Dotcom raid illegal

[tompe]

Originally Posted by stonetools

My paraphrase summarized Ralph Sir Edwards argument that technology made it impossible to stop piracy. You didn't like my paraphrase. Whatever.

No, you said "..and therefore we should make no effort." Nobody have said that we should make NO effort.

It is now as legal and convenient to purchase music as anyone could possibly want. Has that decreased the level of music piracy.? Not one iota.

How do you know that? Decrease here must mean decrease compared to what it would have been without the action you are studying the effect of.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Actually, copyright is quite enforceable if the courts and law enforcement have jurisdiction.

It is?

What's my recourse if I find out some other blogger who lives in my city has been copying my posts and compiling them into ebooks for sale?

To whom do I report this crime? I assure you, the Oakland PD doesn't want to touch it. Is it a state crime or a federal one? If I report it at the federal level, can I be assured of a trial within a few months?

Nevermind the international issues... if I discover that my co-workers have a "movie pool" wherein everyone who wants to participate either pays $5/month or acquires a movie to share, and they're copying and exchanging movies on flash drives, to whom do I report this crime?

There is no part of copyright law that's "easily enforceable" if jurisdiction is not an issue. Copyright law is a complex civil court affair, for the most part, and mostly out of reach of the average citizen. Criminal copyright infringement is generally ignored if it doesn't involve thousands of dollars of material; while "single ebook distributed to 20 people over Megaupload" is technically infringement, there is *no* effort to go after those uploaders.

The media companies are trying to go after the platform hosts because copyright law is *not* easily enforceable against the people directly infringing.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

It is now as legal and convenient to purchase music as anyone could possibly want. Has that decreased the level of music piracy.? Not one iota.

Where can I buy:
Paul Parrish's album, "Walking in the Forest of My Mind"
Jim Croce's "Not Just Another Pretty Foot"
The Fugs' "Ramses II Is Dead, My Love"
Firebird's multi-artist album "Fever Season"

There's a big difference between "the vast majority of commercially-produced music from the last two decades is currently available for sale digitally for $.99/song" and "as much music as anyone could possibly want is legitimately and conveniently available."

A lot of the music I want is not. A lot of the music people not in the US want, is not.

The idea that "if your tastes run to obscure music, you should just go without until/unless the copyright owners decide you should have a way to listen to it digitally" is not a useful response to "I can just get it from a torrent." (Two of the things I listed above are readily available; the other two aren't.) The common response is--and is going to remain--"if they don't want my money for it, how am I hurting anyone by getting a copy for free?"

Arguments against torrents (etc.) that directly impact sales need to be separated from arguments that also encompass filesharing of copylocked or neglected works, where the owners don't care about the market or can't figure out how to exploit it. Those may also be illegal--but the argument "you're taking money from the artist!" isn't going to fly. "You're infringing on the recording company's right to delay release until they've decided the market is ready" is just not as compelling.

If that were a tiny niche of digital music being exchanged, it could be brushed aside, but "songs with no legit digital version available" is not a small category. It's an even bigger category for ebooks.

[Graderman]

I have noticed over the years that there is an ever widening split between law enforcement and society. maybe the split has always been there and I was not aware of it. I remember at one time law enforcement and for that matter, politicos claimed to be servants of the people. It seems that the protectors have become the rulers and the ruled are the servants. To suggest that the officials screwed up procedures by accident on such a important international issue is not realistic. It is very sad though. Dotcoms innocence or guilt is not nearly so important as the legal system that protects us all.

[Edward M. Grant]

Originally Posted by Graderman

I have noticed over the years that there is an ever widening split between law enforcement and society.

The police in many Western nations now appear to behave more like an occupying army than the 'civilians in uniform' they were supposed to be. This does not bode well for the future.

In this case their attitude appears to be that they can't convict him legally, but they can punish him without conviction by confiscating his servers and closing down his business. 'Punishment before trial' seems to have become increasingly popular over the last few years.

Dotcoms innocence or guilt is not nearly so important as the legal system that protects us all.

Indeed. Respect for the law is far more important than any single case, and the police only have an easy job in a police state.

As 'A Man For All Seasons' put it:

"Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!"

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by stonetools

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 here is Article 27 of the UDHR -excerpt from the Archives of the International Council on Human Rights Policy:

----------------------
Article 27 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

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.

-------------------------

http://www.ichrp.org/en/article_27_udhr

[Lynx-lynx]

These pages have contained some very stimulating and absorbing debate / discussion.

After reading the overnight catch up, several pages, I now need to absorb and contemplate what I've read in 'background mode' whilst I get on with my Monday morning.

Thank you!!!

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

These pages have contained some very stimulating and absorbing debate / discussion.

After reading the overnight catch up, several pages, I now need to absorb and contemplate what I've read in 'background mode' whilst I get on with my Monday morning.

Thank you!!!

Enjoy you Monday. Glad to be of service.

[JoeD]

Just to add a little more food for thought to this thread

Piracy study, take it with a pinch of Salt, however it was commissioned by both the PRS and Google.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Actually, copyright is quite enforceable if the courts and law enforcement have jurisdiction.

Copyright (IP-law in general) enforcement is not quite that easy, as current enforcement practice tends to show. In this respect, it would be feasible if one could simply outlaw downloading copyrighted material. Evidently, that's somewhat to restrictive since there's three areas where downloading copyrighted material is clearly legal, or supposed to be legal. There's downloading of purchased (or licensed ) copyrighted material, downloading of copyrighted material that's intended for free use and there is fair use. It is not that straightforward to say, in appropriate legal terms when downloading of copyrighted material is legal and when it is illegal.

I, for example, like to have a quick look over NY Times articles in the morning. I tend to look at one or two articles specifically. That actually encompasses downloading of copyrighted (as well as trademarked) material, most likely it gets stored in cache and of course in the RAM of my computer. Then I tend to visit some blogs I try to follow, occasionally one of the blogger gets enthusiast (or outraged) over a NY Times article and will cite one or two of maybe even up to six paragraphs. Again, I download copyrighted NT Times material, store it at several places and read it. If I'd want I could go to a variety of sites and download the electronic version of the NY Times.

Some of the options described above are clearly intended to be legal, some are in a grayish zone and some might or might to be legal depending on the site where I would get the elecytronic version of the NY Times from. However, I am evidently intellectually challenged (why would I chose to read the NYT otherwise? )--so how am I supposed to figure out which method is legal and which one is not? Who is, under an agreement with the NYT allowed to redistribute and who is not?

There's a million different examples to come up with, I am certain holes can be shot in all of them -- but the issue stands, it is incredible hard to determine (both for end-users and for juridical systems) what download of copyrighted material is infringement and what is not.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Soldim

Copyright (IP-law in general) enforcement is not quite that easy, as current enforcement practice tends to show. In this respect, it would be feasible if one could simply outlaw downloading copyrighted material. Evidently, that's somewhat to restrictive since there's three areas where downloading copyrighted material is clearly legal, or supposed to be legal. There's downloading of purchased (or licensed ) copyrighted material, downloading of copyrighted material that's intended for free use and there is fair use. It is not that straightforward to say, in appropriate legal terms when downloading of copyrighted material is legal and when it is illegal.

I, for example, like to have a quick look over NY Times articles in the morning. I tend to look at one or two articles specifically. That actually encompasses downloading of copyrighted (as well as trademarked) material, most likely it gets stored in cache and of course in the RAM of my computer. Then I tend to visit some blogs I try to follow, occasionally one of the blogger gets enthusiast (or outraged) over a NY Times article and will cite one or two of maybe even up to six paragraphs. Again, I download copyrighted NT Times material, store it at several places and read it. If I'd want I could go to a variety of sites and download the electronic version of the NY Times.

Some of the options described above are clearly intended to be legal, some are in a grayish zone and some might or might to be legal depending on the site where I would get the elecytronic version of the NY Times from. However, I am evidently intellectually challenged (why would I chose to read the NYT otherwise? )--so how am I supposed to figure out which method is legal and which one is not? Who is, under an agreement with the NYT allowed to redistribute and who is not?

There's a million different examples to come up with, I am certain holes can be shot in all of them -- but the issue stands, it is incredible hard to determine (both for end-users and for juridical systems) what download of copyrighted material is infringement and what is not.

And that is leaving out jurisdictional issues. Does person A have the right to sue under Country B's laws? (The server may be in another country, therefore subject to another contries laws.) Sounds silly? US fair use may not apply in other countries. Or vice versa. And don't even get started on the Public Domain differences...

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's occasionally difficult to be "detached" from a subject when one has a personal involvement.

I believe that was my point... but there's nothing "occasional" about it.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's the people who download, when they would otherwise bought, who are responsible for depriving authors of their livelihood.

Maybe the police should setup a sting operation outside the library.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by stonetools

You can't cash " word of mouth" either, mate. At some point you have to support artists with the best form of support possible- money.

Which they won't have if nobody ever hears of them.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by stonetools

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.

Rule of law is already extended to the internet. The problem is in creating new laws, not for the purpose of extending the rule of law to the internet, but for artificially propping up business models that are obsoleted by it.