We've had widespread unauthorized sharing of video and movies for nearly as long. Are fewer TV series being created, fewer channels being launched, fewer movies made today? Or more?
Post ho ergo propter hoc fallacy, there. The technology of making a film/video has become vastly cheaper than it used to be. This has been a far bigger influence on the economics of production than the ability to get copies via unauthorized sharing. On the other hand, it's a lot harder to make your money back than it used to be. File-sharing is partly responsible, but is only one factor among several.
First they came for the domains of the scum of the earth, and I said 'good riddance', because I'm not scum.
Yes, losing your domain is just like being sent to a concentration camp. I'm not asking you to support this (I don't) but let's keep a little sense of perspective here, shall we?
The Niemoller snowclone isn't meant suggest the endgame here is like a concentration camp. (If you complete it in your mind, that's not the last line.)
Rather, that if you cheer this tactic on now, simply because now it's used against 'scum', you shouldn't be surprised if this tactic gets abused more broadly against disfavored groups in the future. Did you fail to file your proper FEC election-expenditure reports for candidate advocacy blogging? Away with your domain name! In a back-tax dispute? Away with your domain name! Are you a troublemaker who's publishing unauthorized video of a TSA checkpoint? Away with your domain name!
The authorities should have to win a case, rather than just allege wrongdoing, to wipe a website completely from the net.
The authorities should have to win a case, rather than just allege wrongdoing, to wipe a website completely from the net.
Leaving aside the fact the website hasn't been wiped, as such, in what sense is ICE's procedure insufficient? They've obtained a valid court order, supposedly, so it's been approved by a judge. And like it not, dealing in certain kinds of merchandise makes both merchandise and assets subject to seizure, using laws which have been on the books a long time (and were thus known to the domain owners). The idea that customs officers have in rem jurisdiction (over things rather than people) in certain circumstances is a very old one.
The standards for issuing such a warrant should be higher, and the accused should have a right to dispute the allegations before being blocked from worldwide communication via those domain names.
A domain name is more than just a storefront; it's also the equivalent of a printing press and mailbox. Seizing all those at once, without a hearing where both sides had representation, is the problematic precedent.
Higher than what? From your remarks, It's not clear that you read the second link provided, which addresses such topics. This thread's dead, so my question is rhetorical more than anything else, but you can reach me at gee mail should you so desire.
Post ho ergo propter hoc fallacy, there. The technology of making a film/video has become vastly cheaper than it used to be. This has been a far bigger influence on the economics of production than the ability to get copies via unauthorized sharing. On the other hand, it's a lot harder to make your money back than it used to be. File-sharing is partly responsible, but is only one factor among several.
First they came for the domains of the scum of the earth, and I said 'good riddance', because I'm not scum.
Yes, losing your domain is just like being sent to a concentration camp. I'm not asking you to support this (I don't) but let's keep a little sense of perspective here, shall we?