Phil Deakins Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I think you mean that it didn't used to be a criminal offense. It was always illegal but, not being a criminal offense, it was a civil matter that came under civil law, and the law was used in court to decide which side was in the right. The courts weren't a mere arbitration service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Phil Deakins wrote: You'll be pleased to know that I'm not going to quote your post, Ceka The thing is that the illegal free downloading, and anonymous sharing, of copyrighted works was, and probably still is, very widespread, and the people who do it really do know that it's illegal. I accept that young children wouldn't realise it but most of those who do it would. If those organisations sued everyone who is guilty of it, the frenzy described in your post would seem like the calm before the storm. You don't imagine that owners of The Pirate Bay actually thought that what they were doing was just fine and dandy and legal, do you? They were putting two fingers up to the copyright owners and the law, and stealing the stuff. That's a case *for* the pursuing of thieves - not against it. Yes, in the midst of it all there are cases that shouldn't have happened, and very upsetting as they are to those on the wrong end of them, they are just a tiny number amongst the myriad of cases that *should* have happened. I'm afraid I have no sympathy at all for anyone who gets sued for downloading something for nothing when they know it shouldn't be free. It's not alright - it's theft. I appreciate that some lawyers can be very cold-hearted barstewards, and that type of lawyer shouldn't be on the suing end of things, or at least they should be kept in check by people with common sense and a heart, but it doesn't mean that the myriad of thieves of copyrighted works should not be sued - and sued heavily. It's by heavy costs to the thieves that people in general are scared away from doing it. my point is not that downloading stuff is ok.. it's that if riaa and mpaa had sopa back then..a lot of innocent people would have been brought up on criminal charges ..not lawsuits.. this is only a handfull of cases because i sure couldn't list all their embarrassing moments.. the main point is..they will open cases on even innocent sites as they did innocent people back then.. i was just showing it would happen ..where people are saying it won't happen.. i'm not for piracy and i'm for a law that will help to defeat it..but it's not this sopa or pip.. not the way they are now..they need to be amended quite a bit.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latisha Pexie Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 This is not true at all. I have never downloaded anything illegally. I have SL friends who have offered to send me files of my favorite songs but I have refused them. However I am not so naive as to believe that just because I do not download material illegally that this will not affect me. This law would affect nearly everyone who uses the internet worldwide. My objections to this law are many. First, it is not going after the people who download illegally. This law is going after the people who make the paper that the fraudulent documents were printed on, so to speak. Some of you defending this law are not in the US. Let me explain one thing about US law. Our very founding principles are designed to err in favor of the chance of a criminal going free rather than impeding the rights of law abiding citizens. We would rather 100 criminals go free than one person unjustly imprisoned. Are there failures of this principle? Absolutely. And every single one is a tragic failure of the system. Not only is this law not what the American people want, but it is in violation of our constitution. There are countries that limit the freedoms of their citizens under the ideal of hopefully preventing crime. But in the US our constitution guarantees us the right to innocence until proven guilty. This law punishes people who are not the ones breaking the law and it limits the freedoms of all citizens, even those that are not and have never broken the law. The end result of this law is nothing more than blanket censorship... And as one person pointed out a clear case of "be careful what you ask for." If this law passes and takes effect, even those singing it's merits now will be asking themselves what they have done. I believe in paying for the rights to a song. And I do think more should be done to protect intellectual rights. However, this is not the answer. This law will not even come close to fixing the problem that they claim to be trying to fix. It is not even a bandaid for it. Wrong pew. Wrong church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Arkright Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Phil Deakins wrote: I think you mean that it didn't used to be a criminal offense. It was always illegal but, not being a criminal offense, it was a civil matter that came under civil law, and the law was used in court to decide which side was in the right. The courts weren't a mere arbitration service. I'd argue that only criminal offenses could be defined as 'illegal' in this context. I used 'arbitration' (probably too loosely) in the sense that the court decided which of two parties was in the right, where neither party was the state - damages might be awarded by the court, but provided the damages were paid it was a civil matter, there was no criminal record for the 'offender'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Ceka Cianci wrote: it's that if riaa and mpaa had sopa back then..a lot of innocent people would have been brought up on criminal charges ..not lawsuits.. It sounds like that would have improved things a lot. Once in a criminal court, the accused has the opportunity to prove his/her innocence. I'm not against criminal charges being brought against those who do criminal acts, however small the act. I don't have a firm view on this topic one way or the other. It just seemed to me that a lot of unjustified scaremongering was going on this thread, and I said so, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Arkady Arkright wrote: I'd argue that only criminal offenses could be defined as 'illegal' in this context. I used 'arbitration' (probably too loosely) in the sense that the court decided which of two parties was in the right, where neither party was the state - damages might be awarded by the court, but provided the damages were paid it was a civil matter, there was no criminal record for the 'offender'. Alright, as long as we agree that the court's decision is always made by comparing the act to the law, making it a legal matter, and that a decision is only made against a party when that party has actually broken the law - civil law, but the law nontheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Phil Deakins wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: it's that if riaa and mpaa had sopa back then..a lot of innocent people would have been brought up on criminal charges ..not lawsuits.. It sounds like that would have improved things a lot. Once in a criminal court, the accused has the opportunity to prove his/her innocence. I'm not against criminal charges being brought against those who do criminal acts, however small the act. I don't have a firm view on this topic one way or the other. It just seemed to me that a lot of unjustified scaremongering was going on this thread, and I said so, that's all. i haven't read most of this thread..so that may be true..i don't know hehehe i am just used to the topic.. when i first started to watch those you tube videos it took a lot of sorting to figure out who actually took the time to read the bill and who was just doign the bandwagon dance.. then when i saw the meetings and discussions by those that were going to be voting on this.. that was scary..LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Arkright Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Phil Deakins wrote: Alright, as long as we agree that the court's decision is always made by comparing the act to the law, making it a legal matter, and that a decision is only made against a party when that party has actually broken the law - civil law, but the law nontheless. Which law, in which country ? Anyway, this is the proper way to deal with these parasites :- ACS Law (UK) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Arkady Arkright wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Alright, as long as we agree that the court's decision is always made by comparing the act to the law, making it a legal matter, and that a decision is only made against a party when that party has actually broken the law - civil law, but the law nontheless. Which law, in which country ? The law in the country where the offense was committed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ciaran Laval Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Phil Deakins wrote: Arkady Arkright wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Alright, as long as we agree that the court's decision is always made by comparing the act to the law, making it a legal matter, and that a decision is only made against a party when that party has actually broken the law - civil law, but the law nontheless. Which law, in which country ? The law in the country where the offense was committed. Have you looked at the Richard O'Dwyer case? A UK court have given permission for him to be extradited to America for trial due to hosting a website on servers in the Netherlands that linked to websites where illegal downloads can be found. He did this from Sheffield in the UK. This is an abysmal use of the extradition treaty with the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Ciaran Laval wrote: Have you looked at the Richard O'Dwyer case? A UK court have given permission for him to be extradited to America for trial due to hosting a website on servers in the Netherlands that linked to websites where illegal downloads can be found. He did this from Sheffield in the UK. This is an abysmal use of the extradition treaty with the USA. I hadn't heard of it but I've just read the Mail site's article of Menzies Campbell's comments, and I have two thoughts. 1. It is abominable that someone can do something in one country that isn't illegal in that country but is illegal in another country, and be extradited to the other country to be tried for breaking their laws. That is an abomination and a blight on any country that does it. It's abominable that the U.S. would actually apply for his extradition, and it's even more abominable that the UK would clear it (although it hasn't been cleared yet). 2. The lad deserves to be put on trial because he intentionally directed people to break the laws of pretty much everywhere, including his own country, and steal from copyright holders. You don't "innocently" or "accidently" put links on your site to websites where people can freely download copyrighted films, which is an encouragement for people to do it, unless they are affiliate links and the content of the other sites are unknown to you (e.g. you got the links from a respectable affiliate broker site), but if that were the case, I'm sure it would have been mentioned in the article. ETA: The article says that his lawyer stated that Google also links to the site where copyrighted films can be downloaded for free, but there's a huge difference. Google's system is automated and it only deals in websites and webpages, without any understanding of what those websites and webpages contain. I.e. there is no human choice involved. When a site is genuinely complained about to Google, they remove it. That lad chose to encourage people to break laws by knowingly and intentionally linking to the lawless site. It's a huge difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GothGirl Demonia Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Woot more Sopa Well piracy is bad in general, especially in Second Life and it does suck, but sadly there will always be those people, and groups in Second Life which support piracy, although You do not have to be their friend, or part of their group or even RP with such, you make that choice to support piracy or things like SOPA, and believe it or not there is always a way to fight back against piracy. However things like SOPA are not here to stop Internet Piracy, it is here to take control of the internet, and will destroy things even fair use without a warning, and such. There is a certain point where I believe in fair use of different things such as using music you have purchased in your own YouTube videos, however even today those are removed most of the time, and things like Snap Shots in Second Life, you don't own the skin, or hair or textures used on your character/assets, but you are using them fairly, however things I really don't agree with is piracy such as well people attempt to make a profit off work/intellectual property of others have created giving them no credit at all for example, all the stuff taken into Second Life from movies, well I can understand the fact that people want to RP it out, and hey I like being able to like like my favorite game character, however giving no credit, or such back to the orginail designers, or company is bad. Things for example like people in Second Life uploading mesh from other games and such which are ripped from other games for the sole purpose of selling it to make a profit on work they really did not create. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc <-- Just don't forget to pass this on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Janus Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I dont pay a tier to have sl blacked out thanks !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Arkright Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Phil Deakins wrote:ETA: The article says that his lawyer stated that Google also links to the site where copyrighted films can be downloaded for free, but there's a huge difference. Google's system is automated and it only deals in websites and webpages, without any understanding of what those websites and webpages contain. I.e. there is no human choice involved. When a site is genuinely complained about to Google, they remove it. That lad chose to encourage people to break laws by knowingly and intentionally linking to the lawless site. It's a huge difference. So it's OK for Google to use the excuse that's it's doing exactly the same thing, but it's automated ? "I'm blameless, it wasn't me, it was the machines I programmed that did it". Sorry Phil, that really doesn't hold water... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 It holds a hell of a lot of water. The difference is that one is by personal, and intentional, choice and the other isn't. One thought, "I'll send people to where they can break the law and get free films", and the other has no idea what the content of webpages are, because it's a machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Arkright Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 So one gets asked to remove stuff, and is given time to do so - but the other gets dragged off to a foriegn country for a long incarceration without that option. Guess which is the big corporation, and which the small individual... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 You're not reading what's written. One did it by intentionally by choice. The other didn't. Also, I'm dead against the lad being extradited to the U.S. because he didn't break any laws there; i.e. he wasn't even there. It's an abomination. I already wrote that. But there is a huge difference between someone who intentionally encourages people to break the law and one (or a company) that doesn't - HUGE. Anyway, you're just thinking up stuff to say for the sake of it. Not even you can think that what you wrote makes any sense. If your thinking holds, then you could be dragged before a court because you went to an innocent looking webpage but it had pictures of child porn on it. According to your thinking, you're as guilty as hell because the images are stored in your computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Arkright Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Phil Deakins wrote: You're not reading what's written. One did it by intentionally by choice. The other didn't. So 'It wasn'rt me it was my machine' is a valid excuse ? Why should that be any kind of defense ? Shouldn't you be making sure your code can't break the law in the first place ? Phil Deakins wrote: Anyway, you're just thinking up stuff to say for the sake of it. No I'm not, but your own voice is drowning out anyone else's in your ears, so end of discussion... ETA - you could and would be prosecuted for images on your computer you didn't know were there, it's already happened. Your faith in british justice is touching, but misplaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Arkright Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 My apologies Phil, it got a bit messy last night (and I confess I may not have been entirely sober) - Let me try restating my point in the cold light of day. Phil Deakins wrote: You don't "innocently" or "accidently" put links on your site to websites where people can freely download copyrighted films, which is an encouragement for people to do it, unless [etc] But that is *exactly* what Google are doing. Their business model (i.e. money-making mechanism) depends on it. If it's illegal they should re-work their systems to make it impossible to happen, or withdraw from that area of business. As it is, they get a free pass (in the form of a 'please remove this') every time they repeat the offence. Did the little guy get politely asked to remove his site before the big guns came in to 'drag him off to gitmo' ? I don't know (it wasn't reported), but I doubt it. Let me try an analogy:- Gxxgle stands on a street corner along with some little guy. Gxxgle's business model requires that it steals the wallet of every third red-headed person who passes by, as does the little guy's. If Gxxgle gets caught, it just has to give the wallet back on request, and is left free to do exactly the same thing over and over again. The little guy, however goes to prison. Please explain to me why Gxxgle should get a 'free pass' just because they don't care that their systems break the law ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Arkady Arkright wrote: ETA - you could and would be prosecuted for images on your computer you didn't know were there, it's already happened. Your faith in british justice is touching, but misplaced. Maybe it has happened, but it won't happen now. There was a ruling a few years ago to the effect that a person cannot be held responsible for every image in his/her computer, simply because they sometimes arrive there unknowingly. Even British law catches up with the world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Arkady Arkright wrote: My apologies Phil, it got a bit messy last night (and I confess I may not have been entirely sober) - Let me try restating my point in the cold light of day. Phil Deakins wrote: You don't "innocently" or "accidently" put links on your site to websites where people can freely download copyrighted films, which is an encouragement for people to do it, unless [etc] But that is *exactly* what Google are doing. Their business model (i.e. money-making mechanism) depends on it. If it's illegal they should re-work their systems to make it impossible to happen, or withdraw from that area of business. As it is, they get a free pass (in the form of a 'please remove this') every time they repeat the offence. Did the little guy get politely asked to remove his site before the big guns came in to 'drag him off to gitmo' ? I don't know (it wasn't reported), but I doubt it. Let me try an analogy:- Gxxgle stands on a street corner along with some little guy. Gxxgle's business model requires that it steals the wallet of every third red-headed person who passes by, as does the little guy's. If Gxxgle gets caught, it just has to give the wallet back on request, and is left free to do exactly the same thing over and over again. The little guy, however goes to prison. Please explain to me why Gxxgle should get a 'free pass' just because they don't care that their systems break the law ? In the analogy, both of them knowingly steal the wallets, and neither should be given a "free pass". The difference between Google and the lad is that the lad is one individual who knowingly and intentionally created every part of his website, and at least one of those parts was an encouragement for people to steal other people's property. Google indexes billions of webpages and it's not possible to examine each one for bad content, so nobody knowingly and intentionally displays links to bad sites. The difference is in whether or not one or more humans could reasonably be expected to know that they were displaying links to the bad website, and therefore could be judged as encouraging people to go there to steal. I'm not a fan of Google. In fact I'm very negative about the company because they do some wrong things. Coincidentally, their copyright theft (knowingly displaying the content of books against the copyright holders' wishes) is one of them. So I'm not defending them because I like them. I don't. I'm only defending any major search engine displaying links to bad sites because, unless they are told, it's not possible for them to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Arkright Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Phil Deakins wrote: I don't. I'm only defending any major search engine displaying links to bad sites because, unless they are told, it's not possible for them to know. And that's the difference between us - you say that it's OK for them to use ignorance as an excuse, I hold that it's their responsibility to find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I accept that you have your view. We disagree, that's all. Imo, it isn't humanly possible for the people at a major search engine to know the content of the billions of pages that they index, unless someone tells them. And, when they are told, or when they discover by chance, they either remove it or they don't. Imo, that's the only time they can be judged on it. On the other hand, they could decide that, since they know there is bad stuff out there, and that there is no way for a machine (the engine) to "understand" the content of pages, they could close down so that they don't display links to bad stuff. Imo, that's not a realistic way to go. If the major engines did that, the whole world would oppose it. Incidentally, I didn't say that it's ok to use ignorance as an excuse. They have been asked for an excuse and, if they were asked, ignorance would be the reason, not an excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Arkright Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Phil Deakins wrote: On the other hand, they could decide that, since they know there is bad stuff out there, and that there is no way for a machine (the engine) to "understand" the content of pages, they could close down so that they don't display links to bad stuff. Once again we disagree. I believe that the relevant technology could be developed - perhaps not 100% effective, but definitely sufficient to show 'good faith'. You only have to look at what's been done with the supposedly 'intractible' problem of detecting spam to see what the IT industry is capable of when it's to its financial advantage - the difference is that there's no money (yet) in detecting copyright-breaking links automatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 You are mistaken that "the relevant technology could be developed". Understanding cannot be done by a machine. Perhaps it will come in time for the first Star Trek expeditions, but that's a long way in the future. The computers of today are not even in their infancy - they have only just been born. The idea that a programme could developed to understand what's on a webpage is ftotal fiction. Of course it's possible to exclude all pages that have links to film sites, but that would just plain silly. So far, I've been replying to what you wrote and you seem keen on finding things to oppose in everything I say (albeit you do cherry pick little bits and ignore the rest) even though your opposition doesn't hold up. So let me ask you something. Why are you going on about it? Why is it important to you that a lad who encouraged people to break the law is likely to be called to account, while a company that didn't encourage anyone to break the law, even though they displayed links to the same site, isn't even challenged about it? Is it that you think the lad should get away with it? Or is it that you think that Google should also be held to account? And why can't you see the [obvious] difference in the two acts, when one does it intentionally, and the other isn't even aware of it? Do you have a beef against bug business, or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now