Dotcom raid illegal

[Lynx-lynx]

From Auckland Now (today):

'Megaupload founded Kim Dotcom yesterday showed there were no hard feelings with police despite their botched January raid on his mansion as part of the FBI's moves to shut down his online site.

Dotcom shook hands with a police officer after walking in the TVNZ7 "funeral" march in Auckland yesterday.

High Court judge Helen Winkelmann last week ruled that police search warrants used to seize property from Kim Dotcom were invalid.

Although reluctant to speak in detail about the current extradition case against him, Dotcom yesterday said he was pleased with the High Court ruling.

"We're very pleased with the judgement and happy to see the justice system works in New Zealand."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/loca...ks-data-access

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Actually, its not the failed artists who are featured at file sharing sites: it's the successful artists.
The pirates don't usually bother putting up the works of Johnny Nobody on their sites: its the Stephen Kings and James Pattersons they want , so as to draw the eyeballs to the ads they sell. Putting bestsellers on their sites is key to their business model.

If I accept your statement at face value, then the pirate sites are barely inflicting a few pinpricks on the big-name talent, which makes the sites pretty harmless overall. Shouldn't the Johnny Nobodys stop whining?

I'll let HarryT speak for himself, but it seems logical to me that offering his work for free at pirate sites must cost him "some sales", even if he can't determine exactly how much.

1. Just because something is difficult to measure doesn't mean it doesn't exist,
2. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That's not the issue. Of course the pirate sites cost some sales, as do--again--borrowing and buying secondhand. Why get worked up only over the pirate sites but not the other means of distribution that also lower sales? To be logically consistent, it seems to me, one should be angered by borrowers and thrift store shoppers as well as pirates.

[Lynx-lynx]

Another viewpoint ....

Torrent Freak, June 28

'Political activist group Demand Progress has filed a brief in the Megaupload case, urging the court to disregard the MPAA’s concerns over the return of data to former Megaupload users. The group argues that Hollywood lobbyists are out to make it impossible for Megaupload users to access their property, effectively using the court case as a backdoor SOPA.

Demand Progress is joining the Megaupload case as a non-party. The group has filed a brief refuting claims made by the MPAA, and asking the Court to consider the many innocent users who are still unable to access their personal files.

The MPAA previously told the court that Megaupload users should only be allowed to get their files back as long as access to copyright-infringing files is blocked. According to Demand Progress this request is practically impossible, against the presumption of innocence, and effectively an attempt to enforce SOPA-like actions through the backdoor.'

http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-using-m...-hears-120628/

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Those millions and billions are coming from ad revenues. Do you think those pirate site servers operate for free ? Well, think again.

Yeah, well, why isn't anyone going after the advertisers? Every time a search has landed me on a pirate site, I'll find ads from major retailers where I've recently shopped--Target, QVC, Coldwater Creek, etc. How about they take some heat and some responsibility? They're the ones who have their ads in the rotation and make it possible for these sites to thrive.

And in addition to the actual revenues, these advertisers lend an air of legitimacy as well. But they seem to be immune to criticism.

[Greg Anos]

I guess I'll have to come to Stonetool's aid here. (JC and the boys, who've thunk it?)

He's equating the number of books available with royalty base (author's payment). That certainly is one way to measure. In the used/library connection, for somebody to read book X, nobody else can read that copy at the same time. The reader does not have a copy to open at any time, day or night, in perpetuity.

With an copy infringed e-book, somebody does have that e-book to read, any time, day or night, in perpetuity.

That's the difference.

(This post is not to take sides, just to clarify what each side is saying.)

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I guess I'll have to come to Stonetool's aid here. (JC and the boys, who've thunk it?)

He's equating the number of books available with royalty base (author's payment). That certainly is one way to measure. In the used/library connection, for somebody to read book X, nobody else can read that copy at the same time. The reader does not have a copy to open at any time, day or night, in perpetuity.

With an copy infringed e-book, somebody does have that e-book to read, any time, day or night, in perpetuity.

That's the difference.

(This post is not to take sides, just to clarify what each side is saying.)

I think it's an assumption to suggest that 'someone' may retain a 'copy (of an) infringed e-book', and not delete it, or even pass it on first and then delete it.

(When I first read your name and your writing style I thought you must have been an old fashioned style English gent!!!! And then I saw your location, says a lot about my assumptions,eh!!)

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Yeah, well, why isn't anyone going after the advertisers? Every time a search has landed me on a pirate site, I'll find ads from major retailers where I've recently shopped--Target, QVC, Coldwater Creek, etc. How about they take some heat and some responsibility? They're the ones who have their ads in the rotation and make it possible for these sites to thrive.

And in addition to the actual revenues, these advertisers lend an air of legitimacy as well. But they seem to be immune to criticism.

These are valid points, and ones I don't hear pursued at all.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Catlady

If I accept your statement at face value, then the pirate sites are barely inflicting a few pinpricks on the big-name talent, which makes the sites pretty harmless overall. Shouldn't the Johnny Nobodys stop whining?




That's not the issue. Of course the pirate sites cost some sales, as do--again--borrowing and buying secondhand. Why get worked up only over the pirate sites but not the other means of distribution that also lower sales? To be logically consistent, it seems to me, one should be angered by borrowers and thrift store shoppers as well as pirates.

Because what pirates do is illegal. It's why stores don't just ignore shoplifters. There's a difference between tolerating losses because people are engaging in perfectly legit activity and taking action to stop people illegally exploiting you.

Also too the losses due to piracy may be in fact substantial. The music industry revenues are down 64 per cent since mass piracy and file sharing began in the late 1990s. That's waaaaaaay more than a pinprick.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by stonetools

AYou don't know who David Lowery is? Then let Wikipedia enlighten you:

I could probably have found his Wiki page myself, but that would have required an interest in doing so, which I didn't have. And still don't.

Frankly he sounds a hell of lot more credible than someone on the Internet who uses torrents

Well, first of all I don't need to sound credible, because what I claim to be the case can be checked by anyone and everyone in a jiffy if they have a mind to do so. Secondly you appear to be of the mindset that anyone who uses torrents is a thief and a robber (at least) by default, so your opinion on credibility is hardly a useful yardstick.

him being an actual musician, businessman, lecturer and independent music producer - you know, one of the guys who the torrenters rip off .

None of which has the slightest bearing on whether or not he knows the first thing about the torrent landscape (for want of a better term). Having a quick look at a few of the best known sites and snapping a few screencaps is somewhat less than impressive and in any case says nothing about anything I addressed. To refresh your memory, since you're obviously building a straw man, my only contentions were that a) anything and everything can be found on torrent sites, not only the big hitters like you stated, and b) a lot of sites are not funded by advertising, but are instead funded entirely by donations from users/members, who are often people with particular interests.

There are, for instance, torrent sites dealing exclusively (or semi-exclusively) in old out-of-print books and manuscripts, British TV, knitting patterns, musical scores, self-help books, pre-1940s movies, automobile repair manuals and vintage porn just to list a few examples. Neither of those are likely to be able to stay afloat on the basis of ad clicks (except the vintage porn one maybe).

[Greg Anos]

They may (or may not) retain a copy, but they obtained one that they can keep whether or not they choose to. And that is a new, extra copy that did not exist before, and no royalty was paid on. A library book or a used book, is not a "new, never before existing copy".

And if you want to see just how "gentlemanly" I am, here's some deliberately bad pulp writing for your edification. (Deliberately put in the Public Domain by the author.)

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...lden+coprolite

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Yeah, well, why isn't anyone going after the advertisers? Every time a search has landed me on a pirate site, I'll find ads from major retailers where I've recently shopped--Target, QVC, Coldwater Creek, etc. How about they take some heat and some responsibility? They're the ones who have their ads in the rotation and make it possible for these sites to thrive.

And in addition to the actual revenues, these advertisers lend an air of legitimacy as well. But they seem to be immune to criticism.

There are a lot of people who are hopping mad about the advertisers and there are bills in congress aimed at making advertising on pirate sites illegal. . But those advertisers and Google have lobbyists fighting this, and they have a lot of power Remember the SOPA battle? Part of that concerned ads on pirate sites.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by stonetools

There are a lot of people who are hopping mad about the advertisers and there are bills in congress aimed at making advertising on pirate sites illegal. . But those advertisers and Google have lobbyists fighting this, and they have a lot of power Remember the SOPA battle? Part of that concerned ads on pirate sites.

Which, in the end, just shows that technology is making certain parts of the law effective obsolete. This is not something I cheer, but something I acknowledge as a unstoppable tide.

Copyright is becoming as legally obsolete as Chivalric Oaths. (and about as enforceable...)

[stonetools]

I could probably have found his Wiki page myself, but that would have required an interest in doing so, which I didn't have. And still don't.

Well since you participate in this system that rips him off, I understand why you might want to maintain a certain distance and choose not to engage with his viewpoint. Its not admirable but it is understandable.

If you took the trouble to read his site, you 'll see that in fact he has conducted substantial research into piracy and its effects on the music industry. But I guess its easier to just dismiss him because hey, its easier for you psychologically.

As to your statements about torrent site owners you know all being nice, decent, cuddly guys unconcerned with making money, you'll pardon my skepticism. You benefit from their illegal activity. I'll just take your statements with a big barrel full of salt.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Well since you participate in this system that rips him off

I do? Where do you get that from?

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by stonetools

As to your statements about torrent site owners you know all being nice, decent, cuddly guys unconcerned with making money

Enough with the constant straw men already. Yikes...