ICE Shuts Down Streaming Portal for Copyright Violations

[quote name='mykevermin']
portal sites are active accomplices, however. The way these streaming circumventions are done, the streaming pages (i.e., the actual copyright violating content) wouldn't succeed alone. The portals are an important part of the criminal steps here.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, and it's more of an issue when the sites sole purpose for existing is to direct people to illegal material.

Vs. Youtube or google which have many more functions than that.
 
Lets pretend for a moment that the portal type sites don't exist, just the sites actually hosting the content. Now lets say that you could search for "superbowl stream" on google and find a direct link to it on one of the host sites, doesn't that basically make google the portal now? The only difference is that it isn't google's one and only purpose to link to stuff like that, but they still are in that case.

I mean by definition search engines make it easier for people to find stuff, even illegal things. Would a specialized search engine that only indexes illegal sites be more illegal than one that indexes everything? To me it goes back to what I said earlier, it' like closing a bridge because it can be used to get to a drug dealer's house.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']That solution is offering a good product for a good price that will make people go "I could try to track down a stream and jump through a bunch of hoops to watch a pixelated stream for free but fuck it, this is only $___". [/QUOTE]

The only problem I have with that is whether it can be done in a way that doesn't severely cut revenue to these industries.

A band or author shouldn't make less money than in the past because they have to drop prices to thwart some piracy.

But I agree your Netflix example is relevant. Going to more pay streaming for music, and for a rental system for e-books, is a way to generate money from people who don't want to pay enough to buy everything they want but at least would pay a rental fee.

So there are ways to get at it. But it's not really solving the problem given that movie piracy seems on the rise from some things I've seen around the net, despite Netflix being so damn cheap.

Some pirates are just dirty cheapskates and aren't going to spend a dime. On the one had the industries could write them off as lost causes who are just never going to spend money on their products.

On the other, it still stucks for content creators that a large number or people are enjoying content they chose to try to profit from without having paid them for it.

So that's where there's some need to increase the number of people getting caught and punished for piracy IMO. And that should happen along side innovations from the industries as well as expanding fair use rights for us legitimate customers.
 
[quote name='Clak']Lets pretend for a moment that the portal type sites don't exist, just the sites actually hosting the content. Now lets say that you could search for "superbowl stream" on google and find a direct link to it on one of the host sites, doesn't that basically make google the portal now? The only difference is that it isn't google's one and only purpose to link to stuff like that, but they still are in that case.
[/QUOTE]

That Google has so many other purposes is the legal difference.

But again, I think we all agree they'd be better off going after the actually sites hosting the streams and the users uploading the feeds.
 
Actually I think the best way for companies to look at this is that piracy is a legitimate competitor and they need to step up their game. Don't get me wrong, people who aren't going to pay can't be reached no matter how cheap something is, but I'll bet there are some people who would buy something below a certain price point but otherwise won't or will pirate it instead.

You have to admit, piracy may not be a positive thing, but it has pushed industries to open a little more. digital copies with movies for example (even if they're too locked down for me to use...). I mean in some cases they've gotten more strict like with all the DRM schemes, but I see it as consumers and content providers being at a bit of a stand off, seeing who blinks first.

Honestly if you take away every reason for pirating you can, I really do think it would go down. Take away any and all content protection so it can be backed up, price it at a rate that consumers see as fair, and they should buy it if they have an interest in it and can afford it. There will still be some piracy, but I doubt it would be any worse, and consumers would be a lot happier with having the ability to enjoy the content how and where they want.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']Would you pirate books you already own?

I was thinking about getting a kindle recently (as I may change to a job that requires significant more travelling, but I may not...) and thought about the fact that I own hundreds of books that I couldn't just bring with me. It was a frustrating prospect.[/QUOTE]

Personally I think that's BS. In buying the book you bought the copyright priveleges to view the IP. The fact that it's coming in on a different medium shouldn't matter. At the very least you should get a steep discount.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The only problem I have with that is whether it can be done in a way that doesn't severely cut revenue to these industries.[/QUOTE]

Well, to be truthful, most of those industries also need to evolve to get rid of some of their overhead in this new world. Regarding the book business, they need to get the hell out of New York (since it is only a prestige thing now) and stop throwing so much money at celebrities (I wish I could find the article about them giving seven figure contracts to celebrities based off of name alone, even though it didn't pan out the majority of the time)

[quote name='dmaul1114']So that's where there's some need to increase the number of people getting caught and punished for piracy IMO. And that should happen along side innovations from the industries as well as expanding fair use rights for us legitimate customers.[/QUOTE]

I could agree with this if the laws were fixed so fines were more reasonable and it didn't result in jailtime. The prisons are already too full here from the drug war.

[quote name='camoor']Personally I think that's BS. In buying the book you bought the copyright priveleges to view the IP. The fact that it's coming in on a different medium shouldn't matter. At the very least you should get a steep discount.[/QUOTE]

Is it considered wrong to scan a book you own and throw it through a OCR program so you get a file almost as good as the one they are selling?
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Is it considered wrong to scan a book you own and throw it through a OCR program so you get a file almost as good as the one they are selling?[/QUOTE]

"considered wrong" - intersesting choice of words.

I don't know what the law says - I'll leave that up to the plutocrats and corporations that buy our policiticians

I think people should be able to do what you outlined. The purpose of copyright is to create the incentive to invent or create, and this action does nothing to negate that purpose.
 
[quote name='Clak']....but I'll bet there are some people who would buy something below a certain price point but otherwise won't or will pirate it instead.[/quote]

But again should they have to take less money than in the past just to get some cheapskates to buy rather than pirate?

And thus maybe put out inferior products as they have to cut production costs (particularly relevant with movies) and thus impact the quality for all of us?

You have to admit, piracy may not be a positive thing, but it has pushed industries to open a little more. digital copies with movies for example.

*snip*

Honestly if you take away every reason for pirating you can, I really do think it would go down. Take away any and all content protection so it can be backed up, price it at a rate that consumers see as fair, and they should buy it if they have an interest in it and can afford it.

Those types of things, Netflix etc. are the innovations they can and should make. Dropping prices isn't' so feasible unless costs go down--which can happen with things like e-books that don't have to be printed or typeset. But we also don't want them cheaping out on production costs and having special effects quality decline in movies etc.


[quote name='camoor']Personally I think that's BS. In buying the book you bought the copyright priveleges to view the IP. The fact that it's coming in on a different medium shouldn't matter. At the very least you should get a steep discount.[/QUOTE]

I don't get that logic. Should buying the hard back of a book entitle you to get the paper back free or steeply discounted when it comes out?

Or owning a DVD give you a freebie or discount on getting the Blu Ray?

It would be a damn nice gesture for sure, but I don't see any entitlement to get it free or discounted in another format.

When you buy something like a book or movie you're buying ONE copy of it in a specific format. Not the IP--the copyright holder owns the IP, you only own a copy of it.

So there's no entitlement to get it in another format for free or a steep discount IMO. Just another case of people being cheap and having unreasonable senses of entitlement.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']
I could agree with this if the laws were fixed so fines were more reasonable and it didn't result in jailtime. The prisons are already too full here from the drug war.
[/quote]

Agreed. Like I say, make the fines like MSRP of the content +25%. No jail time other than for pirates who are selling bootlegs for profit etc.

Is it considered wrong to scan a book you own and throw it through a OCR program so you get a file almost as good as the one they are selling?

Laws on this are murky. If you do it for personal use you're ok. If you distribute copies (even just photo copies) you can get into problems. My university is in an ongoing law suit over professors having scanned book chapters and other things and made them available on the course web portals as assigned readings to students.

Publishers want to stop that, the university is fighting that it's covered by fair use laws--and it seems to be based on current fair use laws as they give more leeway for sharing factual publications for education as long as not sold and as long as not the whole book but just 1 chapter etc. as that's not costing sales as profs aren't going to have students buy a book to read one chapter etc.

In any case, while I'm very anti-piracy I also strongly support a broad expansion of fair use laws.

[quote name='camoor']The purpose of copyright is to create the incentive to invent or create, and this action does nothing to negate that purpose.[/QUOTE]

Well that's where you and I have a fundamental difference. I think the purpose of copyright law should be to protect an author or musician or whoever's sole right to profit off their creation--and I think that should last until death (and not the current 75 years after death).

Now for inventors and patents, it's different. There's inherent public harm/progress issues in medicine not going into the public domain, or technological advances etc. So patents can't be so long lasting as copyrights on arts and entertainment intellectual property can.

Arts and entertainment are luxuries, not necessities for advancing technology, medicine etc. that affect life span and so on. And the poor can always access them free legally through libraries etc.

I just get very peeved by the notion that we should take away some author or musician's right to make money off his work while he's alive--and have to watch another company profit from it. All for the public good and to force them to do more work to keep us entertained. Just a very communistic type of notion IMO--and one of few areas where my views aren't liberal at all and are very capitalistic.

And a lot of it I think--from other discussions I've had--is some working stiffs can't stomach the idea of someone creating one thing that sells a ton and living off the money it makes teh rest of their life while they have to slave away at crappy jobs for hourly pay until they can retire. Which is crap. Life isn't fair. Some people have talent and luck and strike it rich, the rest of us bust our asses into old age. The fact that I'll have to work my whole life doesn't make me want to see authors or other creators seeing their work sold with them not getting their cut during their lifetime.

Now one exception I'd is an exception to the copyright lasts until death for arts/entertainment should be revoked if the work is out of print for a long time (say 5-10) years. No sense keeping it out of the public domain if no one is making money off of it anymore anyway.

But we've done this type of copyright discussion to death here (and I just recently debated it in another forum) so that's all I'll say on it.

It's really one of those agree to disagree issues for me since my views are so strongly on the side of protecting the rights of the content creators and publishers and against any notion of forcing stuff into the public domain for the public good.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But again should they have to take less money than in the past just to get some cheapskates to buy rather than pirate?

And thus maybe put out inferior products as they have to cut production costs (particularly relevant with movies) and thus impact the quality for all of us?[/QUOTE]
Lets take piracy out of the picture for a moment. If people won't buy a product because they feel it's over priced the manufacturer basically has a choice to make between keeping the price the same and not selling much, or lowering it and selling more. A variety of things can cause the amount that people are willing to pay to change. I'd say steam has affected the price of retail PC games, or at least the rate they drop in price, because so much of it is cheaper on steam.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are lots of different factors for why pirates pirate things, if someone doesn't want to pay an amount for something they should just do without it, but we know they don't have to, they can pirate it. I guess it comes down to how much someone wants that sale, because piracy will always exist, but if you price something fairly (and don't lock it down to near uselessness) that takes away at least one reason to pirate something.

Take the steam example I mentioned, if you're selling a copy of somehting like Mass Effect 1 for $5 you think I'm going to bother pirating it? Even at $20 I doubt many people would bother. And the scene groups that release most stuff do actually encouraged people to pay for things they like, though I doubt most actually do pay for it.

I did this a lot when I was younger, but as I've gotten older I've just quit for a few different reasons. I might still grab a movie occassionally, but If I like it I usually end up buying it eventually. I guess I've just grown to respect the people who work on all this stuff a little more, doesn't mean I don't wait for a sale, I'm not stupid, but I do buy far more than I did before.
 
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...in-name-seizures-alarmingly-unprecedented.ars

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) has 10 tough questions for the department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), all of which can be more easily summed up in a single, blunter question: what the hell are you guys doing over there?

Wyden's displeasure is over ICE's Operation In Our Sites, the controversial program that began seizing Internet domain names last year, and just grabbed several more sports-related domains this week. The seizures are all signed off on by a federal judge, but the affected parties get no warning and no chance to first challenge the claim that they are running illegal businesses. In fact, in yesterday's takedown, ICE grabbed the domain Rojadirecta.org, a site that links to live sports on the Web and has twice been declared legal by Spanish courts.

While different countries of course have different laws, and what may be allowable in one country would be illegal in the US, Wyden raises the obvious question of turnabout: "Did [Department of Justice] and ICE take into account the legality of Rojadirecta.org before it ceased its domain name? ... What standard does DoJ expect foreign countries to use when determining whether to seize a domain name controlled in the US for copyright infringement?"

His other questions are just as pointed, and they're all contained in a letter to ICE director John Morton. Wyden asks whether merely linking to infringing online content is illegal (several of the seized domain names did not host any infringing content themselves). He wants to know why the domain names are being seized, but why there's no attempt to prosecute those behind the sites, if these are really criminals. And he wants ICE to keep (and make public) a list of the companies that have lobbied for any particular site's name to be seized, all to ensure that “Operation In Our Sites is not used to create competitive advantages in the marketplace.”

Wyden also digs into one specific case, last year's seizure of the dajaz1.com domain name. The site, which blogged about music and hosted some downloads, was claimed to infringe on copyrights, but Wyden notes that press reports later showed that many of the songs on the site had been provided to its operator directly by music industry executives. Despite the stories, ICE made no apparent move to look into the case or restore the site's original domain name. Wyden wants "the Administration's justification for continued seizure of this domain name and its rationale for not providing this domain name operator, and others, due process.”

Just in case ICE had any doubts about Wyden's hostility to the entire process, the Senator makes his broader position clear:

In contrast to ordinary copyright litigation, the domain name seizure process does not appear to give targeted websites an opportunity to defend themselves before sanctions are imposed. As you know, there is an active and contentious legal debate about when a website may be held liable for infringing activities by its users. I worry that domain name seizures could function as a means for end-running the normal legal process in order to target websites that may prevail in full court. The new enforcement approach used by Operation In Our Sites is alarmingly unprecedented in the breadth of its potential reach...

For the Administration's efforts to be seen as legitimate, it should be able to defend its use of the forfeiture laws by prosecuting operators of domain names and provide a means to ensure due process. If the federal government is going to take property and risk stifling speech, it must be able to defend those actions not only behind closed doors but also in a court of law.

Spicy stuff.

Thought this should be posted here. Enjoy!
 
Wyden makes some very astute criticisms of the techniques and potential motives of the ICE here. Just because it's crime control doesn't make it perfect.
 
I worry that domain name seizures could function as a means for end-running the normal legal process in order to target websites that may prevail in full court. The new enforcement approach used by Operation In Our Sites is alarmingly unprecedented in the breadth of its potential reach...

For the Administration's efforts to be seen as legitimate, it should be able to defend its use of the forfeiture laws by prosecuting operators of domain names and provide a means to ensure due process. If the federal government is going to take property and risk stifling speech, it must be able to defend those actions not only behind closed doors but also in a court of law.

I found this to be the most interesting aspect of the case.

I had no idea they weren't even prosecuting these cases. If that's the case, I completely agree with Wyden. They're circumventing the entire justice system by seizing these domains and then not prosecuting the cases. I don't really care if they get a judge's signature for a court order; they're simply not giving the accused party any opportunity to contest the seizure. If their evidence is so strong that they can swoop in and seize these sites then why not prove their case in court? This is a very dark road if we're going to let an executive agency effectively work outside the law by seizing property without any oversight.

I really hope one of these sites can come forward and bring a suit against ICE to challenge the constitutionality of these seizures because that seems to be the only opportunity for challenging this initiative at this point. I also find the request to publish the requesting companies very interesting as well.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Wyden makes some very astute criticisms of the techniques and potential motives of the ICE here. Just because it's crime control doesn't make it perfect.[/QUOTE]

Crime control or taking their orders from big biz. Methinks the latter.
 
yeeeeeeeah, I guess. I wouldn't view it as evil, maniacal corporation laughing and lighting cigars with $100 bills, demanding more more MOAR. This is the real world, not the album insert from a Disrupt record.

Corporations or not, their response to state atty's is more akin to "hey, those people are stealing my shit! you gonna do something about it or what?"
 
[quote name='camoor']Crime control or taking their orders from big biz. Methinks the latter.[/QUOTE]

That's basically what happened with EliteTorrents, the first site I can think of that was seized by ICE. Somebody stole and uploaded a workprint of Star Wars Episode 3 six hours before the theatrical release, the MPAA went crazy/collected all the info they could, and basically dumped it on the FBI, demanding they take action.

----------

On June 25th 2005, the homepage of the EliteTorrents.org tracker displayed an ominous message. Thousands of members trying to log in to get a sneak peak at a leaked copy of Star Wars: Episode 3 were surprised and confused in equal numbers. Had the FBI really raided one of the largest BitTorrent communities and put up a badly made Word document, or were hackers to blame?

There’s no denying it was a very confusing day. For a while the site just didn’t respond for me. The rumors were starting to circulate. Had the EliteTorrents site really been raided by the FBI? Many furious refreshes later and there it was, a crude webpage with a blood-red background, with a DOJ graphic on one side and an FBI one on the other. In the middle sat part of the EliteTorrents banner (enlarge).



The page was so crude that it gave the tens of thousands of worried users a little relief – if the FBI was really behind the shutdown they would’ve made a better job of the page design than this, surely? The conclusion I reached along with many others was that this was the work of hackers. Site staff reported that the DNS had been hacked, which at the time was actually relatively good news, as reports started to come in that the site now traced to the Department of Homeland Security.

For many sci-fi fans the site downtime was really badly timed, as they (and just about everyone else) were desperate to get on the site to get the leaked ‘ViSA‘ workprint copy of Star Wars: Episode III. But as time passed you could feel the mood change. Most people knew deep down something was wrong but just didn’t want to admit it. Operation D-Elite had been and now EliteTorrents was gone.

When the confirmation came, it did so via a notice in the site’s IRC channel: “A few of the admins have been raided by the FBI, sorry, but ET [EliteTorrents] is now closed”, closely followed by an announcement by Acting Assistant Attorney General John C. Richter of the Criminal Division, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement Michael J. Garcia, and Assistant Director Louis M. Reigel of the FBI’s Cyber Division:

This morning, agents of the FBI and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) executed 10 search warrants across the United States against leading members of a technologically sophisticated P2P network known as Elite Torrents. Employing technology known as BitTorrent, the Elite Torrents network attracted more than 133,000 members and, in the last four months, allegedly facilitated the illegal distribution of more than 17,800 titles – including movies and software – which were downloaded 2.1 million times.

BitTorrent sites had been shut down before in the United States, such as the LokiTorrent case, but none had been closed down by the FBI – something had changed. The recently introduced Family Entertainment and Copyright Act meant that when EliteTorrents admin Sk0t uploaded Star Wars: Episode III, he didn’t just commit a civil infringement, it was now a serious crime. The huge popularity of the movie meant it was downloaded at least 10,000 times during the first 24 hours with some claiming in the region of 20,000 downloads worldwide, and this was reportedly enough for the MPAA to finally lose its patience and make good on its successful infiltration of the site.

The federal agents involved in the case executed 10 warrants and took control of the server. In a recent interview, Scott McCausland, aka sk0t, an administrator of the site told Slyck: “Star Wars was uploaded… and then it was game over. I awoke one morning to see the FBI warning on the ET site, and thought to myself “Damn, I think we are screwed.” It didn’t dawn on me at the time that I could be a target. I didn’t upload a lot, just a couple movies. But I did Star Wars, so… Then, at 6AM I am woken up to the sounds of 6 FBI, 6 ICE, and 2 Local Police at my front door. They come in, confiscate everything, and that begins my 2+ years saga.”

In the BitTorrent community many people were absolutely furious at the loss of their favorite site, with a passion not seen since the demise of Suprnova. Thousands of others were panicking. Forums and IRC were awash with theories of who had been arrested so far and who would be targeted next by the FBI, and why. Would it be limited to admins? What about the uploaders? Would regular users be chased down? In the end, around 130,000 users had nothing to worry about but some admins and uploaders weren’t so lucky.

In 2006, Scott McCausland pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement and one count of criminal copyright infringement for his uploading of Star Wars: Episode III. He received jail time and home confinement and on his release told TorrentFreak: “After 5 months in prison, and another 5 months on home confinement, I have just one obstacle left: my 1.5 years years left of probation.”

Fellow site admin Grant Stanley, then aged 23, pleaded guilty to the same offenses as Scott and received the same sentence with the addition of a $3,000 fine. Other admins and uploaders who pleaded guilty included Sam Kuonen, then aged 24, 22 year old Scott D. Harvanek and An Duc Do, aged 25.

Not everyone arrested in connection with the case pleaded guilty. Daniel Dove, an administrator of the site, opted for a ‘not guilty’ plea. For Dove, the gamble hasn’t paid off. The jury was told that Dove was responsible for managing and recruiting the crucial ‘uploaders’ on the site (original seeders) and that he also operated a server which was used to distribute pirate material. The jury believed it and found him guilty on one count each of conspiracy and felony copyright infringement.

Dove will be sentenced on September 9th 2008 where he, like some of the other admins, faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in jail, but is likely to receive substantially less.

Historically, the EliteTorrents case is an important one. Many BitTorrent trackers used to be hosted in the United States, but had been essentially scared or pressured to leave, largely due to direct or indirect MPAA pressure. Right up until the creation of the Family Entertainment Act, any action against sites would have taken place in the civil domain. The act coming into force gave the FBI the green light to get involved, much to the delight of the MPAA who possessed significant investigative powers but lacked the killer ability to quickly shut down a non-compliant site.

The MPAA loves to issue a stream of data about how much piracy went on at EliteTorrents (and a lot did go on), but it was the seeding of a movie, a single pre-release movie that eventually killed the entire site and caused the imprisonment of the admin team. Clearly the leak did nothing to hurt the movie as it went on to gross nearly $110m in its first weekend and has nearly reached a worldwide total of $1bn. But we knew that anyway.

Despite the massive resources at the disposal of the FBI and supposed importance of the case, the person that originally leaked the Episode 3 workprint copy direct from Lucas is nowhere to be seen.

http://torrentfreak.com/how-the-fbi-dismantled-a-bittorrent-community-080630/
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Corporations or not, their response to state atty's is more akin to "hey, those people are stealing my shit! you gonna do something about it or what?"[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

The big corps have every right to demand law enforcement do something when they're being victimized as do individual citizens.

The fact that people hate big corps doesn't mean they don't have rights to demand action when laws have been violated.
 
bread's done
Back
Top