It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Abandoned by British justice: Student faces 10 years in U.S. jail for setting up 'illegal' website

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Its something else entirely to take that item and put it into an environment where anyone who wants it can just download it from you. Thats where I have the issues with the thought process of some. Those who think that once they purchase an item they can in turn make unlimited quantities / allow it to be download by anyone.


Yeah, I dont know why the hell anyone does that. It's not like there's anything in it for them.




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by blupblup
 


Im just saying that if I or anyone else on this site produced something that was popular and made us money, we would be upset if someone else decided to make it available to all for free.


That is right but it is up to the individual to file a civil law suit and not go after those copyright infringers on the taxpayers dime or pushing to make it a felony.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
at this point no lawyer can help him since its not even in his home country but "internet court" he should do what obama does: go to las vegas in lieu of showing up for his court hearing. He would be a hero if he did that.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by blupblup
 


Im just saying that if I or anyone else on this site produced something that was popular and made us money, we would be upset if someone else decided to make it available to all for free.


That is right but it is up to the individual to file a civil law suit and not go after those copyright infringers on the taxpayers dime or pushing to make it a felony.


Its civil and criminal...



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
So here's a nice little trick you can do

Lets say you want to link to file sharing site

but you want to toss egg on the face of google


then link to google's link

so a link to a link to a link (linkception!)

hehe

for example lets say I wanted to post a link to Winamp (legal software for this example, but lets pretend Winamp is illegal for this example to get my point across)

well if I link to www.winamp.com well I have a direct link I could get in trouble! (remember using winamp as a hypo so mods dont get stupid and erase my example)


So instead lets link to a link of a link using GOOGLE so they get the egg on their face

we could do this for cache: goo.gl...

Or link directly to google's links for it: goo.gl...

or even use a 4th party link to link to a 3rd party link that links to the content this way: lmgtfy.com...


So now if you wish to post links to filesharing, links to movies on videobb/stagevu/novamov/2shared/4shared/rapidshare/icefilms/etc

dont post a direct link on your site


post a link to google linking to that content -grin-


now if you get investigated all your links point to google and not directly to the content



LinkCeption ftw



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


It wasn't always like this and in many places it isn't criminal just civil so I believe that if someone infringes on a companies copyright they should be judged within the jurisdiction where the infraction was commmited which is what this case is about.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


It wasn't always like this and in many places it isn't criminal just civil so I believe that if someone infringes on a companies copyright they should be judged within the jurisdiction where the infraction was commmited which is what this case is about.


Normally I would agree but as I said the UK is a signatory to international treaties for copyright / trade infringements.

The recent Supreme Court ruling on this matter should help this guy out during the legal proceedings. Even though the ruling came after the charges, the ruling impacts this case.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Normally I would agree but as I said the UK is a signatory to international treaties for copyright / trade infringements.


Isn't the US signatories of international treaties that deal with torture? If so, wouldn't that make your statement earlier about Bush moot?

en.wikipedia.org...

Unless I misread what you meant......which is a high probability.




edit on 25-1-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Newsflash for you. Noone pays money to see anything in the real world. We pay money to own the dvd, to watch the special features or the experience of a movie theater. Loaning a dvd from someone is exactly the same as downloading something and watching it.


[Edit to add] Not to mention that "the product" pirates "offer" is superior to the original. It's the last and final evolution of media. Completely free from the physical world. Completely free of copyright warnings and trailers for crappy stuff that you cannot skip.
edit on 25/1/2012 by PsykoOps because: add



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I've looked throught the Berne, Paris, UCC and the WIPO Copyright Treaty and fail to see where it is agreed that copyright infringers will be handed over to be tried by the country of origin of the copyrighted material or even tried under their local copyright laws. All I see is that the local term of the copyright will be recognized by the other countries.

Also, what Supreme Court ruling do you mean?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by HandyDandy
 


The Supreme Court ruling in the . money case established foreign treaties as part of the US federal body of law as well as making it subordinate the the constitution. We are a signatory to CAT, but because of the previous ruling the treaty can be challenged by the people and modified by Congress, which it was.

However, people are demanding Bush and his people at the time be arrested and sent to the Hague for war crimes, even though the actions they are accused of committing aren't crimes under US law.

If people are going to make the argument that this guy didn't break any domestic UK laws and shouldn't be extradited, then the same standard applies to those very same people wanting Bush extradited.

Either way I dont see this case going anywhere except for dismissal because of the recent ruling.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


So what your saying then is you condone people who take someone else's property, enhance it, then sell / pass it out for free just because?

I find it ironic that you and others, who constantly state the US is turning into a police state, are ok with violating the rights of others on the basis you gave. So if I understand you argument it pisses you off when your rights are infringed on, but you have no issues when your actions infringe on the rights of others?

So long as its beneficial to you?

Contrary to popular belief, and news flash for you, we dont live in a country where everything is considered communal property.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Copy right and patent / intellectual property infringement is criminal law. The established treaties we have with other countries allows for criminal extradition.

The Supreme Court ruling im referring to is this -
U.S. top court rejects Internet music download case - Supreme Court case is ASCAP v. United States, No. 10-1337


Oct 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court let stand on Monday a ruling that a traditional Internet download of sound recording does not constitute a public performance of the recorded musical work under federal copyright law.

The justices refused to review a ruling by a U.S. appeals court in New York that the download itself of a musical work does not fall within the law's definition of a public performance of that work.

The not-for-profit American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) appealed to the Supreme Court. It said the ruling has profound implications for the nation's music industry, costing its members tens of millions of dollars in potential royalties each year.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by daskakik
 


Copy right and patent / intellectual property infringement is criminal law. The established treaties we have with other countries allows for criminal extradition.

You keep saying that but I don't see anything to back it up. I already looked at those treaties (quickly) and don't see any provisions made for extradition and while in the US it may be criminal law that is not the case in other countries. Spain and Switzwerland are a couple of places that come to mind and all the third world who have the laws on the books but no real effort to enforce.
edit on 25-1-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


United States Code Title 17 - COPYRIGHTS

List of countries who are signatories to international copyright treaties

The US and UK are signatories.

US-UK Extradition Treaty of 2003 - effective in part in 2004, fully ratified in 2006

Controversy surrounds the US-UK extradition treaty of 2003 which was implemented in this act. It has been claimed to be one-sided[1] because it allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK (see for example the NatWest Three), and there being no reciprocal right; and issues about the level of proof required being less to extradite from the UK to the US rather than vice-versa[2].




concern review -

In response to these concerns, the Home Secretary Theresa May appointed The Rt Hon. Lord Justice Scott Baker to conduct an official review of the UK's extradition treaties, with the assistance of two independent extradition experts. The review was directed to address evidence standards and whether the US-UK Extradition Treaty is unbalanced[6]. Sir Scott Baker's report was presented to the Home Secretary on September 30, 2011, and concluded that there is no substantial difference in evidence standards, that the treaty is balanced and that there is not "any basis to conclude that extradition from the United Kingdom to the US operates unfairly or oppressively"[7].

edit on 25-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

Your mixing things up because being signatories to the treaties doesn't automatically mean that it allows extradition. Now that specific treaty is a US-UK deal and it seems to be reserved for criminal offenses and while I already acknowleged that it is criminal in certain instances, even your source TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 5 > § 506 Criminal Offenses says:

(a) Criminal Infringement.— (1) In general.— Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.


This guy hosted links which isn't even copyright infringment but as shown above a "commercial" element must be present for it to be classified as a criminal offense. It isn't just automatically civil and criminal.


edit on 25-1-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


So when I watch something from tv I'm violating someones rights? Or when I loan a dvd from the library. Yeah...



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by purplemer
 


So if I scan the Mona Lisa and flood the market, doesn't it depreciate the value of the original? Especially if its turned around and sold? Dont get me wrong your entitled to your belief on this one. I just think that if people are going to take the time to make music or a movie that they are entitled to turn around and sell it.


Ummm big no there on the Mona Lisa argument. The world is full of cheap copies of the mona lisa and it has not depreciate the value of the original.



I think the argument about copying is just an excuse.

music
movies
software
etc

All took someones idea and hard work to put together in order to make money off of it. I just feel people think in terms of communism for lack of a better description on this one. Dont want to pay for something so just steal it and somehow justify it. One person does all the work only to have people steel it and distribute it.


The RIAA and MPAA has pushed the lie that copying rips off artists. Actually, copying cuts into the corrupt accounting practices that the RIAA and MPAA use to rip off artists. The business model is brilliant. Make sure that the only way an artist can get their work to the public is through channels they control, then suck up the bulk of the revenue through "accounting tricks".

This is the way the industry has worked for decades. For example, many actors have learned never to take a percentage of the profits because on paper, no matter how well a movie or RV show does, there will never be any profits on the books. Here are just a couple of examples.

Jack Klugman suing NBC over Quincey ME because as he says:



“I don’t want their money. I want my money. I can’t believe they’ve collected over $250 million dollars and they say they are still in the hole. I have 28% of the net and they won’t even give me a copy of my contract. I worked for them for almost 8 years. I got up at 4 o’clock in the morning. I would rewrite. I did a ton of work. It’s on every day. I haven’t gotten a penny for years.”


NBC claims that the show LOST $66 million dollars.www.deadline.com...

Or how about James Garner suing Universal because of their creative accounting that showed no profits for "The Rockford Files"



Garner sued the Universal City studio for fraud, deceit and breach of contract for paying the actor what he said was a mere fraction of the 37.5% of earnings from reruns and foreign sales of his 1974-80 TV series "The Rockford Files" promised by his contract. Garner had charged that creative bookkeeping on the part of Universal had cheated him out of his share of the show's net profits in syndication, leaving him with $249,000 out of gross revenues of $119 million.

articles.latimes.com....

And of course the music industry uses the same business model. Consider this educational post..RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales which points out



That report suggests that for every $1,000 sold, the average musician gets $23.40.


Or in the words of Courtney Love in 2000 who said




Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist’s work without any intention of paying for it. I’m not talking about Napster-type software. I’m talking about major label recording contracts.


www.salon.com...

So why are the RIAA and MPAA so rabidly against piracy? They aren't really apparently, but what they are against is any technology that breaks their model of being able to milk massive profits out of the entertainment industry on the backs of the artists who get screwed. Technology threatens that model so it must be stamped out.. Remember these are the same people who fought the VCR, tape recorders, photocopiers and even TV because .. well with pretty much the same arguments that they are making now about file sharing.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Of course there are a few dissenters in the industry. Consider Gabe Newel, co-founder and managing director of Valve games.

Gabe Newell: It’s interesting to touch on a number of pricing and service issues, because it will help convey the complexity of what we’re seeing in the entertainment space, and there’s probably also going to be lessons in it for other people trying to create value on the Internet. One thing that we have learned is that piracy is not a pricing issue. It’s a service issue. The easiest way to stop piracy is not by putting antipiracy technology to work. It’s by giving those people a service that’s better than what they’re receiving from the pirates. For example, Russia. You say, oh, we’re going to enter Russia, people say, you’re doomed, they’ll pirate everything in Russia. Russia now outside of Germany is our largest continental European market.
www.geekwire.com...

Or



Speaking for himself, EMI’s VP of Urban Promotions Craig Davis said that the two pending anti-piracy bills are not the way to move forward. “Personally, I feel that the method they’re using is incorrect. All it will do is cause .aches and issues for everyone,” Davis noted. While the EMI VP opposes PIPA and SOPA, he does admit that piracy is a problem. However, Davis thinks that the problem can be better solved from within the music industry itself. In other words, the key to solving piracy isn’t legislation, but innovation.


torrentfreak.com...
edit on 25-1-2012 by metamagic because: added citation and feeling whimsical



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


17 USC 506

(a) Criminal Infringement.—
(1) In general.— Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.



The above established the criminal action he committed. He was operating a private website which contained links for people to gain access to copyrighted material. Where he ran afoul was his website was generating up to $15,000 in ad revenue from the traffic on his site. That money was a profit, which is where the criminal aspect of the case entered, as you can see in section A above.] (private financial gain).

That moves us to -
18 USC 2319

(a) Any person who violates section 506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (d) and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law.

(b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1)(A) of title 17—
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;

(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a felony and is a second or subsequent offense under subsection (a); and

(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.



Im going to assume this guy has absolutely no criminal record, which means I cant see him getting any jail time. I see a hefty fine coming down the road at him though. Im thinking had he not been getting money from the ad revenue he would have been fine.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join