Dotcom raid illegal

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

The oil rig would no doubt be registered under a specific country's laws, and no doubt it is a company that owns it or leases it, not an individual.

Therefore if it's a company then it would be registered on a country's stock exchange and that means that the company would be subject to a companies act and therefore legal action able to be taken on it.

So, for your idea to have legs one would probably need to develop their own floating platform on the high seas, not touch land or go into the waters of any country likely to legislate against their activities, or extradite them for their activities, and employ staff (if any) outside of all industrial agreements.

I guess you missed Sealand.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

Human beings simply aren't anywhere near civilised enough for that kind of scenario. Some serious evolution is needed first.

What kind of evolution are we talking about? Social?

Be nice to each other. Simple.

Although sending this transmission over the network probably caused some harshness on the other side of the planet... (burning the coal and all that)

What it always seems to come down to is the energy crisis, namely we don't have enough.

But legality has always been in the eye of the legislator.

[YukonTrooper]

Originally Posted by HarryT

For law enforcement officials to screw up their procedures is bad, yes (if that's what in fact did happen), but you're surely not comparing it to the crimes of a man who's made millions from brazenly encouraging and facilitating people to infringe copyright, are you? That seems a bizarre comparison to me.

No way. I don't agree with copyrighted material being hosted on websites, but to suggest the justice system acting extralegally isn't worse is frightening.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

I guess you missed Sealand.

Hmmmm ..... that island seems to be pretty much full time occupied, although Wiki makes an interesting and cogent point about how the island has been used:

'On 2 September 1967, the fort was occupied by Major Paddy Roy Bates, a British subject and pirate radio broadcaster, who ejected a competing group of pirate broadcasters.[9] Bates intended to broadcast his pirate radio station, Radio Essex, from the platform.[13]'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

[Rob Lister]

It occurs to me if they put a platform or ship in the middle of the ocean and fly their own flag, they simplify the matter of enforcement. Just declare war on them and let the bombs fall.

You could start small with a blockade.

Maybe even a very strong Resolution of Condemnation from the UN.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

It occurs to me if they put a platform or ship in the middle of the ocean and fly their own flag, they simplify the matter of enforcement. Just declare war on them and let the bombs fall.

You could start small with a blockade.

Maybe even a very strong Resolution of Condemnation from the UN.

The Jolly Roger might do the trick!

[JoeD]

edit: Should have read page 4 before replying, Sealand has already been mentioned

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

What kind of evolution are we talking about? Social?

Mainly that, yes.

Be nice to each other. Simple.

Ah yes, because "being nice to each other" has always been such a simple task for human beings.

I'm guessing you're not one for history Giggles.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

What kind of evolution are we talking about? Social?

Be nice to each other. Simple.

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

Mainly that, yes.

Ah yes, because "being nice to each other" has always been such a simple task for human beings.

I'm guessing you're not one for history Giggles.

Being nice to each other actually is simple, compared to the complexity of contention. It's getting humans to understand the value of kindness that is often difficult. Sadly, many find being nice less rewarding.

What was this about again? Oh, yes. Dotcom, raid, improper search and seizure. I definitely find abuse of law enforcement power far more disturbing than possible facilitation of copyright infringement. I use the term "possible" in the sense that, had they not needed more proof, there would have been no warrant, no raid. So possible, perhaps even likely, but not yet definite. Dotcom's guilt in the matter is irrelevant - the same procedures that uncover guilt also uncover innocence. When those procedures are misused or corrupted, the damage goes far beyond the case in question.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And neither, it appears, will Mr Dotcom, who has "mocked the justice system" infinitely more. And that's a far greater injustice.

You consider alleged copyright infringement a great injustice than illegal police raids?

You have some seriously warped priorities.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Soldim

I have to admit that I don't particularly feel sorry for Dotcom; however, for me the precedent of countries not bothering to adhere to rule of law seems infinitely more serious than 'facilitating copyright infringement'.

Of course it is. Harry is just a bit of a nut when it comes to copyright. He blames piracy for his failure to make a living as an author/programmer, and has a significantly biased view of copyright law as a result.

I feel sorry for him, but don't take most of what he says on here very seriously.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Of course it is. Harry is just a bit of a nut when it comes to copyright. He blames piracy for his failure to make a living as an author/programmer, and has a significantly biased view of copyright law as a result.

I feel sorry for him, but don't take most of what he says on here very seriously.

Wow, the arrogance and entitlement of this post are just shocking.

Piracy is illegal and harms people who actually produce content. Like Harry.

People - like you - who assert that people should be able to steal other people's work have their moral bearings. Particularly when they try to claim the moral ground themselves.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by MikeOxlittle

So a German-Finnish national, with New Zealand and Hong Kong residencies, operating a business completely out of U.S jurisdiction .... is getting harrassed by the U.S government?

Yes, because that business was angering US corporations who have a lot of clout with the US government.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Occasionally people bring up the idea of a torrent server located on an oil rig in international waters, I wonder who would be able to prosecute the admin??

They wouldn't need to prosecute, they'd just sink it.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Wow, the arrogance and entitlement of this post are just shocking.

Piracy is illegal and harms people who actually produce content. Like Harry.

People - like you - who assert that people should be able to steal other people's work have their moral bearings. Particularly when they try to claim the moral ground themselves.

No claim has been made about stealing? Did you really mean stealing? Or did you mean copyright infringement?

And what you claimed have not been said about copyright infringement either. What has been said is that a state illegally using force against people is worse than maybe having done something illegal related to copyright infringment.