Dotcom raid illegal

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Are you kidding? There are a series of posts in this thread that say essentially just that. I admit I'm paraphrasing, put I'm paraphrasing a claim that's been made repeatedly -on this thread and elsewhere.

I haven't seen anybody make that claim.

I assume you mean "paraphrasing" in the sense of "twisting and spinning to support my agenda".

[Shaggy]

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.

Originally Posted by tompe

How do you know that?

Because the RIAA told him so.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Soldim

In this respect, it would be feasible if one could simply outlaw downloading copyrighted material.

Clicking on a link that takes you to a website is "downloading copyrighted material" in most cases. The user has no idea if the content is copyrighted and whether or not the distributor is authorized.

Outlawing downloading copyrighted material would make every single person who uses the internet guilty.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

How many servers do you think there are on the internet hosting "pirated" content? Thousands? Millions?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by teh603

I'm more surprised nobody's tried hosting pirate websites using botnet computers- which can be run at minimal cost to yourself.

I'd be more surprised if it wasn't already being done.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Clicking on a link that takes you to a website is "downloading copyrighted material" in most cases. The user has no idea if the content is copyrighted and whether or not the distributor is authorized.

Outlawing downloading copyrighted material would make every single person who uses the internet guilty.

Just yesterday, I was noodling around YouTube. And lo and behold, there was a 1950s movie I've been planning to buy that someone had just uploaded a few hours before.

Now, I suspect that it's still under copyright--but maybe it isn't. After all, there are 1950s movies that have fallen into public domain because copyrights weren't renewed, when that was still necessary. Maybe this is one of them. And YouTube does take down copyrighted material--do I know if this is one they will eventually take down, or if is this one legitimately public domain? How much research am I supposed to do to figure all this out?

I didn't do any research, I just downloaded the movie while I could. I'll watch it tonight.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

TEH603, I'm ignorant, and I don't want to remain so. What is a botnet computer?

Hacked computer.

IE, bad guys put a virus in the wild that infects users machines and lets them do various things with them. One of which could be distribution of all kinds of data that they wouldn't want to host directly.

[Ajax]

One of the common uses for botnets are DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks.

[Greg Anos]

Thanks, I knew they were used for DDoS, I never thought of using them for a file server. Technology marches on all of us...

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Thanks, I knew they were used for DDoS, I never thought of using them for a file server. Technology marches on all of us...

Nodes, all of us connected.

[MikeOxlittle]

Going after these 'small' sites like MegaUpload/Pirate Bay will make very little difference in the long run .... as long as Usenet servers are ignored.

I mean where do you think all the material comes from anyways?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

How many servers do you think there are on the internet hosting "pirated" content? Thousands? Millions?

I have no idea; you're the one who's making the claim. I'm asking you to back it up with some evidence.

[Lynx-lynx]

Bloomberg, 2 July

' ......................... Megaupload reproduced copyrighted works directly from websites including Google Inc.’s YouTube for illegal sharing and to give the false impression that a related video-sharing website hosted user-generated, rather than copyrighted, content, prosecutors allege.

Since September 2005, the conspiracy generated more than $175 million in criminal proceeds by distributing millions of copies of copyrighted works, including movies, television programs, music, books, video games and software, according to the indictment.

Of that, more than $150 million came from premium subscriptions and $25 million from online advertising, according to the indictment. A lifetime subscription cost about $260, the indictment said.

A New Zealand judge ruled June 28 that Kim Dotcom had his home searched illegally by police as part of the investigation. Dotcom is free on bail and awaiting an extradition hearing scheduled for August.

Prosecutors argued that users who had data stored with Megaupload should be required to act as unsecured creditors and file civil actions against Megaupload or Carpathia Hosting Inc., the Dulles, Virginia-based company that Megaupload paid to store the data.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Peterson compared Megaupload’s data storage to that of a service provider, rather than a holder of property.

“A file-copying service is what Megaupload provided,” he said.

Goodwin isn’t “asking that service be restored,” O’Grady responded. “He’s asking for his data back, and that’s property, right?”

The case is U.S. v. Dotcom, 12-00003, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria).'

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...-property.html

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

What in the world is a "copyright-infringing file"? Copyright infringement is about the act of doing something with the file, not the file itself. The MPAA has no way of knowing whether an individual copy of a file was ever involved in copyright infringement.

Originally Posted by 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/

I hope that the court spends some time discussing just that Shaggy!!

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Thanks, I knew they were used for DDoS, I never thought of using them for a file server. Technology marches on all of us...

And in ways that a lot of us really don't want.

I had a look at the insides of a Prius last night, and was really disturbed to find that the shifter didn't even go all the way down into the transmission. So if you'll excuse me, I have a '55 jeep to get working on.