It's not about whether the sites provided an outlet for the theft of materials. It is about due process of law. Did the DHS have court orders to shut down the websites in question? Or, did they just do it?
If they just did without warrants, then we truly do live in a police state.
On 11/27/2010 9:28 AM, Keith In Tampa wrote:Hey Bruce,I had to go and look up BitTorrent....Actually, it's just a new, improved P2P file sharing software mechanism, and looks to be pretty legit. It's free, and has a multitude of uses, all for the good.I do have mixed emotions regarding the use of such software however....There are many individuals and entities that utilize the software for illicit purposes, and therein lies the problem. How do you stop folks from downloading copyrighted materials?When Napster first came out, (and actually, in lieu of Napster, I used a software program called, "WinMx" which I thought was better than Napster and a lot of the other P2P programs and sites, because those had malicious softtware, malware and adware configured within the programs) I was guilty of downloading a number of copyrighted media; predominately music from the 1970s and 1980s.Having said that, I don't do it anymore, and it is not the "deterrent" aspect of the huge lawsuits that ASCAP, BMI and others in the recording industry have brought forth, but instead, utilizing the P2P software to download movies, music and other copyrighted intellectual property is literally stealing. We are nothing less than a thief if we are downloading copyrighted songs, movies and media that is recently released, "For Sale" products.Therein lies the conundrum.....I have no use for DHS, and I don't know why this particular government bureaucracy is involved in this, but again, there has to be some stewardship by some entity to cause the theft to stop!I'm all ears Bruce, how would you propose that this illicit activity of stealing music and movies be, "Policed"??
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:
--
ME Dont know whqat to thinkabout this ??TxForce***********Another Homeland Security Overreach:
DHS Starts Seizing Websites
by Mike FlynnThe always interesting Business Insider has this report:
The Department of Homeland Security's ICE has launched a major crackdown on websites enabling copyright infringement or selling counterfeits of trademarked goods. In just the past few days ICE has seized at least 12 domains, TorrentFreak reports.
All of these domains now display the image shown here.
Okay, so each of the domains seized is probably breaking the law. Knowingly violating someone's copyright is rightfully against the law. I don't know anything about these sites, but, for now, I'll assume they were selling knock-off goods as the real thing and not as some kind of faux Louis Vuitton. Still, this part of the article bothers me:
The owner of an affected site told TorrentFreak that his domain was taken over without any prior complaints or notification from the court.
So, the sites were seized before the site's owner heard any charges or had the chance to submit any counter evidence in court. The owners of the sites had their property seized without being allowed to defend themselves. I successfully avoided law school, so I don't know the exact legal term, but this strikes me as an overstep in their enforcement authority.
But, the article begs an even bigger question: What the hell do fake Guccis have to do with homeland security?
I can appreciate that trafficking in fake goods and music piracy inflict substantial economic harm on the branded companies and labels. But, I do appreciate also that this has nothing to do with protecting the country from foreign or domestic terrorists. We still have a Justice Department, right?
In fact, the article notes that Congress hasn't given this authority to the Attorney General:
A controversial bill that would allow the Attorney General to shut down domains on similar grounds was recently derailed (temporarily) by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden.
The Attorney General is the chief enforcer of federal law and, accordingly, is responsible for enforcing federal copyright protections. And, he doesn't have the authority that Homeland Security is asserting for itself.
This goes to the heart of why I strongly opposed the creation of DHS when first proposed. Like its contemporaneous legislation, the Patriot Act, it wasn't so much the specifics of the proposal, but what it would eventually evolve into that bothered me. Bureaucracies may seem to live in their own ecosystem, but they operate largely like any other business, i.e. they try to grow. Unfortunately for us, the way bureaucracies grow is to issue more regulations and assert ever more authority over parts of our life.
In the aftermath of 9-11, when the creation of DHS was being debated, would your opinion have been swayed if you knew that, within just a few years, the proposed agency would be seizing websites peddling fake purses? Did you imagine that the proposed agency would soon demand to take naked photographs of randomly-selected U.S. citizens? Or, insist on its authority to physically grope children?
Now, ask yourself this: What will the Agency be doing 10 years from now? Or, 20? In a little more than half a decade, DHS has morphed from protecting us from terrorists to protecting us from fake merchandise. Who is going to protect us from DHS
__._,_.___Recent Activity:![Yahoo! Groups]()
.![]()
__,_._,___
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.Your personal email. Anytime, anywhere.
Ridiculously affordable at $19.95. No contracts.
http://www.getpeek.com/lavabit.html
--
"There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice ..."
- U.S. v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982)
"If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must at least develop basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government. The present state of affairs is a direct result of our collective ignorance."
- Ron Paul
Our courts will never be fair and just again until we force the courts to follow their own rules. Do not allow yourself to be ruled by tyrants. Learn how to control corrupt judges and crooked lawyers so you can get Justice! Learn to litigate: Buy and Study JURISDICTIONARY. The best course available for Pro Se and Pro Per litigants.
I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal Government
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Government is only as strong as those who allow themselves to be governed are weak.
"We have plenty of rights in this country, provided you don't get caught exercising them."
- Terry Mitchell
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it expects something that cannot be."
- Thomas Jefferson--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment