Dotcom raid illegal

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I entirely agree with you, but is someone who's genuinely poor likely to have an eBook reader and internet access anyway? An eBook reader is very much a "luxury item", to my mind. Libraries are still available to those who wish to read paper books (which I live, at least).

That may depend on whether you think "genuinely poor" means "every penny's pre-spent before it's acquired, and life is an endless struggle with debt" or "people with very little leisure money per month, perhaps enough to take the family to the movies, *or* have a dinner in a restaurant, but not both."

With e-readers as low as $80, they're available on very small budgets. (I had one on a very tight budget when they were more expensive because I'm content for my *entire* entertainment budget to be directed to books.) Also, last-year's-ereader has become a common gift item, especially for friends or relatives with disabilities that would be greatly helped by ereaders.

Rural poor may not have internet access; in big cities, almost everyone does. Computers aren't a luxury item; they're considered basic appliances, like a phone... almost can't get a job without one. Children who don't have one at home, have internet access at school. And whether or not they can have an ereader, almost everyone has a smartphone. It's almost impossible to find a cellphone that *doesn't* have internet anymore.

Libraries are available for the poor... in the areas where they're not shutting down or slashing their hours. Libraries are considered a luxury service; they're one of the first to get hit with budget cuts.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

So you're saying that the difference between libraries and pirates just comes down to "the law says so", not for any moral/ethical distinctions?

For libraries, yes.

The difference imo, is, it was decided access to knowledge should be available to both the poor and wealthy alike. Ethics/economics/morals were all probably factored into that and restrictions placed by law to balance it.

For example, libraries have to purchase each copy, they cannot just duplicate the books and hand out those copies (at least I hope they can't).

Contrast that to piracy, there are no limitations in place to balance the ethical need for equal access with the rights/needs of the content creators and the economy. If pirates were buying a copy and any time that copy was passed on, they deleted their version, so it was akin to the loaning of paper books. I'd have a hard time trying to justify why libraries are ok and piracy is not.

It may not be a perfect answer, nor the right or only answer, but it's the best I could come up with on the spur of the moment to justify why I feel that way. Maybe someone else could provide a better reason?

[MikeOxlittle]

Some more news snippets about the case if anyone is interested ...

U.S gov't stalling after illegal procedures followed.

Joe Biden once illegally downloaded Vice President for Dummies.

[plib]

Originally Posted by MikeOxlittle

Some more news snippets about the case if anyone is interested ...

Joe Biden once illegally downloaded Vice President for Dummies.

That doesn't count as piracy, because he didn't actually read it.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by plib

That doesn't count as piracy, because he didn't actually read it.

But he did look at the pictures...

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by JoeD

For example, libraries have to purchase each copy, they cannot just duplicate the books and hand out those copies (at least I hope they can't).

17 USC § 108 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if—
(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
(2) the collections of the library or archives are
(i) open to the public, or
(ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and
(3) the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section.

Emphasis added.
... Section B talks about 3 copies solely for in-library use; Section C talks about 3 copies if a new original can't be "obtained at a fair price." Digital copies can't be distributed outside of the library; physical ones can.

Contrast that to piracy, there are no limitations in place to balance the ethical need for equal access with the rights/needs of the content creators and the economy.

Part of that--a rather big part--is that media companies refuse to acknowledge any ethical need for access among people who haven't paid for a copy, despite the fact that used books and shared music have been a part of our cultural landscape since they've existed.

If pirates were buying a copy and any time that copy was passed on, they deleted their version, so it was akin to the loaning of paper books. I'd have a hard time trying to justify why libraries are ok and piracy is not.

Publishers have repeatedly refused to go along with technological measures that allow ebooks to work like that. Many can't be loaned with Amazon or B&N's loaning tech (for two weeks! Once per title!) much less transferred; no ebook store allows the transfer of one's purchases to a new person.

Part of the reason for rampant "piracy" is the total lack of *legitimate* ways to share digital art-and-entertainment media, even on a small scale.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy"

As stated, they cannot just reproduce copies. The law may allow one copy, two, three, ten, the figure is not all that important, libraries have to act within certain bounds. That's a totally different ball game to unlimited duplication which piracy entails with no bounds at all. The bounds libraries operate within have been discussed and balanced with the needs of allowing access and preserving access to the material with the rights of the creator. Piracy does not consider those needs. Had the discussion resulted in a law that allowed libraries to make unlimited copies on demand and provide them for free to joe public, then in that case I would concede that piracy is the same as libraries and because libraries have been granted the legal right to do so it would make sense that piracy should also be made legal. But had that been the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion as piracy would already be legal.

Publishers have repeatedly refused to go along with technological measures that allow ebooks to work like that. Many can't be loaned with Amazon or B&N's loaning tech (for two weeks! Once per title!) much less transferred; no ebook store allows the transfer of one's purchases to a new person.

Part of the reason for rampant "piracy" is the total lack of *legitimate* ways to share digital art-and-entertainment media, even on a small scale.

I'm aware of that and in most cases I think publishers are rather short sighted in some of their goals or rather how they're going about achieving them. I'm actually hoping that the recent judgement regarding resale of digital software is extended to movies, music and ebooks.

Whilst I'm not in favour of piracy, I do think there are grey areas where actions that are considered piracy or copyright infringement really should not be and I wouldn't like to see people prosecuted in those cases even though they're breaking the law. However, most discussions surrounding piracy are focusing on the unlimited copying and distribution of another's works which I do agree should be illegal. In that regard I can't accept that library loans is the equivalent of piracy.

[Giggleton]

Well, I renewed all of my books except for one, which had a hold on it so I wasn't able to renew. Unfortunately it was the book that is the most important to my studies. I ended up purchasing the book from Amazon just now lol!!

Also, I don't think the world's greatest literature is in the public domain, the best literature has yet to be read.

It does seem to me that piracy will only end when we develop a strong A.I. that is able to track all movement through the network, you might say this is extreme science fiction but wasn't the network itself fiction once??

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

It does seem to me that piracy will only end when we develop a strong A.I. that is able to track all movement through the network, you might say this is extreme science fiction but wasn't the network itself fiction once??

When we get that level of AI, I'm moving to Pern.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

It does seem to me that piracy will only end when we develop a strong A.I. that is able to track all movement through the network, you might say this is extreme science fiction but wasn't the network itself fiction once??

You have that in China already, all contact with the internet outside of China goes through one of 3 data centers. Everything is analyzed according to a great number of keywords. Total control by the government over its citizens. Do you actually have any idea what brave new world you are dreaming off?

[Lynx-lynx]

A further update, AFP, today:


'WELLINGTON (AFP) - Megaupload boss Kim Dotcom on Wednesday offered to voluntarily leave New Zealand for the United States if prosecutors agree to release funds to bankroll his defence against online piracy charges.

The deal would bypass lengthy extradition proceedings under way in New Zealand, which the German national complained were contributing to mounting legal bills he could not pay because all his assets have been frozen.

True to form, the Internet businessman made the proposal on his Twitter feed, which has attracted around 90,000 followers since he began using the micro-blogging website less than a month ago.

"Hey DOJ (Department of Justice), we will go to the US," he tweeted. "No need for extradition. We want bail, funds unfrozen for lawyers and living expenses."

An extradition hearing for Dotcom and his three co-accused, initially set for August 6 in Auckland, was this week pushed back by six months until March next year amid legal wrangling over evidence disclosure.

....... The 38-year-old was sceptical US authorities would accept the proposed deal, which would see him and his co-accused travel to the United States to face charges of money laundering, racketeering, fraud and online copyright theft.'

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-...z-extradition/

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Well, I renewed all of my books except for one, which had a hold on it so I wasn't able to renew. Unfortunately it was the book that is the most important to my studies. I ended up purchasing the book from Amazon just now lol!!

Also, I don't think the world's greatest literature is in the public domain, the best literature has yet to be read.

It does seem to me that piracy will only end when we develop a strong A.I. that is able to track all movement through the network, you might say this is extreme science fiction but wasn't the network itself fiction once??

What is the AI?

Are you advocating tracking all movement across the internet or dissuading it?

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by teh603

When we get that level of AI, I'm moving to Pern.

Gonna need a fireproof eReader.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You have that in China already, all contact with the internet outside of China goes through one of 3 data centers. Everything is analyzed according to a great number of keywords. Total control by the government over its citizens. Do you actually have any idea what brave new world you are dreaming off?

But there is no access control in my dreams. The citizen is the government.

If society is a construction designed to minimize the harms that we are capable of inflicting upon one another then I think we are presently doing it wrong.

Profiting from anothers work while not sharing in those profits with the works creator is a systemic problem. But rather than throw people in jail for sharing information, we should find a way to allow the sharing of profits to go along with the sharing of information. .com has remarked that this system of profit sharing was in the works...

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

But there is no access control in my dreams. The citizen is the government.

Thomas Hobbes would disagree with you. You have to have some access control, even if its just a warning that the ideas expressed in a book are not necessarily safe to practice.

If society is a construction designed to minimize the harms that we are capable of inflicting upon one another then I think we are presently doing it wrong.

We've been doing it wrong at least since the Industrial Revolution. Ever wonder why the ancient priests and scribes railed on and on about greed being the root of all evil? Guess what a true Capitalist takes as their true god, regardless of what religion they claim to profess?