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.
Please tell me this is a joke. I don't know whether to laugh or be sad.
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.
> It didn't actually say that. Where does it say streaming sites?
> ICE is not focusing its efforts just on web sites that stream dodgy content
> but those that link to them
I also don't understand how you are equating this with torrent search engines. Only some of the domains seized were torrent search engines.
... 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.
> But where some say "they're identical to Google,"
> I personally see a very large, obvious distinction.
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#Contribu...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokster#The_history_of_the_cas...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_...