is protected unless "such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." This was specifically referring to the case the famous line about "shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic" not being protected speech; it would certainly seem to me that attempting to "market detailed instructions on how to rob individual branches of a bank" would match the exception above. You can publish material telling someone how to make an explosive device, but material telling readers precisely where best to put that explosive device to crack open the safe at the Bank of America office on Fifth Street? Probably not going to survive a legal challenge.
      - jrockway 13y ago
        I've never seen a case where printed material has been considered to "incite or produce imminent lawless action". If I recall correctly, the classic example of "imminent lawless action" is when the KKK is having a rally and they start yelling about lynching someone. That's different from a book about how to hang someone; the government itself publishes material on how to kill people (capital punishment and all that).
        anigbrowl 13y ago
        All the examples you're offering are generic - how to kill 'someone', or 'people'. That's not the same a book on 'how to kill jrockway' that goes into copious detail about how to kill you, specifically, in the most expeditious manner possible. The example I mentioned above was about a publication on how to rob individual bank branches - which security guards to target, where the safe was located, where to cut the wires for the power or security cameras, and so on. There's a significant qualitative difference here, because in these examples you're enormously increasing the probability of a crime being committed, possibly up to the point of conspiracy.

jrockway 13y ago

To me, the problem is that torrents are descriptions of how to get the content, not the content. It's like banning a chemistry textbook because you could learn how to make a bomb.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 13y ago
the problem is that torrents are descriptions of how to get the content, not the content For all practical purposes, they have become the same thing. Courts are not obliged to accept carefully worded definitions when the technology involved is a mere instrumentality. Also, even if we do accept the description argument, you still have to consider that it's a description of how to obtain someone else's property. The first amendment doesn't give you the right to market detailed instructions on how to rob individual branches of a bank, for example, which is loosely analogous to IP infringement (insofar as physical currency is only a representation of a currency abstraction, this is actually a good parallel).
- jrockway 13y ago
  The first amendment doesn't give you the right to market detailed instructions on how to rob individual branches of a bank, for example Citation needed.
  - chipotle_coyote 13y ago
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf Relevantly, the section reading: The Supreme Court held that "advocacy of the use of force or of law violation" is protected unless "such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." This was specifically referring to the case the famous line about "shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic" not being protected speech; it would certainly seem to me that attempting to "market detailed instructions on how to rob individual branches of a bank" would match the exception above. You can publish material telling someone how to make an explosive device, but material telling readers precisely where best to put that explosive device to crack open the safe at the Bank of America office on Fifth Street? Probably not going to survive a legal challenge.
    - jrockway 13y ago
      I've never seen a case where printed material has been considered to "incite or produce imminent lawless action". If I recall correctly, the classic example of "imminent lawless action" is when the KKK is having a rally and they start yelling about lynching someone. That's different from a book about how to hang someone; the government itself publishes material on how to kill people (capital punishment and all that).
      - anigbrowl 13y ago
        All the examples you're offering are generic - how to kill 'someone', or 'people'. That's not the same a book on 'how to kill jrockway' that goes into copious detail about how to kill you, specifically, in the most expeditious manner possible. The example I mentioned above was about a publication on how to rob individual bank branches - which security guards to target, where the safe was located, where to cut the wires for the power or security cameras, and so on. There's a significant qualitative difference here, because in these examples you're enormously increasing the probability of a crime being committed, possibly up to the point of conspiracy.