> ... and his use of a web service that hides a site’s hosting provider (Lackman says it was the immensely popular service Cloudflare), meant that there was a real risk that Lackman might destroy evidence if they didn’t conduct a surprise search.
TIL Cloudflare makes you suspicious in the eyes of the law. Lawyers are truly great humans. /s
Law is an industry entirely based around charisma and precedent. Entirely "(s)he said, (s)he said". It's quite boring on a technical level, because maths are rarely involved. And quite frustrating on a human level, because judgments are based more on the judge's previous meal and night's sleep than the case facts.
I find it weird that they just took down the site and took over the twitter account during a search. Nothing has been ruled illegal. It’s like if someone sued Google and decided to take the search engine down during the initial search for illegal material. How is this legal? And even if the site is deemed illegal, how does that allow them to hijack his twitter account?
I'm more and more concerned about shit like this. I'm not doing anything illegal now, but that doesn't seem to stop companies from destroying your entire life if they even think you have done something illegal.
I feel like if I'd have to have anything that could be seen as remotely shifty behind additional encryption layers, preferably with a way to destroy the records completely at a distance.
Perhaps something buried in the 20 pages of legalese that you consent to as “terms of service” when you “sign” your ISP/cable TV contract by saying “yes” into the phone when prompted?
The concept of intellectual property was invented to further certain economic goals. It provides a social good. There is no doubt about that but it has a drastically shorter history than the concept of physical property (which predates written records to my knowledge)
The legal system has evolved many safeguards over the years related to improper search, self-incrimination and due process.
I find it curious how easily the latter is sacrificed in favour of the former without anyone suggesting we need to continually reevaluate the degree that the former provides us benefit.
I think this is partly a language problem. Intellectual "Property" has now become merely Intellectual Property without the quotes. This sleight of hand has led many to forget it's origin's and contingent nature and to treat it as some kind of natural right rather than a concession from the state to further commerce and creativity.
Yes there is. Look up dominant assurance contracts.
Why is it that people don't even think there could be doubt that the fundamental idea of copyright is sound? Why do they not look up if there have been arguments the opposite way? People are been given handwavey arguments for why the free market can't do this, why the free market can't do that, why this requires government intervention. And then they buy the reasoning that if not for copyright, there would be no incentive to provide intellectual goods. And then they immediately buy the conclusion that we ought to have copyright lengths of 70 years, that we ought to apply copyright automatically to all created goods. Soon they tell you that actually copyright was a natural right all along!
The whole thing is diseased. At least have some doubt.
That ship sailed long ago (at least one or two copyright extensions ago in the last century) when copyright and patents ceased to serve their intended purpose and started being used to protect business turf in perpetuity.
> The concept of intellectual property [...] provides a social good. There is no doubt about that [...]
There's definitely a doubt about that. Not only about copyright but even about patents. Nearly all most influential discoveries were not patented.
And when it comes to copyright there is vast amount of data how disregarding copyright improves peoples lives and economy developments. Outside US there are whole industries running on pirate software thay wouldn't exist if copyright was enforced.
The websites offering piracy services or advertising/promoting the availability of pirated content should simply be blocked at a national level. It seems to be working well enough in Australia: piracy visits are down 50%, piracy volumes are down 25%. This is following their DNS-based blocking of sites like ThePirateBay a few years ago. Its certainly better than suing people.
Media companies behave like warlords claiming an absolute monopoly on media content distribution and treating accordingly anyone they might perceive as competition.
So according to the article you don't have to let them in to search your residence (although you may be held in contempt) but these fine individuals turned up with a locksmith?
IANAL but sounds like a case of bad faith if I've ever heard it. Should've forced them to use the locksmith and then had the cops charge them with burglary.
I'm not familiar with Canadian law, but under UK law which I suspect is similar, this is called a Civil Search Order[0] or Anton Pillar Order.
"A search order is probably the most draconian order the court can make" [1]
However there is no forcible power of entry and there is no right as such to require entry, however the judge granting the order can hold you in contempt of court and jail you if you do not grant entry. An independent lawyer must be present who is not directly acting for the plaintiff to represent the subject of the order. It's very very expensive.
Edit: Canadian law does appear to be based on UK law to some extent [2]
> Deep-pocketed companies, on the other hand, “not only have the resources to pursue [perceived harms] to the point where individuals don’t have the ability to defend themselves, but also to advance mechanisms with fewer safeguards,” Israel said.
Does anyone else feel this shouldn't be the case? Clearly, the amount of money in your pockets shouldn't decide the quality of legal representation. We need to evaluate alternate proposals that fixes these gaps.
I'd say the law should pool together the defense and plaintiff budgets and split it half and half for each parties lawyers who then would auction for the right to represent.
Thus giving each party comparable lawyers, driving down the cost of legal representation and giving everybody a fairer process.
> he committed a major error by providing login credentials for his machines
At the point when one is forced to unlock electronic devices on request even during security check on the airport, one is simply unable to identify when some legal bullies exceed their authority.
I would not recommend doing so without consulting with a lawyer either, but how does this work in civil law? There is no assumption of innocence in civil law as I understand it.
If one did not do what one is accused of, but refuse to prove that by not participating in discovery, can then the other party ask for a judgment against you?
When it comes to individual protections specifically around searches and especially speech protections, the UK, Canada and Australia are far less free than the United States.
> “I never saw this as hurting [rights holders],” Lackman told me. “People run sites that link to content—torrent sites. Those are the people who are stealing the movies.”
Canada is NOT a democracy, is a "protectorate" of UK crown, so do not be surprised. Canadians are NOT citizen, they are, formally, subjects of her majesty the queen.
In continental Europe such an action is simply illegal: only officers can enter a home, only with justice permission or for danger-life situation. Also any IT device can't be sized looking for digital proof, they must be imaged locally with image given to the defendant with relative hashes and a proper chain of custody. Of course sometime police forgot doing that and in MANY cases any proof became simply invalid in court.
Dear "citizens" freedom does not came from "ether" and stay forever, must be conquered and kept. Business as usual and classic Chomsky frog principle are the best weapon few people have to shift between representative government to corporatocracy.
> Canada is NOT a democracy, is a "protectorate" of UK crown, so do not be surprised.
It is not a protectorate of the UK crown, it is a separate constitutional monarchy that happens to have the same sovereign as the UK; like most similarly-situated ex-British states (and Britain itself), the substantive form of government is a representative democracy.
You ignore the most basic fact of freedom, that it lives in the hearts and minds of the people. It doesn't really matter what's written down on paper, the Canadian people would not follow the Queen.
I know we are supposed to be all up in arms about his rights and certainly that is a big issue, but at the same time... he was running a questionable / edgy website... "he took a laissez-faire approach to policing which addons made it onto his site."
At some level, given the history of previous issues like this, what did he expect?
Yet corporates seem to routinely take a 'laissez-faire' approach to policing and get away with it. No one is banging on Google's or Uber's door with orders.
Businesses seem to get away with more, protected by law and due process, and with recourse to lobby and challenge and even if found guilty merely fined while individuals lives can be turned upside down, with processes and records that have far reaching consequences.
There seems to be a fundamental imbalance at work here.
In my humble opinion, this guy deserved what happened to him, which was justified in its entirety.
He was an enabler of technologies that allowed sharing of information for enjoying content without permission from authors of said content.
Also, in my humble opinion, this should cover anyone that provides links, including search engines.
Furthermore, again in my humble opinion, copyrights should be permanent, and I really see no reason why someone should stop enjoying the success of their creation as long as their creation is popular. If there is demand for something, why shall it not produce profit?
I'm assuming this was sarcasm. But to be sure I'll provide an opposite view:
A [farmer|musician] has [a plow|a guitar], and he uses it to [grow food|play music]. This provides value to other people, so he sells the results of his work. When he dies, the [plow|guitar] is inherited by his children, and they decide if they will use it and do necessary maintenance. If a [farmer|musician] stops working, there is no reason he should get paid.
As creating copyrighted works is a lot harder than cloning them, it is reasonable for the creator to get a temporary monopoly. But the important word here is temporary. If you take a few weeks to write a song, you might get at most a few years of this monopoly. After that, it's time to get working on your next creation.
What's the right time period? For a song, maybe a year. For a well-reasearched book, maybe 5 years. If you keep working on it after release, an extension might be acceptable, but even then 10 years should be the maximum. 75 years after your death? That's insane.
By your humble opinion do you think links are copyrightable? Why are links a problem? If for example I post hxxps://thepiratebay.org/torrents/some_id is that to a copyrighted content? What if that link was to my free book I decided to post for free? What if now the website changes that link to a pirated movie? Do you think that links have a permanent quality?
Just because something could provide access to copyrighted material via illegal means doesn't mean it should be stopped or blocked.
I don't even think I should go into the permanent copytight, it sounds more like a troll statement than anything...
Permanent copyright? So you're saying your great-grandchildren should be entitled to reap the benefits of something they did not create and has nothing to do with them, long after the death of the original creator?
[+] [-] berti|7 years ago|reply
TIL Cloudflare makes you suspicious in the eyes of the law. Lawyers are truly great humans. /s
[+] [-] stephengillie|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] talltimtom|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AllegedAlec|7 years ago|reply
I feel like if I'd have to have anything that could be seen as remotely shifty behind additional encryption layers, preferably with a way to destroy the records completely at a distance.
[+] [-] sdfjkl|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mr_toad|7 years ago|reply
If you refuse entry to a bailiff they’ll just call the police and knock your door down.
[+] [-] cimmanom|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andybak|7 years ago|reply
The legal system has evolved many safeguards over the years related to improper search, self-incrimination and due process.
I find it curious how easily the latter is sacrificed in favour of the former without anyone suggesting we need to continually reevaluate the degree that the former provides us benefit.
I think this is partly a language problem. Intellectual "Property" has now become merely Intellectual Property without the quotes. This sleight of hand has led many to forget it's origin's and contingent nature and to treat it as some kind of natural right rather than a concession from the state to further commerce and creativity.
[+] [-] eschevarria|7 years ago|reply
Yes there is. Look up dominant assurance contracts.
Why is it that people don't even think there could be doubt that the fundamental idea of copyright is sound? Why do they not look up if there have been arguments the opposite way? People are been given handwavey arguments for why the free market can't do this, why the free market can't do that, why this requires government intervention. And then they buy the reasoning that if not for copyright, there would be no incentive to provide intellectual goods. And then they immediately buy the conclusion that we ought to have copyright lengths of 70 years, that we ought to apply copyright automatically to all created goods. Soon they tell you that actually copyright was a natural right all along!
The whole thing is diseased. At least have some doubt.
[+] [-] blihp|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrianN|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scotty79|7 years ago|reply
There's definitely a doubt about that. Not only about copyright but even about patents. Nearly all most influential discoveries were not patented.
And when it comes to copyright there is vast amount of data how disregarding copyright improves peoples lives and economy developments. Outside US there are whole industries running on pirate software thay wouldn't exist if copyright was enforced.
[+] [-] beerlord|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] expertentipp|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] empressplay|7 years ago|reply
IANAL but sounds like a case of bad faith if I've ever heard it. Should've forced them to use the locksmith and then had the cops charge them with burglary.
[+] [-] tomalpha|7 years ago|reply
"A search order is probably the most draconian order the court can make" [1]
However there is no forcible power of entry and there is no right as such to require entry, however the judge granting the order can hold you in contempt of court and jail you if you do not grant entry. An independent lawyer must be present who is not directly acting for the plaintiff to represent the subject of the order. It's very very expensive.
Edit: Canadian law does appear to be based on UK law to some extent [2]
[0]https://www.inbrief.co.uk/civil-court/search-orders/
[1] https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-204-8056?origin...
[2] https://www.mnp.ca/en/posts/civil-search-warrants-in-canada-...
[+] [-] AllegedAlec|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] denzil_correa|7 years ago|reply
Does anyone else feel this shouldn't be the case? Clearly, the amount of money in your pockets shouldn't decide the quality of legal representation. We need to evaluate alternate proposals that fixes these gaps.
[+] [-] ddalex|7 years ago|reply
Thus giving each party comparable lawyers, driving down the cost of legal representation and giving everybody a fairer process.
[+] [-] appleflaxen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] expertentipp|7 years ago|reply
At the point when one is forced to unlock electronic devices on request even during security check on the airport, one is simply unable to identify when some legal bullies exceed their authority.
[+] [-] runarb|7 years ago|reply
I would not recommend doing so without consulting with a lawyer either, but how does this work in civil law? There is no assumption of innocence in civil law as I understand it.
If one did not do what one is accused of, but refuse to prove that by not participating in discovery, can then the other party ask for a judgment against you?
[+] [-] StanislavPetrov|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mxuribe|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] radicaldreamer|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mothsonasloth|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bklaasen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jiveturkey|7 years ago|reply
typical feigned naivete
[+] [-] ryanlol|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TylerE|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scopecreep|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lixtra|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheForumTroll|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ataturk|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] xte|7 years ago|reply
In continental Europe such an action is simply illegal: only officers can enter a home, only with justice permission or for danger-life situation. Also any IT device can't be sized looking for digital proof, they must be imaged locally with image given to the defendant with relative hashes and a proper chain of custody. Of course sometime police forgot doing that and in MANY cases any proof became simply invalid in court.
Dear "citizens" freedom does not came from "ether" and stay forever, must be conquered and kept. Business as usual and classic Chomsky frog principle are the best weapon few people have to shift between representative government to corporatocracy.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|7 years ago|reply
It is not a protectorate of the UK crown, it is a separate constitutional monarchy that happens to have the same sovereign as the UK; like most similarly-situated ex-British states (and Britain itself), the substantive form of government is a representative democracy.
[+] [-] Jedi72|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] latchkey|7 years ago|reply
At some level, given the history of previous issues like this, what did he expect?
[+] [-] throw2016|7 years ago|reply
Businesses seem to get away with more, protected by law and due process, and with recourse to lobby and challenge and even if found guilty merely fined while individuals lives can be turned upside down, with processes and records that have far reaching consequences.
There seems to be a fundamental imbalance at work here.
[+] [-] ahje|7 years ago|reply
A fair trial?
[+] [-] axilmar|7 years ago|reply
He was an enabler of technologies that allowed sharing of information for enjoying content without permission from authors of said content.
Also, in my humble opinion, this should cover anyone that provides links, including search engines.
Furthermore, again in my humble opinion, copyrights should be permanent, and I really see no reason why someone should stop enjoying the success of their creation as long as their creation is popular. If there is demand for something, why shall it not produce profit?
[+] [-] hyperman1|7 years ago|reply
A [farmer|musician] has [a plow|a guitar], and he uses it to [grow food|play music]. This provides value to other people, so he sells the results of his work. When he dies, the [plow|guitar] is inherited by his children, and they decide if they will use it and do necessary maintenance. If a [farmer|musician] stops working, there is no reason he should get paid.
As creating copyrighted works is a lot harder than cloning them, it is reasonable for the creator to get a temporary monopoly. But the important word here is temporary. If you take a few weeks to write a song, you might get at most a few years of this monopoly. After that, it's time to get working on your next creation.
What's the right time period? For a song, maybe a year. For a well-reasearched book, maybe 5 years. If you keep working on it after release, an extension might be acceptable, but even then 10 years should be the maximum. 75 years after your death? That's insane.
[+] [-] martimarkov|7 years ago|reply
Just because something could provide access to copyrighted material via illegal means doesn't mean it should be stopped or blocked.
I don't even think I should go into the permanent copytight, it sounds more like a troll statement than anything...
[+] [-] bleuarff|7 years ago|reply