Megaupload closed by US officials

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

sites will move to russia etc. and then we may see america invade countries to satisfy the MPAA RIAA etc.

No, America and its allies and block all Russian sites!

---------- Post added at 12:28 ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Hom3r

What annoyes me over this is that US law is being enforced in over countries fro services that are not even based in the US.

The should tell the yanks to get fuffed.

But they are violating Copyright on TV/Film/Music made by American companies!

[Russ]

Uh oh....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16875921

[Chrysalis]

Blocking all russian sites for the sake of a bit of piracy would be lunacy as well.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Russ

Uh oh....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16875921

Now the US Government would massively upgrade their war againt the Internet!

---------- Post added at 13:37 ---------- Previous post was at 13:36 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Blocking all russian sites for the sake of a bit of piracy would be lunacy as well.

They will do whatever it takes to stop piracy!

[martyh]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

Now the US Government would massively upgrade their war againt the Internet!

---------- Post added at 13:37 ---------- Previous post was at 13:36 ----------



They will do whatever it takes to stop piracy!

You've got war on the brain .It's not a war it is merely enforcement of existing laws

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by martyh

You've got war on the brain .It's not a war it is merely enforcement of existing laws

It not a "War" in the class sense, but a massive crackdown on hacking and piracy!

[martyh]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

It not a "War" in the class sense, but a massive crackdown on hacking and piracy!

It's not a war in any sense

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

Now the US Government would massively upgrade their war againt the Internet!

---------- Post added at 13:37 ---------- Previous post was at 13:36 ----------



They will do whatever it takes to stop piracy!

Ok answer me this, What gives the Yanks the legal right to close down a server located in the UK, One that is not registered in the USA, is using a .co.uk address and is owned by a uk citizen

Can they do that legally

[Mick Fisher]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Ok answer me this, What gives the Yanks the legal right to close down a server located in the UK, One that is not registered in the USA, is using a .co.uk address and is owned by a uk citizen

Can they do that legally

Hmmm...Dunno about legally but they would likely get a few SEAL's to urinate on it. Should do the trick.

[Fawkes]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Ok answer me this, What gives the Yanks the legal right to close down a server located in the UK, One that is not registered in the USA, is using a .co.uk address and is owned by a uk citizen

Can they do that legally

No, the takedown of sites like Megaupload was possible because they use .com domains and .com is a US top level domain so even if the site isn't hosted in the US it is still a US site as far as the Justice department is concerned.

What they wanted with SOPA was the ability to block none US domains from US users. They would not be able to shut down cableforum.co.uk for example just stop US users accessing it.*

The other thing they wanted to do was be able to tell Google and other American businesses to stop listing you in search result and stop providing ads. So they couldn’t directly shut you down but they could have screwed you pretty hard.

*assuming cablefourm was a site “dedicated to the theft of US intellectual property”.

[Lord Nikon]

Actually, under SOPA and PIPA there would only need to be 1 link out of the whole site that was tied to an infringement of someone's Intellectual property, or the allegation that the site's admins weren't proactive enough in preventing such links in order to block access etc. A similar 'law' is being processed in Europe called ACTA which would enable the same to happen. Since .co.uk is part of the UK domain list, and 1&1 hosts in Germany then this site would definitely be liable.

[Fawkes]

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

Actually, under SOPA and PIPA there would only need to be 1 link out of the whole site that was tied to an infringement of someone's Intellectual property, or the allegation that the site's admins weren't proactive enough in preventing such links in order to block access etc. A similar 'law' is being processed in Europe called ACTA which would enable the same to happen. Since .co.uk is part of the UK domain list, and 1&1 hosts in Germany then this site would definitely be liable.

I didn't like SOPA (over broad) and I don't like some of ACTA but their is much misinformation about these bills and agreements. You are wrong to say that one link is all that was nessasary for action under SOPA:

An Internet site is an ‘‘Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property’’ if—
(A) it is—
(i) a U.S.-directed site; or
(ii) an Internet site for which the registrant of the domain name used by the Internet site, and the owner or operator of the Internet site, are not located and can not be found within the United States;
(B) the site is used by users within the United States; and
(C) either—
(i) the site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator primarily for use in, offering goods or services in violation of—
(I) section 501 of title 17, United States Code, for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, and with respect to infringement of complete or substantially complete works;
(II) section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(III) provisions of the Lanham Act that prohibit the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1116(d)) or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code; or
(ii) the operator of the site operates the site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster such violation.

Form judiciary.house.gov [PDF].

[Lord Nikon]

So, if a place, say Cableforum, offers links to shall we say, videos or pictures for which licensing has not been secured for Intellectual Property belonging to US artists, then they fall foul of this act. For example - links to videos not licensed for UK release - music videos on youtube perhaps, or videos containing clips exceeding 30 seconds (under 30 seconds complies with US fair use policies) of copyright material, images to which the copyright has not been obtained (And they only have to resemble copyrighted works in the UK to fall foul of copyright infringement - see - http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...ws_311191.html ) and the site can get into trouble.

See how it can be interpreted? It's an ambiguous point but one of contention.

[Fawkes]

All laws are open to interpretation that’s how lawyers make their money and why we have judges.
Is cableforum.co.uk a U.S. directed site dedicated to the theft of U.S. property? I would argue it is not. I would say it is dedicated to the discussion of cable services and related subjects in the UK. Its user base are mostly UK citizens and its Terms of Service state:

2. Acceptable Behaviour

Your use of CF shall be in accordance with these conditions, which are non-negotiable.

You agree that you will not:

1 Post, transmit, upload, email or otherwise make available any content that you do not have a right to make available under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships, such as for example, inside information, confidential or proprietary information gained or disclosed as a part of employment relationships, or under agreements of nondisclosure.
2 Post, transmit, upload, email or otherwise make available any content that in doing so infringes upon a trademark, patent, copyright, trade secret or other proprietary rights of any party.

Now if the cable forum team were turning a blind eye to mass copyright infringement or the linking to copyright material then that would be another matter.

[Chrysalis]

The bit I read said anything hosted in the US or using a US domain name would be classed as a US site, this site appears to be hosted in the US.