Khun_Kong Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 C'mon TC- you usually post some astute thoughts. ... But actually, yes, silence does equal consent. In legal speak is is called, "Qui tacet consentire videtur."... Nothing legal here, because there has been no due process. There has been no accusation of a crime, no arraignment, nothing except sentencing. There has been no trial, no conviction. The first step by the government in this case was to seize property (the domain). And, while there may exist the legal term that you quoted, it is not the law, it is just a term- it is NOT the law. Would you argue that you can legally fuck any girl who doesn't say "no", even though you never even asked her, because silence = consent? ... And yes, I am an American so I believe in rule by evidence. These sites are clearly guilty of willfully breaking copyright law. Show me how this is not true. Show me how it is true! The site that got popped doesn't have the copyrighted material, they don't even host the torrents. All they have are lists of sites where those torrents are. It's as if you told people where in LA you could get a map showing strip clubs- and ICE SENTENCES you for obscenity. No trial, you didn't do anything obscene, you don't even have the map- just move right to the penalty phase. And, again, you've got it backwards. In Amerika (not sure where you are these days), you (generally) must be proven guilty by a trial. You don't have to prove you are not guilty. At least, that was true before the terrorists started winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted November 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 << And, again, you've got it backwards. In Amerika (not sure where you are these days), you (generally) must be proven guilty by a trial. You don't have to prove you are not guilty. >> Except with IRS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCorinthian Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 C'mon TC- you usually post some astute thoughts. And you are usually not insulting. ... But actually, yes, silence does equal consent. In legal speak is is called, "Qui tacet consentire videtur."... Nothing legal here, because there has been no due process. There has been no accusation of a crime, no arraignment, nothing except sentencing. There has been no trial, no conviction. The first step by the government in this case was to seize property (the domain). And, while there may exist the legal term that you quoted, it is not the law, it is just a term- it is NOT the law. Yes it is. I have asked you twice to show me how this is not true and you have only given retoric or insults. Would you argue that you can legally fuck any girl who doesn't say "no", even though you never even asked her, because silence = consent? Apples and oranges. How about this one, "can you write a book or a song that you sell for money. I then copy it to my hearts content and sell it or give it away and give you nothing?" ... And yes, I am an American so I believe in rule by evidence. These sites are clearly guilty of willfully breaking copyright law. Show me how this is not true. Show me how it is true! The site that got popped doesn't have the copyrighted material, they don't even host the torrents. All they have are lists of sites where those torrents are. And, again, you've got it backwards. No, you do. Did you even read the complaint used to "pop" the sites? I am sorry you do not know how the law works nor do you seem to want to look it up. You would have a different view I bet if you created the works copied. Look at it this way, you have a shop that sells fake Parada bags. The shop is culpable for it, even if they were just giving them away. It is a pretty clear cut legal theory. How are you missing that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 What copyrighted material was Torrent-Finder selling? What juridiction does ICE have in this matter? What are the widespread possible reprocussions of this act by ICE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 It looks like whack-a-mole anyway. They'll just pop up somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCorinthian Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 What copyrighted material was Torrent-Finder selling? What juridiction does ICE have in this matter? What are the widespread possible reprocussions of this act by ICE? I'll help Kong out 1) It appears a site that primarily deals with searches for illegal content can be shut down. The example that a DA used was this, "If 90%, 80%, or even 30% of your searches are for say, child porn, we will come get you, too. 99% of Torrent-finder.com searches was for items protected under US and international copyright law and not offered legally. (Source: CNN) 2) What does the "C" in ICE stand for? That answers your question. 3) Long term? Most likely not much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 "...Apples and oranges. How about this one, "can you write a book or a song that you sell for money. I then copy it to my hearts content and sell it or give it away and give you nothing?"..." This is more less my point about libraries and used book/cd/dvd stores. In a sense, they do the same thing a bit torrent guy does, except on a much smaller scale. That is, passing along something with out giving the original "producer" of the item any cut/royalty. One is legal/acceptable, one is not. To me, doing it 1 time with 1 item is no different than doing it 1000+ times with 1000+ items, if it is stealing in 1 case, it is stealing in every case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 What copyrighted material was Torrent-Finder selling? What juridiction does ICE have in this matter? What are the widespread possible reprocussions of this act by ICE? ICE is responsible for enforcing cu\stoms regulations. That is keeping contraband out of the country. If it is determined that this stuff is illegal, and is coming into the country via internet etc, than ICE is supposed to help stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCorinthian Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 This is more less my point about libraries and used book/cd/dvd stores. In a sense, they do the same thing a bit torrent guy does, except on a much smaller scale. That is, passing along something with out giving the original "producer" of the item any cut/royalty. One is legal/acceptable, one is not. To me, doing it 1 time with 1 item is no different than doing it 1000+ times with 1000+ items, if it is stealing in 1 case, it is stealing in every case. I asked someone who should know. They did not but said they would get back to me. His off the hip answer however was you are allowed to check out a book, ect., and view it, listen, read, ect. But you are NOT allowed to check it out.... and copy it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 I get the copy part. But is there a difference between reading/listening from one source and not another is my point...or the point I am trying to make. If a guy just watches or listens or reads on line, how is that different than a library or used store? assuming no illegal copies have been made. I know there have been a lot of calls to crack down on other stuff on the net, such as articles, news feeds photos, music etc...as a lot of it is copyrighted. Short of charging more, and can't see how they will make it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.