Posted on 04/14/2011 10:21:35 AM PDT by JerseyHighlander
UPDATE: Lots of coverage of our efforts this week. THE HILL: Groups slam online piracy efforts; TECHDIRT: People Across Political Spectrum Come Out Against COICA Censorship Bill; CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY: Online piracy bipartisan domain; POLITICO: Groups blast Leahy piracy bill.
ORIGINAL: Brian McCarthy ran a website, channelsurfing.net, that linked to various sites where you could watch online streams of TV shows and sports networks. A couple months ago, the government seized his domain name and on Friday they arrested him and charged him with criminal copyright infringement -- punishable by five years in prison.
We just obtained a copy of the complaint (below) that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) made against him -- and they don't even allege that he made a copy of anything! Just that he ran what they call a "linking website" which linked to various sites with copyrighted material. Under that sort of thinking, everyone who's sent around a link to a copyrighted YouTube video is a criminal.
This is another shocking overreach by DHS and ICE -- a steamship-era department that's proving once again that it doesn't understand the Internet. We need to push back -- and fast -- before they try to lock up more Americans.
PETITION TO JANET NAPOLITANO, DIRECTOR OF HOMELAND SECURITY, AND JOHN MORTON, DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT: There's nothing wrong or illegal about posting a link to a website. This is another shocking overreach by DHS and ICE: You need to drop the charges against Brian McCarthy right away.
Protecting copyrights is one of the few things the federal government should be doing:
Article 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals."
"Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them."
"One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."
-- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
Stipulated. The question becomes how should it be doing it. This is a criminal investigation, resulting in an arrest and presumably a criminal prosecution. Then what? We're going to incarcerate "web bandits" when we literally don't have room for child molesters and rapists?
Just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it's criminal. In fact, a great deal of the US Code prescribes civil penalties - like fines and property forfeitures - and not criminal penalties.
I don't think that given our precarious security situation, mass illegal immigration and completely unsecured borders, our DHS and ICE departments need to be sending armed agents to arrest a guy who linked to something he may or may not should have.
If I steal property then it should be a civil issue only?
mission creep of DHS = KGB
The federal government prosecutes people all the time civilly. Companies, for example, are rarely prosecuted criminally, even though they may break untold numbers of US laws. Why? Because those laws only prescribe civil penalties.
More importantly, we're $15T in debt, rising $100B every month. Priorities matter. Our federal prisons are dangerously overcrowded to such a degree that violent offenders are frequently released before their sentences are complete.
The federal government could have walked into federal court, obtained an immediate injunction and moved at their leisure to prosecute this man civilly. Instead, they took who knows how many armed, federal agents and other resources to perp-walk this guy into custody.
These are intellectual property laws - they should be prosecuted intellectually.
Nothing to see here...move along...
That passage has been on my mind since I first read it a few days ago. Almost EVERY issue I see in this country lately brings that passage to mind.
Dark days ahead.
Dude, stay with the flavorful accent of the movie: We donh GOT no STEENKIN' BODGES! We donh NEED no STEENKIN' BODGES!
Like that.
No agency should be enforcing copyrights. It should be purely a matter of civil law (i.e. if you think somebody is infringing your copyright, sue them and collect damages if you prove your case).
Example...Boner. Case closed.
What about DRUDGE who links to EVERYBODY?
No.
They make large donations to democrats.
Even the NHL playoff games?
Are you saying the French wont help us this time like they did in 1776? Instead of a Boston Tea party we can have a Boston oil party to protest gas taxes and shutting down the oil wells.
As a policy matter, you’re right, copyright law should be purely civil law. However, Congress clearly has the Constitutional authority to enact criminal copyright laws (Art. 1, Sec. 8 says that Congress may “secur[e] for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries,” but says nothing about how Congress may “secure” copyrights). Since Congress has done so, I’m just wondering who is the “correct” enforcement agency.
If you watch T.V., you don't have to support it.
You have been entering kookville........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.