Innocent till proven guilty doesnt apply

[Epitome]

http://torrentfreak.com/oldest-bittorrent-site-targeted-by-police-owner-arrested-090804/

Poor bastard who runs Filesoup had his house raided and rights pissed on by the cops on the word of a non-givernment 3rd party, who now have all his stuff? FACT(Fedaration against copyright theft) are well known as being lying bastards who try and turn a civil case ( which is costly and often not profitable) into criminal cases ( hwere they can string somebody up as an example). While i dont really support piracy i definately dont support the Meda industry and its war on its own customers. Thats not why i created his thread. My question is do you think its right for the police force to be granted and execute a warrent for a search, seizure and arrest based on allegations by a 3rd party who definely want the worst for the private citizen in question? Also the denial of his basic rights to legal representation or even his phonecall and the fact that his siezed material are now at the mercy of FACT, who can now plant what they want and say they found it?

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

I think it's right for the police to be able to search a place if they have sufficient suspicion of criminal activity occurring there. Their job is to stop crime after all.

 

[Blackadder51]

The article is very Biased however it is ridicules how this man was treated

 

[JemJar]

Similar question: Is it right to cite a source which is from another third party (TorrentFreak.com) who are most likely opposed to the original third party (F.A.C.T.) and would rather back the apparently violated individual?

 

[Cucucachu]

yeah this seems alot like bull but I do think it is important that cops be able search houses if they have reason to think someone is breaking the law(IE they see smoke and hear laughing and stairway to heaven they should be able to search for pot, I think pot should be legal but that is not the point) me I think the cops should be suspended till people can look into this matter.

 

[Epitome]

Similar question: Is it right to cite a source which is from another third party (TorrentFreak.com) who are most likely opposed to the original third party (F.A.C.T.) and would rather back the apparently violated individual?

a valid point but i cant find teh story covered in any mainstream media ( first thing i did when i read it was check , i dont like one side of a story either), but i wasnt really thinking or his treatment which if true is cause for alarm, but raher that i dont like teh idea of companies who might spy and snoop. I mean if there is sufficent probability that criminal activity is going on surely teh police themselves should be in charge of gathering evidence and surely the prosectution shud not be given responsibility for the evidence before trial?

 

[Epitome]

I don't think the way they treated him was fair, but it's still hard to feel sorry for pirates that actually think there is nothing wrong with that they are doing. I mean my best friends pirates stuff all the time but he still acknowledges that what he is doing is "not so legal".

If arrested he would try to get out of it of course, but i really doubt he would actually feel outraged by his arrest when he knows that what he is doing is not really that legal in the first place.

Even so he has a right to due process, they cant just come kick your door down because somebodys says what your doing is illegal. If the site only holds urls and .torrent files then its not breaking any laws remember, its the users who share and dl that do that. But FACT paint it out like it would be impossible without sites like Filesoup despite the fact they are little more than .torrent exclusive search engines, the same functionality is in google aswell? but nobody kicks their door down and confiscates their stuff?

 

[bluepilot]

The police had a warrant so they must have had some evidence that this person was breaking the law, and whatever evidence was available was evidentally held up in court. So, I cannot see anything wrong with the police`s conduct. He openly and willingly broke the law, so he cannot really complain when his freedom is taken away from him. Being caught red-handed with the evidence pretty much has you proved as `guilty` with or without trial.

 

[JemJar]

Similar question: Is it right to cite a source which is from another third party (TorrentFreak.com) who are most likely opposed to the original third party (F.A.C.T.) and would rather back the apparently violated individual?

a valid point but i cant find teh story covered in any mainstream media ( first thing i did when i read it was check , i dont like one side of a story either), but i wasnt really thinking or his treatment which if true is cause for alarm, but raher that i dont like teh idea of companies who might spy and snoop. I mean if there is sufficent probability that criminal activity is going on surely teh police themselves should be in charge of gathering evidence and surely the prosectution shud not be given responsibility for the evidence before trial?

Then I salute you for at least taking a look around for more sources. I wonder if the BBC or the broadsheet papers will pick up on the story in the near future.

 

[Epitome]

The police had a warrant so they must have had some evidence that this person was breaking the law, and whatever evidence was available was evidentally held up in court. So, I cannot see anything wrong with the police`s conduct. He openly and willingly broke the law, so he cannot really complain when his freedom is taken away from him. Being caught red-handed with the evidence pretty much has you proved as `guilty` with or without trial.

But what law was he breaking, he was holding no copyrighted material? just .torrets, 20 digit file hashes are not copyrighted content? You could argue that they support illegal activity but no more than if i gave you directions to a bank and you decided to hold it up?

 

[Epitome]

I don't think the way they treated him was fair, but it's still hard to feel sorry for pirates that actually think there is nothing wrong with that they are doing. I mean my best friends pirates stuff all the time but he still acknowledges that what he is doing is "not so legal".

If arrested he would try to get out of it of course, but i really doubt he would actually feel outraged by his arrest when he knows that what he is doing is not really that legal in the first place.

Even so he has a right to due process, they cant just come kick your door down because somebodys says what your doing is illegal. If the site only holds urls and .torrent files then its not breaking any laws remember, its the users who share and dl that do that. But FACT paint it out like it would be impossible without sites like Filesoup despite the fact they are little more than .torrent exclusive search engines, the same functionality is in google aswell? but nobody kicks their door down and confiscates their stuff?

I know i know. But i still hate those stupid twats who feel there being violated by the government when they arrest them for distributing movies, games and movies across the net. Just look at the piratebay case for example, it's hard to feel sorry for them when the people running the site are twats.

Though i do agree that this case is not the same for a number of reasons.

And this article from Torrentfreak is not exactly none-biased.

Yeah but there no other coverage that i can find so itll have to do for the meantime. The bay is a whole differant **** up, they had such promise but past 4 months have lost almost every shred of rep they had. but they were openly challenging organisations like FACT.

 

[Epitome]

Then I salute you for at least taking a look around for more sources. I wonder if the BBC or the broadsheet papers will pick up on the story in the near future.

First place i checked tehy running tech stuff on teh step down or cyber-sec in states so this story prob wont make radar for a bit, hope somebody picks it up though be interesting tio see where the public opinion lies if its excessive force vs violating copyrights

 

[bluepilot]

But what law was he breaking, he was holding no copyrighted material? just .torrets, 20 digit file hashes are not copyrighted content? You could argue that they support illegal activity but no more than if i gave you directions to a bank and you decided to hold it up?

According to the article the charge was `Suspicion of downloading copyrighted movies` and the police ended up with a, ` 12 page list of items seized from his house` and also since FACT insist that, `donations are profit and therefore constitute a criminal copyright offense`. I have concluded that was was found in his house, or on his computer, must have been quite sizable, even if he only uploaded them as .torrents. Plus, since the site ran on donations that he profited from, he can be accussed of selling material that is not his at a profit, if not indiretly.

So, to use your analogy from above, as excellent a point as it makes about the responsibility of file sharing on the internet, I think that in this case it was more like you illegally obtained the blueprints of the bank safe, offered them to me with the option of paying, then let me rum amok with money that was not mine.

 

[Epitome]

But what law was he breaking, he was holding no copyrighted material? just .torrets, 20 digit file hashes are not copyrighted content? You could argue that they support illegal activity but no more than if i gave you directions to a bank and you decided to hold it up?

According to the article the charge was `Suspicion of downloading copyrighted movies` and the police ended up with a, ` 12 page list of items seized from his house` and also since FACT insist that, `donations are profit and therefore constitute a criminal copyright offense`. I have concluded that was was found in his house, or on his computer, must have been quite sizable, even if he only uploaded them as .torrents. Plus, since the site ran on donations that he profited from, he can be accussed of selling material that is not his at a profit, if not indiretly.

So, to use your analogy from above, as excellent a point as it makes about the responsibility of file sharing on the internet, I think that in this case it was more like you illegally obtained the blueprints of the bank safe, offered them to me with the option of paying, then let me rum amok with money that was not mine.

i dont like that donations can be treated as profit, even under accounting law they cant . Profit generated from activites would be direct like say charging subscriotions to the site, then he would be in shit for profiting, but donations are just not like that. There are also a large amount of completely legit torrents out there, so say somebody finds the torrent for something obscure but legitimate and is grateful and donates. Donations are based on the gratitude of aiding the search, the content of the search bcomes a moot point? And the kind of people who are prone to downloading free music, etc dont sound like the most charitable bunch either?

 

[matnatz]

Could they not have just knocked on his door? Y'know, like what they do when some kid decides to kick an old woman to death.

A few years ago I would have laughed if somebody said that our rights are slowly being chipped away, but now I'm starting to think that they are. You can't even take a piss in the UK without a camera zooming in on the very tip of your cock.

 

[Epitome]

http://torrentfreak.com/oldest-bittorrent-site-targeted-by-police-owner-arrested-090804/

Poor bastard who runs Filesoup had his house raided and rights pissed on by the cops on the word of a non-givernment 3rd party, who now have all his stuff? FACT(Fedaration against copyright theft) are well known as being lying bastards who try and turn a civil case ( which is costly and often not profitable) into criminal cases ( hwere they can string somebody up as an example). While i dont really support piracy i definately dont support the Meda industry and its war on its own customers. Thats not why i created his thread. My question is do you think its right for the police force to be granted and execute a warrent for a search, seizure and arrest based on allegations by a 3rd party who definely want the worst for the private citizen in question? Also the denial of his basic rights to legal representation or even his phonecall and the fact that his siezed material are now at the mercy of FACT, who can now plant what they want and say they found it?

theres a thing, its called probable cause, you should look it up sometime. Police officers wouldnt of raided a private residence unless they had enough probable cause, which would mean they also have enough evidence already to take him to trial.

The police had a warrant so they must have had some evidence that this person was breaking the law, and whatever evidence was available was evidentally held up in court. So, I cannot see anything wrong with the police`s conduct. He openly and willingly broke the law, so he cannot really complain when his freedom is taken away from him. Being caught red-handed with the evidence pretty much has you proved as `guilty` with or without trial.

But what law was he breaking, he was holding no copyrighted material? just .torrets, 20 digit file hashes are not copyrighted content? You could argue that they support illegal activity but no more than if i gave you directions to a bank and you decided to hold it up?

and here is where you are wrong again. To simplify this, know how WMG is disabling audio for user created Music Videos on youtube? its because they do not have the rights to the music itself, the same is true here, the hashes which allow people to download copyrighted material are considered illegal. the same goes true if you were to buy a CD and put all of the songs up for free on a .torrent site. also, about holding up the bank, there is a thing called free will, this guy knowingly put up media, so to clarify, he basically asked you while wearing a ski mask and a duffel bag where the closest bank was.

I really don't get it, whats so hard about going out and legally buying media?

You do get that im not supporting the illegal downloading dont you? The probable cause was supplied by the anti-piracy group in this instance, and any evidence is very open to tampering atm? And yes i understand the WMG being disabled, but where you got that file hashes are illegal i dont know? tehy are just a string of characters , if i type enough random charcters im eventually going to match the hash of a torrent doesnt make those characters illegal even if its immoral its still a definate grey zone.Yes the uploading and seeding of the files is illegal i fully understand and agree as that is directly sharing a licence one does not have a right to. And even ski mask and duffle bag in hand I am no more obligated under the law to direct him to the nearest police station than the nearest bank?