I just got the FSC newsletter and a very important ruling is in there.
 

I cant believe this wasnt brought up here,this is very very important for online only businesses.
http://xbiz.com/news/84246

Very interesting.

Please everyone under me in this thread. Do not argue about the CP aspect and keep on track with the state lines issue, pretty pretty please.

Very interesting.

Please everyone under me in this thread. Do not argue about the CP aspect and keep on track with the state lines issue, pretty pretty please.

Very interesting.

Please everyone under me in this thread. Do not argue about the CP aspect and keep on track with the state lines issue, pretty pretty please.

The state lines issue is what caught my eye, its a fucked way to get that ruling but beggars cant be choosers.

WTF board is going fucking batshit.

Been real bad as of late.

yep and as slow as snot.

Nice point Tony tho very nit-picky arguements, but clarification on the intention of the law.




PS The sideline CP issue seems like another clusterfuck over 11 images tho, who knows, there may be more in the background and further issues not presented as part of this trial.

There are some confusing matters of law in that article.

Why is it important to prove interstate commerce? Isn't possessing CP itself a prosecutable crime?

Without proof of interstate commerce, the Fed has no constitutional jurisdiction.

Despite what our current executive might think, we're still a constitutional government.

:2 cents:

Thanks for the link, Tony... good read.

That, I agree with 100%. Well said.

A-S-T

Bump Bump:pimp

The point is, as was pointed out in the article:
"This was a highly fact-specific ruling,? Apgood said. ?The government failed to prove an element of the case."
That element was that the images in question came from a server or site in another state or country. They mostly likely did - the feds just screwed up in not dotting their i's and crossing their t's and proving it. If they had shown where the image originated, then they would have had jurisdiction --- they just didn't prove that element of the case.
So it's not really something that would have an impact on anyone here, unless they were looking to overturn a conviction, IMO.

(Usual "not a lawyer" disclaimer goes here.)

It's an important ruling, just happened under shitty circumstances.
Was going to make a thread about it yesterday but figured it would just fly of the heads of most people here.

I don't really see how it has any bearing on webmasters at all. What does this have to do with maintaining and providing id info to the feds if they knock on your door? Nada.

That will almost certainly be something reversed on appeal.

It sort of falls in the category of "how the fuck else did it get there?". The data came from a computer outside the state, a site that the defendant joined, and the images are now in his computer. A simple tracert from one point to another should show that the material had to flow out of the state borders to be obtained.

This is actually potentially a horrible judgement for another reason entirely: let's say the courts uphold this. So who actually brought the material into the state? Would the bandwidth provider, or the company that operated the first router in the state that was touched be the one that caused it to enter the state?

The judges appear to be making an assumption that the data was spontaniously created without source, which is pretty silly, or that a third party did the work of transport.

How truly odd.

This one will certainly get appealed.

Alex maybe that person scaned it it. Who really knows. Yes it is fairly obvious that they got it online. However if they did not proove that fact and just said well he has internet access duh.... that is not valid proof nor enough to bring in the feds since there would of been no interstate commerce and thus they had no rights to arrest or prosecute him.

BTW I am not to sure the Gov gets to appeal, one bite at the apple ya know.

Interesting question.. and I think goes along the lines of our piracy debate as well. How much liability does a contribution to the crime via the Internet really have? Just claiming ignorance as the conduit may or may not be enough.

I am surprised that this really matters. It wouldn't be double jeopardy if the State then charged him with the crime of possession of CP would it? Do the Feds just want the glory of it or did the State give up the right to prosecute the minute the Feds took it?