https://torrentfreak.com/feds-seize-kic ... er-160720/
Reading this, you will understand the merits of having a VPN (Virtual Private Network) to browse the Web, and also what can be done with an IP address by the authorities.
An IP address has caused KAT founder to be arrested and is facing multiple charges.
Because of the severity of US courts, this defendant is on his way to pass the rest of his life behind bars, once extradited from Poland.
For users of this torrent site, this is bad news.
what an IP is and what can be done with it
No it didn't.An IP address has caused KAT founder to be arrested and is facing multiple charges.
He was arrested for doing something illegal.
Anyone and everyone using the Web has an IP address otherwise there would be no communication. Given time anyone can find the location of an IP address. Any sensible person who wants to remain hidden would make sure that their real IP address is either well hidden or is changed randomly and often.
"Just think of it as leaving early to avoid the rush" - T Pratchett
-
bark_bark_bark
- Posts: 1885
- Joined: Tue 05 Jun 2012, 12:17
- Location: Wisconsin USA
Except he was doing nothing illegal, nor morally wrong. In fact, the dude complied with DMCA take-downs. The take-down of KAT is an act of violence on freedom of speech and sharing, and it is an act of censorship.Burn_IT wrote:No it didn't.An IP address has caused KAT founder to be arrested and is facing multiple charges.
He was arrested for doing something illegal.
Anyone and everyone using the Web has an IP address otherwise there would be no communication. Given time anyone can find the location of an IP address. Any sensible person who wants to remain hidden would make sure that their real IP address is either well hidden or is changed randomly and often.
Note: An IP address IS NOT a person, nor does it directly identify one.
Also it's kind of sad that rather than go after real criminals causing real harm to others, LEA just do the will of corrupt self-entitled whiny corporations.
....
-
learnhow2code
partly true. but even when it sort-of is a person, the ability of media companies and the people they hire to "find" these ips are as unreliable as the idea itself that an ip is a person. slightly related: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 43217.html "If we follow the music industry down that road, we will be doing nothing more than being part of a protectionist effort. It's like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube." -- billy braggbark_bark_bark wrote:An IP address IS NOT a person, nor does it directly identify one.
-
learnhow2code
laws are not based so exclusively on such metaphors and "wishful" thinking.8Geee wrote:Like the captain of a ship... responsible.
the thing is, if the laws worked like you guys said, corporations couldnt do business.
so they make all kinds of exceptions (based on copyright laws and other laws) ie "safe harbor" and in theory, those exceptions extend to other "people" (real ones like you and me, not just corporations.) because ACTUAL PEOPLE are PEOPLE, TOO!
just two examples: there are laws pertaining specifically to who is responsible on an open wi-fi network. this is important to:
* coffeehouses
* office stores
* libraries
and also speaking of libraries, the person using the computer to infringe is responsible for any infringement, not the owner of the computer (or the library.) there are notices citing usa copyright law to this effect at several libraries in more than one state.
same for the photocopier.
so no, the person at the ip is not the captain of anything. nor do you (or anyone really) want them to be.
now in other countries, it varies. but its always worth talking about usa copyright, because we (unfortunately) write the copyright regulations the rest of the world (or most of it) signs. that includes the united nations conventions about "ip" and international trade agreements.
the main difference between usa copyright law and these trade agreements, is that our laws tend to have more exceptions. but they also have exceptions in the united nations versions, as well as in the united kingdom and canada.
most people base their understanding of copyright law based on propaganda written by media companies. this is a shame-- the media companies say theyre doing it for artists, but they never tell you what YOUR rights are, only theirs-- even if youre an artist.
you definitely have more rights than they get you to believe with these ridiculous metaphors and inaccurate justifications of very simply what they would like you to do. if it was up to these people, libraries would be illegal.
http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-a ... tates.html
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/copy ... e-doctrine
the goal of the media lobbyists is to convince americans and the world of one thing: that someone can be the ultimate king of a piece of information, and be the final arbiter of what is and isnt done with that information.
the truth is that some things are not copyrightable (for example, "puppy linux" -- but you can trademark it, which grants a different kind of monopoly-- barry has a trademark on puppy linux that he has never enforced, but its probably good for another 5-10 years.)
like copyright, trademark doesnt mean you can sue someone for saying "puppy linux" without permission. but it does grant some exclusive rights, which can be used to fight confusion among consumers.
however, one thing barry kauler doesnt have to trademark is "barry kauler." if i tell you im him, and i sell you something using his name to get you to think im him, thats fraud-- its not a copyright or trademark issue.
but under usa law, one thing thats unconstitutional is "perpetual copyright." that can exist in some countries (in the uk, but not for most publications) but in article 1 section 8 of the constitution limits congresses ability to grant monopolies to a limited time duration.
no duration is specified, but it has to be a limited one. so what the media companies are doing is (retroactively) increasing the copyright terms to keep mickey mouse from going into the public domain. this makes as much sense as barry saying that not the trademark he registered for "puppy" linux several years ago can now be used to sue anyone else that uses "linux" in their work, although that trademark belongs to the linux foundation. i dont want to conflate scope and duration, though.
but its not how copyright law works, or ever worked in the united states, yet theyre getting away with it for now. see "eldred v. ashcroft" for one of the most intriguing copyright law cases in history.