FBI charges Megaupload operators with piracy crimes

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Quexos

As opposed to freedom for big corporations to manage your life and tell you what you can and cannot have and at the price they decide ...
There's always two sides to the story, but you should know.

So in your world, offering to sell you a book at $15 is the same as stealing that book?

[Quexos]

In my world, there is freedom and choice and no moral judgment ...
In the real world there are greedy businesses that often put money ahead of life.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

So in your world, offering to sell you a book at $15 is the same as stealing that book?

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by Quexos

tell you what you can and cannot have and at the price they decide ...

um yeah because they own the work. you create something, you get to decide whether or not you sell it and at what price, where and when.

[Quexos]

Ok but if we do this we do it all the way. So tomorrow I own all the food and your little kids are starving and for whatever reason you lost your job and can't afford the food that's vital to them. So if I decide your kids starve to death by putting whatever price I want, you must accept it because, well, I own the food and I decide the price or if I even want to sell it to you right.

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

um yeah because they own the work. you create something, you get to decide whether or not you sell it and at what price, where and when.

[silasgreenback]

Originally Posted by Quexos

Ok but if we do this we do it all the way. So tomorrow I own all the food and your little kids are starving and for whatever reason you lost your job and can't afford the food that's vital to them. So if I decide your kids starve to death by putting whatever price I want, you must accept it because, well, I own the food and I decide the price or if I even want to sell it to you right.

You're oversimplifying it. If you own the food, you need to lobby the government to monitor the comings and goings of the rats and birds that might have designs on your storehouse. While you have their ear, you should petition for nest and rat-hole analysis along with deep-feces-inspection just to make sure there's no funny business going on. You should also make sure that foods you plant have seeds than can only be grown in your sanctioned growth medium and any attempt to have said seeds work in verboten soil is punishable by imprisonment. Dont forget make sure the burden of proof is switched to the side that can't afford it.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Quexos

Ok but if we do this we do it all the way. So tomorrow I own all the food and your little kids are starving and for whatever reason you lost your job and can't afford the food that's vital to them. So if I decide your kids starve to death by putting whatever price I want, you must accept it because, well, I own the food and I decide the price or if I even want to sell it to you right.

Are you suggesting an analogy between stealing food to keep your children alive when you have no other way of obtaining it, and breaching copyright on items of entertainment. If you are this is offensive to those tens of thousands of children who die every day because they do not enough food to stay alive - and it's a rubbish analogy.

[SneakySnake]

Except that when the rats take the food, it goes missing and you can prove that is is not there anymore.

The files being shared are still there. No rats took them away. Did they?

[silasgreenback]

Originally Posted by SneakySnake

Except that when the rats take the food, it goes missing and you can prove that is is not there anymore.

The files being shared are still there. No rats took them away. Did they?

As far as being able to prove that the nourishing grains are being stolen or not and since we're talking about overpriced food stuffs, a lot of it is rotting in the storehouse. The math is just too fuzzy, but it's a fact that 2+2 = 5. It's good old-fashioned horse sense to just point at the vermin both dastardly and innocent and not focus on anything about the business model.

Anyway and for the record, buy books from authors you like. Support them, it's their day job to amuse you. If we all need to keep defending something that's so iffy, then we're probably being just as immoral and the issue isn't really even iffy. Enough about rats and birds and horse sense lest I make a jackass of myself.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Quexos

Ok but if we do this we do it all the way. So tomorrow I own all the food and your little kids are starving and for whatever reason you lost your job and can't afford the food that's vital to them. So if I decide your kids starve to death by putting whatever price I want, you must accept it because, well, I own the food and I decide the price or if I even want to sell it to you right.

Being bored because you can't afford the latest Sweet Valley High e-book is not the same as children starving to death.

However, I should point out that the government makes both welfare available for people to prevent them from going hungry, and libraries available to everyone so that they can obtain books/dvds/etc. without charge.

Your analogy is more like you really want to feed your little kids steak and lobster, but you can only afford chicken and mashed potatoes.

[HansTWN]

It is funny that Quexos claims to care about starving children, any children but those of the authors and employees at retailers and publishers --- those that actually bring him the books. Freedom for himself and slave labor for authors. What a wonderful world. The authors and their families, let them have cake.

[miguel1626]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you have a moment to read the story I posted the link to, I'd appreciate hearing your view on that. You're in a better position to answer the question than I am.

I'm not a US citizen, and not a lawyer, but that never stopped anyone from giving their opinion, right?

Anyway, here's the actual ruling. TL;DR version: Under the rather heavy-handed 2003 Extradition Act, he can be extradited to the US - and the US doesn't have to offer a lot of evidence, given its standing as a Class 2 territory.

Okay, now for a lengthier analysis:

1. The US Government is seeking extradition because it "identifies Richard O’Dwyer as operating, while physically in the U.K., but earning fairly substantial sums from persons in the U.S.A. from advertisements, websites enabling (exactly how is said to be crucial to this Request) films (movies) and T.V. programmes to be downloaded in breach of U.S. copyright law."

2. O'Dwyer's lawyer claims that such a request should be denied for three reasons: (1) it's not an extradition offence; (2) it would be "unjust or oppresive" by virtue of passage of time; (3) it would be disproportionate to the alleged offence.

3. It was ruled that (1) the offence is subject to the extradition under S.137 (2) (b), since his alleged offence would be a crime under UK law (Copyright Act 1988). (2) the "passage of time" challenge has no basis, since the US can be expected to hold a fair trial, and O'Dwyer'll be able to gather and present all the evidence he can; (3) the ruling dismisses the human rights concerns offhandedly, since he has not been charged in the UK. Although his actions "potentially permit hearing a criminal case in the U.K.", "Such a state of affairs does not demand a trial here if the competent U.K. authorities decline to act and does, in my judgement, permit one in the U.S.A."

Now it is up to the Secretary of State to decide whether O'Dwyer will be extradicted, due to the "human rights" challenge (S.87(3)).

If I were to bet, my money would be on the US government

BTW, I strongly suggest anyone interested to read the whole ruling. It's only 9 pages long, and packed with information (including a summary of the extensive evidence arrayed by US authorities).

[Kumabjorn]

I haven't followed this too closely, but I'm curious as to what our NZ members think of this;

Mr Dotcom (he kind of looks like a white version of Tracy Jordan's sidekick, just with less hair) is as I understand a German citizen and is now under consideration for extradition to stand trial in the US. Had he been a NZ citizen, could he still be extradited?

[karunaji]

Originally Posted by TGS

Are you suggesting an analogy between stealing food to keep your children alive when you have no other way of obtaining it, and breaching copyright on items of entertainment. If you are this is offensive to those tens of thousands of children who die every day because they do not enough food to stay alive - and it's a rubbish analogy.

Many children are starving not because of lack of food in the world but because the distribution of food is inefficient. Therefore most western countries subsidize farming to eliminate occasional free market inefficiencies so that people would not have to starve when the market dictates higher price of wheat, for example.

In a way, due to subsidies poor western people when buying food are "stealing" from those who have paid more taxes. Of course, reading books is less important than having food. But the principle applies to many aspects, including tax supported education. Why one "stealing" is ok, but not the other?

Ultimately it is all about achieving distribution efficiency. Some piracy is good. The extremes: total unrestricted piracy or total control are unrealistic and probably very damaging. We need more discussion and less ultimatums from either side.

[karunaji]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

It is funny that Quexos claims to care about starving children, any children but those of the authors and employees at retailers and publishers --- those that actually bring him the books. Freedom for himself and slave labor for authors. What a wonderful world. The authors and their families, let them have cake.

The starving author problem is already solved in western countries. J.K. Rowling wrote her first story while living on social security for her and her daughter. Without it there probably wouldn't be HP series. It is the same "let's socialize the risks and privatize the gains".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by karunaji

The starving author problem is already solved in western countries. J.K. Rowling wrote her first story while living on social security for her and her daughter. Without it there probably wouldn't be HP series. It is the same "let's socialize the risks and privatize the gains".

A sound investment on the part of the British Government there. I rather suspect that Her Majesty's Treasury has gained somewhat more in tax revenues from Ms Rowling than it paid her in benefit payments.