Time, once again, to quote the Honorable Samuel Langhorne Clemens
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| BernardSwiss May 13, 2012 7:02 PM EDT |
“The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible.” -- Mark Twain |
| caitlyn May 14, 2012 1:30 AM EDT |
Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that The Pirate Bay was, at one time, being used largely to illegally share copyrighted material in violation of EU and US law. To quote an old saw: "Two wrongs don't make a right". |
| theBeez May 14, 2012 2:45 AM EDT |
@caitlyn: well, having the right to forbid random links is certainly not right. You know I could be condemned in the Netherlands just by providing this link to this article? |
| skelband May 14, 2012 1:33 PM EDT |
Actually whether or not what the Pirate Bay was doing being illegal in the EU is still highly controversial. And in many ways is nothing more than what Google do albeit more efficiently and in a more focused fashion. |
| caitlyn May 14, 2012 2:23 PM EDT |
Actually, skelband, AFAICT the Pirate Bay actually hosted the torrent files. If it was just a set of links like Google then I would be far less sanguine about the court ruling. If they were hosting the material they clearly were in violation of US law. I am far less familiar with European laws. |
| Khamul May 14, 2012 2:29 PM EDT |
Torrents are nothing more than complicated links. They contain no copyrighted material, they just tell you where to go to find it. |
| skelband May 14, 2012 3:08 PM EDT |
@caitlyn: I would agree with you if the Pirate Bay had a presence in the the US. AFAICT, they don't however. The Internet is throwing up some interesting spanners in the works for governments and media companies alike. They just can't seem to reconcile the global Internet with physical administrative and legal boundaries since they are pretty much irreconcilable. I can see the situation getting a lot worse before things get better. |
| Khamul May 14, 2012 3:19 PM EDT |
Skelband's exactly right. What does US law have to do with anything? TPB is in Sweden, which last time I checked, is NOT part of the US nor subject to US laws, as much as Americans may hate to admit that their laws don't apply everywhere. |
| jdixon May 14, 2012 4:14 PM EDT |
> ...as much as Americans may hate to admit that their laws don't apply everywhere. As much as "some" Americans... |
| BernardSwiss May 14, 2012 5:00 PM EDT |
Khamul wrote: Skelband's exactly right. What does US law have to do with anything? TPB is in Sweden, which last time I checked, is NOT part of the US nor subject to US laws, as much as Americans may hate to admit that their laws don't apply everywhere. Yeah? Tell that to Julian Assange :-/ |
| Khamul May 14, 2012 5:03 PM EDT |
@Bernard: Unfortunately, US laws DO apply in the UK (as evidenced by numerous extraditions for people breaking US law while in the UK), and Assange made the mistake of living there instead of somewhere neutral like Switzerland. Sweden doesn't bend over for the US quite the way the UK does, though they also don't thumb their noses at the US the way Switzerland does. |
| BernardSwiss May 14, 2012 5:05 PM EDT |
@Khamul I think Julian Assange would beg to differ. (It's Sweden that is trying to extradite him from the UK, on distinctly questionable grounds) edit: tone, clarity |
| number6x May 14, 2012 6:10 PM EDT |
I've just been re-reading 'Roughing it'. Twain was a remarkable observer of the human animal. |
| Khamul May 14, 2012 6:10 PM EDT |
oh right, that's true. Still, the UK has a pretty terrible history with regards to extradition, unlike Switzerland. |
| caitlyn May 14, 2012 9:21 PM EDT |
Khamul is off on another America-bashing thread. Sweet. Actually, courts have held that if they have a .com address then the US does have jurisidiction and US laws do apply. If you think otherwise I'll refer you to companies like Megaupload where law enforcement in several countries cooperated with the FBI on just that basis. |
| jdixon May 14, 2012 10:05 PM EDT |
> Actually, courts have held that if they have a .com address then the US does have jurisidiction and US laws do apply. I believe those are US courts, caitlyn. They would have a vested interest in ruling that way. Now, non-US law enforcement may choose to cooperate, for whatever reasons, but I don't believe their courts have ruled on the matter. It's always possible that I'm wrong, of course, in which case I'm sure someone will say so. And actually, I would read his last two comments as UK bashing, not US bashing. |
| Khamul May 14, 2012 10:51 PM EDT |
It seems any time anyone questions America's actions on the international stage, caitlyn gets mad. If Saudi Arabia's courts say that they have jurisdiction over your column, caitlyn, will you fly there and allow yourself to be judged by their courts for breaking their laws? |
| caitlyn May 14, 2012 11:16 PM EDT |
Do you reallly expect me to answer such a ridiculous question? |
| flufferbeer May 14, 2012 11:17 PM EDT |
+1 khamul here. catilyn is off on another America-defending vitriole. Bitter. I think it's too bad that there are too few lawfare-neutral countries around. The US, the UK, and most EU countries (e.g., NL) DEFINITELY sure ain't lawfare-neutral neither! Otoh, the BRIC countries are probably the greatest BARRIERS to the IP and censorship lawfare offensives waged by the US+EU. 2c |
| Khamul May 14, 2012 11:35 PM EDT |
@caitlyn: You expect foreign websites, based in foreign countries, and whose owners have never visited the US, to conform to US law. Your website, similarly, is visible in Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. So, yes, I do expect you to answer the question: why shouldn't you be subject to their laws too? This seems rather hypocritical. |
| caitlyn May 14, 2012 11:48 PM EDT |
I didn't regsiter my website in Saudi Arabia with a Saudi company. The Pirate Bay registered their website in the U.S. with a U.S. company. @flufferbeer: You know, I've lived in one other country and traveled and done business in countries around the world, including some European countries who think they have more freedom and more liberty than Americans. In reality I haven't found any country which respects it's citizens and their rights more than the United States. No, we're not perfect. I could write volumes about the flaws in this country. We've definitely got issues. It's just I find even more issues, problems and flaws anywhere else I go. |
| JaseP May 15, 2012 8:40 AM EDT |
@caitlyn: Agreed. But as Americans we just tend to notice the areas where we fall behind other countries in terms of Freedom. So, they may be able to have their homes raided at the whim of the constabulary, get left to rot in jail for months without due process, etc. ... But, we as Americans notice if they have the right to break CSS to rip their DVDs to a hard drive for personal use... Personally, I believe that the US should have the "Walmart Amendment" to the Constitution. That is, if a US citizen can find a right somewhere else in the world, that the US should have to match it or beat it... |
| jdixon May 15, 2012 8:59 AM EDT |
> The Pirate Bay registered their website in the U.S. with a U.S. company. Did they? I can't check the old registration records, but I suspect they registered the domain locally with a local company. That local company then registered with the .com authority in the US, which would be something The Pirate Bay had no control over. And I'm fairly certain the current .se domain isn't registered with a US company. My wife's .org domain is registed with ghandi.net, not with a US company. > I haven't found any country which respects it's citizens and their rights more than the United States. Agreed. But for that very reason, the US is held to a higher standard. And it should be, especially by it's own citizens. |
| Bob_Robertson May 15, 2012 10:31 AM EDT |
"the US is held to a higher standard. And it should be, especially by it's own citizens." From your keyboard to {whomever's} ear, JD. |
| caitlyn May 15, 2012 12:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:My wife's .org domain is registed with ghandi.net, not with a US company.I'm sure your wife also knows that any .org domain ends up with a US registry and is subject to US law. I can and do have domains outside the US. I'm still subject to US law as a US citizen, of course, but the point is that by now everyone knows where .com, .org, .mil, .us and .edu domains reside. If you don't want to be subject to US law then register with a domain that resides outside the US. It really is that simple. |
| skelband May 15, 2012 1:20 PM EDT |
There are some interesting parallels between some countries in the "west" (including the US) and certain other countries (including China). In China, those bad boys in the government want to stop their people visiting websites that they deem not in the interests of their country and citizens. In the US, we see them trying to block access to websites that offend their commercial masters. One difference however: China don't try to get those websites shut down by collusion with other governments or by strong-arm tactics, they just block them. The US is paraded around the world as the model of freedom, whereas China is lambasted as the monsters of the East. Now who are the real oppressors? |
| skelband May 15, 2012 1:24 PM EDT |
@caitlyn: "I'm sure your wife also knows that any .org domain ends up with a US registry and is subject to US law. " Really, what on earth has DNS registration got to do with the jurisdiction of that country's laws and your business that is hosted outside that country? It's just a record mapping a domain name and a permanent IP address. I can see that the US has jurisdiction over the organisation issuing the DNS record but that's really as far as it goes. It doesn't give them the keys to your entire business. |
| caitlyn May 15, 2012 1:33 PM EDT |
The courts disagree with you, skelband. I also find your comparison between the US enforcing its laws against piracy and China's attempts to censor everything and anything totally absurd and laughable. Do an honest comparison of the two countries' human rights records and post an honest evaluation, not one meant to score points in a thread like this, and I'll be happy to discuss it somewhere where such discussions aren't a TOS violation. Or... let's put it another way: Would you rather live with the level of freedom the US affords it's citizens or would you rather live with the level of freedom China affords it's citizens? |
| skelband May 15, 2012 1:59 PM EDT |
@caitlyn: In all seriousness, the dividing line is becoming rather blurred. In the US, we have: - imprisonment without trial, - we have a government desperately trying to introduce very far-reaching intrusion into communications at all levels - we have border guards that seem to take a grim delight in humiliating anyone going in or coming out of the country - we have the US army going into other countries and kidnapping people that they don't like, without, in many cases, the knowledge of the government of that country - we have a government with unparalleled xenophobia and paranoia I could go on. And on. And for the record, China's record is getting better, whereas the US's record is getting worse. At some point, they are liable to cross and I don't think that point is really that far away. Oh, and by the way, I don't really care what the US courts think, because they are US courts, not UK courts nor Swiss courts nor anyone else's courts for that matter. So they can think what they like. |
| Bob_Robertson May 15, 2012 2:08 PM EDT |
Deng Xiao Ping will, at some point, be recognized as the individual who overcame the horrible institutional self-destruction of Maoist China, to start a billion people up the long road to economic prosperity. There is still far to go, no doubt, but at least things are becoming less restrictive rather than more. It sure could not have gotten much worse! |
| jdixon May 15, 2012 2:40 PM EDT |
> I'm sure your wife also knows that any .org domain ends up with a US registry and is subject to US law. We're aware of what the US courts claim, yes. > If you don't want to be subject to US law then register with a domain that resides outside the US. It really is that simple. That wasn't an option when she started the domain. It's something to consider for the future. > The courts disagree with you, skelband. Yes. US courts disagree with him. Again, afaik, the matter has not been tested in other courts. > ...we have the US army going into other countries and kidnapping people that they don't like, In some cases, we don't stop at kidnapping. Now, to be fair, governments have always done such. After all, that was why the fictional 007 had a "license to kill". So we're no different than any other government throughout history. But then see my comment about a higher standard above. > It sure could not have gotten much worse! There is a story, perhaps fictional, about a family who left China before the revolution. Their elder grandfather stayed behind and told them he would write. To bypass any censorship he told them he would send a picture with the letter to let them know how things were. If things were bearable, he would be standing in the picture. If things were bad, he would be sitting down. When the letter finally arrived, the picture was of him lying down. |
| caitlyn May 15, 2012 3:10 PM EDT |
Quoting:. Again, afaik, the matter has not been tested in other courts.Actually, they have in UK courts in at least one case. The court sided with the US government. The cooperation shown by EU nations, Australia and New Zealand on such matters is tacit agreement by the governments. That can, of course, be challenged in the courts of those respective countries. Quoting:- imprisonment without trial,Only in the case of combatants in war. It has been used for foreign combatants, mainly, although the recent defense authorization bill makes clear it can be used against US citizens provided they are engaged in hostile action against the US. That is far less egregious than what US law was during either World War, for example. There was a time such people could have been executed without trial. Don't tell me "things are getting worse" when we actually have more oversight and more protections than in previous times in history. Oh, and the UK also has imprisonment without trial. I believe the French do as well. Quoting:we have a government desperately trying to introduce very far-reaching intrusion into communications at all levelsName one major world government that does not. Clue: you can't. In many countries, like China, the government does what they want when they want. In the US there is oversight and public protest has blocked such legislation, largely because we still elect our officials. How well does public protest work in China? How much input do the Chinese people have in who runs their country? Quoting:- we have border guards that seem to take a grim delight in humiliating anyone going in or coming out of the countryI don't see it that way at all and I dare say I travel more than most since my family is scattered all over the world. I'd also point out that a lot of other countries are a whole lot more intimidating to enter than the US. Considering that we are still at war it's amazing just how easy it is to enter the US. Indeed, I'd say that there are still serious security problems at our borders. BTW, try entering China... or better yet, Taiwan, and tell me about how wonderful that experience is. Quoting:- we have the US army going into other countries and kidnapping people that they don't like, without, in many cases, the knowledge of the government of that countryJust like every other major country and just as it has been throughout our history. Quoting: - we have a government with unparalleled xenophobia and paranoiaThis is just plain nonsense. Yes, you could go on, but in each case the US, with all its flaws, is still better than almost every other country on the planet in all areas, and better than every other country on the planet bar none in terms of freedoms and liberty. Don't believe me? Check Scandanavian (and indeed most European) laws which restrict what name you can give your child, for example. |
| Bob_Robertson May 15, 2012 3:44 PM EDT |
"the US, with all its flaws, is still better than almost every other country on the planet in all areas, and better than every other country on the planet bar none in terms of freedoms and liberty." Sadly, posting pointers to the source material in disagreement with this statement would be considered a TOS violation by some. I will gladly agree that the US used to be that way, and it was a much better world for it. |
| jdixon May 15, 2012 4:50 PM EDT |
> Considering that we are still at war... We're still in an armed conflict, Caitlyn. There are specific Constitutional steps we need to take to be "at war", and we haven't taken them. And discussion beyond this would rapidly result in a TOS closed thread, so let's let it go at that. |
| skelband May 15, 2012 7:10 PM EDT |
@caitlyn: Sorry caitlyn, we can't agree on this one. Justifying what the US government do by saying that everyone else does the same just won't cut the mustard. And a lot of it is just plain wrong. The US strides across the globe purveying their standard of freedom and democracy at the point of a gun. In order to do this, they must be spotless and above reproach. They are *far* below that level of moral high-ground. Once upon a time, we did indeed look to the US as a model of democracy. It wasn't perfect but at least they had a constitution and a relatively free press and people flocked from around the world to share in that vision. Not any more. From the outside, we see xenophobia, paranoia, belligerence and an endemic hostility to anything that is non-American. I thought that Obama would change all that. He seems such a reasonable guy. But I think the cards are stacked against him. I really do. |
| jdixon May 15, 2012 9:59 PM EDT |
> I thought that Obama would change all that. You have these delusions often? I could go into explicit detail, but that would definitely be a TOS violating post. > He seems such a reasonable guy. You never saw the real Obama. You saw a carefully constructed image broadcast by a complicit media. > He seems such a reasonable guy. He had a veto proof majority in Congress for two years. He could have passed anything he wanted. The cards have never been stacked against him. If anything, they were stacked in his favor. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!