TV Shack case due today

[Deebs]

Not at all. My rationale points to the intent as well as the act. It's the difference between murder and manslaughter, afterall, so why could the same principle not be applied elsewhere in law? Google is 99.9% legit and used for legit purposes. I think it's a reasonable cost to society and business to have that resource at the pretty small cost it incurs via having imperfect copyright infringement procedures.

I understand where you are coming from Chilly, the thing I do not like is that someone can be extradited for copyright infringement. We all know that the USA harbours the MPIAA etc. He will NOT get a fair trial over there (if his appeal fails).

 

[Chilly]

I understand where you are coming from Chilly, the thing I do not like is that someone can be extradited for copyright infringement. We all know that the USA harbours the MPIAA etc. He will NOT get a fair trial over there (if his appeal fails).

Yeah I'm not too keen on the extradition either TBH. He'll probably get about as far a trial there as here, they just have different laws so he's more likely to get busted for something.

 

[Deebs]

Yeah I'm not too keen on the extradition either TBH. He'll probably get about as far a trial there as here, they just have different laws so he's more likely to get busted for something.

He will get fucked over. The US Government is controlled to a degree by the film industry. It sucks.

 

[Zarjazz]

Since the judge has ruled this way I wonder if I can be extradited for linking to a site that links to download links

http://thepiratebay.org/ ! http://newzbin.com/ !! http://google.com/ !!!​

Retarded ruling is retarded.

 

[Raven]

So you really wouldn't have a problem with a child porn search engine, so long as it didn't host the child porn?

And yes, it is exactly the same.

Edit. ofc the extradition agreement is being abused and being used for fairly trivial things, however, he has technically broken the law.

I think he should be tried and if necessary punished in the UK.

 

[Deebs]

So you really wouldn't have a problem with a child porn search engine, so long as it didn't host the child porn?

And yes, it is exactly the same.

Um no it is not. Linking to a site hosting a film is NOT the same as linking to a site hosting child porn.

 

[caLLous]

It is the same in that they both link to illegal content but that's about where the similarities end.

 

[Raven]

Erm, yes it is.

What's the difference? How can one be illegal and the other legal? Neither are hosting anything (which is the argument being used in this thread) So how is linking to one illegal site different from linking to another illegal site?

*Obviously one is more illegal than the other but still...the same thing.

 

[Zarjazz]

Um no it is not. Linking to a site hosting a film is NOT the same as linking to a site hosting child porn.

Quite. Forget about the moral aspect, iirc there are actual laws about "facilitating" child porn or terrorism. There is no such thing for copyright infringement.

 

[Raven]

Actually, there is (despite what how people view movie piracy) which is under the law, theft.

Otherwise I could set you up with a cracking car thief and have no fear of prosecution, I could also take a finders fee.

People's moral compass is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. I personally have no issue with pirating the odd film, but I know that what I do is illegal.

 

[Deebs]

Actually, there is (depending on how you view movie piracy) which is under the law, theft.

Otherwise I could set you up with a cracking car thief and have no fear of prosecution, I could also take a finders fee.

People's moral compass is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

This is one of the oldest arguments ever. If someone downloads a film and does not buy it it is not a loss of sale. Go Google it. Far too many facts about it for me to repeat it here.

 

[Raven]

No it is not a loss of sale, but it is breaking the law.

*edited my previous post, regarding personal views, which are irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

 

[Deebs]

No it is not a loss of sale, but it is breaking the law.

*edited my previous post, regarding personal views, which are irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

It is breaking the law in this country agreed. But, this country allows me to make a backup of my films, the industry (the USA) wants to stop me from doing that. Anyway, the point is this, ask 100 people on the street, who would you rather see suffer.. ? A child porn site or a movie site? All will say the child porn site. Why? Cos we hold our children closest to our heart, their wellbeing is far more important than some wanker sat in an office in America.

 

[Gumbo]

Since the judge has ruled this way I wonder if I can be extradited for linking to a site that links to download links

http://thepiratebay.org/ ! http://newzbin.com/ !! http://google.com/ !!!​

Retarded ruling is retarded.

Probably not, it's Deebs that owns/runs/is responsible for this site isn't it? You've posted that, he's facilitated it.

But it's ridiculous. The already massive prison population in the States is going to have to double to accomodate all these uber criminal geeks.

 

[Gumbo]

Oh shit, by quoting your post, does that mean I've now posted the same links.

We're all going down, it's just a matter of time!!!!

 

[Deebs]

Probably not, it's Deebs that owns/runs/is responsible for this site isn't it? You've posted that, he's facilitated it.

But it's ridiculous. The already massive prison population in the States is going to have to double to accomodate all these uber criminal geeks.

Add this to the Kacey Barnfield, FBI, Secret Service, Marines, Navy Seals that are out to get me. Fuck em.

 

[Raven]

It is breaking the law in this country agreed. But, this country allows me to make a backup of my films, the industry (the USA) wants to stop me from doing that. Anyway, the point is this, ask 100 people on the street, who would you rather see suffer.. ? A child porn site or a movie site? All will say the child porn site. Why? Cos we hold our children closest to our heart, their wellbeing is far more important than some wanker sat in an office in America.

Yes and morally you are right but they are still both linking to illegal material, if one is legal then so is the other.

 

[Deebs]

Yes and morally you are right but they are still both linking to illegal material, if one is legal then so is the other.

No, I would hope that in our democratic society we use common sense. Speeding is illegal but it is not the same as hosting a child porn site. The punishment should and is more.

 

[Raven]

ofc it is. But there is no such thing as a little bit illegal. It is either legal or illegal.

 

[Deebs]

ofc it is. But there is no such thing as a little bit illegal. It is either legal or illegal.

Judges are allowed leeway.

 

[Tom]

Not at all. My rationale points to the intent as well as the act. It's the difference between murder and manslaughter, afterall, so why could the same principle not be applied elsewhere in law? Google is 99.9% legit and used for legit purposes. I think it's a reasonable cost to society and business to have that resource at the pretty small cost it incurs via having imperfect copyright infringement procedures.

What about Google Books then? There you have Google scanning copyrighted works in full and allowing the public to view entire sections at their pleasure.

The publishers have long argued that this is not legit. But that doesn't stop Google scanning everything that gets published.

 

[Gwadien]

Add this to the Kacey Barnfield, FBI, Secret Service, Marines, Navy Seals that are out to get me. Fuck em.

If the forum goes down, and you say nothing, it's cool, I know your LastFM account now, so I can check if you're okay.

 

[Deebs]

If the forum goes down, and you say nothing, it's cool, I know your LastFM account now, so I can check if you're okay.

FH is not going anywhere!

 

[Embattle]

Chilly did you even read the article? He made money from the ads, not the stuff he was linking to. Just like very other site on the net that relies on ads to run and provide income for the owner.

The linking excuse was weak when it started to be used and certainly hasn't got any stronger.

 

[BloodOmen]

Aye, fucking stupid it is. the usa needs taking down a peg or two and our gov needs to stop being so fucking soft when the usa demands extradition. If SOPA is passed there will be 100x more cases like this and there wont be a thing anyone can do about it, viva la usa for ruining yet another resource, fucking fat cunts.

Whats next? Extraditing woman to saudi for wearing short skirts and makeup?


"In July the agency's assistant deputy director told the Guardian that ICE would now actively pursue websites similar to TVShack even if their only connection to the US was a website address ending in .com or .net. Such suffixes are routed through Verisign, an internet infrastructure company based in Virginia, which the agency believes is sufficient to seek a US prosecution."


Time to break out the mass array of .org and .co.uk

 

[Krazeh]

It is breaking the law in this country agreed. But, this country allows me to make a backup of my films,

Interestingly that's not actually the case under UK copyright law. There's no provision for people to make backups of films or music they own, to do so is breaking the law altho I don't think anyone would ever attempt to pursue a case against someone for merely backing up films or music they own.

 

[Deebs]

Interestingly that's not actually the case under UK copyright law. There's no provision for people to make backups of films or music they own, to do so is breaking the law altho I don't think anyone would ever attempt to pursue a case against someone for merely backing up films or music they own.

It is not illegal to backup DVDs or CDs, it is currently (although under review) to bypass the digital protection (ie decrypt) from what I understand.

 

[Raven]

Confused as to why you would need a search engine to back up your DVDs though.

 

[Krazeh]

It is not illegal to backup DVDs or CDs, it is currently (although under review) to bypass the digital protection (ie decrypt) from what I understand.

No, it's illegal. There's no exception or clause in any legislation to allow you to backup DVDs or CDs. The government did say last year tho that they were going to look into updating the legislation to make it legal but as far as i'm aware that hasn't actually happened yet.

 

[Krazeh]

Confused as to why you would need a search engine to back up your DVDs though.

Perhaps the reference to Google was to refute your claim that piracy is theft? Because as we should all know it isn't theft and is actually copyright infringement. It is also, in the case of people at home downloading or copying the odd film, a civil matter rather than a criminal offence.