Dotcom raid illegal

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by stonetools

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.

Are you under the misguided impression that torrents and torrent software (both client and tracker) are only used for piracy and/or other illegal downloads? That they have zero legitimate uses? It sure seems like you might be making that mistaken assumption.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

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...)

Actually, copyright is quite enforceable if the courts and law enforcement have jurisdiction. Once governments work out their jurisdictional issues, then dodging the law by locating servers and bank accounts in foreign countries won't work any more. The long arm of the law will once again be inescapable,and artists and creators will once more have their rights upheld as envisioned by the UN Declaration of Rights.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Yeah, well, why isn't anyone going after the advertisers?

I think there are three reasons:

-- Tried and failed with SOPA, as already noted by Stonetools

-- Advertisers don't directly choose which sites their banner ads will appear on.

-- Same reason no one is going after people who have admitted to piracy on this web site (we could argue over what that reason is; I'm just saying that, whatever the reasons are for prosecuting neither advertisers nor individual downloaders, those reasons overlap)

See: Advertisers pledge not to support 'rogue' pirate sites

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Are you under the misguided impression that torrents and torrent software (both client and tracker) are only used for piracy and/or other illegal downloads? That they have zero legitimate uses? It sure seems like you might be making that mistaken assumption.

Nope, there are legit uses for torrents. Unfortunately, it seems that the illegit uses of the technology has vastly outpaced the legitimate use. I wish it weren't so, but here we are.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Actually, copyright is quite enforceable if the courts and law enforcement have jurisdiction. Once governments work out their jurisdictional issues, then dodging the law by locating servers and bank accounts in foreign countries won't work any more. The long arm of the law will once again be inescapable,and artists and creators will once more have their rights upheld as envisioned by the UN Declaration of Rights.

Won't stop sneakernet, private encryption, VPNs, ect.

Won't stop the public domain, either...

Won't stop somebody camcordering a DVD, at home...

Shall I go on?

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Won't stop sneakernet, private encryption, VPNs, ect.

Won't stop the public domain, either...

Won't stop somebody camcordering a DVD, at home.
Shall I go on?

Homicide laws don't prevent all murders , either. That doesn't mean we just give up on homicide laws.
The purpose of enforcing anti piracy laws is not to eradicate piracy: it is to suppress it to a low enough level so that it doesn't crowd out innovation and legitimate business activity.
The Trichordist website has testimonies from artists who have just given up on creating new art because its not worth it to any longer because of piracy and file-sharing. One artist writes:

The pundits who claim that the internet “leveled the playing field” for musicians got just that: a level field. A whole lot of mediocrity (yay, we won the DIY revolution!) Unfortunately, the modern fan-based patronage hasn’t panned out the same way the old Royalty-based patronage did, it’s still a situation where the rich (corporations, usually) pay and everybody else listens for free—to those who get the production paid for by advertising!

For most artists it’s a case where they pay for their own production costs themselves and then a few people buy the music and everyone else listens for free. There are of course a few lottery winners in the fan-based patronage, touted as examples by tech writers in various blogs of course, but there are as many of these as actual lottery winners—and certainly those are the ones to garnish the media attention, why wouldn’t they be?

LINK

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Homicide laws don't prevent all murders , either. That doesn't mean we just give up on homicide laws.
The purpose of enforcing anti piracy laws is not to eradicate piracy: it is to suppress it to a low enough level so that it doesn't crowd out innovation and legitimate business activity.
The Trichordist website has testimonies from artists who have just given up on creating new art because its not worth it to any longer because of piracy and file-sharing. One artist writes:



LINK

My point is it's beyond organized control. I understand how distressing this is, but like Hiroshima, once the Genie came out of the bag, there was no going back.

Piracy is not merely a some organized group of criminals, but everybody with a computer is a potential criminal. They have the means to pirate. And I don't mean internet access, I mean a computer. All computers have permanent storage, and any permanent storage can be used for piracy. And will be. And nothing short of a police state or destroying all the computers will stop it.

And your task is to figure out how to make people pay for something they've been receiving free all their lives, and can create privately themselves for nearly free. Because that is what you're demanding. Your system is based on the (now obsolete) fact that people couldn't create their own copy of I.P. easily and cheaply.

And that world is gone. It isn't coming back. And some of the leading large producer have started basing their models on this new reality. And that's why SOPA failed. The people that have moved on are now as powerful politically as those attached to the old reality.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Piracy is not merely a some organized group of criminals, but everybody with a computer is a potential criminal. They have the means to pirate. And I don't mean internet access, I mean a computer. All computers have permanent storage, and any permanent storage can be used for piracy. And will be. And nothing short of a police state or destroying all the computers will stop it.

Yes and no. There is definitely piracy at an individual level, but there is also piracy by organized criminals.

Copying a file from a friend is an example of the former. But that has been happening for quite some time. Copying an audio cassette or a video tape is an example that predates (most people's use of) computers. Photocopiers fall in that realm too.

Going to a website or a peer-to-peer network though is a different story. A lot of that is organized by people who have the intent to copy material on a massive scale and for profit. That sort of thing happened in the past too.

So nothing is really new here.

Well, one thing is new. Law enforcement has had trouble keeping up with the Internet. In the beginning, they didn't handle it properly. It was probably a matter of scale and technical competence in the beginning, which didn't help matters. But even once they got over those issues they were dealing with a bigger problem: crimes that could once be handled locally now had an international element. Sometimes they couldn't reach the people facilitating these activities, or it was a tediously long process if they did. Couple that with proactive civil rights movements which suddenly considered copyright infringement a speech issue, and enforcement because a big issue.

I would argue that this lead to another consequence: there was a cultural shift because the anonymity of the internet and the lack of effective enforcement gave people the perception that copyright infringement was okay. And that, I would suggest, is the real cat that got out of the bag. Computers and the internet have very little to do with copyright infringement other than being a tool -- one tool among many.

[stonetools]

My point is it's beyond organized control. I understand how distressing this is, but like Hiroshima, once the Genie came out of the bag, there was no going back.

Actually, since 1945, atomic bombs have never been used in war. Thank God people didn't have your fatalistic " you can't resist technology" attitude.

I'll outsource this one to the Cynical Musician:

First and most importantly: the debate was never about technology and it is our mistake – on the rights holder side – that we ever allowed it to be framed as such.

Technology determines – to an extent – what is possible. The law determines what is permissible. This is a key distinction. For a start, a law that addresses the impossible is redundant: we have no laws regulating flight by flapping your arms or living forever. On the other hand, when something hitherto impossible becomes possible, new laws may be made if it is considered necessary.

Prior to the rise of aviation, we had no laws dealing with flight. We do now; quite a lot, in fact. Anyone who has had even a passing experience of the rules and regulations a pilot has to deal with (compared to an automobile driver, say) will realise that this is one of the most heavily regulated areas of human activity. There’s a very good reason why this is so: “the rules of aviation are written with the blood of dead aviators”.

The important thing to understand is that laws deal with people, not technology. This is just as true for copyright as it is for homicide: it doesn’t matter whether you distribute music files or set up a vinyl-pressing plant, any more than it matters whether you kill with a gun, a knife, a hammer or a rock.

LINK

There is zero reason, technologically, why the Internet cannot be set up to the protect rights holders. It is a matter of historical accident why the Internet is set up as it is, and why the law is as inadequate as it is. Both can be fixed. David Lowery again:

Especially since within the Tech sphere you see many current examples of very very strict IP protection encouraging innovation not inhibiting it.


The Apple App store as a closed and protected system ensures software developers will be rewarded for their efforts. There is virtually no piracy in the apple app world. Innovation has blossomed. Developers, Consumers and the platform creators have all been richly rewarded.

The computer gaming world? The best talent, the most popular games and virtually all the money is in the DRM (digital rights management) protected ecosystems like Xbox or Playstation. Microsoft even goes so far as “banning” individual xbox’s from their servers if they detect “cracked” or pirated games. If in fact copyrights inhibiting innovation why isn’t it hurting the console gaming companies with their hyper strict DRM? Shouldn’t their sales an innovation be lower?


Valve software which operates the Steam™ platform and is usually seen by gamers to be less restrictive than the console gaming companies, is ultimately just a digital rights management system. A system for protecting the creators rights to profit from their copyrights. And once again a highly innovative ecosystem of independent game makers has developed around this platform.

LINK

IOW, there are ways to set up the Internet to prevent large scale violation of artist's rights. All it takes is brains and the will. No scheme will be perfect but then perfection is not of this world. It just has to be better than the current system.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Cosign. The idea that the two options are either a free and open Internet or totalitarian regimentation is a false dichotomy. There is another option-that of ordered liberty and the rule of law. That's been the way of Western civilization since invention of the US constitution ( which had IP rights baked right in-the Bill of Rights was added AFTER the IP rights clause).

There is also this from the UN Declaration of Rights :

Quote:
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

From the POV of the UN, pirates aren't the harmless pests or "freedom fighters" as many on this forum believe: rather, they are human rights violators pure and simple.

Extending the rule of law to the Internet is going to be next step in the evolution of the Internet. Its inevitable and even better than that, its the right thing to do. We don't know how many artists have been afraid to put their work on the Internet because they're afraid it will be ripped off, but the number must surely be more than zero.

Originally Posted by stonetools

Actually, copyright is quite enforceable if the courts and law enforcement have jurisdiction. Once governments work out their jurisdictional issues, then dodging the law by locating servers and bank accounts in foreign countries won't work any more. The long arm of the law will once again be inescapable,and artists and creators will once more have their rights upheld as envisioned by the UN Declaration of Rights.

Stonetools you've taken the UN statement way out of context ..... it refers to the attribution of and acknowledgement of ownership of material.

Removing an author's details, or denying their existence, is not an issue under contention in this thread.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

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

Ralph Sir Edward I think you've assumed that the material wasn't purchased in the first place.

I've been the first user of a new library book (on numerous occasions), and I've purchased paper books and ebooks some of which may have been loaned or sold on.

So, if the original ebook was passed on and then deleted it doesn't fit your scenario.

PS: thank you for the link!! I shall endeavour to read soonish.

[plib]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

My point is it's beyond organized control. I understand how distressing this is, but like Hiroshima, once the Genie came out of the bag, there was no going back.

If the possibility of being shot for file sharing doesn't stop it then yes, I'd agree. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle. stonetools et. al. can fantasize about the hegemony of US law enforcement, it might even manage the occasional extradition of someone on dubious legal grounds* or batter down someone's door with invalid warrants, but long term eradication is impossible.

*Interestingly enough I met for lunch with some in-law relations who were passing through the airport today. A retired university professor and a retired Headmistress of a girls boarding school. Fairly conservative, solid middle England. Both were incandescent about the Richard O'Dwyer extradition case and the state of US/UK legal balance in general. This could generate a reaction similar to ACTA. The US as a country, not necessarily its people, is about as unpopular in the world as I can ever recall, partly as a result of attitudes and actions like this one. I don't think I would rely on future US hegemony too much.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by plib

If the possibility of being shot for file sharing doesn't stop it then yes, I'd agree. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle. stonetools et. al. can fantasize about the hegemony of US law enforcement, it might even manage the occasional extradition of someone on dubious legal grounds* or batter down someone's door with invalid warrants, but long term eradication is impossible.

*Interestingly enough I met for lunch with some in-law relations who were passing through the airport today. A retired university professor and a retired Headmistress of a girls boarding school. Fairly conservative, solid middle England. Both were incandescent about the Richard O'Dwyer extradition case and the state of US/UK legal balance in general. This could generate a reaction similar to ACTA. The US as a country, not necessarily its people, is about as unpopular in the world as I can ever recall, partly as a result of attitudes and actions like this one. I don't think I would rely on future US hegemony too much.

Plib one of the ways that the US Gov't gets its way, that is imposes its ideology, on other countries is by using the Balance of Trade Negotiations as a bargaining tool. That info may also help you to understand some of the distaste. In fact it goes down like a lead balloon in Aus!

Here is an Australian example:

For example:
------------------------
Until 1 January 2005, copyright generally lasted for the life of the relevant creator plus 50 years.

There were various exceptions to this rule, including:
• where a work was not published, performed or broadcast during a creatorʼs lifetime; and
• where something was published anonymously or under a pseudonym, and the identity of the creator couldnʼt reasonably be ascertained.

(In each of these cases, copyright lasted for 50 years from the end of the year the work was, with permission, first published, performed or broadcast.)

Under the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, Australia agreed to extend the general duration of copyright. As a result, the rules now are that copyright generally lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years and where duration depends on year of publication, it lasts until 70 years
after it is first published.

The Free Trade Agreement did not, however, include any obligation to revive copyright if copyright had already expired. This means that if, under the old rules, copyright had already expired by 1 January 2005, it stays expired and the material can be used freely under Australian law.

http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/
---------------------

Pharmaceuticals is another area where the US Gov't was particularly blatant in its attempts to get us to enshrine their ideology. Thank heavens they failed!!!

PS I did mention aspects of this in an earlier post in this thread, but I've included the actual proof statements in this post.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by stonetools

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.

Stores of course ignore shoplifters since they do not invest anough money in systems to detect all shoplifters.

So if loosing any money is irrelevant and the true argument is that it is illegal then that is the argument that should be used and it is a bit dishonest to use the emotive argument about loosing money when that argument is broken.

[plib]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

Plib one of the ways that the US Gov't gets its way, that is imposes its ideology, on other countries is by using the Balance of Trade Negotiations as a bargaining tool.

Australia is not the only country they've tried to bully, Canada and the UK have seen the ugly side of US dominated agreements as well, and these are the people who fought beside the US in Afghanistan and Iraq! It's mostly driven by the lobby groups, but it's the country that gets a bad name. US economic power is going to decline drastically in the next 20 years. It will be interesting to see how many "friends and allies" they'll be able to bully then. Or for that matter, how many friends and allies are left.