The connection, obviously sanctioned by US government, between ICE and the entertainment industry is not clearly explained. Mind you, England and Australia are the old World War l, ll and Cold War allies, not quite policing the world. Don't think China or Russia would be that welcoming.

I wonder how long would US companies will hang on to full control of the domain names registration rights and DNS. So much for the WorldWideWeb, a freebie from a British inventor.

And why aren't they (iCE) going after the very large number of 'people' doing outright pirating of intellectual property in China?  Its this another example of , screw the small fry? 

Because they have no enforcement authority in China?  The host government has to be willing to cooperate, no?  A not insignificant part of China's growth over the last two decades has been based on NOT enforcing patents/copyrights.  Why on earth would they get involved when there is no national incentive (or significant enough international pressure) to do so?

It's funny how ICE got involved in the first place.  Before the Department of Homeland Security was created, all these little branches of the government operated independently.  US Customs (& Border Protection) did their thing, US Immigration and Naturalization did their thing, and the FBI handled legalities such as copyright violations for the film and music industries.

After the DoHS was created, US Customs and Immigration, since they did similar (though not the same) tasks, they were merged to become ICE.  US Customs, since the very beginning, has the wordage spelled out in their charter that they can search and seize your property without any reason at all.  This basically allows them to do their job.  If you're ever stopped by a customs agent, all of your stuff belongs to the agency at that point and you have no rights to it no matter how much you complain or threaten legal action.  It's simply just not yours anymore.  The thing was, customs agents weren't technically allowed to operate outside of the US or it's territories unless specifically requested by another government.  The FBI has that same problem, thus always using InterPol for assistance to things outside the US.  Immigration on the other hand, IS allowed to operate on foreign soil as part of their responsibilities to prevent illegal immigration.  For example, they are allowed to operate in Mexico to discover the source of smuggling rings and shut them down, though with notifications to and assistance from the Mexican government, of course, which happens every single time, I'm sure. /sarcasm

At the creation of ICE, a fun little technicality was created.  Agents, who are able to search and seize property at their discretion, could now also operate on foreign soil, and agents who operated on foreign soil are now allowed to search and seize what they want, when they want it.  Also, under the rules of cooperation established by the DoHS, the FBI can now utilize ICE to handle their cases.  This is why you see an FBI warning at the beginning of movies warning about copyright infringement, yet it's ICE that is shutting down websites regardless of where the hosting server is, and without a warrant or other legal notifications...

Personally, I think it's wrong that my government created a legal loophole by merging two agencies that were created separately for the very reason of avoiding that loophole...  And then exploiting it under the play nice with other agencies mandate.

Because ICE doesn't really give a crap, it's not their job.  It's the FBI pulling the strings, and ICE only listens when they are pressured to do so.

They actually do have the authority.  The Chinese Government also has the authority to prevent their entry as does any other country.  Other countries like the UK will allow it, though.

While semantically different it amounts to the same thing.  They need the cooperation of the host government to operate and in general China has no reason to give it.

#1 - Why the hell is ICE involved?

#2 - They are attempting to set a deadly precedent.  One that could be used to indict and deport any american citizen.  They apparently do not think about that (but then thinking and government in the same sentence are oxymorons).

#3 - Linking is not distributing.  Google and Bing better be very afraid if that is the case.

For once, I would love for a foreign country to tell off the US.  This is clearly a case of US imperialism, and it could only come under a democrat president.

Actually you do.  And as soon as they seize property that is someones with some connections, it is headed to SCOTUS.  it violates the 4th Amendment.  No law, or executive order can over turn the constitution.

Obviously, they would want cooperation, but it's not a requirement.

Except that it doesn't since the supreme court recognizes that this agency must violate it to do their job and thus allows them to.  The 4th and 9th circuit court of appeals have even established that they don't need your permission to access your personal electronic devices.

See United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149 (2004), United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985), and United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977).

and

See United States v. Ickes, 393 F.3d 501 (4th Cir., 2005) and United States v. Arnold, (9th Cir., 2008)

I think that there needs to be some sort of cooperation between countries with internet but I do not agree with extraditing to where you have the strongest laws against whatever law. This person should be tried where they reside. Is that not what "jury of peers" actually means?

I also find it a little disturbing how a few judges are allow to rewrite or outright throw out the constitution.

Yeah I really fail to understand why he needs to be extradited. Granted I've never heard of the guy or know exactly how large his operation was, but I would think the U.K. is perfectly capable of trying a case of US copyright infringement by one of its citizens. Why the heck are we wasting tax dollars to try and get this guy sent over here (at our expense), where we will then have to pay to detain him.

Accessing your devices, while contrary to the 4th is not the same as seizing property.  I also note it has not gone to the SCOTUS yet.  But even if it does, it is a very narrow ruling.  However, seizing property cannot be ruled constitutional as it may be ICE now, but why stop there?  if it is not over turned, we may as well toss the whole constitution out.

to find this again

I'm sure there is more to the story.

Regarding the "small fry", we're not small at all.  We or anyone paying tax, here or abroad, finance ICE (and other departments of the State), so therefore we are very much involved in their activities.

Isn't freedom grand?

-.-

I was hoping folks would relate to the questions I posed at the end of the post....

Technically, we've been discussing these:

Ultimately, I think everyone who has posted thus far is somewhere between upset and disgusted with the way the US has been handling things.

Was there a crime? Where? Who should prosecute? How does this relate to IP rights?

For instance, not all IP rights protection is necessarily beneficial.... take for example "Gene Patenting". Various companies have patented detection of possibly dangerous genes such as the BRCA (breast cancer) gene, and others (Polycystic Kidney Disease, etc.) and made research into possible cures vulnerable to litigation, while doing no research into possible cures themselves.

Some are beneficial such as the protection of artistic creations (there are many, just mentioning one germane to us, here). Doesn't this 'little guy' deserve protection?

I'm hoping for discussion rather than anger, although the subject is charged...

Okay, I'll do my best to answer those and get things rolling in the direction you want...

Was there a crime?  Yes.  The movie studios and television studios make it perfectly clear that distribution of their produced works is only allowed through authorized distributors, which you and I are not authorized.  To further that, in the age of digital distribution, you also violate laws that say you cannot copy since in that distribution process, you're not merely transferring ownership of your copy, but creating a second, or third, or fourth copy and maintaining possession of yours.

They had this same issue when VHS was first coming to market, ultimately learning to take advantage of it rather then fight it.  Something that happened gradually, but they had the time to make that transition.  The difference here is that VHS, because it is physical media, was controllable, and reproductions of protected works took time and money, and each successive copy as you moved further and further away from the original, was degraded in quality to some degree based on the equipment used.  Eventually you reached the limits of acceptable quality, and you had to get a better source.  Such is not the case with digital distribution since you can make thousands of copies on the fly, there is no physical media to control, and quality does not degrade.

Having learned their lessons with VHS, when DVDs and CDs came to market, they employed the same strategies.  Again, the controllable factor was that there was physical media that added time and cost to the copy process.  They even acknowledge their concerns over the fact that successive copies did not degrade like VHS, but implemented rudimentary controls at best since it did work.  Controls like region codes on DVDs, intentional bad data blocks that do not carry over to copies (playstation games for example), and probably the worst thing, producing CDs filled with songs of little interest to all but the most hard core of fans, reducing the want for a copy (which also hurt sales).  This false sense of security lulled them to sleep and they failed to stay ahead of technology.  As more people became connected, and internet speeds picked up, rather then being proactive, they waited.  That ultimately has cost them.  The old saying goes: "An ounce of prevention is better then a pound of cure."  Right now, they are dumping millions, if not billions into curing the problem, rather then jumping on and creating a digital distribution system back in the early to mid 90's when being online really started to take off.  Worse, the movie studios knew what was happening to the music industry and still took the wait and see approach.  Stupidity does have a price.  They know this quite well now...  I hope.

Where is the crime? It's in the economics.  In this case, and those like it, there is a long chain of businesses not receiving income for that CD or DVD you would have purchased in order to watch the movie or listen to the music, or at the very least, the money paid to an authorized digital distributor who has negotiated with the producer to ensure they receive money for their works that they can pass along down to the artists who negotiated their pay for their time and talent.  iTunes, for example.

Who should prosecute?  The holder of the rights, in an international court.  Federal prosecutors should only be used as support, and not the main force behind the case, just as it would be in a domestic court case.

As for IP rights, I feel research should be exempted from the threat of litigation.  Health, technology, science in general shouldn't be hamstrung by lawyers.  If a company like Glaxosmithkline wants to protect a drug that they are bringing to market that prevents blood clotting in high risk stroke patients, I'm perfectly fine with that.  If McNeil wants to delve into breast cancer research, let them regardless of what Myriad Genetics claims is their property.  If AMD's next processor architecture is vastly superior to Intel's, let AMD patent the processor and make truck loads of cash because of it, but let Intel take it apart and learn why it's all of a sudden so much better.  If SpaceX creates a viable way to continuously send people into space and bring them back safely, and for as cheaply as a round trip plane ticket to a destination half way around the world, let them patent the technology used, however, don't prevent Virgin Galactic from using that equipment as a jumping off point to create something better.  Selling at market isn't the same thing as doing research.  Patents are there to protect one's rights to make a profit.  It shouldn't be used to prevent advancements in life.

As for 'this little guy', in this case, no, he doesn't deserve protection from copyright laws.  He is stealing from the rightful distributors.  He himself is not profiting from it, but he is directly responsible for reducing profits of the rightful distributors.  I could pity him if he was stealing bread from the local market and breaking into the laundry room of a nearby apartment complex because he was homeless and hungry.  But this isn't food and shelter.  He's not stealing a basic need, he is stealing (or at the very least, enabling others to steal through him) entertainment products.  I'm not saying that stealing food is right, even if you're starving, but I'm not heartless, I can take pity on someone who does that.  This?  It's not the same.  I wouldn't expect the world to stick up for me if I was busted for file sharing. (That's not an admission of guilt, just a statement of my position.)

I agree with Stant123 but I don't see why I can't make a back up copy for myself in case the origional gets messed up.

He's British and should be trialed in Britain. Such as Gary Mckinnon, who is fighting an extradition case to the United States.

I think the High court of England should decide this case, not American companies.

Too be honest, I would love to see them attack china over copyright LOL!

My feelings run pretty parallel to stant123's as well.

Wish there were more participants.

I also agree with stant123

First off: was a crime committed?  Maybe.

He didn't host or distribute any of the illegal distribution himself, so in a direct sense he didn't commit copyright infringement.  If the simple act of linking to another site is enough to trigger criminal copyright infringement, then that would be huge liability for just about every service provider on the internet.  However, he may have induced or aided copyright infringement either actively or through negligence.  The character of his dealings on his site, and how he dealt with requests from rightsholders, and the requirements placed upon him by the laws of his own jurisdiction would determine whether a crime has been committed.  I do not believe that any of us here are in a position to make a definitive statement, and I believe the only agency that can make that call is a court of law in Britain.

Second issue:  where?  Britain.

Laws vary from one country to the next, and it is impossible to police the internet while respecting every single jurisdiction on Earth.  Nor will you ever get everyone to agree on what constitutes a crime, or what the penalties for infractions should be.  I believe that people should be charged in the jurisdiction in which they reside, and servers shut down in the jurisdiction they reside.  The courts of each country are ultimately responsible with enforcing the laws on their own inhabitants and industries.  The guy lives in Britain, operated in Britain, and had no substantial economic dealings in the United States.  As far as I'm concerned, they have no jurisdiction to request his extradition. 

Third issue:  how does this relate to IP rights?  how does it not?

This case is just more emphasis that today's society doesn't know how to deal with the changing application and needs of copyright.  We don't know how to deal with the fact that information now knows no borders, we don't know how to deal with the fact that copyright infringement has effectively zero operational costs and can be done non-commercially by individuals without any real expenditure of capital.  Nor have we really come to terms with the scale of infringement today; even if everyone could be charged it would clog up the court system and probably lead to a political backlash that could bring legitimacy to "abolish copyright" movements.  As much as I think the current structure of copyright law is outdated and ineffective, it's certainly much better than nothing.

However, with respect to today's copyright laws, I believe it is the duty of rightsholders to police their own works.  Only a rightsholder is in a position to know what is legitimate promotional content being distributed for free, and what's an illegitimate distribution channel.  Service providers should be in a position where they must respond reasonably to rightsholders notices, but also to counter-notices from users.  The service provider is the intermediary, and so long as they act in good faith they should not be subject to legal liability (otherwise we're harming innovation on that front). 

You need to set that up as a separate post in either politics or philosophy.

Situational ethics.  The truth is they either are or are not.  Both represent a person's time and talent and just compensation.  It is our judgement system that then decides what is more valuable or not.  However the principal is the same.  You either support them or you do not.

I don't think so, Dr Guy. There are situations in which there is not a 1 or a 0, black or white. This isn't Boolean Algebra... closer to fuzzy logic.

I do support copyright protection, but not where it prevents people from lifesaving treatment. That's unconscionable, and is in a completely different ethical sphere from protesting the rights of a painter, for example simply because we are talking about life and death in some cases. As with most things, common sense should have a place in our thinking, as well as property rights. In real property ownership, there is a concept of "eminent domain"....

Dunno about a country, but an Aussie court told the US to piss off with regard to iinet.com.au.  The RIAA and movie equivalent charged that iinet allowed/encouraged piracy because it never issued warnings to users who illegally downloaded music and/or movies.  The court ruled that iinet, as internet providers, it must comply with Australian privacy laws and therefore cannot act as internet police and cannot be held responsible for users habits.

As for this bloke in England, throw the book at him... in his own country... with respect to what he actually did [provide links] and not some trumped up bullshit the legal eagles decide is appropriate.

As for US authorities acting on foreign soil... nope, eff off.  If anyone in the US has a bitch with an Aussie citizen/resident, let them contact our authorities and take it from there.  Same with any sovereign nation, go through the proper channels. I don't think you in the US would want our/their law enforcement people running around your country arresting/prosecuting your citizens, so do unto others as you would have them do unto you.