Internet Censorship begins in America; 70 websites seized

[cositc]

accomplice

One who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of a crime. One who is in some way concerned or associated in commission of crime; partaker of guilt; one who aids or assists

First off the site has no ideal that the user will break the law, so you can get rid of knowingly. Then if they dont know that the users are breaking the law how are they voluntarily commiting a crime.Then we have with common intent, How can you prove that it was the sites intent to help you pirate something, maybe there intent was to let you find where to download open source software or free web shows.


Hey might not reply as fast as before going to go watch hogans heros online.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

What you said was,,,that the government can ban anything,,,whose primary use is bad...

No, that was the way you twisted it, trying to create a slippery slope where there is none.

Using your logic,,,whether guns or legal,,,comes down to a simple math problem...

Show me the math.

you dont ground your ethics in principle,,,you make an empirical determination of each question...

You are clueless about my ethics or my principles.

you did the same thing in the rights vs. privileges discussion... you look first to consequences,,not to principles...

Wrong. You should go read what I said again. If you need help understand any of the words let me know. I'll explain them to you.

By your logic,,,if most gun owners were bad,,,you could take guns away

Anybody else see that red herring flyover?

court decisions and case law are two ways of saying the same thing...

They are? And here for over 20 years I thought that a court decision was rendered at the trial court level while case law was published at the appellate court level. I'll have to get a refund.

plus,,,what some court says that is paid off or pressured to say a certain thing doesnt impress me much...

Whatever. You're trolling now.

Ill gladly talk about right and wrong,,,and a court decision is not proof of any moral truth,,,unless the courts reasoning is correct

You mean unless you agree with the results? You might want to check all of our founding documents but that's not exactly the way it works.

First off the site has no ideal that the user will break the law, so you can get rid of knowingly. Then if they dont know that the users are breaking the law how are they voluntarily commiting a crime.Then we have with common intent, How can you prove that it was the sites intent to help you pirate something, maybe there intent was to let you find where to download open source software or free web shows.

Hey might not reply as fast as before going to go watch hogans heros online.

Are you willfully ignoring the fact that courts all over the world have consistently ruled against the arguments you attempted to make?

 

[cositc]

Are you willfully ignoring the fact that courts all over the world have consistently ruled against the arguments you attempted to make?

I would like to see the court case files. if you can produce them. Plus we are talking about the us not the world.

 

[rjstew317]

, maybe there intent was to let you find where to download open source software or free web shows.

if that is the case then they should practice self governance and filter out links to questionable sources. if they had, the site would still be up

 

[cositc]

How is one site going to filter all the torrent sites for what is and is not flat out illegal.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I would like to see the court case files. if you can produce them. Plus we are talking about the us not the world.

Then let Google be your guide.

As a side note, the US is part of the world. When I say "courts all over the world", it includes those in the US.

 

[rjstew317]

don't know, I'm not a programmer, but i know google has filtering capabilities

 

[cositc]

you brought up the court cases, so you should show them. P.S. I know the u.s. is part of the world but to include court case from around the world when talking about the u.s. law system is just not a argument.
P.S.S. I hope you are not getting mad. this is just a polite debate.

 

[cositc]

don't know, I'm not a programmer, but i know google has filtering capabilities

they do. They are also worth $163.2 Billion. So they have the money and resources to hire and pay for those filters.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

you brought up the court cases, so you should show them. P.S. I know the u.s. is part of the world but to include court case from around the world when talking about the u.s. law system is just not a argument.
P.S.S. I hope you are not getting mad. this is just a polite debate.

No, I never get mad. Like I tell people you can call me a dumb @$$. That's an expression of opinion. It's when you start listing examples that it gets personal

Google SCOTUS Grokster. You can read the SCOTUS ruling.

they do. They are also worth $163.2 Billion. So they have the money and resources to hire and pay for those filters.

I'm sure your not saying you should be able to do whatever you want if you're poor. Or are you?

 

[cositc]

ok i'll look that up and i was just checking to be on the safe side.

 

[cositc]

No, I never get mad. Like I tell people you can call me a dumb @$$. That's an expression of opinion. It's when you start listing examples that it gets personal

Google SCOTUS Grokster. You can read the SCOTUS ruling.



I'm sure your not saying you should be able to do whatever you want if you're poor. Or are you?

Not saying that at all, what im saying is that you can not really belive that a site can employ the same amount of filters and personel as google to sort out what is legal and not.

 

[rjstew317]

I'm sure your not saying you should be able to do whatever you want if you're poor. Or are you?

that's kind of what it sounded like to me, correct me if I'm wrong

 

[rjstew317]

Not saying that at all, what im saying is that you can not really belive that a site can employ the same amount of filters and personel as google to sort out what is legal and not.

that's why they were shut down

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Not saying that at all, what im saying is that you can not really belive that a site can employ the same amount of filters and personel as google to sort out what is legal and not.

If you can't operate a business within the confines of the law you shouldn't. Regardless of the reason.

 

[cositc]

that's why they were shut down

ok so i can not start a site that lets people find where stuff is if im able to put in the same filters that google use's. Also i read about that court case and it said that the way companys have goten around that is by listing in there terms of use. that you can not pirate. Here is torrent-finder.com terms of use:

THIS AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT") IS A LEGAL AND BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU ("YOU" OR "YOUR") AND TORRENT FINDER ("TORRENT FINDER", "OUR," "US," "WE") REGARDING YOUR ACCESS TO AND USE OF THE TORRENT FINDER WEB SITE (THE "SITE"). PLEASE READ THIS AGREEMENT CAREFULLY PRIOR TO PURCHASE. BY ACCESSING THE SITE, YOU ARE CONSENTING TO BECOME A PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT AND AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED IN THIS LEGAL NOTICE.

Terms of USE
By using this site, you agree not to engage in copyright infringement AND/OR Adult Contents by using links provided within to obtain files not legally owned by you AND/OR containing Adult materials. There is no copyrighted material on this page or any page herein, nor do we link directly to copyrighted material. Materials falling under copyright laws in the United States, and/or any nation with similar copyright laws, obtained indirectly through this site are not the responsibility of this site's administrator as the files are distributed by outside sources not having any affiliation or contact with this site or it's administrator. The administrator of the site does not condone copyright infringement and does not actively participate in the direct distribution of copyrighted materials, nor will he/she direct users to any such copyrighted materials. In accepting this agreement, you forfeit the right to hold the administrator and/or the host of this site responsible for any materials obtained directly or indirectly from this page and/or the pages herein. The author's use of TORRENT files and the BitTorrent client are for educational purposes only. By using the TORRENT files on this site for the purpose of committing copyright infringement, you acknowledge full responsibility for any legal consequences of your actions. If you do not agree with any and/or all of this agreement, you are legally required to leave this site. For further inquiries, please contact kurtubba@gmail.com
MODIFICATION
Torrent Finder reserves the right to change these terms and conditions from time to time at its sole discretion, without prior notice, by posting such revised terms and conditions on the Site. It is Your obligation to routinely review these terms and conditions and Your continued use of the Site following any such change (whether or not You have reviewed such change) constitutes Your binding acceptance to follow
and be bound by the terms and conditions as changed.

No Unlawful or Prohibited Use
As a condition of your use of the website, you will not use the website for any purpose that is unlawful or prohibited by these terms, conditions, and notices. You may not use the Services in any manner that could damage, disable, overburden, or impair any Torrent Finder server, or the network(s) connected to any Torrent Finder server, or interfere with any other party's use and enjoyment of the website. You may not attempt to gain unauthorized access to services, materials, other accounts, computer systems or networks connected to any Torrent Finder server or to the website, through hacking, password mining or any other means. You may not obtain or attempt to obtain any materials or information through any means not intentionally made available through the website.

 

[rambone]

In practice, the primary use of guns is murder. Maybe they should ban them.

Strawman. Not even close to correct. Over a billion rounds of ammunition are sold every year. 80 million guns in private hands. Less that 2,000 killings involving guns every year. Your bias exposes you.

No, we should close down avenues that can possibly be abused. That way we can be safe from murderers and from internet pirates, and create hacker-free zones on the internet also.

Your logic throws the baby out with the bathwater. But why not, government is just trying to make America safe from pirates and terrorists. It has nothing to do with grabbing more power. Slippery slope? Never heard of it.

More strawmen. The anarchist in you slips through more and more. If you can't see that it is about stealing and not about power grabbing, then I don't know what to tell you.

Maybe you think that this is the first law passed by this congress that is not about expanding the power of the Federal Government. Obamacare, the credit card overhaul, the Stimulus, the financial reform, the banker bailouts, the FDA expansion, the TSA intrusions, and everything else they've done should be taken at face value, and is in our best interest. Finally Obama and his lackey congress are going to turn this country around by delving into internet regulations.

And its minarchist remember? We already hashed through your fallacious red herring ad hominim strawman of calling me an anarchist in every thread. There is a distinct difference between no government and constitutionally restricted government.

Don't you think it would be a little more logical to go after the individuals who stole something, instead of seizing entire websites?

I think it's more logical to close the means of distribution of stolen property, then catch the people engaged in its distribution, then chase each thief.

Where else do we use this approach to deliver justice? Do we close convenience stores because people rip them off? Do we shut down credit card companies because of identity theft? Do we ban door-to-door sales because some of them are crooks? Do we ban satellite dishes because people hack them? Should we ban scanners and copy machines because they can be used to duplicate protected material? Is that how it works?

 

[cositc]

Hey can we talk about how messed up the C.O.I.C.A. is?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

No, we should close down avenues that can possibly be abused. That way we can be safe from murderers and from internet pirates, and create hacker-free zones on the internet also.

If you want to that's your opinion but I'm not sure I can go along with it. Isn't that contrary to your Libtard beliefs?

Maybe you think that this is the first law passed by this congress that is not about expanding the power of the Federal Government. Obamacare, the credit card overhaul, the Stimulus, the financial reform, the banker bailouts, the FDA expansion, the TSA intrusions, and everything else they've done should be taken at face value, and is in our best interest. Finally Obama and his lackey congress are going to turn this country around by delving into internet regulations.

The Constitution of the United States was about expanding the power of the federal government. The law this is based on is what, 15 years old? I like to blame Obamagonnaneedajob for a lot of stuff, but I think he was in diapers when this law was passed. Somebody please check my math.

And its minarchist remember? We already hashed through your fallacious red herring ad hominim strawman of calling me an anarchist in every thread. There is a distinct difference between no government and constitutionally restricted government.

Wow, three fallacies in a row. Impressive.

If I think you an anarchist is is only because I'm looking for just one miniscule example where you support a centilla of government. Oh, and are not angry at the world surrounding you that yes, includes government.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

Where else do we use this approach to deliver justice? Do we close convenience stores because people rip them off? Do we shut down credit card companies because of identity theft? Do we ban door-to-door sales because some of them are crooks? Do we ban satellite dishes because people hack them? Should we ban scanners and copy machines because they can be used to duplicate protected material? Is that how it works?

Not for nothing, but none of your examples are on point. The only one that's even close is the copy machine, but there is far more legimate use of copy machines than illegal use.

It's pretty easy. Dont steal other people's property. I mean, if you can't support a law that don't steal, what kind of law can you support?

 

[mrjarrell]

People keep using the words theft and stealing. I'm not sure your use of the words is correct. What is going on in most of these "illegal" instances, is sharing. Not stealing. Someone, somewhere took their legally owned property, converted said property to a .torrent file ans put it out there to be shared with like minded individuals. Might be a music file or a book. But it was theirs, unless someone else owns what you've paid for. Either it's yours or it's not. We've heard this same tired argument before back when cassettes and video recorders were introduced. The main difference here is that companies are using government to protect themselves from a changing market. No "theft" is involved, unless you'd like to try and make the argument that you can't purchase things, only rent them.