ICE Admits That It Just Wants To 'Put People In Jail' With Operation In Our Sites

from the nice-of-them dept

Rob Fischer has a fantastic article at The American Prospect, looking at ICE's Operation In Our Sites program, with a specific focus on the seizure and subsequent prosecution of NinjaVideo. It's worth reading in its entirety, as a few things become clear. Here are just a few interesting tidbits, though. First up, the site's admins noted that they had done their best to abide by the DMCA, and they figured that if anything, they might have to fight a civil lawsuit, not a criminal one:
Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA), copyright owners are responsible for sending takedown notices to sites hosting infringing content. Anyone on YouTube who has ever read the statement “This video has been removed due to terms of use violation” has seen the result of a DMCA notice. “We believed that if we didn’t host the content but linked to it elsewhere on the Web, our only legal consideration was complying with takedown notices,” Beshara says. “And we always complied.”

But it wasn’t so simple. The DMCA takedown process allows intermediaries like YouTube to avoid liability because it’s their users uploading the infringing content. Ninja Video was both the intermediary and the uploader. Independent storehouses called “cyberlockers” hosted the content Ninja Video streamed, but Ninja’s uploaders put it there.
I'm not sure that this is really an accurate explanation of the DMCA issue, seeing as the users uploaded the content... that's the same thing with YouTube and Veoh, both of which have been declared legal under the DMCA. As long as they followed the safe harbor provisions, the fact that users upload shouldn't have an impact. There very likely may have been issues of secondary liability if the site encouraged people to infringe -- but that's a separate issue, and one that again should have been an issue for civil copyright law, rather than criminal.

The folks at ICE come across as typical meatheads with no clue what they're dealing with here. The real humdinger of a quote comes from ICE Special Agent William Ross, who earlier in the piece notes that he was influenced by Hollywood repeatedly asking him to do their job. But when confronted with the point (made by Corynne McSherry from EFF) that "Arresting people and putting them in jail for having some links online doesn’t really strike me as a good way for us to invest our time and energy." Ross hits back:
“I am a law-enforcement officer,” says Special Agent Ross. “I want to put people in jail.”
That, alone, is a pretty ridiculous and scary quote when you think about it. He's not talking about fairness or justice or upholding the law. He just wants to "put people in jail." People like that shouldn't have jobs in power.

In the end, it seems clear that the folks at Ninja Video received horrific legal advice and made some equally poorly thought out legal decisions themselves. I still don't see where the site's operators could have possibly been liable for criminal copyright infringement, but after throwing away the $10,000 they raised on lawyers, who (from the description in the article) did not appear to do very much (and it's not clear they ever understood fully what was happening), the admins quickly caved to government pressure on plea bargains.

In the wake of the Dajaz1 debacle by the Justice Department, it seems even more ridiculous that the NinjaVideo folks agreed to the plea deals. If they'd just received some decent legal advice early on, they wouldn't now be facing years in jail. Pretty unfortunate.

In the meantime, what you get is a ridiculous portrait of a bunch of "we just want to put people in jail" semi-clueless ICE agents (they repeatedly use Alexa as their judge of what's popular -- can no one buy them a subscription to a decent online monitoring service?) who don't even recognize the First Amendment implications of seizing sites with tons of non-infringing content on it, and who seem to be totally in awe of big entertainment companies and the myths they tell. The whole thing would be amusing if it didn't involve serious Constitutional questions and if people weren't ending up in jail.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:28am

    Mike, he wants to put people in jail. he doesn't JUST want to put people in jail. That is your opinion, not the officers statement.

    You are really sneaky with the weasel wording, aren't you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The Devil's Coachman (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:29am

      Re:

      And you?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:40am

      Re:

      Mike, he wants to put people in jail

      Then he should not have any power.

      Jail is not an end, it is a means. His goal should be to reduce crime and protect society - jail is just one weapon on that battle. If he simply considers "filling jails" to be his goal or even part of his goal, then I for one think he is a very bad person.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:43am

        Re: Re:

        He is a law enforcement officer. His job starts when the law is broken, and as a result, he wants to put people in jail. He wants to make sure that the law breakers are brought to justice.

        You guys are busy reading way too much into a simple statement.

        "I want a coffee" doesn't mean I only want coffee, and that I cannot have anything but coffee, and that I will have coffee even if it is cold and icky.

        You guys really just need to grow up.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          vancedecker (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:46am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I have to agree. Crime has not risen substantially during this recession in large part due to the criminal elements in our society already being locked up.

          Normally, these would be the first to become unemployed and unemployable, and the first to start breaking the law when times are tough.

          It makes sense to fill our jails to capacity with as many criminals as possible. Then if we run out of room, we can always let certain ones out on parole.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            A Guy (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:08am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Wow, an advocate of the police state. We have so many laws that anyone could be locked up given a vindictive or self righteous enough law enforcement officer, including yourself.

            The reason that crime is down is largely due to unemployment benefits being extended. The social safety net caught those laid off, so they don't have to resort to crime. If the social safety net had caught many of those in prison, we wouldn't have to deprive them of their basic rights.

            "It makes sense to fill our jails to capacity with as many criminals as possible. Then if we run out of room, we can always let certain ones out on parole."

            We should start with people like you, or only lock up the worst of the worst to begin with.

            I found these two videos very educational.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJp qk

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Someantimalwareguy (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:15am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            So your solution is to just put people in jail; jails that are already so overcrowded that many simply get put back onto the streets a few days after getting there because there is no more room to house them?

            The penal system is not the answer to everything as it only hardens those incarcerated, makes it impossible for them to find jobs after serving out their debt to society, and you actually try to equate the fact that they are unemployable while trying to survive as a reason to simply put them back into jail on the tax payers dime?

            The "get tough" wave that has been going on for over 30 years now is not working and only creating a sub-culture who's only recourse for survival is more criminality.

            What a waste of effort, money, and people... It's sad that your world is so black and white. try to add some color to your world view and then see how destructive this has been and will only get worse as time passes without real reform.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              vancedecker (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 1:05pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Jails are not 'overcrowded' everywhere. One solution could be a system whereby states traded jail space on a sort of exchange or market.

              That way states like Utah or Wyoming could 'sell' jail space to places like California.

              Many criminals want to be in jail after they get out because at least in jail they get a square meal three times a day and free medical care. Also, they aren't subject to the temptations to commit crimes that they are outside of prison.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Jay (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 1:49pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Jails are not 'overcrowded' everywhere.

                What planet are you on?

                The US system is overcrowded with drug offenses. Moreso than the rest of the world combined. Where the heck did you get your statistics?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  vancedecker (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 2:09pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Here you go spanky:

                  http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/09/plenty-of-room-remains-in-canadas-prisons

                  This would be a great way to raise our exports.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Planespotter (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 2:20pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    ahhh.. I see... you have come to Techdirt for the lulz!

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      vancedecker (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 2:42pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Really? You just said "What planet are you on?" implying that prisons are all filled to capacity.

                      I provided you an article from September of this year stating that there is plenty of room in Canadian prisons and that they are not 'overcrowded' like you claim.

                      It's perfectly reasonable to turn make lemonade from lemons and turn our prisoners into a commodity to be traded.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        Jay (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 3:10pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Why the hell are we outsourcing prisons to other countries?

                        And I'm the one that said "what planet are you on", not planespotter.

                        Looking at what you believe (people should be locked up for nonviolent crimes) it's just not worth it to actually take you seriously.

                        The evidence suggests that those locked up don't actually reform and that they are worse off in the long run with a criminal record that limits the jobs they get when they're out.

                        Your positivity towards this negative factual data is beyond ignorant. You can't lock up all of the people in your nation without looking like a fascist society in some regards.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    TtfnJohn (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 10:28am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    As far as it goes, I'm absolutely certain that I speak for most Canadians here when I say that we don't want your exports in this regard,

                    First off, no matter what Ms Beshara has done here which amounts to copyright infringement to be sure and making far too many assumptions about safe harbours without legal advice I have my doubts that she cost Hollywood a penny. In fact she probably could have done a better job in finding a legal firm that specializes in IP law that would have represented her better.

                    But you see, in Canada she probably wouldn't get custodial time at all for her "crime" as from beginning to end there was no violence and no, as yet, spelled out losses by the plaintiff and certainly none to the state outside of income tax. Generally speaking we don't send people to jail for that one either unless it's a massive amount and clearly fraudulent.

                    Yes, her site may have been forfeited AFTER a trail but she would have been given a non-custodial sentence, ordered to pay restitution (all of which would have forced Hollywood to come up with actual losses based on real, not imaginary, accounting practices which I'm sure they don't want cause there wouldn't be any as you can't actually lose a "possible" sale and call that a line item) and do some form of community work appropriate to the "crime" in question.

                    In short, we don't imprison the vast majority of non-violent "crimes". So if you handed her over to us the worst she'd get is one of those oh-so-fashionable ankle bracelet things.

                    All that said, we don't want your crooks. Unless, of course, the United States wants to pay the costs of the related custodial time. It don't come free, you know.

                    At a guess, I'd say that should she get a 5 year term, serve the entire thing and get out her imprisonment will have cost the American legal and penal systems far more than any damage she did to Hollywood while, at the same time, taking away aspects of the site that did good things.

                    And this makes sense to you? Even IF I agreed with the ICE agent's view of his job (and I don't because it's not his job to be judge, jury and executioner) spending more to keep her incarcerated than any REAL, not imaginary, damage she and her site may have cost.

                    Constitutional questions aside, it makes no sense at all.

                    No wonder American jails are filled to overflowing.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 12:00pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            They missed a few criminals. There are a bunch of them hanging around certain buildings in Washington, and carry amorphous titles like Senator and Congressman.

            Criminal???? Yes. It appears that the difference between what one says during the campaign and how they then behave in office is a pretty good example of fraud.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 12:23pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Wow... just wow

            It makes sense to fill our jails to capacity with as many criminals as possible. Then if we run out of room, we can always let certain ones out on parole.


            A lot of trolls have said a lot of stupid things in the comments here on Techdirt, but your comment is one of the most genuinely and willfully ignorant I have ever seen. At least that's something to be proud of...

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          E. Zachary Knight (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:50am

          Re: Re: Re:

          He is a law enforcement officer. His job is to protect and serve the public. If that requires putting dangerous people in prison, that is fine. But if putting people in jail is more a priority over protecting and serving the public, he is not the kind of person that should carry a badge.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Larry, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 12:37pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Nope. It's the courts job to determine if someone is a criminal and to put them in jail.

            Cops are just the front end tool. They arrest and turnover info to prosecutors to determine charges.

            Cops can arrest me, they can detain me in a "jail" but they cannot imprison me

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          average_joe (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:50am

          Re: Re: Re:

          You guys really just need to grow up.

          Exactly. A cop who doesn't want to put the criminals in jail is probably not a good cop. That's what cops do.

          This is just more pirate apology from Capt. Mike of the U.S.S. Techdirt. Yarrrr!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:54am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Exactly. A cop who doesn't want to put the criminals in jail is probably not a good cop. That's what cops do.

            Whenever you get all high on some proclamation or another that you think is bulletproof, you just expose the eerily fascist leanings that seem to sit at the heart of your philosophy. Is that what law school does to people?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:00am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Is that what law school does to people?

              Not the good ones. But the third/fourth tier ones that no one's heard of churn out people like that.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:05am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                But the third/fourth tier ones that no one's heard of churn out people like that.

                Cooley's going to have your ass for that statement.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                average_joe (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:19am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Not the good ones. But the third/fourth tier ones that no one's heard of churn out people like that.

                Ha! You're so desperate to "get" me that you've resorted to this kind of attack. Classic awesomeness, Mike. Classic. Thanks for the giggles.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:50am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  It obviously worked. Shame you can't see that for yourself.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:12am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Ha! You're so desperate to "get" me that you've resorted to this kind of attack.

                  Not an attack. Just pointing out some basic facts that seemed relevant to the conversation.

                  I guess if you're sensitive about the type of law school you attend, you might see that as an attack. But that's really an issue for you to deal with.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Some Other Guy, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:10am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Ouch...that kinda hurts man.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            E. Zachary Knight (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:55am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            A cop that only wants to put people in jail is not a good cop. His goal should be to protect and serve the public.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              average_joe (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:20am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              And how do cops do that? By arresting criminals. You guys really do need to grow up.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:28am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Alleged criminals! They arrest ALLEGED criminals.

                No wonder you're having problems with all this.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:35am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                And how do cops do that? By arresting criminals.

                No, they do it in a whole bunch of different ways. By acting as a deterrent, by dispersing crowds, by monitoring public gatherings, by issuing tickets, through extensive social outreach programs that police departments run... The fact that you see their only job as arresting criminals is telling, Joe.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:28am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Well in China only criminals are executed.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Richard (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:47am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                And how do cops do that? By arresting criminals. You guys really do need to grow up.

                No - arresting criminals is a last resort after all else has failed. The primary mechanism for protecting the public is crime prevention. Arresting criminals is a sign that you have failed in you primary task.

                It is you that has a child's view of crime.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 12:31pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Yes, cops protect and serve by arresting suspected criminals. They build a case and gather evidence and then turn the suspect and the evidence over to a prosecutor. A cop who "wants to put people in jail" is not a good cop. A cop who wants to protect the public by identifying potential threats to it and trying to prove those threats are real is a good cop. If you "want to put people in jail" you should become a prosecutor. And if putting people in jail ever becomes more important than ensuring they receive a fair trial, then you wouldn't be a good one of those either.

                The ICE director's statement was poorly made and makes him look like someone who doesn't care about justice and is on a power trip. Defending that statement like this is pretty pathetic.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:58am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I think you missed some classes.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:03am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Exactly. A cop who doesn't want to put the criminals in jail is probably not a good cop. That's what cops do.

            That's incredibly misguided to absolutely wrong. While jail is a tool of law enforcement it is not "what cops do." That's like saying "a copy who doesn't want to shoot people is probably not a good cop. That's what cops do."

            No one is saying that he shouldn't, as law enforcement, be able to put someone in jail as a tool of serving the public good. But his statement suggests he sees that as an end in and of itself.

            Of course, it doesn't surprise me that you can't figure out the difference between ends and means -- since you still make the same mistake with copyright. The ends of copyright is to benefit the public (same with law enforcement). The means is to provide a monopoly for artists. You, however, seem to insist that the means are the ends in both cases.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Mike C. (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:05am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              To me, this whole conversation is off target because, technically, most "cops" CAN'T put someone in jail. They can arrest them, put them in a temporary holding cell, but only a judge can sentence them to extended confinement.

              /Just sayin'

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                JMT (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:57pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                The issue is not what he thinks he can do, but what he wants to do, as this affects the way he does his job. It seems like a terrible attitude for a law enforcement officer.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              average_joe (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:32am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Snore. Cops shoot people when it's warranted, and they put people in jail when it's warranted. That's what they do. That's the means, not the end. If a cop won't shoot people or arrest them, then that cop is probably not good at his job. It seems obvious to me that the cop is saying he wants to put people in jail (the means) so that he can serve the public good (the ends). Just because he didn't explicitly spell that out is no reason to jump to the ridiculous conclusion (as you have) that this person shouldn't even be a cop. God, you're insufferably boring with this stuff.

              Why in the world would you jump to the faith-based assumption that this cop only wants to put people in jail as an end unto itself and that this cop can't possibly view his job as being a means to an end? There is no reason to think that. People that hate authority and hate the government--people exactly like you and all of your pirate friends that you spend day in and day out defending--tend to jump to these sorts of ridiculous conclusions, unfortunately. I can't help you there...

              As far as the copyright thing goes, I understand the ends-means distinction that you are arguing. I think the better view is that it's a quid pro quo. I can find Supreme Court language and law review articles that support this point of view. What's the point? We see it differently. Big deal.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:40am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                How bleak is your life that you spend all your time arguing on a site that you find "insufferably boring"?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:44am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  There's a lawyer joke in there, somewhere.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  average_joe (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:00am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  How bleak is your life that you spend all your time arguing on a site that you find "insufferably boring"?

                  Oh, you misunderstand. Pointing out what an incredible tool Mike Masnick is is fun for me.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:03am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Oh, you misunderstand. Pointing out what an incredible tool Mike Masnick is is fun for me.

                    Yeah, sometimes I masturbate when I'm bored too.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    The Logician, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:10am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Finding enjoyment in the ridicule of another (outside of mutual jesting) is a questionable practice at best, and borderline unethical. Ethics and law are not always in concert, AJ. That is a concept with which you do not appear to be familiar. Answer me this question, yes or no, with no diversion or equivocation: do you accept that some laws can be unjust and unethical?

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Atkray (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 12:28pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "Oh, you misunderstand. Pointing out what an incredible tool Mike Masnick is is fun for me."

                    OK, when are you going to do this?

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    ts, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 1:40pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Oh, you misunderstand. Pointing out what an incredible tool Mike Masnick is is fun for me.

                    This isn't a felony offense yet?

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Jay (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:43am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                ... Do me a favor. NEVER apply for a position of power.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Jay (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:44am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                ... Do me a favor. NEVER apply for a position of power.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                A Guy (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:48am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "Cops shoot people when it's warranted, and they put people in jail when it's warranted. "

                Another one of my favorite blogs, freakonomics, pointed me to this link.

                http://www.theagitator.com/google/?cx=partner-pub-9453823870796023%3Af87ir1gxdn6&cof=FO RID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Isolated+Incident&sa=Search&siteurl=www.theagitator.com%2F

                I may have to start looking over theagitator too.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:09am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                People that hate authority and hate the government--people exactly like you and all of your pirate friends that you spend day in and day out defending--tend to jump to these sorts of ridiculous conclusions, unfortunately.

                I don't "hate" government or authority, and I'm not a "pirate" nor do I have "pirate friends."

                For someone writing a comment about jumping to conclusions, you might want to try NOT JUMPING to a whole bunch of them. Especially when pretty much every conclusion you jump to is totally wrong.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  average_joe (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:21am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Your posts tell a different story, Mike. Do you really think no one can tell?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:32am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    You can't.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 5:23pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Your posts tell a different story, Mike. Do you really think no one can tell?

                    No. My posts do not tell a different story. For those who can comprehend even moderately complex subjects.

                    Most people here seem to understand just fine without jumping to multiple false conclusions. Perhaps -- just perhaps -- the issue is with you, since nearly everyone else here can understand what I am saying.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      average_joe (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 5:39am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      No. My posts do not tell a different story. For those who can comprehend even moderately complex subjects.

                      Most people here seem to understand just fine without jumping to multiple false conclusions. Perhaps -- just perhaps -- the issue is with you, since nearly everyone else here can understand what I am saying.


                      Mike, I know you're a smart guy. And honestly, I don't think you're evil or anything like that. But I do think that practically everything you say is an intentionally misleading lie. I think it's a shame that this is what you've resorted to.

                      Just look at this article. One guy says one sentence, off the cuff. You take that and cook up a whole backstory about how terrible that person is. And not only that, you take one person's statement and then credit it to all of ICE. Your headline says that "ICE admits." That's just blatantly false, and OBVIOUSLY you are doing what you always do: lying and manipulating.

                      And you do this sort of intellectually dishonest thing day after day. Hell, you're so intellectually dishonest that you insulted the school I go to (again) and then pretended like you didn't when I called you out on it. WTF? Are you incapable of just telling the truth? Seems that way.

                      Whatever, Mike. I know you're a liar and a manipulator, and for whatever reason, you probably always will be. Perhaps after all the years of writing this blog it's just become second nature. It's a shame though, because I do think you're smart and have something to add to the conversation. You, unfortunately, have chosen a path that I just will never understand.

                      But yeah, Mike, keep telling everyone how you don't lie and manipulate. Obviously some of them are believing it. But just know this: You aren't fooling me, and you never will.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 6:26am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Why are you here, then, if you disagree with Mike? There are other places to go. Are you paid to be here?

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          average_joe (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 6:55am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Paid? Nope. I'm just a lowly student. Mike can't attack my position on the merits, so he resorts to insulting the school I go to. The insinuation being that anyone who goes to my school is an idiot, and anyone that went to his school is a genius. Obviously, that's not how the real world works, and there are idiots and geniuses at both schools I would bet. Mike knows this, but he lies and manipulates instead. That's what Mike does because that's what Mike is. It's apparently all he knows.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            icon
                            The Logician (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 7:36am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            You still have not answered my question, AJ. Do so. Now. Not responding is merely an admittance that you do not believe any law can be unjust and unethical and thus, an admittance of your own flawed and erroneous mindset.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              average_joe (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 7:52am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              I don't even know what you're talking about. What question would you like me to answer, Spock? I'm happy to address your question, and sorry if I missed it before. I don't read every post or comment.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              •  
                                icon
                                bratwurzt (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 9:19am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                Of course you don't (know what he's commenting on AND read every comment/post). You believe you are right. But you also think you know you are right. It's a difference - one is theism and other is gnosticism.

                                When people believe (or have enough incentive to ignore reality), knowing clashing with beliefs becomes an obstacle. The simple solution is delusion. But by being selective with facts makes assumptions using these facts... well, not true. :)

                                And if we're using the word obvious... let me have a go at it:
                                - it's obvious that you post these comment emotionally (and by this I mean that either you're involved with issues at hand emotionally or you're just being an attention-whorish troll)
                                - it's obvious that you mostly take one side - and it's the opposite of Mike, always (citation needed?)
                                - it's obvious that you troll (i.e. using logical fallacies and baiting people to react emotionally)
                                - it's obvious that you don't contribute to the debate
                                - it's obvious you're a hypocrite (citation needed? really? you make fun of Mike all the time and when served with most plausable assumption - jokes with truth bits in it sting a bit more than jokes made with lies - you call him out on it.)


                                But hey - we need a norm minimum to know where we stand. :P

                                 

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 12:43pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  And that makes you a liar also. You're such a sociopath that you actually believe you're fooling people with your blatant bullshit.

                  It's been suggested before that you go see a mental health professional- take the advice.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  vancedecker (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 1:20pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  thanks mike!

                  I completely agree. I for one want more people in jail where they can't hurt others or themselves.

                  Furthermore, jail can be an end in itself. For instance, if I place a murderer in jail, then I have stopped that murderer from murdering have I not. The amount of murders stopped is directly proportional to the amount of time a murder is in jail, with death being the point of diminishing return.

                  In the same way, the greater the quantity of copyright infringers in jail multiplied by the amount of time served will be directly proportional to the amount of pirated material available.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Richard (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 1:38pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Snore. Cops shoot people when it's warranted, and they put people in jail when it's warranted. That's what they do.

                It would seem that your view of law enforcement is derived from fiction - not from real life.

                In real life most cops never shoot anyone in their entire careers. If it were otherwise then we would be living in a very unpleasant world indeed.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              average_joe (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:43am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Oh, and Mike, I'll add this. You said: "As long as they followed the safe harbor provisions, the fact that users upload shouldn't have an impact." The facts are that they pleaded guilty to conspiracy, and some of the co-conspirators were the ones uploading the videos to NinjaVideo. So there is no safe harbor.

              But you probably knew that, right? I mean, you wouldn't lie and manipulate would you? No, not Mike. He's such a stand up guy. LMAO! What a joke. You couldn't be honest if your life depended on it.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:17am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                The facts are that they pleaded guilty to conspiracy, and some of the co-conspirators were the ones uploading the videos to NinjaVideo. So there is no safe harbor.

                They plead guilty after being put in a position where they had little other choice.

                But, indeed, the fact that they did some uploads themselves would suggest that they were guilty of something. My point was merely to respond to the claim in the article that because users uploaded they had no DMCA protections.

                In fact, I did point out in the very next sentence that they could be guilty of other things.

                If you weren't so intellectually dishonest, you would have at least admitted that.

                But you probably knew that, right? I mean, you wouldn't lie and manipulate would you? No, not Mike. He's such a stand up guy. LMAO! What a joke. You couldn't be honest if your life depended on it.

                AJ: grow up. You're the one who misquoted me, ignored what I said, and pretended I implied something otherwise. You have yet to show me being dishonest, and I go to great lengths to be absolutely honest. What good would it do me to be dishonest. I leave my comments open so that anyone can discuss these things, and if I make a mistake I get called on it. If I was so desperate to be dishonest, as you claim, I wouldn't have open comments at all.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                bratwurzt (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 9:26am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "But you probably knew that, right? I mean, you wouldn't lie and manipulate would you? No, not Mike. He's such a stand up guy. LMAO! What a joke. You couldn't be honest if your life depended on it."
                What do you wnat to achieve with this part?

                Your message got across just as nice without all that troll drivel...

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:05am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            he said nothing about criminals

            he said he wants to put _people_ in jail. cops don't put people in jail.

            now maybe he meant "criminals", but somehow i doubt it

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:31am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            And again, he didn't say criminal, he said people. Without a greater context with which to judge this person's words, that one sentence alone is very questionable.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Griff, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 12:32pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I thought cops put people in court and judges / juries put people in jail.

            Of have I misunderstood the legal system ?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            TtfnJohn (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 10:53am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Please enlighten me. Since when did the police become judge, jury and executioner? When did that happen?

            The role of law enforement officers is to investigate alleged crimes, assemble evidence and then pass it on to the Crown (in Canada) or the prosecution in the United States to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases that such a crime (a) occurred and (b) this is the perp we gave you.

            Sure, the cop may be utterly convinced he has the perp but that's his/her opinion and, often, not a very good one at that as to be a decent investigator there's some amount of tunnel vision required which often causes the investigator to miss evidence that would through their conclusion into question. It's not like this doesn't happen, Joe, and happen often.

            And that's what we have courts for. To take the investigator's OPINION, educated as it is, and prove that in criminal cases BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT in an adversarial setting. And that's why many prosecutions never go ahead and why many fail.

            One more time -- it is not the ICE agent's job to be judge, jury and executioner. Sorry, but you've been watching far too many tv shows which are fantasy, remember?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:52am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Believe what you want. I for one am well aware that the justice system, and the prison system, have TONNES of problems and are rife with abuse. I see jail and other demonstrably ineffective forms of rehabilitation as, at best, necessary evils. And I do not have a high opinion of anyone who relishes sending someone there, whether it's their job or not.

          You act like there's no other view he could take, but that is not at all true. It may surprise you to learn that there are law enforcement officers who don't want to put people in jail unless they truly have to. There are cops and judges and others all along the chain that seek alternate, superior solutions whenever they are possible - because they recognize that cramming more people into overstuffed jails doesn't solve any problem beyond the immediate one of a dangerous person being on the street. They recognize that jail frequently converts minor criminals - people who still have a chance to correct their behaviour and live a positive life - into serious criminals... so in fact jail frequently makes society worse off.

          Those are the law enforcement officers and justice officials who I respect. And none of them would ever say the words "I want to put people in jail". So sorry, he doesn't just get a free pass because it's part of his job.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Mike C. (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:03am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You know, there's a great line in a movie that's based on a short story by a rather well know horror novelist, but out of fear of trampling some lawyers rights, I won't quote it exactly.

            It is, in essense, something about having to go to jail to learn to be a criminal...

            /Just seemed appropriate here.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:42am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            ... they recognize that cramming more people into overstuffed jails doesn't solve any problem beyond the immediate one of a dangerous person being on the street.


            That and the problem of private prison contractors' pockets being a bit too empty.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PrometheeFeu (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:03am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "His job starts when the law is broken"

          Actually that is false. His job stops when there is a suspicion of the law being broken. In other words, when his job starts, he doesn't know for sure whether the law was broken and even if it was, it could be broken such that the person in question does not deserve a jail sentence. Also, his job is to bring evidence to justice. It is then the job of the justice system to put people in jail. His statement implies that his job is to put people in jail regardless of their guilt. That's a very narrow and stupid reading of his duty.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:03am

          Re: Re: Re:

          He is a law enforcement officer. His job starts when the law is broken, and as a result, he wants to put people in jail. He wants to make sure that the law breakers are brought to justice.

          You guys are busy reading way too much into a simple statement.


          Any law enforcement officer that states the he "wants to put people in jail" will do exactly that. If his desire is to see people locked away, he'll find ways of making sure this happens. And if citizens won't cooperate by being unlawful, well, that's when minor infractions get randomly enforces, wiretap laws get abused and peaceable citizens get charged with ambiguous charges like "obstruction" or "resisting arrest."

          When someone tries to point out that throwing people in jail doesn't seem like an effective or even appropriate response to the "crime," an answer like his shows that he doesn't feel like he's doing his job unless people are getting imprisoned, rendering any other objections moot.

          "I want a coffee" doesn't mean I only want coffee, and that I cannot have anything but coffee, and that I will have coffee even if it is cold and icky.

          If someone says "I want to set some buildings on fire," we don't start wondering whether or not they run an animal shelter or volunteer at the soup kitchen during their downtime. We're more concerned with what they stated they want to do, rather than consider that this is just a small part of their overall existence. We don't assume that arson is the ONLY thing this person is interested in, but the fact they've stated this desire is alarming enough.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:21am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Then he is a stupid law enforcement agent, putting people in jail is the last resort or it should be the last resort.

          Not allowing the law to be broke is the goal and that can be accomplished in several other ways which the least effective is putting people in jail after the fact.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:22am

          Re: Re: Re:

          About growing up, why don't you grow up first and learn how the real world works instead of your fantasy land.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Richard (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:40am

          Re: Re: Re:

          He is a law enforcement officer. His job starts when the law is broken

          NO NO NO NO That is TOTALLY WRONG.
          His job is to prevent crime not just to pursue criminals after the fact.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:51am

        Re: Re:

        ... I for one think he is a very bad person.


        What do you think about this guy? This is a sworn officer lying in court, with the knowledge and assistance of presecutors. (New York Post, Dec 20, 2011):
        [Prosecutors] didn’t say arresting Officer Ronald Martiny had admitted to the prosecution that his description of the alleged escape wasn’t true, that there was no fence.

        Not only did prosecutors fail to mention the “mistake” to the defense, but when Martiny took the stand, he repeated the lie.

        As Davis’ lawyer, Douglas Rankin, cross-examined Martiny, the cop “corrected” his testimony to say Davis fled between two buildings.


        Nothing particularly special about Officer Ronald Martiny or his episode of lying in court. Just happens to be in recent news. But there are similar cases reported almost every day.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Loki, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:20am

      Re:

      Well, if he had said criminals your argument might have a bit more merit.

      But he didn't say criminals, he said people. One thing I have learned over the years is that a person's choice of words can often say a lot more than they intended. From my experience, someone more concerned with serving and protecting would have been more likely to say criminal.

      Of course you could argue that he really meant criminals, and his statement was just a slip of the tongue, but, that too would be an opinion, not the official statement.

      So the question of who is the one being sneaky with the weasel wording also comes down to a matter of opinion.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Rick, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:49am

      hah

      I would say you are the one weasel wording. Officer did not talk about upholding the constitution (remember that little tidbit they call taking the oath that all law enforcement and government officials take?).

      His job is not to put people in jail, his job is to uphold, protect and defend the constitution and then the law. His other job is to serve the people.

      In this case all he is doing is serving corporate interests, going against the people and trashing the constitution.

      The author's assessment is correct, you sir are a fool and need to start thinking a bit.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:28am

    Special Agent Ross is a Nazi, pure and simple.

    Statements such as he made show what a gigantic fascist POS he is, and he should immediately be stripped of his authority and terminated.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:46am

      Re: Special Agent Ross is a Nazi, pure and simple.

      Our whole government has turned into a state of utter failure. I have lost a lot of respect for law enforcement over the years. They fail to enact policies that reduce actual crime with victims and they waste a ton of resources going after victimless criminals because it's much easier.

      When I was little I got my bike stolen once. I had friends who have also got their bikes stolen on various different occasions as well. Every time we complained to the police department, they pretty much did nothing and we never got our bikes back. These are crimes with victims. These are the things police should be going after. But, no, they're too busy going after victimless criminals like drug dealers and enforcing questionable laws that create more violence through the creation of drug cartels.

      I have a friend who had his $1000 or so laptop stolen. He complained to the police department. They never got back to him. He went back to follow up on the status of his laptop and he told me they pretty much ignored him and that the person he spoke to the first time avoided him and he couldn't even talk to him. These are the sorts of crimes I want police departments to put more resources into investigating, crimes with actual victims, instead of wasting it on victimless crimes.

      But, in this day and age, we've reached the point where if something gets stolen we can practically take for granted that we won't ever get it back. The police don't seem to care and law enforcement is too busy giving traffic tickets and frivolous parking tickets for minor offenses. They're too busy going after victimless criminals because it's much easier than going after real criminals with victims. They're not doing us any favors. It's a sad waste of resources.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:50am

        Re: Re: Special Agent Ross is a Nazi, pure and simple.

        in this day and age, can we be sure that the police/government aren't the ones who stole the item in the first place?

        I mean they are stealing our rights and civil liberties, what makes you think they wouldn't stoop to taking our property and 'intellectual pooperty' as well?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:18am

          Re: Re: Re: Special Agent Ross is a Nazi, pure and simple.

          They do; look up criminal (or civil) asset forfeiture

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        John Doe, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:54am

        Re: Re: Special Agent Ross is a Nazi, pure and simple.

        I have a friend who had his $1000 or so laptop stolen. He complained to the police department. They never got back to him. He went back to follow up on the status of his laptop and he told me they pretty much ignored him and that the person he spoke to the first time avoided him and he couldn't even talk to him.

        He should have told the cops it had movies and music on the laptop and ICE would have gotten right on it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      known coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 12:39pm

      Re: Special Agent Ross is a Nazi, pure and simple.

      When special agent ross comes you your house, beats the crap out of you, because your gay, drags your ass to a concentration camp where you are further beaten until you die. Then i will agree with you he is a nazi.

      until then, leave the nazi's out of it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        bratwurzt (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 9:38am

        Re: Re: Special Agent Ross is a Nazi, pure and simple.

        So if I understand this correctly:

        Special agent Ross comes (with?) The Devil's Coachman (to) TDCs house and then beats the crap out of TDC just because TDC owns his own gay that drags TDCs ass to concentration camp where TDC's beaten again (at this point I really don't know by whom).

        Why would he go with Ross to his own house to get beaten if his own gay does that for him in a luxury of a concentration camp? Not rational at all...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    anonymous, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:38am

    Special Agent Ross. “I want to put people in jail.”

    just about says it all, really, doesn't it. what an absolute prick!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:48am

    Coming soon to a theater near you.... Special Agent Ross stars in 'You're going to Jail!"

    Lets give him some credit here, he's just getting 'guidance' from the industry on what he will need to do when he appears in the next 'made for TV' movie they promised him...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Modplan (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:48am

    I'm not sure that this is really an accurate explanation of the DMCA issue, seeing as the users uploaded the content... that's the same thing with YouTube and Veoh, both of which have been declared legal under the DMCA. As long as they followed the safe harbor provisions, the fact that users upload shouldn't have an impact. There very likely may have been issues of secondary liability if the site encouraged people to infringe -- but that's a separate issue, and one that again should have been an issue for civil copyright law, rather than criminal.


    I think you misinterpreted what was written. He's saying that Ninjavideo itself had uploaders putting up the content for them - not simply users with little or no association with them as with Youtube or Veoh.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Ben (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:53am

      Re: Ninja Uploaders

      I don't think the uploaders' association to Ninja is meaningful; does the DMCA prohibit employees from uploading to their company's site?

      As long as the links/content are not the subject of previous takedown notices (ie that Ninja has no knowledge that that particular content is infringing), the uploaders should not be constrained. It is not the duty of Ninja uploaders (or employees of YouTube) to determine what is infringing or not; as techdirt has covered repeatedly and which was recently recognized by the court in Veoh v. UMG, only the rightsholder has the specific information required to determine if any particular content is infringing.

      In sum, I think only the first uploader - the person responsible for converting from physical media/tv to internet - can be (should be) held responsible for copyright infringement.
      There is a meaningful distinction if the uploaders recorded tv episodes and uploaded them, but not if they merely repost. In this respect, the uploaders are more similar to a search engine - finding content and making it accessible to the interested user - than first uploaders.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Aerilus, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:50am

    I don't understand. homeland security=securing the homeland, ice= immigration and customs enforcement. I don't see what either has to do with hyperlinks. now if it were a Mexican terrorist carrying a bomb across the border along with an iPod full of downloaded mp3s then yes I can see where that would be relevant we should definitely confiscate that iPod before letting him/her in.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Aerilus, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:50am

    I don't understand. homeland security=securing the homeland, ice= immigration and customs enforcement. I don't see what either has to do with hyperlinks. now if it were a Mexican terrorist carrying a bomb across the border along with an iPod full of downloaded mp3s then yes I can see where that would be relevant we should definitely confiscate that iPod before letting him/her in.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    PrometheeFeu (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:53am

    It should be possible for taxpayers to withhold taxes from individual government employees or departments. Given the grief ICE and the DHS in general has caused me personally over the years for no good reason, I find it perverted that I have to keep paying their salary. I want a box on my taxes that says: "Divert my taxes that would be spent on the DHS to ______" where I could fill in a charity or other public interest group.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:55am

    "He's not talking about fairness or justice or upholding the law. He just wants to "put people in jail." People like that shouldn't have jobs in power."

    That is exactly the sort of person you want in a position of power ... In an totalitarian police state. One who will instill fear, oppress people, do everything he can to suppress free speech, be a loyal party man, and not care about peoples inalienable rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      vancedecker (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 1:40pm

      Re:

      What's the harm in having a few innocent people in jail? It's not like we're advocating the death penalty here.

      Wouldn't you rather have a couple of innocent people safely tucked away in jail for a period of time over the alternative which is to have criminals running rampant on our streets breaking laws and killing more people?

      We have systems in place whereby if you are truly innocent and in jail, you get food and television and free medical care and for most people who don't do anything all day anyhow but watch TV and eat junk food, jail CAN be a positive experience overall.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Jay (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 1:52pm

        Re: Re:

        We have systems in place whereby if you are truly innocent and in jail, you get food and television and free medical care and for most people who don't do anything all day anyhow but watch TV and eat junk food, jail CAN be a positive experience overall.

        Then by all means, go live in one for a year. But don't expect everyone to jump at the chance to be a part of a perpetual underclass which has limited jobs upon release and succeeds in disenfranchising minorities disproportionately.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          vancedecker (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 2:07pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          What crime have I committed?

          The point is that most of those who 'unjustly imprisoned' are there because they probably got off before on some technicality and probably should have been there anyway.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Planespotter (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 2:24pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Mr Generalisation is in da house Boyzzzzzzzz!

            Isn't tonight that NRA get together where you all dress up in Mom's best white table cloth and burn church crosses?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Jay (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 2:31pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            What crime have I committed?

            The crime of ignorance isn't an arrestable offense, so you're free to go.

            The point is that most of those who 'unjustly imprisoned' are there because they probably got off before on some technicality and probably should have been there anyway.

            I guess the Guantanamo prisoners are only there because they are all convicted terrorists, eh? Or how about the environmental activists that are bullied by the FBI? Have you even looked at the Latinos who are imprisoned through the Secure Communities program (which ICE runs?)

            Not only are you ignorant of the problems here, but you're believing that the government provides when all research (hint: not your article) suggests otherwise.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              vancedecker (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 2:46pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Wow! Just Wow!

              "I guess the Guantanamo prisoners are only there because they are all convicted terrorists, eh? Or how about the environmental activists that are bullied by the FBI?"

              Take a look at percentage of released Guantanamo prisoners who have returned to terrorism:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_former_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees_alleged_to_have_ returned_to_terrorism

              As for Environmental activists, many of whom have been smoking weed, might be suffering from delusions of persecution, have you considered that?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Jay (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 3:20pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                You're absolutely full of it.

                The NDAA now hampers that process. By your logic, those people were only released because of a technicality. Never mind that most of them didn't commit a crime, were willing to cooperate until the CIA began to use torture techniques, and were never given much in the forms of due process under Bush and Obama's administrations.

                As for Environmental activists, many of whom have been smoking weed, might be suffering from delusions of persecution, have you considered that?

                Bullshit. Read more, learn more. They weren't the perceived stereotype that you imply. Maybe you need to read more before responding with bad and flawed logic.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  vancedecker (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 3:31pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I notice you left out any response to the fact that most of those so called 'innocent' terrorists which were released, are now engaging in terrorism.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 3:36pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Jay I've been biting my tongue and, I must admit, kind of laughing at you a little bit (sorry!) for the past couple hours - but now it's starting to get painful. Vance is definitely an ironic troll. Look at his comments dude! If those are sincere I'll eat my hat

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Planespotter (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 3:23pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                ...alledged_to_have_returned_to_terrorism

                Oh dear... don't let absence of FACT derail your arguement there Billy Bob!

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jake, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:00am

    If this fuckwit is even remotely representative of ICE agents, I have no hesitation in advising anyone who has any reason to expect a raid by them to go on the run, or if necessary resist arrest. This sort of gung-ho, conviction at any price attitude is what leads law-enforcement officials to start playing fast and loose with the rules in order to gain evidence, or even start to "gild the lily" in cases where they're certain they have the right person by manufacturing the evidence out of whole cloth.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    hothmonster, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:06am

    "I'm not sure that this is really an accurate explanation of the DMCA issue, seeing as the users uploaded the content... that's the same thing with YouTube and Veoh, both of which have been declared legal under the DMCA."

    In Ninjavideos case the videos were uploaded by the admin, not users (or possibly users as well but definitely by site admin)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:14am

      Re:

      "As long as they followed the safe harbor provisions, the fact that users upload shouldn't have an impact. There very likely may have been issues of secondary liability if the site encouraged people to infringe"

      " I still don't see where the site's operators could have possibly been liable for criminal copyright infringement,"

      see above

      and quote from article:

      "Every night on Skype, she set lineups and coordinated assignments for a team of uploaders, located as far away as Scotland and Australia, who hunted the Web for the highest-quality digital files."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Ben (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:55am

        Re: Re: Ninja Uploaders

        I don't think the uploaders' association to Ninja is meaningful; does the DMCA prohibit employees from uploading to their company's site?

        As long as the links/content are not the subject of previous takedown notices (ie that Ninja has no knowledge that that particular content is infringing), the uploaders should not be constrained. It is not the duty of Ninja uploaders (or employees of YouTube) to determine what is infringing or not; as techdirt has covered repeatedly and which was recently recognized by the court in Veoh v. UMG, only the rightsholder has the specific information required to determine if any particular content is infringing.

        In sum, I think only the first uploader - the person responsible for converting from physical media/tv to internet - can be (should be) held responsible for copyright infringement.
        There is a meaningful distinction if the uploaders recorded tv episodes and uploaded them, but not if they merely repost. In this respect, the uploaders are more similar to a search engine - finding content and making it accessible to the interested user - than first uploaders.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          hothmonster, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:08am

          Re: Re: Re: Ninja Uploaders

          "It is not the duty of Ninja uploaders (or employees of YouTube) to determine what is infringing or not; as techdirt has covered repeatedly and which was recently recognized by the court in Veoh v. UMG, only the rightsholder has the specific information required to determine if any particular content is infringing."

          I agree its not their duty to determine if user submitted content is infringing but they had to be aware they content they were uploading was infringing. When a user submits something the staff doesn't know if they work for or, are, or have contracts with the content owner. However since the Ninjavideo staff were the uploaders they know they do not have the rights to post TV and Movies ect. The only way they could not know posting a movie they had no been given permission to post is if they were completely oblivious to copyright law, and I don't think pleading ignorance would have helped them.

          It is not a matter of not being able to determine if content others submitted is infringing, it is a matter of purposely uploading content they knew they did not have the rights to. They didn't link to it or embed it they uploaded it to their own site knowing their site didn't have the right to host it.

          You can not claim that since they downloaded it from elsewhere and reuploaded it they thought the original poster had the right to upload it because it doesn't matter. If they were linking to content that defense could work, but they reuploaded it. It would be the difference between me linking to NBCs videos page and capturing NBCs stream and reuploading it, then hosting the reuploaded video on my site.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Ben (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:56am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Ninja Uploaders

            For any random piece of content, the viewer does not absolutely know whether its existence online is authorized by the rightsholder or not. I agree that the status of most free online streams/tv/movies/music as not authorized is apparent to the majority of viewers, but the viewer does not have actual knowledge, only the suspicion. The difference is that someone who buys a cd/dvd agrees, by that action, to not upload it. Such an agreement does not transfer online.

            Let me reduce the distinction: if some site says, "Let's collect and host every .mp3 file we can find, and freely offer these to any visitor." If the site responds to DMCA notices, this site should be perfectly legal, regardless of the site's reasonable suspicion that some of the mp3 files contain copyrighted music. Ninja certainly chose a more editorial role than this, but I think their case reduces to my example.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 12:10pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ninja Uploaders

              "" If the site responds to DMCA notices, this site should be perfectly legal, regardless of the site's reasonable suspicion that some of the mp3 files contain copyrighted music. "

              They would not be legal. They can not host something without express permission. Sites that host user submitted content get the safe harbor protection of the DCMA. A site that just uploaded all kinds of copyrighted content without permission to distribute it would be illegal.

              You are correct that the viewer can not know if something was uploaded legally or not, even the downloader can not know if the file he is downloading is illegal. Only the content owner can know if the site distributing/hosting it can legally do so. Even linking to the video is ok (or should be, its kind of up in the air right now) But hosting or uploading is the same as distributing. You can not distribute copyrighted material without the express right to do so.

              If I was given express permission to host "Movie" for free download and you downloaded it and then reuploaded it your website so people could download it from your website what you just did would be illegal. If you linked to it you would be ok, if you embeded it you would be ok, if you uploaded it to youtube then youtube would be ok, but you can not distribute something you do not have rights to. It would be the same as me buying a movie(physical or digital copy), then burning it to DVD then giving away free/sell copies (it would be illegal).

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 12:12pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ninja Uploaders

                I notice a lot of "should not be illegal" type language in your post and a lot of the time I agree with you, but unfortunately copyright law is not exactly how it "should" be imo and apparently yours.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          hothmonster, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:19am

          Re: Re: Re: Ninja Uploaders

          "In sum, I think only the first uploader - the person responsible for converting from physical media/tv to internet - can be (should be) held responsible for copyright infringement. There is a meaningful distinction if the uploaders recorded tv episodes and uploaded them, but not if they merely repost. In this respect, the uploaders are more similar to a search engine - finding content and making it accessible to the interested user - than first uploaders."


          Hosting content you know is infringing is also illegal not just uploading the content. Youtube et.al. are legal because they do not know everything the host, they just have to respond when someone points out they are hosting something illegal. In that case the uploader is the one breaking the law, whether civil or criminal.

          Ninjavideo was hosting content they knew they didn't have the rights to, they knew they didn't have the rights because they uploaded it not a 3rd party. They can not claim ignorance to the legality of the content.

          I'm sure the Wolverine guy wishes the person who originally stole the content was the only one liable but anyone who hosts(distributes) the content is also liable, DCMA just protects providers from content supplied by 3rd parties.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:22am

      Re:

      If that is the case, the user/admin should be prosecuted, but the site would still be as legal as YouTube.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        hothmonster, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:29am

        Re: Re:

        The admin are the people who started and ran the site. They are the site and the people that went to jail. This isn't like youtube where 3rd parties are uploading the videos, this is the site founder and staff uploading (and probably recording, judging by their turnaround speed) the content.

        If youtubes founder, board of directors, ceo and cfo were uploading infringing content and paying others to hunt down and upload more they would not be legal.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:38am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes, but YouTube, the company is more then just the people who run it. Hell, now its even considered a person. You could throw the CEO, founders, hell everyone that works in management, in jail. That would not make the site itself illegal, assuming they continue to respond to DMCA notices.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            hothmonster, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:56am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "That would not make the site itself illegal, assuming they continue to respond to DMCA notices."

            I'm not sure I agree with that. Once the corporation starts instructing employees to infringe I'm pretty sure all safe harbors get blown away. But its beside the point.

            The people arrested from ninjavideo were pretty clearly guilty of criminal copyright infringement. Mike seems to think they were not responsible for the uploading, they were and I was just trying to clear that up.

            How much they actually profited, whether the punishment fits the crime ect ect I don't really want to get into. Just clearing up an inaccuracy.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:31am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I guess this comes down to how we draw the line between a corporation and it's employees. We don't hold CEO's of large banking corporations responsible for what it employees do, even if it causes the collapse of the largest economies in the world. The few times that CEO's do get sent to jail for instructing illegal behavior of there employees, the corporations are usually allowed to live on, with just a change of management, or at most, its assets are sold to another institution that is allowed to continue to operate. In this case, the website is one of those assets that did nothing illegal, even if its owners did.

              (btw, I'm the same AC as the two other posts in this thread, my network likes to give me new IPs each time I post...)

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                hothmonster, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:42am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                It would certainly be an interesting legal battle, but since youtube relies heavily on the fact that they do not know content is infringing because users post it, having meetings telling employees to host infringing content would certainly fuck that all up. If liability would fall on the site or the management I can not say, and would certainly rely on a whole bunch of factors and you get into the whole "dedicated to infringement" issue. [I keep thinking about the whole shipping coke in Delorians thing but I just hate car analogies :( ]

                Banks are different then other companies because when the board and gets thrown out for legal issues the FDIC comes in and takes over and then sets up new management but I understand your point. Somewhere there is a line between people within a corporation committing crimes and a corporation being criminal. I think a lot of that has to do with who profits the people or the corp. But idk.

                I know how much Viacom tried to make out of an email between youtube management that basically said "there has to be infringing material on here right?" I can only imagine their glee if they found "you uploaded all the infringing material I asked for right?".

                But back to the story, I don't think NV was incorporated was it?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    bshock, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:28am

    You are not a "law enforcement officer," Agent Ross. You are merely a pig.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    The Logician (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:30am

    Logically, the only offenders that should be placed in incarceration are violent ones. All others can be addressed with alternative means of treatment, such as rehabilitation centers, community service, fines, and other methods. The government's irrational fixation with jail is in clear opposition to the public good.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TDR, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:36am

    In answer to idiocy such as that shown by officers like this and the state our country has been devolving into (as well as all the crap the MAFIAA is trying pull), I think Twisted Sister's classic words are relevant here:

    We're not gonna take it
    No, we ain't gonna take it
    Oh we're not gonna take it anymore

    We've got the right to choose it
    There ain't no way we'll lose it
    This is our life, this is our song

    We'll fight the powers that be just
    Don't pick our destiny 'cause
    You don't know us, you don't belong

    Oh we're not gonna take it
    No, we ain't gonna take it
    Oh we're not gonna take it anymore

    Oh you're so condescending
    Your gall is never ending
    We don't want nothin', not a thing from you

    Your life is trite and jaded
    Boring and confiscated
    If that's your best, your best won't do

    Oh Oh

    We're right (yeah)
    We're free (yeah)
    We'll fight (yeah)
    You'll see (yeah)

    Oh we're not gonna take it
    No, we ain't gonna take it
    Oh we're not gonna take it anymore

    Oh we're not gonna take it
    No, we ain't gonna take it
    Oh we're not gonna take it anymore

    No way

    Oh Oh

    We're right (yeah)
    We're free (yeah)
    We'll fight (yeah)
    You'll see (yeah)

    Oh we're not gonna take it
    No, we ain't gonna take it
    Oh we're not gonna take it anymore

    Oh we're not gonna take it
    No, we ain't gonna take it
    Oh we're not gonna take it anymore

    Just you try and make us
    We're not gonna take it
    Come on!

    No, we ain't gonna take it
    You're all worthless and weak
    We're not gonna take it anymore

    Now drop and give me twenty
    We're not gonna take it
    Oh we're not gonna take it
    No, we ain't gonna take it
    Oh we're not gonna take it anymore

    We've got the right to choose it
    There ain't no way we'll lose it
    This is our life, this is our song

    We'll fight the powers that be just
    Don't pick our destiny 'cause
    You don't know us, you don't belong

    Oh we're not gonna take it
    No, we ain't gonna take it
    Oh we're not gonna take it anymore

    Oh you're so condescending
    Your gall is never ending
    We don't want nothin', not a thing from you

    Your life is trite and jaded
    Boring and confiscated
    If that's your best, your best won't do

    Oh Oh

    We're right (yeah)
    We're free (yeah)
    We'll fight (yeah)
    You'll see (yeah)

    Oh we're not gonna take it
    No, we ain't gonna take it
    Oh we're not gonna take it anymore

    Oh we're not gonna take it
    No, we ain't gonna take it
    Oh we're not gonna take it anymore

    No way

    Oh Oh

    We're right (yeah)
    We're free (yeah)
    We'll fight (yeah)
    You'll see (yeah)

    Oh we're not gonna take it
    No, we ain't gonna take it
    Oh we're not gonna take it anymore

    Oh we're not gonna take it
    No, we ain't gonna take it
    Oh we're not gonna take it anymore

    Just you try and make us
    We're not gonna take it
    Come on!

    No, we ain't gonna take it
    You're all worthless and weak
    We're not gonna take it anymore

    Now drop and give me twenty
    We're not gonna take it
    A pledge pin
    On your uniform

    No, we ain't gonna take it
    Oh you and your uniform
    We're not gonna take it anymore

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:40am

    Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him.
    - Cardinal Richeleiu

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:47am

      Re:

      what's good for the goose..

      anything you say can and will be used against you

      idiot cop should have kept his mouth shut.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        The Devil's Coachman (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 6:23am

        Re: Re:

        Idiot cop? He's a pisspot wannabe cop. Mall cop. Whatever. If he ever confronted an actual criminal, he'd have to change his underwear at least twice - once during the actual encounter, and then after he woke up and thought about it again.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:36am

    I'm not sure that this is really an accurate explanation of the DMCA issue, seeing as the users uploaded the content... that's the same thing with YouTube and Veoh, both of which have been declared legal under the DMCA.


    This is a really huge distinction, and Mike, I think you (especially) would be attentive to it. Assuming the allegations against NV are true (and they appear to be based on what the operators themselves said and the articel you link to, but you may disagree), the operators of NV were not only operating the site, but also were, themselves, uploading much of the infringing content. And that's not what the DMCA safe harbor was meant to cover. Youtube and Veoh are not like this. The recent Veoh opinion turned on the (important!) fact that Veoh did not have knowledge about specific infringements, and that merely knowing that some users were uploading infringing content sometimes was not enough to charge Veoh with specific knowledge (so the safe harbors still applied to them). With NV, not only did the operators apepar to have specific knowledge about infringing content, but they also appear to have uploaded it themselves. Mike, you often suggest (and rightly so, I think) that the appropriate parties to be held responsible for uploading infringing content are the users who put it there, rather than the operators of sites like Youtube and Veoh. In the case against NV, that seems to be what's happened. NV's operators sppear to have had specific knowledge about infringement and so would not fall within the DMCA safe harbors, but even if the safe harbors applied to them as operators, the oeprators were also the very same users who uploaded the material in first place.

    Is your point that it's OK to go after Ninja Video's operators, but not to go after the site itself?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 2:28pm

      Re:

      This is a really huge distinction, and Mike, I think you (especially) would be attentive to it. Assuming the allegations against NV are true (and they appear to be based on what the operators themselves said and the articel you link to, but you may disagree), the operators of NV were not only operating the site, but also were, themselves, uploading much of the infringing content. And that's not what the DMCA safe harbor was meant to cover.

      That's entirely true. I may have misunderstood the writeup. I thought it implied that since users were uploading the videos, the DMCA doesn't apply. But if it's the operators, then it is a different story. And you're right, that they would not be protected then.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Jay (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 3:07pm

        Re: Re:

        This is a really huge distinction, and Mike, I think you (especially) would be attentive to it. Assuming the allegations against NV are true (and they appear to be based on what the operators themselves said and the articel you link to, but you may disagree), the operators of NV were not only operating the site, but also were, themselves, uploading much of the infringing content. And that's not what the DMCA safe harbor was meant to cover.

        That's entirely true. I may have misunderstood the writeup. I thought it implied that since users were uploading the videos, the DMCA doesn't apply. But if it's the operators, then it is a different story. And you're right, that they would not be protected then.


        I'm reading this a little differently.

        From what I read, it seems there were teams dedicated to content. I have no idea of how large or small the teams were. I believe the best way to think about this is with the US library of Congress.

        Imagine we have the administrators who know how many books are coming in per month and how many are being loaned. They see the number, but don't know how many books might be bad copies. The curators, the ones that handle the books, know of a few books that might get them in trouble. Every now and then, the administrators put a new book in the list to be loaned out. The system works and people donate money to continue the archive and make the archive larger.

        Now imagine that the ICE wants to take down 5 specific books. They arrest the administrators who are known to put new books on the shelf. The curators have to find a new library to work for. And suddenly, the library is shut down and the donations seized, even though they have nothing to do with archiving the work, merely making a better service than what is offered in the market at the time.

        So I have to ask, why should we allow the admins to be arrested for a civil crime? I don't believe that they were not protected, but the exception to their charges is through fair use. The purpose of their works (as the article seems to insinuate) is archiving works and making it easier to access.

        From what I see, they did not have Red Flag knowledge per se. They did not know which movies were "illicit", nor did they know which ones they were to avoid. There is no list of copyrighted materials which are off limits to look at. Yes, they "ate their own dog food" and uploaded documentaries and videos that were benefitting that community. I would like to think the DMCA as well as the Fair Use Doctrine allows for their archival purposes, but they were steered into a different direction through faulty advice at greedy lawyers.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    known coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 12:30pm

    ICE's function

    “I am a law-enforcement officer,” says Special Agent Ross. “I want to put people in jail.”

    That, alone, is a pretty ridiculous and scary quote when you think about it. He's not talking about fairness or justice or upholding the law. He just wants to "put people in jail." People like that shouldn't have jobs in power.


    Mike, this is Immigration and Custom's Enforcement, He is a enforcement officer, it is his job to put people in jail. He wants to do a good job. You can't blame him.


    The question should be; Why are these matters being handled by ICE in the first place?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      TtfnJohn (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 11:33am

      Re: ICE's function

      He still needs to collect evidence that a crime did, in fact, occur not just take Hollywood's word for it that one did. And he has to collect sufficient evidence to to convince a judge or JP to issue the search warrants that led to the raids in order to collect more. None of which justifies the over the top raids with artillery drawn when there seems to be no evidence that they'd meet resistance much less armed resistance.

      Then he turns over said evidence to the prosecution authorities who will attempt to prove a criminal case from what he's collected.

      Sure, he can hope that what he's done will send someone off to the the the nearest overcrowded prison but he is NOT judge, jury and executioner which is the only way to read his statement. The logical end game to that attitude is tyranny, not cozy fascism but tyranny which is worse. Yes, he has laws to enforce. Yes he has a job to do but his job isn't to convict. That belongs to the courts and the courts alone.

      At least for now.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    The Logician (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 1:15pm

    You have not yet answered my question, AJ. Do you accept that some laws can be unjust and unethical? Yes or no, with no diversion, evasion, or equivocation. A failure to answer merely indicates you do not accept this premise.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 1:40pm

    I can't believe with our US jails so overcrowded that they let violent offenders out early that overcrowding them even more with people whom have downloaded music and movies just seems ludicrous. Our founding fathers would have us revolt if they were here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:34pm

    “I am a law-enforcement officer,” says Special Agent Ross. “I want to put people in jail.”

    Dude, what's holding you back? You've got a badge, you've got guns, and you've apparently got the ability to completely ignore constitutional law and public opinion. Just fire over peoples' heads, and when they scream, slap the handcuffs on them for "disturbing the peace". I'm sure you could lock up a few hundred people a day if you put your mind to it. Go nuts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Ross The Judge Dredd Wannabe, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 11:30am

    I AM...THE LAW! Take down your website and prepare to be judged!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This