Cyberlocker Blocked In Italy Hires Lawyer To Challenge The Block

from the censor-first,-ask-questions-later dept

Apparently, over in Italy, the latest overreaction to copyright infringement online resulted in police having the domains of 27 sites blocked at the ISP level. We’re always nervous about law enforcement actions that involve such a broad-based attack on an entire site, especially when the sites are not given the chance to be heard in an adversarial hearing first. It appears now that at least one site, Rapidgator, has hired a lawyer in Italy to challenge the decision. Of course, in the meantime, the site is still blocked, which can be deadly for a startup trying to grow a business. Is it really that much to ask for a basic process in which a site is given the chance to respond to allegations before it’s shut down entirely?

Filed Under: ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Cyberlocker Blocked In Italy Hires Lawyer To Challenge The Block”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
40 Comments
silverscarcat says:

Well...

“Is it really that much to ask for a basic process in which a site is given the chance to respond to allegations before it’s shut down entirely?”

Of course it is!

Why, if they had a basic process, one might think that they weren’t doing something illegal! And then we’d have to go to court and drag stuff out and find out that maybe the MAFIAA lied to everyone to get these laws passed.

But that can’t be, can it?

out_of_the_blue says:

a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.

b) It makes none of the products it’s selling.
c) It gives NO of its income to the creators of the products.
d) Should take no more than 15 minutes to know for certain that it’s engaged in the usual “copyright infringement online”.
e) It’s not OVER-reaction, simply long due and appropriate reaction.

Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike sez: uploader + file host + links site + downloader = perfectly “legal” symbiotic piracy.
17:25:08[t-626-8]

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.

The product rapid is selling is a cyberlocker site. Are you saying they don’t make that?

Also, original content authorized by ceators is there too and they didn’t do so for the money.

Are you claiming the value those artists get out of rapid is worthless just because they’re not doing it for the money?

horse with no name says:

Re: Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.

your logic doesn’t work. Try selling copies of a song or software on Ebay (clearly stating they are copies of what you are keeping) and watch how fast they shut you down.

You keep forgetting that you don’t buy outright ownership of a song, movie, or software. You purchase a license. You can conceivably transfer it, but you cannot duplicate it. Since Rapidgator didn’t buy a license for each one it distributes, you can figure the rest out.

Bell end.

silverscarcat says:

Re: Re: Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.

If I buy something, it’s purchased, not a license. Because, if something happens to the song, movie or software, the manufacturer, if it’s a license, is supposed to replace it, free of charge, but since that doesn’t happen, then I have obviously purchased the song, movie or software.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.

Why is it that the only people capable of countering anything said in an article here are incapable of addressing what’s actually being said? Half the comments here are outright lies and distortions, while yours completely misses the points raised, and ignores half of the comment you’re responding to, as well as the larger points being discussed.

Getting 3 or 4 or your “people” to anonymously pile on the same logical fallacies and “agree” with each other doesn’t change these facts. Neither does childish name-calling.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.

a)Fair enough.
b)It is selling a file locker service, nothing more. to claim otherwise is to lie.
c)Again, the only “product” is it’s own filespace.
d)Should take no more than 5 minutes to see that anyone making that claim is a habitual liar.
e)Yes, it really is an over-reaction. There is nothing appropriate or due about the actions taken.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: a) Rapidgator is not just starting up.

“a)Fair enough.”

I disagree. They’re not selling a service, not a product. Unless it’s going to be claimed that any service needs to also create the product it allows to access, that first point is a great way to tell that the person making it is an idiot. But, then it is OOTB making the original comment, so…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Looking at it from the wrong side

> Lol at rapidgator, considering they’re the most egregious of the pirate lockers these days.

I do not follow the “piracy” scene, so I do not know if what you are saying are true. But even if it is true, it might not mean as much as you think.

What you are saying is: of the pirate lockers, rapidgator is the most “egregious” (which I would take to mean as the most used). But what matters is not which locker the pirates use the most. What matters is who the users of each locker are.

To put it in numbers, to make it easier to see. Suppose we have two lockers, locker A and locker B. The pirates use locker A twice as much as locker B, so they use 67% locker A and 33% locker B. Clearly, locker A is “evil”, right?

But look at it from the other side. Locker A has 1% of its users being “pirates”, and locker B has 0.5% of its users on that class; the rest of their users are “non-pirates”. Things look very different now, don’t they? Clearly, neither lock is “evil” when looked at by that angle.

So, it is not enough to look at the “piracy” scene and point at which service they use the most. You have to instead look at each service, and see if most of their users are “pirates”. Those who understand the Bayes formula can see this clearly.

And even that is not enough. A service could have 99% of its uses being “piracy”; but if it has “legitimate” uses, it should not be banned.

Tex Arcana (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Looking at it from the wrong side

What’s stupid is MAFIAA puppets with arms up their asses, moving their mouths.

And I doubt seriously your any form of “artist”, because you’re too fucking chicken to use a name, instead of “AC”.

And, to elucidate you on the REAL issue here: it’s not about artists getting paid–we are all in favor of that.

What we are NOT in favor of, is kangaroo “courts” convicting people of perceived “crimes” without due process–which, last time I checked, we are GUARANTEED by our constitution; and, last I checked, the citizens of Italy were guaranteed as well.

We are also not in favor of media companies raping the artists with convoluted contracts that leave them destitute; or producing crap media that they then try to shove down our throats while picking our pockets.

We also despise companies that band together for the expressed purpose of stripping even more money out of those that buy said crap; and forcing “fines” in the name of “justice”, which is nothing more than another illegal and unconstitutional extortion of the very people they should NOT criminalize: THEIR CUSTOMERS.

If indeed you are an artist, and not a puppet of the MAFIAA, then set yourself up as an independent, and watch us buy your stuff, willingly.

But if you indeed are a puppet on a string, then we will vilify you, and we will avoid buying your crap,

Make a choice.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Looking at it from the wrong side

“We’re not paid shills, we’re artists or people concerned about the rights of artists.”

Prove it. Oh, you people regularly claim to be artists, but you never state who you are and why you’re really concerned. Half the points raised are just repeated fallacies and lies, the rest are personal attacks. Why are these comments always so fact free if they’re honest concerns? That’s the action of shills and fools, not honest people.

Let’s have an honest discussion, but you have to be honest first. Unfortunately:

“On a blog run by a documented paid shill of the tech industry?”

Repeating stupid lies doesn’t make me trust your honesty. Even if true, who cares who runs this site? Unlike many sites (especiallythose run by pro-RIAA/MPAA shills), posts here don’t get blocked or removed if they say something counter to what the owner of the site wants.

So, let’s have it, hoest discussion or STFU. Your choice.

Anonymous Coward says:

of course it is! according to the entertainment industries, that is! if a person, company or service is able to defend itself, it may be able to prove that it is the entertainment industries that are, in fact, the ‘bad boys’ and that the services they are trying to stop are not used specifically for illegal purposes. how would the entertainment industries actually be able to handle competition when those other services have and are use for, perfectly legal purposes?

The Real Michael says:

The idea appears to be wholesale censorship of any web service which A) stores user data and B) falls outside the regulatory scope of the copyright maximalists. They probably figure that these sites aren’t yet ‘big enough’ to defend themselves in court, so they struck while the iron’s hot, opportunists that they are.

It just comes to show that nobody is safe to operate a business and/or service online which the copyright industry takes exception to. Corporate interests take precedence, yet again, even at the expense of due process. Judge, jury and executioner in one fell swoop.

fulvio sarzana (user link) says:

Lawyer of the cyberlocker.

Dear Mike, I am the lawyer you are referring to in the article (Fulvio Sarzana). Thank you for the article. I agree entirely with your analysis. You’re right, seizures before trial should not be adopted. But apparently the authorities do not think so. Just today, the criminal police stated that it had requested the blocking of the server connected to the sites in 18 countries around the world. The battle, as you can see is just beginning. Kind regards fulvio sarzana

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...