Major website shutdown by US govt without trial

[pizzazz]

The problem is that this isn't just confiscating property, it's removing their primary avenue for speech. Blocking a website is far more akin to censorship than a seizure of property.

Not to mention firing them from their job, since it cuts off their revenue stream.

Two things that aren't particularly relevant to whether an injunction is justified.

It's not justified if it involves censorship without a trial, then it is most certainly not justified. If it's really okay to do this, I don't see that there's any legal barrier to arbitrarily taking down any website.

I think his point is that you can't hide illegal activity behind free speech. It's not valid to say, "ok, they're pirating, but since there's also legal content up, free speech protects them." One might argue that they could have taken down only part of the website, but I'm not sure how feasible it is to trawl through the entire site's worth of content and check every single file.

Anonymous got press pretty much as soon as they started with their tactics so I'd say on a purely attention getting level, they're winning.

Yeah, but unless this is the only tactic that works (and I really don't think it is), then I'm still going to call out anonymous on being totally counterproductive and wrong.

This.

[sourmìlk]

Yeah, I get Yoni's point, but I don't think that copyright infringement is so horribly wrong that governments should be able to censor people without trial in an effort to stop it.

[elasto]

One might argue that they could have taken down only part of the website, but I'm not sure how feasible it is to trawl through the entire site's worth of content and check every single file.

Which is why laws such as DMCA and SOPA are potentially so toxic to the future of the net - in particular, Cloud Computing, say - because it's not feasible for the website owner to trawl through checking either.

[Metaphysician]

Anonymous got press pretty much as soon as they started with their tactics so I'd say on a purely attention getting level, they're winning.

Yeah, but unless this is the only tactic that works (and I really don't think it is), then I'm still going to call out anonymous on being totally counterproductive and wrong.

Oh I think it's great to call anonymous out on being childish, fairly directionless anarchists. They make huge threats that they can only really back up with ddosing a site for a day. I also don't think the kind of attention they're drawing is the kind of attention that actually results in change. I definitely don't think that their way is the best way. I just wanted to point out that what they're doing has succeeded better at getting attention that has been denied to other movements ostensibly working toward somewhat similar goals. However, the blackout over SOPA has, I believe, been very successful at drawing the right kind of attention, the kind that actually leads to change (hopefully). Nobody can't dismiss Google and Wikipedia as childish anarchists. So yes, there are better methods for getting better sorts of attention, but as far as attention in general goes, anonymous does accomplish the task of drawing it pretty well.

[thc]

...estimated harm to copyright holders well in excess of $500,000,000...

I just have to roll my eyes at this. Where do they think that kind of money would come from?

[Ghostbear]

1. Completely unacceptable--just my opinion, I guess, but as I said any defense one could offer is also defense of the government, and so if one thinks the government's behavior is unacceptable, one should think similarly of Anonymous.
2. Hypocritical and counterproductive--see 1 and above.
3. Immature--obviously
4. Frankly disgusting--perhaps taking it a little too far, but this is Anonymous's standard MO. They try to criminally intimidate the government and/or other bodies into doing what they want, but the most common denizens of the internet agree with them on lots of stuff so you never see that pointed out.

I don't see how defense of one automatically requires it to be a valid defense of the other. And I'm not even trying to fully defend them- I'm speaking out against the extent of condemnation they received for it. Do I think they did something wrong, and it wasn't ideal? Yep. I just don't think it's anywhere near bad enough to be worth tossing vitriol at them. They made a noise, and it did very little actual damage. I am thankful for their making noise on the issue, and am willing to weigh it against the damage and find it an ok trade off. If the damage was more (which is often with anonymous) or the noise was on something else, the scales might tip differently.

Oh, and I want to know what America you think exists where vandalism is the only way of getting attention.

I never said it was the only way, available. That's why I said "I would definitely prefer they did so in a way that's more positive and effective" in my reply. I would much prefer they did something more constructive. I would also prefer that they did what they did over doing absolutely nothing.

[Iulus Cofield]

...estimated harm to copyright holders well in excess of $500,000,000...

I just have to roll my eyes at this. Where do they think that kind of money would come from?

i expect they got that number by multiplying the number of new dvd rips downloaded by 20 and tje number of new video games by 50 then adding the results and finally making up whatever large figure they think sounds most victimizing. Assuming they got such a nice number by simple rounding, that's still only inthe neighborhood of 15 million illegal downloads.

[sourmìlk]

Yeah, that number is a load of shit. I do not support piracy and I think it is morally wrong for the same reason that theft is morally wrong, but I don't think that each download is necessarily a lost sale. People almost certainly pirate things they would have otherwise bought, but I don't know that every single download would have been purchased were piracy not an option. Oy, the only thing I hate more that pirates are those that they pirate from.

[curtis95112]

It's worth noting that attention is valuable for its own sake.
Even if anonymous draws the wrong kind of attention, it's still better than nobody knowing this is going on. Attention needs to reach a critical mass for this incident to be reasonably discussed and heard. Not that I think anon thought this through, of course.

[Diadem]

The problem is that this isn't just confiscating property, it's removing their primary avenue for speech. Blocking a website is far more akin to censorship than a seizure of property.

Not to mention firing them from their job, since it cuts off their revenue stream.

Two things that aren't particularly relevant to whether an injunction is justified.

It's not justified if it involves censorship without a trial, then it is most certainly not justified. If it's really okay to do this, I don't see that there's any legal barrier to arbitrarily taking down any website.

I think his point is that you can't hide illegal activity behind free speech. It's not valid to say, "ok, they're pirating, but since there's also legal content up, free speech protects them." One might argue that they could have taken down only part of the website, but I'm not sure how feasible it is to trawl through the entire site's worth of content and check every single file.

It's true that you can't hide illegal activity behind free speech. But megaupload is a huge site - they are 4% of the entire internet. Shutting them down just like that is not something that should be done lightly. Extraordinary claims etc. If they indeed break copyright, then let there be a trial. But destroying them before a trial has even taken place is not the proper way to go about it. Also, there is no rush. It doesn't matter one bit if they continue to exist for a few more weeks or not.

The reponse is completely over the top, and a clear abuse of power. Whether they are actually guilty or not.

Imagine you [working for the DoJ] had a strong suspicion that the top executives of ExxonMobile were running deathsquads to eliminate opponents. Do you in response shut down the entire company pending investigation? That's absurd. It's not needed for the investigation, it doesn't help your case, and in case you were wrong you have just destroyed a legimate business.

And that's not even mentioning the US applying US laws to things that clearly have nothing to do with the US. They are, at this point, pretty much claiming ownership of the internet, and jurisdiction over everything that happens there. That is a development that we (every citizen of earth, including all Americans) should all fight tooth and nail.

[big boss]

Can we really call pirating theft? because in order to qualify as theft the object needs to be stolen with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it, and pirating certainly does not do that. Kind of nitpicky I know, but pirating is different from theft.

Theft

[sourmìlk]

I think we can call pirating theft because the practical effect is the same: a vendor is unable to sell his product or has substantially more difficulty selling it, despite the fact that people are using it, and are doing so without his permission..

[Hawknc]

But then you could say counterfeit is theft, which it isn't. It's counterfeit.

[sourmìlk]

I don't see how what I said applies to counterfeit.

[yurell]

I don't see how what I said applies to counterfeit.

A new copy is made, passed onto someone else who uses it as they'd use the original. How is that not similar to counterfeit?

[sourmìlk]

That's a superficial similarity. The immorality doesn't result from using a copy of something just like the immorality of piracy doesn't result from using a copy of something. If that were the case, all copies would be immoral. Piracy is immoral because it deprives a vendor of the opportunity to profit off of his work while still using that work without his permission, whereas counterfeit is immoral because it's essentially a lie, tricking a person into believing he has valid money so that he gives you something for it even though the money isn't valid.

[Angua]

That's a superficial similarity. The immorality doesn't result from using a copy of something just like the immorality of piracy doesn't result from using a copy of something. If that were the case, all copies would be immoral. Piracy is immoral because it deprives a vendor of the opportunity to profit off of his work while still using that work without his permission, whereas counterfeit is immoral because it's essentially a lie, tricking a person into believing he has valid money so that he gives you something for it even though the money isn't valid.

That's not completely true - what about people who buy counterfeit gucci bags because they can't afford the real thing and don't think anyone will notice?

[sourmìlk]

Are clothing designs copyrightable in certain situations?

[Hawknc]

I'm talking about counterfeit products, not necessarily counterfeit money. If I buy a very convincing iPod knockoff running a jailbroken iOS, I'm getting all the functionality of an iPod and depriving Apple of any profits, and yet no theft has occurred.

[sourmìlk]

But you're net getting all the functionality of an iPod: the software and interface can't be identical under penalty of law. Those designs are copyrightable / patentable.

[Iulus Cofield]

I think they're talking about true counterfeits, sourmilk, not just knockoff products. And sometimes knockoffs can be illegal too. All beyond the limits of what the law allows.

[Hawknc]

Yes. That's...the point of a counterfeit product.

Okay, easier example: I buy a "Prada" handbag on the streets of New York City for $20, because according to movies that's what people do. Looks identical, nobody can tell the difference. What criteria of "a vendor is unable to sell his product or has substantially more difficulty selling it, despite the fact that people are using it, and are doing so without his permission" does this not meet?

[sourmìlk]

Yeah, sorry, I lost track of the conversation a bit. But for that reason, yeah, I'd consider counterfeit a subset of theft because it is theft of intellectual property. I have no problem with calling creating a counterfeit product theft.

[Griffin]

So, a couple interesting points about timing:

MegaUpload was suing Universal. Mind you, this is for something that, legally, the executives (or at least the lawyers involved) at Universal deserve jailtime for, but they are getting off scot free despite blatantly and knowingly disregarding the law, without even attempting to justify their actions.

MegaUpload was two weeks or so from releasing their Megabox platform, Megamusic, which was going to work directly with artists to sell their work with 90% of the profit going to the artists. They have some strong connections in the music biz, and I've heard tell a few big name artists were thinking of using the service. That part might just be a rumour.

Universal was pushing hard for the investigation, apparently.

Why do we still let these crooks do business? If anyone should be in jail at this point, it should be the executives from Universal that have decided bribery, fraud and DMCA violations is an acceptable way to spend their time.

[Obby]

So, a couple interesting points about timing:

MegaUpload was suing Universal. Mind you, this is for something that, legally, the executives (or at least the lawyers involved) at Universal deserve jailtime for, but they are getting off scot free despite blatantly and knowingly disregarding the law, without even attempting to justify their actions.

MegaUpload was two weeks or so from releasing their Megabox platform, Megamusic, which was going to work directly with artists to sell their work with 90% of the profit going to the artists. They have some strong connections in the music biz, and I've heard tell a few big name artists were thinking of using the service. That part might just be a rumour.

Universal was pushing hard for the investigation, apparently.

Why do we still let these crooks do business? If anyone should be in jail at this point, it should be the executives from Universal that have decided bribery, fraud and DMCA violations is an acceptable way to spend their time.

Every time I think about this, I can't help but also think about a certain popular sci-fi scene.

Ohshit copyright violation!

[Steax]

So, a couple interesting points about timing

The time coinciding with SOPA/PIPA protests and their pro-SOPA campaign convinces me of one thing: They're using the opportunity to say "LOOK AT THAT HALF A BILLION DOLLARS! THINK OF THE JOBS! AND THAT'S JUST ONE WEBSITE! PIRACY'S HUGE! IT'S A CONSPIRACY! THE TECH COMPANIES ARE OUT TO GET US! WE WILL FISH YOU OUT OF ANY COUNTRY! THIS IS WAR! AAAARRRRGHHHHH!!!!"

... I also wonder if those people really have better things to do. I mean, really. Does anyone know what a label company executive do on a daily basis? Aren't contracts and stuff ironed out by lower levels? That's in stark contrast to 20-man internet companies, where everyone has to stay up-to-date and everyone has a say in each product. Pretty much any tech company CEO still meddles with their product to a low level, and spends much of their time doing so. I can't imagine a label company executive busy sitting around in recording rooms and listening to stuff.

[Zamfir]

That's in stark contrast to 20-man internet companies, where everyone has to stay up-to-date and everyone has a say in each product.

You can't just compare a 20-person firm to a large firm. In many ways, a small firm is like a single department of a large firm. Where departments in a firm coordinate through a hierarchy, small independent firms coordinate mostly through the looser-coupled mechanisms of contracts and prices. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.

Just for fun, think about the ecosystem around a 20-man firm as a kind if loose firm in its own. So some of your competitors (who would be your colleagues if you merged into a larger firm), people who use your product, the comapny you hire server space from, the marketing agency you use from time to time, the temp agency you use instead of having your own HR department, your bookkeepers, the companies that develop the tools that you use for your work, etc.

Draw an arbitrary line around a 1000 of such people 'near' your firm, and compare that to a 1000-people company. How many people in your ecosystem know about your work, compared to people in the big firm? How many people spend their time negotiating contracts, or trying to predict what their suppliers/customers/competitors will do next year, or are otherwise coordinating with others in the ecosystem?

[aoeu]

Big companies have a lot money so almost by definition the head guy will be an economist concerned with how to reliably turn a lot of money into a lot more money.

[Steax]

That's in stark contrast to 20-man internet companies, where everyone has to stay up-to-date and everyone has a say in each product.

You can't just compare a 20-person firm to a large firm. In many ways, a small firm is like a single department of a large firm. Where departments in a firm coordinate through a hierarchy, small independent firms coordinate mostly through the looser-coupled mechanisms of contracts and prices. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.

Just for fun, think about the ecosystem around a 20-man firm as a kind if loose firm in its own. So some of your competitors (who would be your colleagues if you merged into a larger firm), people who use your product, the comapny you hire server space from, the marketing agency you use from time to time, the temp agency you use instead of having your own HR department, your bookkeepers, the companies that develop the tools that you use for your work, etc.

Draw an arbitrary line around a 1000 of such people 'near' your firm, and compare that to a 1000-people company. How many people in your ecosystem know about your work, compared to people in the big firm? How many people spend their time negotiating contracts, or trying to predict what their suppliers/customers/competitors will do next year, or are otherwise coordinating with others in the ecosystem?

I was musing more about how the different sectors influence them. The technology sector is very fast-moving and every CEO knows that they have to keep pushing in order to stay afloat. The entertainment industry just needs to churn out stuff like more movies, which, as a TED Talk says, just needs to be better than the 5 other movies on screens at the same time to make money. I wonder how this affects how busy higher-ups are, and the time they can dedicate towards, um, "ironing out" rivals and opponents.

[LaserGuy]

I think we can call pirating theft because the practical effect is the same: a vendor is unable to sell his product or has substantially more difficulty selling it, despite the fact that people are using it, and are doing so without his permission..

No, the practical effect of theft is to deprive the owner of their physical property. Difficulty in selling a product does not qualify as theft. Otherwise it would be theft for me to set up a competing business next to yours.

Why does every single thread about copyright infringement have to have this discussion?

[yoni45]

It's not justified if it involves censorship without a trial, then it is most certainly not justified. If it's really okay to do this, I don't see that there's any legal barrier to arbitrarily taking down any website...

As noted, whether the illegal activity happens to constitute an avenue of speech (I wouldn't even call it one in this case, but meh) is not a relevant consideration to the injunction. If you think the granting of such an injunction is 'arbitrary', then you must not be particularly familiar with the law or familiar enough with this case. The test for being granted such an injunction is particularly high, and far from arbitrary.

[bentheimmigrant]

Why does every single thread about copyright infringement have to have this discussion?

Because people ignore things like this.

[Dauric]

Every time I think about this, I can't help but also think about a certain popular sci-fi scene.

Ohshit copyright violation!

<Lucasarts turns their SOPA-Star in Obby's direction and destroys the interne....>

[Zamfir]

I was musing more about how the different sectors influence them. The technology sector is very fast-moving and every CEO knows that they have to keep pushing in order to stay afloat. The entertainment industry just needs to churn out stuff like more movies, which, as a TED Talk says, just needs to be better than the 5 other movies on screens at the same time to make money. I wonder how this affects how busy higher-ups are, and the time they can dedicate towards, um, "ironing out" rivals and opponents.

Yeah, that's true. Preempting potential rivals is very important for software and internet firms, with the strong winner-takes-all effect of the profitable niches. If some movie studio would have the resources of an Oracle or Google to stave off competitors, they might end up as the one big studio left. On the other hand, the higher ups of software firms spend so much time on ironing out rivals because it really pays off for them, because their market dominance tends to last long enough to make money. If the higher ups of entertainment firms did the same, they might not succeed.

Perhaps if movies become ever more internet-focussed, studios will become more like internet firms in that respect, until there's only room for one big studio that can focus on protecting its position. Arguably, this all takedown stuff is already movie studios adopting the business style of tech companies. But in the mean time, they have to care more about making movies, and being better than the other 5 movies from similar studios.

[Ghostbear]

Yeah, sorry, I lost track of the conversation a bit. But for that reason, yeah, I'd consider counterfeit a subset of theft because it is theft of intellectual property. I have no problem with calling creating a counterfeit product theft.

The problem here then, that by your logic, the actual "stealing" that occurred is of an opportunity. The company lost the opportunity to profit off their product- you used the word opportunity yourself, even. How do you define the limit between denied opportunity = theft and denied opportunity != theft? If someone gets a job instead of me, did they steal from me? They just denied me the right to profit off my product (my labor). A denied opportunity is just that- a denied opportunity. No stealing is involved.

Even if we hypothetically accepted that the lost opportunity is the same as theft, then there are many cases where piracy does not result in a lost opportunity. Many people- particularly outside the US- will download TV shows that interest them that they are unable to purchase or view legally. The producers (by their own choice) never had an opportunity to profit off their product in this case. Or what if somebody downloads some insanely expensive piece of software- many professional programs can cost upwards of $10,000 to buy individual licences. If they do not, under any circumstances, have any chance of being able to purchase that product, did they truly deny the seller an opportunity to sell it? No, but despite that, the product was still pirated. If you rely on that lost opportunity to define the crime, then no crime has been committed in these cases- which seems quite silly, as the piracy still occurred, and all that has changed is the circumstances of the person doing it*.

* Of course, the legal system often has some allowances for circumstances- insanity pleas come to mind- but that tends to be for determining the extent of guilt and punishment required, not if what occurred was still a crime.

I really hate it when people call piracy theft.

[cjmcjmcjmcjm]

72 minutes of silence are in order?

[Roĝer]

I think there should be a bit more focus on the fact that the US has ordered the arrest of non-US-citizens outside US soil for acts commited by a company based in Hong Kong. Why are the governments of the world not screaming about this blatant disrespect for national sovereignity and human rights?

[yoni45]

I think there should be a bit more focus on the fact that the US has ordered the arrest of non-US-citizens outside US soil for acts commited by a company based in Hong Kong. Why are the governments of the world not screaming about this blatant disrespect for national sovereignity and human rights?

Because there was no such disrespect -- the US asked them to arrest him, and they freely chose to do so.

[Roĝer]

How is that not disrespecting the rights of its citizens (to know which according to which laws they are prosecuted) or its own judicial system?

[sourmìlk]

The problem here then, that by your logic, the actual "stealing" that occurred is of an opportunity. The company lost the opportunity to profit off their product- you used the word opportunity yourself, even. How do you define the limit between denied opportunity = theft and denied opportunity != theft? If someone gets a job instead of me, did they steal from me? They just denied me the right to profit off my product (my labor). A denied opportunity is just that- a denied opportunity. No stealing is involved.

Nowhere did I say that a denied opportunity in and of itself equates to theft.

Because people ignore things like this.

I'm aware of the legal classification of copyright infringement.

As noted, whether the illegal activity happens to constitute an avenue of speech (I wouldn't even call it one in this case, but meh) is not a relevant consideration to the injunction.

Okay, yes, I don't think people will dispute that. It's the action taken based on the injunction we take issue with. I suppose arbitrary is too harsh, but the standard of evidence required for censoring somebody is still far too low if an injunction calls for it.

No, the practical effect of theft is to deprive the owner of their physical property. Difficulty in selling a product does not qualify as theft. Otherwise it would be theft for me to set up a competing business next to yours.

Nowhere did I say that just creating difficulty in selling a product is itself theft.