You don't have any right if you help copyright violation
-
Cable giants step up piracy battle by interrogating Montreal software developer and searching his home | CBC News
"The whole experience was horrifying," TVAddons founder Adam Lackman says of court-sanctioned search of his home.
-
@timebandit said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
Cable giants step up piracy battle by interrogating Montreal software developer and searching his home | CBC News
"The whole experience was horrifying," TVAddons founder Adam Lackman says of court-sanctioned search of his home.
the telecoms got an Anton Piller order, a civil search warrant that gives a plaintiff access to a defendant's home, without notice
What ??? ??? ???
How can something like this exist in a civilized country, and how could anyone not see how this would be abused?
-
@remi Canada? Civilized? It's way too cold there to be civilized.
Seriously, that's a scary article. Criminal warrants are bad enough--giving that to private groups with a grudge makes "the process is the punishment" even more of a thing.
-
@benjamin-hall said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
giving that to private groups with a grudge makes "the process is the punishment" even more of a thing
Yes, and they acted illegally.
a Federal Court judge declared the Anton Piller order "null and void" and that all seized items be returned.
Also
According to court documents, the judge said the search was supposed to be conducted between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. but instead lasted until midnight.
At that point (past 8 p.m.), it was a house invasion and kidnapping.
The judge also said the defendant was treated unfairly during the interrogation and wasn't offered "any of the protections normally afforded to litigants in such circumstances."
He added that "the most egregious part of the questioning" was when the plaintiffs' lawyer asked Lackman to spill information about other people running operations similar to TVAddons.
The judge said the purpose of the order was to preserve existing evidence, not hunt for new evidence.
He also concluded that the plaintiffs' legal team used the order to try to shut down TVAddons.
"I am of the view that its true purpose was to destroy the livelihood of the defendant, deny him the financial resources to finance a defence to the claim made against him," the judge wrote.
When he's done defending himself, I hope he's gonna sue them into Oblivion.
You can help fund his defense
-
@timebandit that's the point of the "process as punishment" line. Even if he sues them, at best he'll get money. No compensation can make up for having your home destroyed, stuff stolen, and your life damaged.
For cops, the same goes: "you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." Being arrested, even if you're released quickly is already a punishment. Often there are job losses, reputation losses, etc. that can't be reclaimed.
-
-
@benjamin-hall What I find really disturbing is the fact that he was denied his right for a lawyer.
Also
Besides seizing personal items such as his computer and phone, Lackman says the plaintiffs' lawyer and independent counsel forced him to hand over passwords for his email and social media accounts
What is the password for your computer ?
L A W Y E R
It doesn't work, gimme your real password
L A W Y E R, in capital letters
What's your email password ?
L A W Y E R
You think you're funny ? What's your password for Facebook ?
L A W Y E R. I use the same password everywhere 
"Any time I would question the process, they would threaten me with contempt of court proceedings," says Lackman.
If you don't answer my questions, you'll be charged with contempt of court. What's your phone password ?
U N L A W F U L
You are mocking me ?
Yes
You will be charged with contempt of court.
GREAT ! I'll get to see a judge and expose your unlawful behaviorHe added that "the most egregious part of the questioning" was when the plaintiffs' lawyer asked Lackman to spill information about other people running operations similar to TVAddons.
Give me other people's name who run similar operations ?
<inset name of my lawyer> and you can reach him at <insert his phone number>I know enough of my rights, thankyouverymuch.
-
@timebandit said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
I know enough of my rights, thankyouverymuch.
Unfortunately, the other side has a lot more money.
-
@raceprouk And lawyers on staff. It doesn't really cost them extra here, unlike you. And that presumes you have a pre-existing relationship with a lawyer. I doubt if most common people do.
Oh and @TimeBandit , depending on the locale you may not have the right to a lawyer in a civil case. Self-incrimination (5th amendment) etc also don't apply here. Refusing to provide lawfully-demanded evidence can and will be used against you. Oh, and Canada (not being a civilized country
) doesn't have those protections anyway.
-
@raceprouk said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
Unfortunately, the other side has a lot more money.
Yes, but I can still beat them by not answering anything.
We have rights in Canada, even if a lot of Canadians don't know it.
ex.:
http://www.c4pa.ca/legal/no-id/Also, it's from USA but most of it apply here
Don't Talk to the Police – 46:39
— Regent University School of Law
-
@timebandit said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
Yes, but I can still beat them by not answering anything.
True, but then you could end up being charged with withholding evidence, or failure to comply with law enforcement, or any number of charges their lawyers could buy.
-
@benjamin-hall said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
you may not have the right to a lawyer in a civil case
I have to right to a lawyer in any case, civil or criminal.
@benjamin-hall said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
Refusing to provide lawfully-demanded evidence can and will be used against you.
I prefer to be charged with this than give them my computer/phone/email password.
-
@raceprouk said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
True, but then you could end up being charged with withholding evidence, or failure to comply with law enforcement, or any number of charges their lawyers could buy.
They can accuse me of anything they want, they have to prove it without any doubts in court.
Also, IF I ever get found guilty (and that's a big IF), I don't think the sentence is really harsh.
Better get charged with these than give them any evidence.
-
@TimeBandit In a civil case you don't have those rights. If they have a lawful court order and you refuse to obey it, you're liable. Period. Full stop. And by doing so you've waived your rights to appeal. For appeals, this is the collateral bar rule. For disobeying discovery orders, it's part of the default judgement rules.
Even if you suspect an order is unlawful, if you don't obey it you're screwed. Legally. "Standing on your rights" will get you screwed again by the courts. The only place to challenge such things is at court, in trial or pre-trial motions. This is after the civil warrant is served and you've lost your stuff.
Most of the things you've posted only apply to criminal cases. Those are different and you have different rights. Civil cases are a whole separate breed of thing.
Edit: obligatory disclaimer. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. I haven't even stayed at a Holiday Inn recently.
-
@timebandit
In Germany, they just passed a law that allows the police to force "witnesses" to testify without a judge's order. I fail to see how this could possibly be abused.</sarcasm>Our current justice minister is the worst we've had in a long time…
-
@benjamin-hall In ANY court case, or anything related to legal proceeding, I have the right to consult a lawyer.
If you don't let me talk to a lawyer, I don't talk to you. Period.
-
@timebandit And you're in default. Congratulations. Oh, and no appeal for you.
-
@asdf said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
In Germany, they just passed a law that allows the police to force "witnesses" to testify without a judge's order.
Germany is becoming a Nazitotalitarian state ?
-
@timebandit becoming?
-
@benjamin-hall said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
@timebandit And you're in default. Congratulations. Oh, and no appeal for you.
Well, I will not take legal advises from someone who didn't stay at a Holiday Inn recently
-
@timebandit said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
@asdf said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
In Germany, they just passed a law that allows the police to force "witnesses" to testify without a judge's order.
Germany is becoming a Nazitotalitarian state ?At the very least, someone slept through his history lessons. And this change was of course sneakily attached to another, more reasonable law, to make sure it passes.
-
@asdf said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
In Germany, they just passed a law that allows the police to force "witnesses" to testify without a judge's order.
As far as I know (not a lawyer etc.), here the police can ask anyone to come as a witness, without a judge's order. However the operative word here is "ask": you are free to refuse to come. Then if they really think that you should be there, they can summon you (and you can't refuse without breaching the law), but the only way to do so is essentially to arrest you (well, there is an "assisted witness" status that may apply here, but the consequences are almost the same). And as soon as they do so, a lot of legal rules apply, such as access to a lawyer (including a free one if you can't pay), maximum length of interrogation etc.
-
@remi
That's exactly how it has always worked in Germany. Until now.
-
@remi Right. In the US that's the hostile witness thing. You can be forced to testify (with some limits) even against someone you support. The main exceptions are the various forms of privilege: Attorney-client, priest-penitent, and spousal. But all of this requires a court order and a judge to sign off on it. Forcing this without such things (at a cop's discretion) is totalitarian.
Remember people, 1984 is not an instruction manual. It's a warning!
-
@asdf And, let me guess, the reasoning behind the new law is "OMG terrorists!!!"?
France is still in emergency state since the terror attacks of 1.5 years ago (Bataclan attacks in November 2015). This did not do anything to prevent the Bastille Day attack in Nice last year, and even some of the police chiefs who asked for it initially are now saying that it doesn't bring anything useful for terror-related proceedings. But stopping it would appear weak and so governments after governments renew it (that happened recently again, they renewed it until next November... and until the next renewal, I guess...).
The worst bit is that in the meantime a number of new "security" laws were voted, and they put most of the useful bits of the emergency state in "normal" laws (for terror-related stuff). So the emergency state is now doubly useless. But it's still there.
-
@benjamin-hall My point is that in France (which, despite its history, isn't actually the best friend of the defendant's rights...) police can force you without a court order (although maybe I should add that I have never heard of a case where you would not legally be allowed to refuse to answer questions... that might not help you if you are accused, but I don't think that not answering questions can ever be unlawful in itself). But to do so automatically triggers a significant number of restrictions and other controls (which include that it must be reviewed by a judge for any renewal) that are designed to prevent abuse.
I'm not claiming that this is perfect (it is not!) but that was to say that the absence of a judge is not necessarily immediately problematic, provided there are enough safeguards around it.
(and, given that in any case the police can arbitrarily arrest you, under the same protective conditions, for any offense that they dream up -- it won't stand and they will drop inquiries immediately but in the meantime they'll have arrested you with all the negative effects attached --, requiring a judge order would not really change a lot here)
-
@remi said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
And, let me guess, the reasoning behind the new law is "OMG terrorists!!!"?
Yup.
Even worse, in Bavaria, they can now hold "dangerous people" for 3 months without charging them with anything, or having any evidence of a specific crime that was about to be committed. That's so unconstitutional that it hurts, but the law will be in effect until our highest court reaches a verdict in approximately two years from now.
-
@asdf Out of curiosity, what are the circuits for checking for constitutionality?
Over here, the law can be referred when it is voted (if the government or a significant number of MPs ask for it), which usually only happens for big issues where the opposition wants to make a show. Until a few years ago, that was it, but now any court case can be stopped by a request to check for constitutionality, so in the case you describe I guess that this is how it would happen. But it has to wait until the case gets to a judge, which may be much later (and then the constitutional court itself has to decide which takes even more).
-
@remi The US system is considerably different--it's adversarial as opposed to inquisitorial. Comparing the continental system to the US system (the UK is similar but different where it counts from both) gets confusing, fast. It's like a conversation about JavaScript and then someone says "but COBOL does it like X" and expecting that to work in JavaScript.
That means that the police are only involved in the actual trial as witnesses. The prosecutor (who works for the jurisdiction but not for the court) can request that a judge issue a summons for a witness (legally binding, if you don't you're in contempt and bad things happen) or can request a witness to appear (not legally binding). Your rights as a witness are the same either way. Witnesses in most cases don't get lawyers--they do in the big name cases if there's any chance they might be a suspect.
A big difference is that in criminal cases you can plead the 5th (assert your right against self-incrimination). This only applies if the behavior being questioned about could implicate you in a crime. This means that the defendant can't be forced to testify, and the court/jury can take no notice of the decision one way or another.
Other than that, as a witness you have the same sorts of rights whether compelled or not. Judges tend to be more protective of compelled witnesses, but that's up to the judge.
TL;DR--here the cops can't compel witnesses at all. They can ask by-standers to give testimony, but that's not incredibly common as that means going to court and testifying (since the accused have a right to face their accusers).
-
@remi said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
Out of curiosity, what are the circuits for checking for constitutionality?
I don't know the exact details, but challenging the constitutionality of a law is really complicated, and not every citizen can do so.
Challenging the constitutionality of a court decision is an entirely different thing, but also complicated AFAIK. I think you'll have to get to the highest regular court first, via appeals.
-
@asdf It's called Normenkontrolle and, yes, it's complicated:
-
@asdf said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
@remi said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
Out of curiosity, what are the circuits for checking for constitutionality?
I don't know the exact details, but challenging the constitutionality of a law is really complicated, and not every citizen can do so.
It isn't really easy to do here either, and I think that you cannot do it as a normal citizen (a lawyer must do it for you). But since in a criminal case you will always be assisted by a lawyer (a state-provided one if you can't pay yourself), this shouldn't really be a problem. The main thing here however is that you can only challenge a law that is being used in a court case where you are a party. So you can't just challenge any law, the law has to be applied specifically to you.
Challenging the constitutionality of a court decision is an entirely different thing, but also complicated AFAIK. I think you'll have to get to the highest regular court first, via appeals.
But then do you really challenge the constitutionality of the law used to pass judgement, or rather the judgement itself? The later can of course be done as in any normal appeal process, and I think you could very well bring up the fact that the first judge didn't follow the constitution (even if he applied a law that is itself unconstitutional), but what would be challenged would be the judgement itself, not the law.
(of course, if a judgement relying entirely on a given law is deemed unconstitutional, that would create a precedent that all other cases would probably apply, but strictly speaking the law itself would still be valid -- but since there is the other challenge that I described above, this cannot really happen)
@benjamin-hall said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
@remi The US system is considerably different--it's adversarial as opposed to inquisitorial. Comparing the continental system to the US system (the UK is similar but different where it counts from both) gets confusing, fast. It's like a conversation about JavaScript and then someone says "but COBOL does it like X" and expecting that to work in JavaScript.
Ah yes, that's right, I forgot. It does indeed make a difference here. Thanks for clarifying.
-
@remi said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
It isn't really easy to do here either, and I think that you cannot do it as a normal citizen (a lawyer must do it for you).
Ah, you missed my point, so let me be more clear: Here in Germany, the process of challenging a law's constitutionality cannot even be initiated by normal citizens, only by members of the parliament.
-
@asdf Oh, right. Then this is more or less the first way that I mentioned before (MPs can challenge the law as it is being voted). Except that if I understand correctly in Germany they can do that even after the law has been voted, which isn't possible here (hence the second way, where the challenge comes from anyone during a court case where the law is used).
Yeah, I prefer when the challenge can come from anyone, that leaves less opportunity for cosy deals in parliament's back rooms and other political shenanigans ("oh no we can't challenge this obviously unconstitutional law as it would make us look bad!")...
-
@remi For comparison sake, in the US all challenges are made in actual cases. This is the Cases or Controversies clause; the doctrine is called "standing". Only someone whose rights were (allegedly) injured by a law can challenge it, unless the law includes a so-called private right of action (very few do).
So if you're arrested (or forced to give testimony), you can challenge the constitutional status of the law. This has two modes:
An "As Applied" challenge means you think that applying the law to your specific case would result in a constitutional violation. This is (comparatively) easy to show, and results in narrow decisions overturning it for cases that are pretty much exactly like yours. The law stays in effect for all other cases.
A "Facial" challenge means that you claim it can't be applied constitutionally at all. These are rare and very hard to win (except in specific areas such as prior restraint).
In both modes, a district court judge can rule on it, but it's gonna get appealed. If it's a state matter, the highest court of the state has final jurisdiction (except in some tricky cases). Federal matters can go eventually to the Supreme Court, but they have discretion in which cases they take. They don't take many. If they don't take it, the judgement of the next lower court stands. Complicating things, if a federal appeals court in California rules something, it's not necessarily binding on a judge in Ohio (for example). Each court is only binding on the ones directly below it and the Circuits (courts) often split, leaving a matter unconstitutional in one area but constitutional in another. Circuit splits make it more likely that the Supreme Court will rule on the matter.
Edit: The standing rules prohibit advisory opinions. So you have to have someone actually hurt before a court will take the case. In many cases, cases are manufactured (so called test cases) where someone goes and gets intentionally arrested for something to force a court case.
-
@asdf said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
Here in Germany, the process of challenging a law's constitutionality cannot even be initiated by normal citizens, only by members of the parliament.
Wow, so you're really letting foxes guard your henhouse?
-
@antiquarian said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
@asdf said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
Here in Germany, the process of challenging a law's constitutionality cannot even be initiated by normal citizens, only by members of the parliament.
Wow, so you're really letting foxes guard your henhouse?
Since we have proportional representation, there is almost always enough opposition in the parliament. Also, note that you can still challenge the constitutionality of court decisions based on questionable laws.
-
@remi said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
stopping [the emergency state] would appear weak
Cowering in fear is the new strong?
-
@benjamin-hall said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
The standing rules prohibit advisory opinions.
No, it does not (that's how a ruling by the federal bench in California would be treated by courts in Ohio). But those are not binding, but are rather just treated as academic waffling that might or might not be relevant. Judges do watch each other and listen to persuasive arguments made on matters of law (also by non-judges; law professors do this sort of thing too, and there's no reason in principle why others couldn't), but there's not much special there in terms of power to compel the court. That's different to rulings which are binding on all courts that are inferior to the court that issued the ruling (in both the US and the UK systems, other countries are a bit different technically).
-
@dreikin said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
@remi said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
stopping [the emergency state] would appear weak
Cowering in fear is the new strong?
Well, of course, we are
so 
But even putting that aside, of course politicians don't care about the real impact of what they do and only think of how it looks. And the opposition would be the first to slam the government if they had lifted the emergency state and a new attack happened, even if the emergency state would not have done anything to prevent it. Yeah, that's stupid. But that's politics.
-
@dkf as I've always understood the term, an advisory opinion is one that happens without an actual injured party. For example, a lawmaker can't challenge a law right after it passes on principle. They have to wait until it's enforced on someone, and then only the injured party can sue.
What you're describing are non-precidental decisions (either due to jurisdiction or the nature of the decision). Those are persuasive but not binding.
-
@asdf said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
@remi said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
It isn't really easy to do here either, and I think that you cannot do it as a normal citizen (a lawyer must do it for you).
Ah, you missed my point, so let me be more clear: Here in Germany, the process of challenging a law's constitutionality cannot even be initiated by normal citizens, only by members of the parliament.
Not quite. There are states (Hessen ("Volksklage") and Bayern ("Popularklage")) where citizens can initiate this process without being a target of the law suspected to be unconstitutional (the "Abstrakte Normenkontrolle")
And, of course, if you are the target of this law and initiate a lawsuit over it, the court can initiate this process as well (the "Konkrete Normenkontrolle") if the court comes to the conclusion that the law they're required to apply is unconstitutional. In that case, they have to kick things up the stairs and explain to either the state's or the federal constitutional court why they think the law is problematic and then ask for a ruling.
-
@rhywden said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
Not quite. There are states (Hessen ("Volksklage") and Bayern ("Popularklage")) where citizens can initiate this process without being a target of the law suspected to be unconstitutional (the "Abstrakte Normenkontrolle")
But that only affects the states' constitutions, which are pretty much irrelevant nowadays, right?
And, of course, if you are the target of this law and initiate a lawsuit over it, the court can initiate this process as well (the "Konkrete Normenkontrolle") if the court comes to the conclusion that the law they're required to apply is unconstitutional.
Ah, yeah. I wasn't sure how exactly that worked, so I didn't mention it.
-
@asdf Well, that's the problem with a Federation - you have all sorts of levels ;)
-
@rhywden You need to simplify everything by removing all those pesky intermediate powers. You could even go further and put all powers in the hand of a single person, who could be called, I don't know, the Driver of the country?
(yes, that's a lame Godwin-point joke...)
-
@remi said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
(yes, that's a lame Godwin-point joke...)
Someone literally just told @Rhywden to shut up because he's German (and therefore a nazi) in the garage, so you're in good company.
-
@asdf Given we're not in the garage, I felt it was safer to make sure no-one would mistake it for anything else than a joke. It's ugly enough over there, let's not spill it in here...
-
@asdf Has the moron in question still not figured out that I literally cannot read his posts anymore?
-
@remi said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
It's ugly enough over there, let's not spill it in here...
I wasn't trying to do that. Sorry if it seemed that way.
@rhywden said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
Has the moron in question still not figured out that I literally cannot read his posts anymore?
No idea, but it was the most downvote-worthy post I've seen in ages. I hope he was happy to get one of my rare "fuck you" votes.
-
@rhywden said in You don't have any right if you help copyright violation:
@asdf Has the moron in question still not figured out that I literally cannot read his posts anymore?
It's kind of a running gag, in fact.
Normenkontrolle – Wikipedia
