Dotcom raid illegal

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

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.

I'm just saying with an analog (paper) copy, there is inherently only one copy being passed around. Only one person at a time can have it to read. And that copy was bought. (or if given away, it was done by the choice of the author.) With an e-book, there is no inherent erasure of the first purchased copy whenit it passed on. The original copy can be erased, but nothing in the technology requires it to be erased. If it is not, a new copy has been created for which the creator has not been paid.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by stonetools

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:



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:



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.

No, we have never used atomic weapons since. Just the Cold War, Mutual Assured Destruction policy, and vain attempt to keep minor players from having nukes. And yet they poliferate...(and the technology has never gone away, either.)

The culture changed, irrevokably.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

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.

And that cat was let out of the bag by technology. The only way to successfully put it back into the bag is to eliminate the technology. But the technology is so valuable, that eliminating is just not going to happen. What the internet did was facilitate access to materials to be pirated. Prior piracy was somewhat limited by the amount of materials available. (I.E. somebody could pirate their friend's materials, but not somebody's halfway across the world. Now they can...)

Let me revise and expand my remarks...Before the internet, I didn't know or communicate with anybody who lived outside the US. Now I communicate with people all over the world. (Great Britain, France, South America, Austrailia, The Far East, ect...) The Internet allowed/created this. So today, when I might have swapped files with Dave three doors down, I might want to swap with Jaques in Paris, or Herr Docktor Franz in Munich, Janie in Perth. Same person to person (that used to be invisible), but now across the Globe. And while the internet is the easiest way, it's not the only way. The person-to-person links aren't going away, so I doubt the sharing will...

(This does not imply that I share. It is just a descriptive example.)

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

And that cat was let out of the bag by technology. The only way to successfully put it back into the bag is to eliminate the technology. But the technology is so valuable, that eliminating is just not going to happen. What the internet did was facilitate access to materials to be pirated. Prior piracy was somewhat limited by the amount of materials available. (I.E. somebody could pirate their friend's materials, but not somebody's halfway across the world. Now they can...)

Let me revise and expand my remarks...Before the internet, I didn't know or communicate with anybody who lived outside the US. Now I communicate with people all over the world. (Great Britain, France, South America, Austrailia, The Far East, ect...) The Internet allowed/created this. So today, when I might have swapped files with Dave three doors down, I might want to swap with Jaques in Paris, or Herr Docktor Franz in Munich, Janie in Perth. Same person to person (that used to be invisible), but now across the Globe. And while the internet is the easiest way, it's not the only way. The person-to-person links aren't going away, so I doubt the sharing will...

(This does not imply that I share. It is just a descriptive example.)

What is your point? Just because people now have the tools to easily do it (pirate), they can't stop themselves? So when shops take away the surveillance cameras almost everybody would get in on the shoplifting action, not just a few?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

What is your point? Just because people now have the tools to easily do it (pirate), they can't stop themselves? So when shops take away the surveillance cameras almost everybody would get in on the shoplifting action, not just a few?

My point is that there is no way to provide an overriding force to stop I.P. piracy. It has become a matter of personal choice, for good or ill.

Technology created I.P., technology is now killing it.

(And it's only going to get worse. As 3-D printers get better, faster, cheaper, and more available, it's going to hit the production of analog goods as well.)

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

Stonetools you've taken the UN statement way out of context

No. He quoted 27.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in full. If you want the even broader international law context of the Universal Declaration's "material interests" of the author provision, check out the older Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works -- which, as it is closely followed by Canadian law, is effectively the standard for what can be uploaded to this site.

Letting individual downloaders decide what eBooks will, and will not, be free samples is the opposite of respecting the author's rights under international law.

[HansTWN]

[QUOTE=Ralph Sir Edward;2133537Technology created I.P., technology is now killing it.

[/QUOTE]

Technology created guns, and "surprise!" most people have never used one to kill another person or to get what they want. Most people are still honest, and not just because they are afraid to get caught.

And if 3-D printers really take off, company may just give them away for free and charge for sending you the designs, for servicing them, selling you the materials you need for producing the goods.

3-D printing is and always will be great for some items (special designs, hard-to-get spare parts, prototypes, etc)., but the items produced will be too expensive compared to mass production --- and you can't use every material, and won't be able to for a long time. What good is a plastic reproduction in most cases?

[stonetools]

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.

Actually it refers to intellectual property rights in general, as a plain sense reading of the provision indicates. A simple Google search shows how its has been interpreted. One example:

Intellectual property rights are recognized as human rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, and in other international and regional human rights treaties and instruments. However, the relationship between intellectual property systems and human rights is complex and calls for a full understanding of the nature and purposes of the intellectual property system.

LINK

AS for the anti-Americanism, you should understand that anti piracy campaigns are under way in Sweden, France, Belgium, Italy, New Zealand, the UK and elsewhere. The US government is, if anything, late to the party.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

No. He quoted 27.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in full. If you want the even broader international law context of the Universal Declaration's "material interests" of the author provision, check out the older Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works -- which, as it is closely followed by Canadian law, is effectively the standard for what can be uploaded to this site.

Letting individual downloaders decide what eBooks will, and will not, be free samples is the opposite of respecting the author's rights under international law.

Steve I referred to how Stonetools used that statement - that's what was out of context.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

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.

Stonetools as i say, the context is to do with attribution and acknowledgement - and they are not aspects that are under discussion in this thread

[stonetools]

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

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.

Guess its time to stamp down again on the favorite fallacy of piracy enablers -"Its IMPOSSIBLE to eradicate piracy, therefore we should just stop all efforts against it" . I'll put it plainly, that argument is wrong. Let me cut and paste from an earlier post :

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.

There is nothing impossible about suppressing piracy to a low level and driving it underground. That would be sufficient for the purposes of society.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

Stonetools as i say, the context is to do with attribution and acknowledgement - and they are not aspects that are under discussion in this thread

I've provided you with a link that shows it refers to IP rights in general (I could provide many more such links). Can you provide a link showing its limited as you say? Because after research, I've found no such reference.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

My point is that there is no way to provide an overriding force to stop I.P. piracy. It has become a matter of personal choice, for good or ill.

Technology created I.P., technology is now killing it.

(And it's only going to get worse. As 3-D printers get better, faster, cheaper, and more available, it's going to hit the production of analog goods as well.)

This is a classical statement of what's called Digital Determinism. Chris Ruen comments on it :

A sentiment we have all heard or entertained post-Napster is that “you can’t fight technology” — representative of what I call Digital Determinism. That attitude is intellectually passive, morally lazy and ultimately self-destructive because it puts the entirely imaginary interests of “technology” above our own; much as Stalin put the abstract interests of the State above the immediate interests of people, rationalizing that the means of mass slaughter justified the ends of modernization or national greatness.
Digital Determinism leads us toward believing that humans must adapt to the rights of technology, not the other way around. Thus, rights holders are seen by Determinists as primarily responsible for “innovation” in response to FreeLoading; and protecting copyright is portrayed as an effort by cigar-chomping Hollywood villains to preserve their profits.

LINK

That whole post is worth reading.

[DiapDealer]

Do you still claim to be just your basic book-reader with no financial/employment "irons" in this particular fire?

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Do you still claim to be just your basic book-reader with no financial/employment "irons" in this particular fire?

I don't "claim" it, its a fact. If you don't believe that, fine-there are plenty of guys who post in favor of the other side, but no one claims that they are working for Google or who ever.