Nice dodge. Challenge remains. What’s the difference? Reading the words of Masnick I infer that linking to anything is OK with him, because it’s only linking not the actual offense. I used an extreme example and put him in a box. He (like you) has no place to go. Checkmate!!!

Except the “extreme example”, as you put it, has nothing to do with the issue at hand. You’re purposefully introducing a subject that people feel strongly about emotionally in order to cloud a rational debate.

Also, if you wouldn’t mind, please call him “Mr. Masnick” if you must address him by his last name. I’ve never met the man, and probably never will, but let’s be polite at least.

The act of linking to a different site that hosts copyrighted content is substantially different than linking to a site that hosts content involving the sexual abuse of minors.

Any person who has ever been sexually abused would take significant offense that you would equate the two.

Feel free to elaborate why these are equivalent issues that should be dealt with in the same manner.

Dig that hole, copyright troll!

Interesting Masnick is absent from the discussion. I think that linking to child porn, infringing content or anything else prohibited under the law should likewise illegal. Apparently you believe that linking to child porn should be illegal but to infringing content not. The issue he raised is whether the act of linking to illegal content should itself be illegal. I say yes, he says no. But he can’t say no without also acknowledging that decriminalizing sites that link to illegal content has some pretty serious consequences.

I think you missed his point. He wasn’t equating copyright infringement with distribution of child pornography. He was merely remarking on where the line of guilt falls in the two scenarios. Mike was saying that if someone doesn’t host a file, just links to it, then they should not be liable for people connecting to the content. But if someone links to a site with child porn, they are not the ones hosting it, they are not the ones in possession of it. How are they aiding in distribution any more than people linking to copyrighted content? Not saying I think the people in this article are guilty, but I think it’s an important question to be able to answer, not just brush off. I know we all have our minds made up already, but it’s only prudent to be able to see both sides.

chillienet, that’s just silly. That’s like saying that a bank should thank a bank robber for breaking into their vault and showing them that they need a better door.

You’ll have to check with the U.S. Attorney’s office on that.

You’ve explained how the offenses are different, but you have yet to explain why that changes the issue. Assuming that the content on the website in question was found, in a court, to be infringing, would that then make those linking to it responsible? In both scenarios, the content they are linking to is illegal without question.

The issue is that child porn is a criminal matter while infringement is a civil matter. Websites should be given notice that the material is infringing and be allowed the opportunity to take it down. It’s not the responsibility of the website to determine what is infringing material either, as it’s been discussed before, it can be very difficult to determine what constitutes infringement.

This quote from the article, which Mike doesn’t seem to have even read is more indicative of why these people were arrested.

Commenting on the raids the German Federation Against Copyright Theft (GVU) claims that Kino.to made ?significant revenue? through a ?parasitic business model.? GVU states that Kino.to was working closely with the sites that hosted the copyrighted films, and that they profited from commercial partnerships with these companies.

“…. where as copyright infringement, in most cases, is a civil matter.”

The guys weren’t arrested for jaywalking.

Isn’t that what the Mafiaa have said about every site they’ve targeted? Just look at the results for the UK raids and arrests.. They’ve consistently failed to prosecute anyone because IFACT and their like have basically lied and overstated the facts every time..

That statements worth nothing and make you look like an industry shill trying to prove a bad point.

Silly, facts don’t matter to Masnick.

Copyright Theft?

If I steal someone’s copyrights, doesn’t that mean that I own the copyrights after that? Kind of like what the MAFIAA does when they force artists to hand over copyrights to them.

> Infringing content is illegal as is pornographic images of children.

No it’s not “as illegal”.

Childporn images are always illegal. There is no legal way to acquire them ever.

With infringing files it’s a question of how the files were obtained. But the files themselves do not contain illegal material.

Big difference. And in any case copying for personal use is not illegal in all countries, for instance Holland.

Darryl fails again. No surprise there.

In the UK at least, making available child porn is a criminal offense, even if only linking to it (quite rightly so)

The difference to infringing copyright is the Hollywood movies themselves are not actually illegal (although maybe some should be 😉 ), just the way they`ve been reproduced, so you`re not linking to outright illegal content, as you would be if you linked to child porn.

“The judge will decide what constitutes a rogue site without having to explain himself to anybody”

What do you think judges do? If a judge finds you at fault in an auto accident, exactly who do you think he owes an explanation to?

So which is it? Should the operation of a website that exists for the purpose of linking to other sites containing illegal content be legal or illegal? Child porn, disseminating copyrighted content, selling bogus prescription medication and narcotics are all illegal. Masnick says the mere act of linking shouldn’t be illegal. I disagree. So either he has to say that the act of linking to illegal sites containing infringing content is OK, but not linking to child porn, narcotics, etc. That would blow up his whole argument that linking per se shouldn’t be illegal. Or he can say that operating a site that merely links others to other websites containing illegal content like child porn, narcotics and bogus medications which would be really troubling. Don’t expect him to come out and defend his position. He knows it’s checkmate and will cower until this thread dies out.

Mike didn’t discuss the legality of linking. What he said was…
“shouldn’t the targets be those who actually are uploading the works, rather than those who are linking?”

I’m against child porn. That said, I think just linking to it shouldn’t be a crime. If anything, as has been pointed out before, it will help law enforcement find the creeps.

“Well, Dolores, How about a little fun trip down the road we call The Yellow Brick?”

Umm, it’s Dorothy idiot. Go steal a copy of the Wizard of Oz.

“Because that’s what we’re living in – an age where people are strying from the Yellow Brick Road, and would much rather do things their way than yours. They like playing in the Forbidden Forest of copying. Copying is an act of sharing, not always an act of harming.”

The law says that copying copyrighted works is illegal, not sharing. Sorry that you disagree with what the law says.

“Children have not had the development to consent to sexual acts, thus they are protected by the rule of law.”

Agreed. And the rule of law likewise protects copyright owners.

“You cannto see the difference between the two, because you choose not to. And that bothsaddens and sickens me, expecially seeing as you think that only “experts in the field” can comment on the situation.””

I do see the difference in degrees of harm, but both equally violate the law. And feel free to comment away, Masnick is no expert in the field and he feels free to blather away, why shouldn’t you?

“‘I’m against child porn. That said, I think just linking to it shouldn’t be a crime. If anything, as has been pointed out before, it will help law enforcement find the creeps.”

Yes, but it helps millions of creeps find sick new outlets for their perversions. I think I’d rather task law enforcement with investigating if the cost is enabling easier access to these sub-human deviates that find sexual gratification in children.

“And apparently it is criminal as Masnick points out in the article, people were arrested. So that argument is a pile of shit too.”

Well I’m no expert on piles of shit, but I do know that begging the question is a logical fallacy.

There is no difference.

Child porn is an abomination and because of the way it makes people feel and the fact that defense of CP in anyway somehow feels as if it makes you a pedo. People over react and do away with basic rights and protections under the law when it comes to child porn.

In fact the 2 are very similar. In both cases the governments spend much more effort going after the person linking to or downloading or possessing “Infringing Content” or “Images of CP” than they do those who are actually doing the harm. The uploaders and those creating the CP.

At least with the CP it is because of the horror of being affiliated in any way with CP. With file sharing it is only because the governments have been bought and paid for by those who have the IP.

I wonder what would happen in Europe if I told someone (word-of-mouth) where they could purchase illegal recreational drugs…would I be arrested?

At least you have the balls to say it Chris. Which is more than I can say for Masnick, who apparently also believes it but runs and hides when the practical ramifications are discussed.

I disagree that it’s OK to run a website for the purpose of linking to sites offering narcotics, fake medicine, counterfeit goods, infringing content, child porn, etc.

The practice is illegal. Do you have a legal or constitutional basis for your position?

“The practice is illegal. Do you have a legal or constitutional basis for your position?

I went looking and couldn’t find any evidence of anyone being convicted for linking to child porn in any country. Do you have any reference to back up your position?”

I don’t know about that, but these characters were arrested and I guess we will have to wait and see if convictions follow.

As far as anyone being convicted because they have a website with a variety of links and one or two suddenly change from legitimate sites to illegal sites, that’s really a stretch. The sites in question link to illegal content and continuously update and add. That’s a bullshit argument. Reload.

You see there is nothing to stop the website that you link to from changing the target from something legal to something illegal after you set up the link. How anyone can be held responsible for that is beyond me.

Was just going to mention that. So many people pop off about stuff they don’t know about.

The practice is illegal. Do you have a legal or constitutional basis for your position?

The first amendment to the U.S. constitution. Go look it up.

Funny, the leading 1st Amendment scholar in the United States testified before the House Judiciary IP Subcommittee and said just the opposite. Go look it up.

Actually, the leading 1st Amendment scholar in the United States said no such thing. Why would you lie like that?

Or perhaps elaborate on your own 1st Amendment credentials

And yours are?

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

@eeejit:

You are either breathtakingly stupid or a flat-out liar.

From Title 17 USC:

? 506. Criminal offenses

(a) Criminal Infringement. ?

(1) In general. ? Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed ?

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

(2) Evidence. ? For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.

(3) Definition. ? In this subsection, the term ?work being prepared for commercial distribution? means ?

(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution ?

(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and

(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or

(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture ?

(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and

(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.

That is simply untrue unless all or most of the websites that the link site lists somehow magically replace their legit content with illegal content. Read the bill and stop spreading lies.

What kind of douchebag reads only half of a brief and draws the opposite conclusion than brief does? I’m guessing another piracy apologist grasping at straws to support his ability to continue to freeload.

Protect IP Act allows actions against websites “dedicated to infringing activities. A site constructed for the purpose of directing visitors to other sites that carry infringing content is certainly “dedicated to infringing activities”. Protect IP also has injunctive remedies against Information Location Tools which would include such linking sites.

How you can read half of a brief, draw the opposite conclusion of the writer and then turn around and question whether the author “really understands what he’s talking about” is simply laughable. The man is the former Solicitor General of the United States and has argued more 1st Amendment cases before the Supreme Court than perhaps any other lawyer still alive. And you question whether he knows what HE is talking about?