Talking About Domains that Have Copyright Info on Them

[barrysanders]

I think most people here are aware of the domain seizures over the past year. On some of these sites that were streaming content illegal (such as movies, sports, etc...). But there were also sites confiscated that were not broadcasting anything, rather they were just linking directly to the URL that the broadcast was on (there is the famous case of the UK teenager that the US wants to extradite because he was running basically a link directory to where people could find movies online).

What if someone linked to a homepage and not the direct link where the broadcast on a site was found?
If I wanted to write an article about where people could watch baseball online and I only link to the homepage of sites that have this content but not where on those sites the content is, is this illegal?

It is a bit ironic that people can write online how to make bombs, or use guns, or cook up your own drugs, but when you talk about how to watch some movies that is what the government is going to chase down.

Thoughts?

 

[Mark Talbot]

I cant be sure, but doesnt that in itself a demonstration of bad faith?

 

[Cartoonz]

It probably should be noted that the kid in the UK also made close to $250k from his site... I suspect that has a lot to do with it.

Here's the thing...
No matter if you're hosting the content or providing a vehicle for users to get that content, if the main purpose of your site is to capitalize on the traffic from users seeking to download pirated content - you are part of the problem... at least that's how the powers that be are going to see it, and it actually makes sense because you're nothing but a funnel to guide people to illegal content. Of course, the only reason anyone would to this is to profit from the traffic... so you can't honestly say you were not deriving a benefit from illegal activities.

 

[Biggie]

It probably should be noted that the kid in the UK also made close to $250k from his site... I suspect that has a lot to do with it.

Here's the thing...
No matter if you're hosting the content or providing a vehicle for users to get that content, if the main purpose of your site is to capitalize on the traffic from users seeking to download pirated content - you are part of the problem... at least that's how the powers that be are going to see it, and it actually makes sense because you're nothing but a funnel to guide people to illegal content. Of course, the only reason anyone would to this is to profit from the traffic... so you can't honestly say you were not deriving a benefit from illegal activities.

i see and agree that is how government made choices to snatch websites, but according to the same logic:

if i provide bus service to california, where medi pot is sold, are we liable if illegal purchases are made without prescription?
since most folks know the drug is sold there, one could assume, that visitors are going to buy pot.

now that's a long reach of similarity, because cali sells more than just pot.

though if those websites offered leagl merchandise too, then argument would definetly apply.

because one supplies a means to something illegal, makes that one guilty as well....is the trend.

which means discovery channel can no longer show you how to make conterfeit money
tv programs could not show how guns are smuggled
investigative programs could not show where prostitutes walk the streets., etc, etc


but that too, may be the future...

 

[barrysanders]

It probably should be noted that the kid in the UK also made close to $250k from his site... I suspect that has a lot to do with it.

Here's the thing...
No matter if you're hosting the content or providing a vehicle for users to get that content, if the main purpose of your site is to capitalize on the traffic from users seeking to download pirated content - you are part of the problem... at least that's how the powers that be are going to see it, and it actually makes sense because you're nothing but a funnel to guide people to illegal content. Of course, the only reason anyone would to this is to profit from the traffic... so you can't honestly say you were not deriving a benefit from illegal activities.

Understood, and agreed with. It is more of a question about how far does the government's reach extend and at what point are they infringing on freedom of speech. They are instilled fear in a lot of people to even talk about certain topics online... just seems like that is off the path of how democracy is supposed to work.