If you upload lots of youtubes that are pirated and then create a giant links site with hundreds of links to lead people to that stolen property, of course you are complicit in piracy yourself.
Or -- let's see -- you're going to try to pretend this is about First Amendment freedoms lol. The First Amendment doesn't extend to posting the address of a house with the door open and the people gone on a bulletin board urging people to steal.
Because I don't buy the story. I sense there's a lot more to the story here. I don't think AT ALL it's about the government suddenly saying "oh, we goofed, awful, let's let it go." I think lawyers merely scarified them.
Say, if the lawyers REAAAAAALY think their client was so innocent and a victim of lack of due process, they should go the full monte and SUE FOR DAMAGES. Why aren't they doing that in this awful, awful heinous violation of due process THE HORROR!!!!
In fact, the government should go hurry and get the Wayback copies because knowing Google, and their sentiments, they may destroy the evidence.
But that's the open question to me. Here Mike has written about this AWFUL AWFUL THE HORROR THING of people impounded an ENTIRE YEAR but their lawyers aren't suing for damages over that grave injustice. Why?
Again, herr, derr, I "got it" that the story here is being tendentiously played, with a very cunning and manipulative copyleftist agenda, to make us all gasp in horror at the lack of due process.
We got all that.
AND it's a pirate site where lots of content was obviously uploaded. And now that fact has been drowned out in a sea of tendentious crap about due process that really is beside the point, as when the feds went for this site, it was OBVIOUS what it was. But then -- as I already said -- either they didn't do their paperwork right or something else happened or there was some shady backroom deal with lawyers or they were threatened by the race card or SOMETHING, and they let it go. So what? It's not like they arrested a person and put them on death row and Mike Myasnick came up with a DNA test to prove the suspect innocent.
What it's about is a pirate site that got legitimately closed down, and then with a lot of lawyering, got opened back up.
This is why we need SOPA. To have the rule of law, so that individual adjudications like this don't take so long, and don't wind up the prey of predatory lawyers with agendas, but are resolved by judges.
I'm not going to keep whining about lack of due process. There are plenty of people whining about that artificially-amplified aspect of this hugely tendentious case. Sure, due process is a great thing and it was violated here. And? And you've also distracted from the fact that it was indeed a pirate site and the feds had more than probable cause to close it down. That they couldn't make their case later is mysteriously and we don't have enough information about their possible botching of paperwork or filings, or about backroom deals with aggressive lawyers maybe playing the race card, or playing whatever cards they have to play.
We do not have transparency on this case. As another reader asked, where are the court papers, eh?
Um, it's not racist to point out when other people are playing the race card, BIG TIME, by insisting that this site is an innocent little site helping black kids break into hip hop big time by enabling them to put up their work for free.
Of course I understood the site, and I went and looked at it, and I see it shows youtubes that have copyright on them, and people even writing things like "I hope this doesn't get removed". Derr. My God, this is obvious, just go and look.
I don't see that the government "didn't have enough evidence to proceed". I don't buy that at all, having looked at the site in past years now. I think that the government found it might have difficult in making its case because aggressive lawyers were going to play the race card on them. That would be my estimation of the situation.
That's great if Kanye West and Puffy use this site. Are they happy to have their material stolen and endlessly copied without any revenue?
No, of course it matters. Because if the feds could easily establish that it had loads of infringing copyright on it, it was justified to shut it down, because it was a piracy site. Due process is a great thing, and of course it must be upheld. But all that's happening here with this story is outrageous and tendentious manipulation and propagandizing around this facet of it -- the violation of due process ostensibly involved -- without any honest portrayal of what the nature of the site was.
It's the hope of Myasnick and the propagandists and the attorneys hired by copyleftists of course to be able to distract everyone with the due process issue, and make these people out to be horrible victims of injustice! the horror! and distract everyone from seeing that indeed they are pirates.
Trying to cast around to analogies like car impounding is beside the case. It's clear from a simple look at the nature of the site that they had loads of infringing content. The feds felt justified in shutting them down. Who knows why they dragged it on or sealed something? Maybe they didn't fill out all the proper paperwork or do everything by the book and didn't want to lose their obvious case over the kind of technicalities that lawyers can and do pounce on to get a case thrown out even of someone obviously guilty. Whatever. That shouldn't distract from the fact that ICE is doing its job by and large to pursue piracy, and that's a good thing. If they botch some cases, hey, let the lawyers due for damages *shrugs*. This is America.
There *are* too many to prosecute in this fashion, and that's why a good universal law like SOPA needs to be established and precedents built up and practices established so we can move through these cases more quickly and more effectively.
Yeah, really! Because Mike is lying about the nature of this website. A look at its record in the Wayback shows lots of youtubes of artists with copyrighted material uploaded to this site. The attorneys -- and he just parroting them -- make a tendentious and narrow claim that their client only had free materials supplied by artists who supposedly wanted their content given away for free, or critics just making "fair use" of clips, or something...But that's only part of the use case of this site -- the infringing content appears to be the bulk of it.
Er, I'm finding it hard to see any jackbooks here except by you thugs, who steal people's livelihoods away from them by condoning piracy and engaging in theft content yourselves. I fail to see why people can't "voice their concerns". The feds closed a site because it had loads of copyrighted stuff on it. Too bad, so sad. They took way to long to adjudicate the case. We get that. It's not good. But at the end of the day, the nature of the site here is being covered up outrageously by the ideology Mike Myasnick, and he knows it, and we know it. The police gave the site back because they had too many cases, or some lawyer cut some deal with them, or they'd figure they'd get back to it and prosecute it another day. That's all. It's not about fascism, it's about the right of people to make a livelihood. Say, how do YOU make a living, big guy?!
Yeah, we get it that the evil cruel ICE with its chilling evil name has done an evil thing. Yadda yadda.
So...you have one case like this, Mike? Just one? Oh, maybe two? Awful, AWFUL! But edge cases, as we all know. No one should have to wait a year, guilty or not, to have their case adjudicated. But could it be that there are just so many cases like this of in fact real piracy even you would have to concede, so they can't get to them? And could it be that it is completely obvious that this is indeed a pirate site? And could the ICE have given it back merely because it was just too much bother to prosecute even the obvious? Because there are just too many?
More to the point, Mike, why do you LIE about the nature of this web site? It's not like we can't go to the Wayback Machine and see what this site was all about:
Oh, what Dajaz1 was all about was people uploading hundreds and hundreds of Youtubes that were protected by copyright as you can quickly see.
These weren't scrappy young start-up musicians trying to get their own unique CDs heard, poor blacks that you'd like to exploit to get what you imagine to be fearful white liberals guilt-tripped into opposing SOPA. (In fact, I don't see a single upload like that, but I have to work through several years).
There wasn't just "sampling" or "fair use" either.
Oh, no, Mike. That's fake. And you *know* it's fake. Lyndsey Lohan isn't a poor black hip-hop star trying to get a DJ or music critic to hear her. Nor is Lil Wayne. nor is Busta Rhymes. Nor are hundreds of artists who are famous and whose Youtubes were uploaded to that site, and who don't want to give away their work for free to masses because they need to get paid and have a right to get paid, -- as do their producers, who go to a lot of trouble to produce them and advertise them.
Honestly, Mike, *you are ridiculous* with these fake claims.