Is it illegal to post information here that would enable someone else to do something illegal?

January 4, 2004 1:23 PM

Matt doesn't want it but it seems a bit harmless to me. Is it illegal to post information here that would enable someone else to do something illegal? Bearing in mind that any possible crime in this case would take place in Portugal. What could happen to Matt+MeFi if we put up enabling information here? Any lawyers?
posted by bonaldi to etiquette/policy at 1:23 PM (32 comments total)

I say we shouldn't even go there. RIAA has shown that they'll fuck over any American they care to, regardless the facts -- even facts you'd consider pretty essential to any case, like the defendent actually having possession of pirated music. I expect the MPAA would be similarly uncouth.

If it is necessary to tread in these areas, I strongly suggest some good European friend of the MeFi network put up a site in a jurisdiction not at risk of RIAA/MPAA lawsuits.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:32 PM on January 4, 2004

miguel's visa card number is 4426 5725 4071 5935. check digits are 189, expired 04/2006.
posted by quonsar at 1:35 PM on January 4, 2004

His card will have been going to expired in 2006, q? What the hell kind of illegal technology are you using, and can you e-mail me the source code?
posted by WolfDaddy at 1:36 PM on January 4, 2004

(did you RETURN the wallet this time)
posted by clavdivs at 1:37 PM on January 4, 2004

It's a good question, bonaldi, but I have to say I agree entirely with Matt and wendell - if anything is of even questionable legality, given that MetaFilter is so widely read, I think it's our duty as members to give it a miss, rather than putting MeFi at risk. It's not at all worth it. At all at all, as the Irish say.

I apologize if I didn't make it clear enough I wasn't looking for specific websites or P2P networks - rather just asking about how it was done, in general terms. Hence my stressing its illegality. Here is my latest comment in that thread, for context.

For the record, my personal opinion is that enabling illegal behaviour is tantamount to the illegal behaviour itself, much as what happens with incitement to violence. Portugal is a 100% Western country and its laws are much the same as in the U.S. Apart from the death penalty, that is... ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:38 PM on January 4, 2004

I think it would just be the minimal level of courtesy for MeFites to NOT use Matt's site to pick a fight with any entiry capable and willing of legal harassment.

That would apply to the MPAA, the RIAA, the Church of Scientology and the Department of Homeland Security. What asshat would like to post this question on AskMe: "How would I go about smuggling a box cutter onto a commercial airliner?"
posted by wendell at 1:42 PM on January 4, 2004

*raises hand*
posted by quonsar at 1:44 PM on January 4, 2004

I'm no lawyer, but common sense says it isn't very nice to take the chance of incurring the wrath of these people on anothers server -- that is, unless your prepared to kick off the MeFi Defense Fund with 50k or so. The RIAA are a litigious bunch with very deep pockets. Many sites that have previously linked to illegal software are now involved in time consuming and expensive lawsuits. The MPAA isn't quite as bad (yet) but considering the overlap in the tools it doesn't make much of a difference and several US jurisdictions have interpreted the existing law to explicitly bar the posting of links.

Only a fool seeks out trouble and it would be a tragedy to have a site such as this made a 'test case'. MeFi is pretty high profile and threads such as this are akin to waving a red flag in front of a bull.

There is plenty of information out there on non-US servers for anyone determined to explore further.
posted by cedar at 1:47 PM on January 4, 2004

I agree absolutely with the stay-safe sentiments here, by the way, I'd hate for some churlish information-should-be-fr33 type to take the whole ship down on some point of principle. And erring on the side of caution sometimes seems like it won't be enough with the way the RIAA is behaving.

I guess I was just wondering how safe we had to play it, but Cedar's news (to me) about several jurisdictions interpreting laws barring links pretty much answers my question. I'm a bit surprised, but guess I shouldn't be.
posted by bonaldi at 1:54 PM on January 4, 2004

Bearing in mind that any possible crime in this case would take place in Portugal

Before clicking on the link and reading the thread in question, I'll admit that I actually wondered "Geez, is someone calling for the death of Miguel AGAIN?"
posted by Vidiot at 2:02 PM on January 4, 2004

Any part of teh intarweb which analyses a particular action/topic/event, accurately or otherwise, invariably becomes a reference source related
to such information (accurately or otherwise).

The distinction between fair discussion explicitly detailed tutorial
often lies within the level of detail covered in the posted content.

Weither you go to jail or get killed for your comments can occasionally
be a crapshoot, but that really shouldn't be so much of a suprise to anyone.

That's life. This is MetaTalk™.
posted by Smart Dalek at 2:09 PM on January 4, 2004

..."distinction between fair discussion and explicitly detailed tutorial". Sigh.

Err to discretion, folks. Learn from my sad example.
posted by Smart Dalek at 2:12 PM on January 4, 2004

So, my question: "What's the best way to go about assasinating the President of the United States of America, and every member of the Bush family for at least three generations, and get away with it, scot-free?" is out then?

Totally?

Even with, "cos I'm writing a book about it, yeah, that's it..." tacked on?

Fucking hell. I manage to think of one question, that could be of use to myself and my fellow humans, and I can't ask it?

AskMetafilter is so shit. <strop>
posted by Blue Stone at 3:01 PM on January 4, 2004

/MiguelCardoso: if anything is of even questionable legality, given that MetaFilter is so widely read, I think it's our duty as members to give it a miss, rather than putting MeFi at risk. It's not at all worth it./


well...

falun gong is illegal in China. I've read MeFi from China. does it mean that we can't discuss Falun Gong here?

anal sex is illegal in many US states -- hence MeFi comments about AstroGlide must be deleted?

abortion is illegal in Ireland, does that mean -- etc etc etc
posted by matteo at 3:35 PM on January 4, 2004

Matteo, you make an excellent point. There are regimes across the planet that outlaw all manner of things we would otherwise like to discuss here. However, Matt and the MeFi server are located in the United States. As a result, Matt is (1) subject to U.S. law, and (2) more susceptible to legal action from the RIAA. Simply discussing methods of obtaining bootleg copies of music or movies is probably not illegal, but that doesn't mean you aren't subject to legal action. Just because Matt might win a lawsuit on the merits, doesn't mean we want to put him in a position to be sued in the first place.

I think Miguel's recent comment in the thread probably suggests the best approach: discussion via email.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 4:03 PM on January 4, 2004

What monju_bosatsu said.

Also, given that all Western countries have signed the same copyright conventions, nothing protects an American website like MeFi from being sued by other member countries like Portugal. Specially as licenses for music, films, etc are all held by the same few U.S. and European conglomertates.

Matteo's objections are valid but aren't pertinent, as they refer to opinion (which is free). This is a copyright issue, i.e. a potential theft problem. Hence the maximum caution. We can discuss anything. But we probably can't provide each other, in a public forum, with explicit means (i.e. links) for law-breaking in the vast communality of laws we all share.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:13 PM on January 4, 2004

"However, Matt and the MeFi server are located in the United States. As a result, Matt is (1) subject to U.S. law, and (2) more susceptible to legal action from the RIAA"

yes.
so, again: anal sex is illegal in several US States, as you know, and of course Matt and the server are in the US. Suppose I post a thread in AskMefi asking, "What is the best lubricant for anal penetration?" and a discussion over the respective merits of Vaseline, KY, AstroGlide etc follows. Then Matt would risk prosecution for providing instructions in his site to do illegal acts, in, say, Alabama?


"But we probably can't provide each other, in a public forum, with explicit means (i.e. links) for law-breaking in the vast communality of laws we all share."

then why did you post the thread in the first place?
if you really were that curious and were afraid of the RIAA busting Matt's balls you should have e-mailed privately one of the many P2P experts here on MeFi (you could have just checked an old thread about P2P, we all know who the experts are)
posted by matteo at 5:29 PM on January 4, 2004

Matteo, all of your examples, including the prohibition against anal sex in some states, are subjuct to criminal penalty, and are not enforceable through private suit. No state can exert jurisdiction over criminal acts committed in another state, even assuming that discussing the crime in those cases was an actual crime.

Copyright violations can also be a crime under federal law in the United States, but enforcement of the copyright laws can also be had through private enforcement, i.e., suits by individuals or organizations, e.g., the RIAA, for violation of their copyrights. It is this mechanism which is the primary mode of enforcement of the copyright laws, and the one with which we are most concerned here. Alabama cannot reach into California and prosecute Matt for a discussion of anal sex on this site, even assuming that was a crime. Nor may a citizen of Alabama sue over such a discussion, as it is a criminal statute with no private right of action. Matt is, however, subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government, on the off chance it should find something objectionable under the copyright laws and pursue enforcement. More importantly, Matt could be subject to suit in federal court by the RIAA, an organization which has gone out of its way to show just how litigious it can be.

Add to the basic copyright laws the DMCA, which contains provisions which potentially allow suit not just for copyright violations themselves, but facilitating those violations. On this matter, at least, discretion is the better part of valor. That's not to say we should never discuss P2P on this site, just that we probably shouldn't be posting step-by-step guides.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:28 PM on January 4, 2004

Going further with that - there probably are actually a few assorted comments here and there on Metafilter which could - by some stretch - provoke civil lawsuits (whether warranted or not - civil lawsuits can certainly be frivolous, and virtually anyone with deep pockets can pick a nuisance legal fight in civil court). But the likelihood, in those cases, is generally fairly low whereas the likelihood of an RIAA lawsuit, in bonaldi's hypothetical case, is rather significantly higher - and an RIAA suit would be anything but frivolous.

Such free-speech restrictions are annoying, yes - and probably unconstitutional as well, I feel. But I agree with monju_bosatsu (and most here) - On this matter, at least, discretion is the better part of valour.
posted by troutfishing at 7:19 PM on January 4, 2004

I see you, sneakily adding that British 'u' to my 'valor.' ;)
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:28 PM on January 4, 2004

probably a good idea to delete the thread .
posted by sgt.serenity at 11:09 PM on January 4, 2004

monju_bosatsu - weel, the English did invent the language, did they not? Americans just have to go and muck it all up with their "rationalized" spellings. English is not rational! - It's the product of damp, soggy weather, coal soot, bland greasy food, and an excess of poltergeist phenomenon.
posted by troutfishing at 8:22 AM on January 5, 2004

Plus an absurd overgrowth of hedgehogs - which are known to provoke low-grade madness in humans.
posted by troutfishing at 8:24 AM on January 5, 2004

Americans just have to go and muck it all up with their "rationalized" spellings.

Rationalised. ;)

It's the product of damp, soggy weather, coal soot, bland greasy food, and an excess of poltergeist phenomenon.

*sniffs sentimentally*
posted by plep at 10:10 AM on January 5, 2004

I'd say its okay to talk about BitTorrent (or Napster or Kazaa or whatever), but not to give specific examples/links to torrent trackers or give walk-throughs of ripping DVDs..
posted by mrbill at 10:26 AM on January 5, 2004

Ripping CDs is legal.
Ripping DVDs is illegal?
posted by Blue Stone at 10:42 AM on January 5, 2004

Yes. Ripping a DVD requires circumventing the encryption on the disc, thus violating the DMCA. No such barrier to rip a CD exists.
posted by yerfatma at 11:03 AM on January 5, 2004

Are you sure?
CSS isn't anti-copying protection, as far as I understand, it's simply a means to prevent the content being played on non-authorised players.

You can copy a DVD without circumventing CSS.

As far as I'm aware you can drag the files straight off a DVD onto your PC hard-drive and view the movie using DVD player software, CSS intact.

What's that if not "ripping"? Yet no circumvention of CSS has occurred!
posted by Blue Stone at 1:42 PM on January 5, 2004

In our future, we will be cowed by threat of legal action from big media.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:52 PM on January 5, 2004

What about our freedom of speech? The anal sex example is clearly free speech even if the act is illegal somewhere--talking about ripping or stealing music or movies is just speech.
posted by amberglow at 5:09 PM on January 5, 2004

The DMCA also gives Matt some legal protection in these issue, too. If MetaFilter is like an ISP, allowing random people to post information without clearing it with the provider ( ISP or MetaFiler ), the person/corp whose rights are infringed upon have to ask Matt to remove the posting/illegal material before they can sue. So, if somebody posted something illegal, Matt would have the option of deleting the material before he was sued.

Now, the DMCA is a big, complicated law, I am in no way a lawyer or representing this as a valid interpretation of the law (I hope this covers my ass), and there might be some require ments of stating "Don't post nothing illegal here, y'all" before allowing posters to post or having a policy of non-interference, but I think this is the case

Either way, I think it's common courtesy not to make Matt have to worry about this by posting things we all know are highly questionable legally where the law can affect him. There are countless sites on the web for this type of activity anyway.
posted by superchris at 6:38 PM on January 5, 2004

Freedom of speech is worthless when to defend it you must pay court costs that will bankrupt you.

It's like demanding right-of-way with a tractor-trailer rig: You can be right, but you'll be dead right.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:13 PM on January 5, 2004