The government is arresting people for linking!

[DannyDeepPockets]

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.

Please visit

http://act.demandprogress.org/

And help stop this chaos by signing the petition which will only take a few moments, I have been apart of this website for a while now and have witness its power it posses when we unite as one force through it to stop ridiculous laws.

Thank you my fellow blackhatworld members, let us protect our land of freedom, the internet.

 

[dannyhw]

There's really plenty of precedent to do with this on the books. I wouldn't touch that sort of thing with a 10 foot pole. DMCA definitely doesn't protect sites like this.

 

[craigslistguy]

wow.....

Its not the linking that is getting him in trouble but the type of site he runs...geez..

 

[Maruk]

Same thing with Torrents no? they don't actually host the files theirselves but instead facilitate piracy? Isn't that the same as facilitating any other crime?

 

[plouyd]

wow.....

Its not the linking that is getting him in trouble but the type of site he runs...geez..

yeah exactly. i honestly don't know who got the idea linking to a tv/show movie is OK, as long as you arent hosting the video.. you are still hand picking these links and you know exactly where they lead to.. there is no difference in hosting the content and actively finding and posting the links on your site that lead to the video IMO.. its a loophole and if you were the one spending millions making these movies and tv shows just to lose millions online you would be pissed too

 

[NemoTheOne]

What if the links didn't work? Hypothetical.

 

[craigslistguy]

What if the links didn't work? Hypothetical.

what if you sell soap but cut it up to look like crack and go around saying its crack.


Well then you get arrested for selling crack..


Its the same way of thinking your doing with that question..

 

[webmasterassistant]

so finally law and government started taking action in small scale on copyright issues. this is good but how many sites they still need to seize.

 

[mindmaster]

Miss leading thread name.

Gee some threads are like 5 o'clock news. okey:

 

[drivetime123]

I'm so happy the government is doing this because it must mean they solved the war, recession and poverty and have simply worked their way down their list of priorities

 

[NemoTheOne]

what if you sell soap but cut it up to look like crack and go around saying its crack.


Well then you get arrested for selling crack..


Its the same way of thinking your doing with that question..

Thanks for answering....
However, in this case, you're not selling 'anything', really are you?

Then again, better safe than sorry and it seems like a thin line.

I'm literally thinking of 'bait-n-switchers'. The ones that advertise a link, then for whatever reason, either it doesn't work, or they don't deliver it - thus they are not actually doing the act of streaming....is that a loopHOLE? or just LOOPythinking?

 

[albaniax]

Actually in Germany there happened s.th. like this for real.
Only because of a link, the site-owner had to pay.

It was the link to a custom map, not like Google Maps, it was from someone who did it himself. He was protecting the link with php IDs, so that only registered people can see it. But of course, a quick look in the quellcode, and you find the actual link to the site, viewable to everyone.

BUT the dude who was linking to it, got sued and had to pay x-amount !

 

[Monrox]

What if he makes it so that it searches through some sites and one of the results is the link? Search engines get away with this every second.

 

[pyronaut]

Thanks for answering....
However, in this case, you're not selling 'anything', really are you?

The issue is not just copyright infringement, but then profiting off that "crime". So while you may not be selling anything, you are still making money off it.

 

[DerDer]

is that a loopHOLE?

I think its like robbing a bank with a fake gun.. you can say, you just wanted to get a loan, and you were just playing with your new gun looking lighter, and the cashier gave you a bag full of cash, and you were like, oh cool, thanks, cya..

 

[pyronaut]

What if he makes it so that it searches through some sites and one of the results is the link? Search engines get away with this every second.

Search Engines respond to DMCA

 

[craigslistguy]

Thanks for answering....
However, in this case, you're not selling 'anything', really are you?

Then again, better safe than sorry and it seems like a thin line.

I'm literally thinking of 'bait-n-switchers'. The ones that advertise a link, then for whatever reason, either it doesn't work, or they don't deliver it - thus they are not actually doing the act of streaming....is that a loopHOLE? or just LOOPythinking?

Apply the type of thinking to online in the example i gave you. Ill give u a for instance.

He puts links out of copyrighted videos. And the videos play...

You put a link out of copyright videos. And you do the god ole "bait and switch"

Well you are still putting out the link just like he is. Which is the ACTUAL CRIME they are alleging he commited ( , my johnny Cochran comes out lol jk)

Sure your not selling anything per se BUT your still putting out that same link to that copyrighted video...

So now go back and look at the example i give you, it should all make sense now

 

[Monrox]

craigslistguy, the point is that tomorrow copyright holders may start going after newspapers for writing about their works (thus making profit from them). Following this analogy, they may even ask a cut from judges since the latter get paid for working on cases which wouldn't happen if the show didn't exist in the first place.

 

[craigslistguy]

craigslistguy, the point is that tomorrow copyright holders may start going after newspapers for writing about their works (thus making profit from them). Following this analogy, they may even ask a cut from judges since the latter get paid for working on cases which wouldn't happen if the show didn't exist in the first place.

Yes i got all of that from the start...

Everyone else in here is looking at it just like you..

Im looking at it as these companies only care on WHO its coming from.. Just like google and ranking websites. Its the WHO not WHAT.

Do you think warner Bros. is going to go after the Honorable Judge Joe Brown for throwing a link on his website about something Warner Bros owns and has copyrighted? Of course Not he isnt a bad "Brand" if you want to look at it like that

But this guy running the site in question is "as far as warner bros (or whoever he is copyright infringing upon)" is concerned he is the guy in the alleyway with the long dark trench coat pulled to the side askin "what you need i got"...

As the old saying goes, its who ya know not what ya know that gets you ahead in life.

I bet you that a site could do EXACTLY what he was doing and as long as he is giving SOME TYPE of monetary reimbursement to those copyright holders then they prolly wouldnt come after them.

Would anyone in their right mind do this? Hell no, its bad for business esp to those money grubbers BUT its one way of going about it if you were doing something like this and didnt want to feel the wrath and where somehow making a lot of $$$$$$$

Even still most copyright people have a default amount u have to pay to use their name....like a retainer for a lawyer.

My thinking still stands...Its not the links themselves, its just WHO is actually putting the links out that gets these big companies mad, and thats exactly who they go after....The people not helping line their pockets as well or the bad "Brand" getting to throw their name around untaxed..

Should they pick and choose like that? No, but the fact remains it still happens....

 

[eyerish]

This case reallty isn't that hard...he is running the website that knowingly links to sites that almost exclusively and brazenly infringe on the copyrights of other companies.

On a very small level...I'm a Nebraska football fan..I will often link to sites that I know are streaming the pay-per-view games I want to watch...the government would NEVER go after me for that. Now if I had a site that provided every pay per view college football game..and advertised such...like channelsurfing does....I would be fucked.

This really isn't any different than the kid who got busted with the stolen credit card...but was later found to be running the entire site dedicated to scamming ccs. Big organized schemes that essentially exist to break laws....are going to get the government's full attention...so don't do it.

For the person mentioning the newspapers....One company already does this...and all of us should be aware of them, because they can go after us just as hard. The company is called Righthaven (law firm) and they go after blogs, message boards, etc. that post newspaper articles, stories, etc. The copyright holder assigns their rights to Righthaven...and Righthaven goes after them with a vengeance. They usually collect a few hundred bucks on every settlement. They have collected millions already.