Even if your assertion that it's that easy to determine which torrents are infringing were conceded, you somehow seem to have missed that the posts in question were a) not original to torrent-finder, but derived from other sites, likely through RSS feed, and b) more importantly, not torrents or even links to torrents, but articles and blog posts, i.e., reportage and speech. Ergo, not damning at all, if the putative charge is infringement through bittorrent. Or, if they *are* 'damning', then the New York Times needs to be taken down whenever they post an article to their site about the use of bittorrent, too.
That's like saying it's not prior restraint for the government to seize the New York Time's domain name and printing presses, since after all, all the protected speech in their articles is still present on their servers and desktops.
"And ofcourse, if you think that is all they will do again, you would be sadly mistaken.. If that material becomes available and publically available from other sources, I bet they can expect to be closed down as well... "
So, you think they will block or close the sites for the New York Times and the Guardian as well? Doubtful.
And should the owner of the boat not be a smuggler, the government should be required to prove its case in order to keep the boat. Period. No requirement for the owner to request anything. Return everything if there is no conviction, or you have deprived somebody of property without due process.
Same with these domain names. *Immediately* bring cases and obtain convictions, or return them. And if the purpose of the seizure is to secure evidence - wouldn't the quality of the evidence actually be *better* were the sites still up? As it stands, the content is either on private servers yet to be seized or lost to the ether, and for any prosecution the government would have to rely on its downloads and browser caches right before takedown, or web archives, anyway, all of which would be available as evidence with or without takedown.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by vitruvian.
Re: his comments were about bittorrents not about torrent freak.
Even if your assertion that it's that easy to determine which torrents are infringing were conceded, you somehow seem to have missed that the posts in question were a) not original to torrent-finder, but derived from other sites, likely through RSS feed, and b) more importantly, not torrents or even links to torrents, but articles and blog posts, i.e., reportage and speech. Ergo, not damning at all, if the putative charge is infringement through bittorrent. Or, if they *are* 'damning', then the New York Times needs to be taken down whenever they post an article to their site about the use of bittorrent, too.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Discussion
That's like saying it's not prior restraint for the government to seize the New York Time's domain name and printing presses, since after all, all the protected speech in their articles is still present on their servers and desktops.
Re: asanage is the new US hero, for making the US look like morons..
"And ofcourse, if you think that is all they will do again, you would be sadly mistaken.. If that material becomes available and publically available from other sources, I bet they can expect to be closed down as well... "
So, you think they will block or close the sites for the New York Times and the Guardian as well? Doubtful.
Re: Re: Dur process is not the problem
And should the owner of the boat not be a smuggler, the government should be required to prove its case in order to keep the boat. Period. No requirement for the owner to request anything. Return everything if there is no conviction, or you have deprived somebody of property without due process.
Same with these domain names. *Immediately* bring cases and obtain convictions, or return them. And if the purpose of the seizure is to secure evidence - wouldn't the quality of the evidence actually be *better* were the sites still up? As it stands, the content is either on private servers yet to be seized or lost to the ether, and for any prosecution the government would have to rely on its downloads and browser caches right before takedown, or web archives, anyway, all of which would be available as evidence with or without takedown.