MPAA Wants MPAA Gets  - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Sionyn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2012, 03:54:03 pm
content: word fail me at this moment

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 08, 2012, 05:05:21 pm
content: Well, being in NZ he had a fairly good experience I should say. He was not shot, police didn't plant incriminating evidence in the house, the house was not demolished "in search of evidence", he had a trial and a fair one by the looks of it. This wouldn't have happened as cleanly as this in many parts of the world including US, and certainly not in my country.

author: david77
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2012, 06:44:39 pm
content: So what? It's about time someone did something against that idiot. He's been lucky so far not to end up behind bars.

author: Sionyn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2012, 09:06:22 pm
content: i don't like the guybut neither do i like the lies of mpaa and their so called losses neither do i like there think that america laws apply everywhere (they don't)i was disgusted when dave t-shirts were taken off sale and even more disgusted people take there lies seriously.they damage people lives and request we halt progress, threat politicians as dose fit with there business planshttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtmlthere worst of worst and should be stopped no other corporation behaves this way.

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2012, 11:41:23 pm
content: The important issues here have less to do with Dotcom and the rights/wrongs of what he is alleged to have done, and a whole lot more to do with the abuse of process and abuse of power wielded by NZ police and the NZ Crown Law Office.For those who don't know - there is also a huge political scandal surrounding KD and a local politician - who took money from KD and declared it as an "anonymous donation" which was a breach of our laws. The politician involved got off (as they do) on a technicality because it wasn't him who signed the documents involved but one of his subordinates.This whole thing smells to high heavens of graft and corruption.Many Kiwis fear that NZ is (just like Australia) in danger of becoming another state of the USA, at least from the perspective of who controls our laws and police.Now we have the USA pushing very hard for a trade agreement called the TPPA which would see us ceding even more of our "rights" in respect to copyright, to the US legislators.I think it's time someone told the US government to take a hike. They don't seem to be doing a very good job of running their own country (what's the US deficit now?) so why on earth would anyone want to "take orders" from them in respect to how other countries are run?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 09, 2012, 12:54:19 am
content: Quote from: RCMR on August 08, 2012, 11:41:23 pmYes, exactly like Julian Assange.Like the person or not or what they stand for or what they have done, this is just massively wrong.It comes down to how you would like to be treated. Would you like the assault squad to break into your home with automatic weapons pointed and throw you to the floor, to hunt down some incriminating data?I don't know how the NZ police roll, but I imagine that this isn't their normal behaviour for such a crime.I have no doubt that if the US government and FBI were not involved, it would have been two cops turning up in a quad car while eating their dounuts and a polite knock on the door with the arrest warrant. Because that is the level that befits the alleged crime here. The physical threat was zero.Dave.

author: AntiProtonBoy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2012, 02:10:23 am
content: The most disturbing aspect behind these stories is the arrogant assumption by the US government that it has jurisdiction all over the world.Foreign officials colluding with US agencies should be publicly lynched for screwing their own citizens over for "breaking" US laws outside US soil. Of course, once charged and extradited, they will never enjoy the same basic rights as a US citizen would.I wonder what would happen if New Zealand proclaims that certain activities by US citizens in their own country is illegal, and New Zealand demands extradition of those offenders from the US to face charges?

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2012, 03:27:08 am
content: Quote from: RCMR on August 08, 2012, 11:41:23 pmAnother state ?Stop dreaming, NZ & Oz and lots of other countries are like a "pet" status when it comes to the relationship to USA.Quote from: AntiProtonBoy on August 09, 2012, 02:10:23 amA puppy does NOT demand or order it's master what to do, it does not and will never work that way.

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2012, 03:28:56 am
content: I saw an article a month or two ago where someone researched the number of extraditions too and from the USA.Turns out that the extradition traffic is pretty much all one way -- from countries outside the USA to the US courts.Seems they're none too interested in extraditing their own citizens to face the music in foreign courts but regularly demand that foreigners are handed over and increasingly, those foreigners may be people who have never before even set foot on US soil.In the case of one young guy in the UK, his alleged crime wasn't actually illegal in his own country but the USA sought is extradition because it *was* deemed to be illegal in the USA. Needless to say this was another situation where the internet was involved.The USA has to learn that the entire internet is NOT automatically subject to US jurisdiction.

author: FlyingBrickyard
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2012, 03:29:39 am
content: Dotcom could be the biggest jerk in the world, but that in no way justifies what was done, or the manner in which it was carried out.Not far from the truth.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2012, 03:56:36 am
content: Quote from: RCMR on August 09, 2012, 03:28:56 amMeh .. this is nothing compared to recent US senate probing into UK banks like HSBC and Standard Chartered, its like your neighbor is telling you on how you should earn your money or worst how you should feed your family (country).Pretty sure as a pet status, words like "sovereignty" and "national pride" are not in UK authority's dictionary.

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2012, 06:49:48 am
content: A little tip for the USA:If you want to stop being the target for terrorism, stop pissing in other people's back yard, don't try to appoint yourself as the global policeman and take care of business at home before you start dictating how others should run their own countries.Follow those simple tips and you won't have to feel-up air-travel passengers before they get on an airplane, you can restore the constitutional rights of your people, save a fortune on "defence" spending and maybe even help those people who are still homeless after the New Orleans floods of years ago -- despite the fact most of them are (gasp) poor and black (or African Americans or whatever the politically correct phrase de jour might be today).USA -- lead by example -- don't just try to force others to follow your not-so-flash examples.

author: FlyingBrickyard
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2012, 08:07:07 pm
content: Quote from: RCMR on August 09, 2012, 06:49:48 amReality check for those of this mindset:QuoteTerrorists will do their thing regardless. There's nothing rational behind their activities, and much like Hitler (yes, I went there, because it's actually appropriate) they're often picking some scapegoat blame for people's ills so they can focus them into a semi-cohesive group and gather and consolidate their own power over them.Further, I've noticed that some inhabitants of other western countries love to bitch and whine about the size and influence of the US military, while completely ignoring that their own governments base the bulk of their national defense plan on maintaining only enough military to hold the line for perhaps a day or two until the US can get there and kick out any hostile forces.QuoteTell your own leaders to grow a pair and tell the US,"F-off, it's none of your damn business"anytime it tries to do so then.Of course they'd be in a significantly better position to do so had they not spent the last half century so reliant on the US for shouldering the bulk of the burden for their own national defense and security. The blame for that lies with them, not the US, and any anger directed at the US in that respect is entirely misplaced.QuoteNone of these things are necessary anyway. They weren't before, and they aren't now. But the mantra of a politician is "Never let a good crisis go to waste". The people doing these things had little regard for constitutional rights to begin with - the terrorism just gave them a convenient excuse. It's a problem many of us are working on, but for a while now our choices have largely been limited to "six of one, or a half dozen of the other".QuoteSee above with respect to defense spending.But for the record, as a US citizen - I agree. I don't particularly like it any more than you do.I don't think the US should be taking on the role of "world police".As a US taxpayer, I sure as hell don't like paying for it.But it also gets tiresome seeing people whine about the size of the military and spending required to uphold that responsibility when those same people dumped it right in our laps, and the moment anything hits the fan, inside of 5 minutes they'll be on the phone to the US saying, "Hey! Buddy! Little help here please?"QuoteAgain, not excusing the US' attempts to do so (though I fully expect any country to put their own interests first) - but tell your leaders to get their shit together so theycantell the US to stuff it, rather than just folding instantly because they have no other practical choice.We'dallbe better off.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 01:33:31 am
content: Quote from: FlyingBrickyard on August 09, 2012, 08:07:07 pmWe do. But there are two separate but related issues here. The US imposing it's military might around the world, and lame arse governments for allowing it.The latter would not do so if the former did not try and impose it first.QuoteCareful who you are replying to here!RCMR is from NZ, a country that told the US to F-off with regards to anything nuclear, and in the process choosing to lose protection from the US by way of the ANSUS treaty.And this is what makes the Kim DotCom things even more pathetic, as NZ has a history of telling the US to F-off. It's seems they have forgotten this recently.QuotePlease cite direct examples of this.The reality for many nations is that they would approach the UN for help. The UN then offers help through it's member nations.Dave.

author: ChrisW
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 01:55:47 am
content: come on guys, how long did you expect the, "I'm not responsible for what my websites users upload," excuse was going to last?

author: bullet308
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 02:41:37 am
content: Two separate questions here: Should such a raid have been conducted, and was the raid conducted properly?IF you are going to kick doors, THEN speed and overwhelming force is what it is all about. You are hoping to freeze everybody in place and put them in surrender mode before they can even consider the possibility of resisting, the theory being that IF the prospect of violent resistance is on the table, THEN the sudden introduction of armed force can reduce the risk of anybody on either side being hurt. Nothing is more dangerous to all parties than a half-assed, slow and undermanned raid. If you are going to do it, you have to do it all the way. I know exactly why they used the helicopter: to speed up the insertion of armed personnel and thus deny the residents of the home a chance to think about how to put up a fight. The main reason the 1993 Branch Davidian raid at Waco TX went so horribly sideways for the BATF was they tried to do a raid on a house situated on a hill in the middle of a ranch and couldn't do it fast enough to make it work. The Davidians had time to arm up and drive off the raider, killing a number of BATF agents in the process. The NZ cops were no-doubt trying to keep that scenario from playing out for them.Now, this sort of approach is usually (and most wisely) reserved for what is called a high-risk warrant service and is most commonly seen when addressing drug dealers, who tend to be armed and paranoid to begin with. Those are the sorts of people you really want to freeze in place and hope they just go to ground and don't want to resist. The question is, what specific reason did the NZ police have to view this as a high-risk warrant service? Did they have specific intelligence or other reason to believe dotcom to be armed? These are the questions that matter, because IF such a raid is conducted when it is not warranted, THEN it introduces risks of its own to all parties.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 03:08:20 am
content: Quote from: ChrisW on August 10, 2012, 01:55:47 amAccording to here:http://www.political-prostitution.com/QuoteBut he got raided by an assault team at gunpoint anywaySo by that same thinking, you also think that ISP's should be responsible for the traffic they carry??Dave.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 03:18:39 am
content: Quote from: bullet308 on August 10, 2012, 02:41:37 amYep. And where is the history or evidence that this guy would have in any way been a threat or would have resisted physically, and in physical way that would have mandated a tactical assault group with automatic weapons?I'd bet my bottom dollar there is no evidence at all. The NZ police were simply spooked and/or hyped up by the Yanks. And the NZ force were probably very excited at the thought and went "Woo-Hoo! we finally get to do a real raid on a compound, that shit NEVER happens here!" (I wouldn't blame them, NZ ordinarily isn't that exciting a place for military/police I would imagine!)We are talking about a computer nerd here, not some drug dealer, or armed terrorist.Two regular officers knocking on door with the arrest warrant would have been more than appropriate here.The whole thing is clearly a global political show of force by the industry through their lobbing power of the US authorities. They are trying to send the message that they will F**K you up good and proper if you download an illegal file.Dave.

author: ChrisW
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 04:17:44 am
content: @DaveAs somebody who has their copyrights routinely violated by content thieves (I run an online business selling video content and ebooks) I am not sorry at all Mega Upload got shut down. I hope media fire and the rest of those piracy enabling sites also get shut down as well.If it wasn't for illegal content being uploaded to that website, mega-upload would have just been another random personal storage service competing for a small piece of the market pie.He chose a risky business model, offering subscriptions for better access to uploaded materials, much of which were uploaded illegally, and he got burned.The following article may be of interst to you;http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16642369QuoteThat said I will grant you the swat team arrest was a little over the top.PeaceChris

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 04:54:15 am
content: Quote from: ChrisW on August 10, 2012, 04:17:44 amEntirely separate issue, and one which I was not attempting to address.Dave.

author: ChrisW
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 05:16:19 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 10, 2012, 04:54:15 amNo it is not, it is entirely relevant. The point being Dotcom made his fortune from piracy, including much of my intellectual property, along with tens of thousands of others, robbing us of income while he made a fortune of our backs.Contrary to some of the comments made by previous posters, the United States was well within its rights to request his arrest since New Zealand have cooperation treaties in place with the US (As do many others including Australia) to fight crime, including copyright infringement.Just because you happen to be located overseas does not mean you can get away ripping off foreign companies. As it happens, the Americans are relentless in protecting their interests.The arrest itself may well have been over the top, but it doesn't excuse Dotcom of anything.Chris

author: Bloch
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 05:28:15 am
content: Quote from: ChrisW on August 10, 2012, 04:17:44 amAre you a GOD or just ajudgeNow you at it then pleaseshut down UPS and AMAZONhttp://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/man-orders-tv-gets-assault-rifle-instead-20120810-23y0q.htmlArrest every boss, no all there is work by them. Destroy all product stocks prior to trial because we know that they are all illegalWhere is my compensation from my files as the U.S. has deletedQuote from: ChrisW on August 10, 2012, 04:17:44 amA free advise. Dont fuck with you customers. Dont make weird rules.be free to add to the list.Then I buy a software - can i use it outside my country?Then I buy a software how many time can i install it ?Then I try to start the software it first have to get a OK from a serverAnd a nice FUCK u then the owners dont want to continue the "service" or go backrupt or .....If i did buy some thing why cant i sell it ?Then i buy music may i take a back upThen i buy music may i copy it to my phone / car radio / PCThen i buy music with DRM and the owners don want to continue the "service"And the IDIOTS dont understand why all the bad places on the internet

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 05:39:02 am
content: Quote from: ChrisW on August 10, 2012, 05:16:19 amNo, it's not.This thread is abouthowdotcom was arrested, notwhy.But seeing that you have bought it up, you didn't answer my question:Do you think ISP's should be legally and personally responsible for the traffic on their network?andDo you think Youtube should be legally and personally responsible for all the video material on their site?Do you think a web host should be legally and personally for what is put on web pages on their server?How is dotcom's Megupload site technically any different from, say, Youtube?Both cannot possibly personally vet everything that is uploaded.Both comply with all DMCA copyright complaints.Both have built systems to ensure that copyright content can be detected and removed easily.And heck, youtube will evenpay youandpromote youfor having a successful channel, just as you highlighted above for megaupload. Any partner channel can easily have illegal content (assuming you lie on the copyright notice box, and beat the auto-detection), I see it all the time.So why is dotcom being arrested, and the CEO of Google/Youtube is not?Would you also support the arrest of the Youtube CEO and closing down of it's site if your content was violated on youtube? Be honest, and explain why/why not.Dave.

author: ChrisW
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 07:12:38 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 10, 2012, 05:39:02 amIf the complainant can prove that Dave Jones @ sector 7G Baulkham hills illegally downloaded some movie, yes. The ISP has an obligation to take action against that particular individual.QuoteYes, and they are slowly getting better and better at auto-filtering content. They actually put in a lot of effort to filter out copyrighted material, unlike mega-upload which takes no responsibility and expects everybody else to do their work for them.QuoteYes, and they already are. Child pornography is just one example.QuoteThe difference is YouTube spend a lot of time and money into RnD to prevent piracy(Granted they still have a long way to go) They have spent lord only knows how many billions on their voice recognition software, while still nowhere near perfect, it won't be too long before they will be able to filter their content using that function with a great degree of accuracy.Not to mention YouTube already have agreements in place with many broadcasters allowing them to use whatever legitimate user uploaded footage they like and without compensation. Its part of the agreement when uploading your content.Then for Music there is YouTubes Vevo service. They also have their movie service.QuoteTrue, but Kim stands accused of engaging in willful violation, with the intent to profit. As mentioned in that bbc article. The FBI didn't just randomly decide to pick on him. They have been investigating Kim Dotcom and mega-upload for several years, and considering what is at stake, they would not have taken action lightly unless they were sure their case was rock solid.QuoteComplying with DCMA requests is irrelevant if it is proved that you willfully engaged in copyright violation. Which is what Kim dotcom stands accused of.QuoteMega upload has no auto detection algorithms in place, it relies on other people having to waste their valuable time and money chasing pirates. YouTube on the other hand does have auto-detection algos in place that don't require human interaction and take active steps to improve.QuoteThere are such things as fair use laws.QuoteHow long is a piece of string?It is quite obvious that behind the scenes, Google/Youtube, have been in negotiation with the entertainment industry and media and working with them to resolve their issues and working on ways to generate revenue, such as the Vevo service as well as their movies service.QuoteNo, YouTube go well above what they are required to do by law. It's not clear whether YouTube is even profitable at all. The bandwidth bill alone would be astronomical.-Chris

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 07:30:20 am
content: The police saw the word "PIRACY" on the arrest warrant, and pictures of Bluebeard and Captain Hook wielding flintlocks and cutlass swinging on the yard arm went through their little minds.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 07:55:18 am
content: Quote from: ChrisW on August 10, 2012, 07:12:38 amNo, they don't actually.http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/iinet-slays-hollywood-in-landmark-piracy-case-20100204-ndwr.htmlQuoteHmm, just like an ISP and web hosts...QuoteSo because Youtube are a huge organisation that have the resources to do it, they can get away without going to jail?QuoteOk, but lets assume that he is innocent for a minute - you know, the right thing to do...Would you still support him going to jail for illegal material on his site, and the CEO of Youtube or an ISP/web host not?QuoteThat's because they have many billions of dollars.QuoteFunny, Megaupload also offered to work with them as well, but they didn't want a bar of it. I do wonder why that is...Dave.

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 09:45:47 pm
content: Quote from: ChrisW on August 10, 2012, 04:17:44 amThen I assume you're also in favour of them shutting down YouTube?There is so much copyrighted material on YouTube (uploaded without the permission of the copyright owner) that it's just not funny. Like MegaUpload, YouTube offers an automated "takedown" service -- so where's the difference?I am also someone who makes a living from selling my creative works and leveraging my intellectual property but you can't shut down the entire mail service just because a subset of users are mailing illegally burnt DVDs or CDs containing copyrighted material.The evidence proves that if you offer consumers a fair deal, the vast majority of them are prepared to pay in order to purchase *legal* copies of copyrighted works. Just look at the immense success and popularity of iTunes -- despite the fact that you can pick up all that music content from a torrent somewhere for free.The big problem that the MPAA has is that they expect *too much* from their IP rights.I simply can not understand how *anyone* can justify paying someone like Tom Cruise $10m for a few weeks work on a movie -- or how some punk-assed rapper can earn $40m for a couple of weeks in a studio. Then there are the execs who earn even more than the artists and actors. I'm no socialist but I find it appalling that, by wielding copyright law like a shotgun, these people are able to screw the public out of mega-dollars -- while so many of the world lives in abject poverty.I'm publishing a book right now and I *know* it's going to be pirated. I *know* that some folk will simply grab an illegal copy from somewhere rather than pay the tiny asking price. That's a fact of life -- I live with it.Do I get all bent and twisted in the belief that every pirated copy of my book actually represents a theft from my pocket?Hell no. Scientific studies show that only a tiny percentage of the people who pirate such material would have paid money for it if piracy wasn't an option. The MPAA/RIAA love to roll out figures showing how many billions of dollars they've lost -- but in reality, they haven't lost nearly that much.I will be offering those who purchase my book a fair deal and I suspect most of those who buy it will be satisfied with that deal. I'm not pricing it at "what the market will bear" but at a price which represents a fair and reasonable return on my investment of time and effort -- a significantly lower figure.Maybe I'm stupid -- but I prefer to think that I'm adjusting my own business model and pricing to better fit the market.Just because you can rip people off doesn't mean you should.And, for what it's worth, if you come around to my place you'll find a whole lot of store-bought, 100% legal DVDs and CDs. I believe that people ought to be rewarded for their efforts.However, you might also find that some of those 100% legal store-bought DVDs were purchased *after* I downloaded an copy first. The music and movie industries put out so much overpriced dross that I think we have a right to "try before we buy" -- so sometimes, that's what I do. If I like an album or a movie -- I'll go out and buy a legit copy. If I don't like it -- well I just throw the DVDR in the trash or re-use the USB drive on which it was stored.When it comes to the sale of IP in the 21st century it's "adapt or die" I'm afraid. Personally, I'd rather adapt.

author: andyturk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 09:59:55 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 10, 2012, 03:18:39 amAt least the kiwis didn't leave burnt helicopter bits behind (like we did with OBL).

author: Architect_1077
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2012, 12:22:47 am
content: Copyright (concerning digital media) isn't about protecting author rights of content. It is about greedy companies with an outdated business model trying to keep control of content distribution and stay alive.The idea that because a person downloads acopyof something digital he/she is suddenly a "pirate" (read: someone whosteals) is beyond stupid. Even more so when so many individual rights are violated trying to protect said copyright. I can agree that if someone profits from content that is not his, it should be a crime. Now, a person who downloadscopiesof content for his/her personal use with no intent on profiting? Please! This is Gestapo-like shit. Come on!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2012, 01:29:34 am
content: RCMR nailed it.It's a new digital world, like it or not, and the smart players are adapting to it and winning.The not-so-smart dinosaurs are suing, and coercing governments into changing the laws and raiding your house with assault teams. They will not win, it's simply them in their death throes.Dave.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2012, 02:15:13 am
content: Quote from: ChrisW on August 10, 2012, 04:17:44 amWhile the ex-users of Megaupload don't and they outnumber you by millions to one so where is the greater good?You should remember that these (copy)rights were not god given they were given by people for the benefit of all people. They were not given for the benefit of producers of art they were given for the benefit of consumers. You could be forgiven for thinking otherwise as the perversion of copyrights by vested interests and corrupt/stupid politicians has made them almost unrecognisable as something fit for intended purpose.Shame that dragging the media corporations out of the last century is so much harder than dragging dot com out of his house.

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2012, 04:23:32 am
content: Copyright was a good idea when first conceived and implemented.It allowed the creators of IP to enjoy a measure of protection that would ensure they could leverage that IP to make a living.This benefited society because it meant that those who were good at creating this IP would earn enough that they could continue to do so -- to everyone's benefit.The term of such copyright was quite short -- which was fine, because most of the profits from a book, image or whatever are made in the first few years of its creation.Over the years however, greedy commercial entities have convinced governments to extend the term of copyright protection such that now it is absolutely ridiculous and robs the public domain of much valuable material.Why should any IP creator need copyright protection for more than 50 years after their death -- of course they don't -- but that's what Disney and others convinced the US government to agree to.Also, copyright is wildly distorted by the the likes of the MPAA and various other studios.They introduced idiotic schemes such as region-codes for DVDs which meant they could sell into selective markets and set their prices to what those markets would bear -- rather than "a fair price based on reasonable profit margins" -- it's otherwise known as profiteering.And now things are even worse in the digital age where a US citizen can buy online access to a TV series or movie while the same access is denied to those in other countries -- probably because the IP owner will want to charge them a lot more for the same content.The concept of copyright is great, the current implementations (and proposed extensions) completely destroy the credibility and respect for these laws. The "criminalisation" of copyright infringement (as in the DotCom case) does nothing but to further erode the public's respect for these laws.The result is that the MPAA is simply digging an even deeper hole for itself.They can't win -- whackamole is a game that everyone but a complete idiot will tire of very quickly.Just look at what happened in the UK when the government forced BT and other ISPs to block access to some P2P indexing sites -- the use of P2P exploded.The Streisand effect is alive and well.You'd have thought by now that the RIAA and MPAA would have run out of bullets as well as toes -- but apparently not.

author: nitro2k01
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2012, 04:34:52 am
content: Let me begin by saying that I'm generally a supporter of the pirate view of things. I think copyright law should be loosened up a fair etc. But just looking at the facts of this case and judging by current law, (disregarding opinion) it is to me pretty clear that MegaUpload did indeed 1) enable piracy 2) profited from doing so.There is a number of incriminating details. One example is how the DMCA removal tool offered to copyright holders worked. For every file uploaded, a hash (checksum) was created for that file. If somebody else uploaded the same file, a second copy of the file wouldn't be stored. Instead, a new link would be created for that file. So you would have somethinghttp://www.megaupload.com/file?id=AAAAAAAAandhttp://www.megaupload.com/file?id=BBBBBBBBreferring to the exact same file. If someone only requestedhttp://www.megaupload.com/file?id=AAAAAAAAto be removed,http://www.megaupload.com/file?id=BBBBBBBBwould remain. And there was also a limit to how many files could be taken down with this tool, making it virtually useless.Another incriminating detail is how the top 10 lists offered on the site were filtered because the real top 10 items were not exactly what they wanted to display publicly.Now, I hate this case as much as the next guy (and I also lost access to my own, legitimate files) but again, if you just look at the factual claim that MU enabled piracy, there's a pretty solid ground for that claim.

author: Sionyn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2012, 09:25:01 am
content: dave wasn't wrong FBI were sitting on their arses watching the raid on a live feed (must of been like csi or some other crappy movie)This week’s hearing into the January raid against Kim Dotcom’s New Zealand mansion has turned up interesting new evidence today. Under questioning from a defense lawyer, a senior police officer has admitted that top New Zealand officers and members of the FBI watched the raid live via video link. Only adding to the intrigue is the revelation that a secret government unit were present at the pre-raid meeting.https://torrentfreak.com/fbi-monitored-dotcom-raid-via-live-video-link-secret-govt-group-involved-120810/

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2012, 04:31:58 am
content: Some more news on the subject..http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10827410&ref=rssQuote

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2012, 09:21:33 pm
content: What really pisses me off about all this is that even though our police have been deemed to be operating outside the law, *NOBODY* will get their arse kicked for this.If I broke into someone's house, held them at gunpoint and carted away all their possessions under the direction of a friend from the USA, I'd be locked up for 20 years.However, when the NZ police do exactly the same thing (unlawfully!), nobody is sanctioned.Nothing pee's me off more than when those in power place themselves above the very laws they're employed to enforce.We've got another instance of this here in NZ right now:The Minister for Social Development was found guilty of breaching a citizens privacy when she disclosed details of that woman's financial affairs to the media without permission. She was found guilty -- but no sanction was issued. She has just told the media that she will do the same thing again if she feels it appropriate. WTF?Meanwhile, we have a pseudo-government department whose Minister has said that any *employee* who violates the public's right to privacy will be immediately dismissed from their job.Yeah.. if you're a Minister you get to break the law with impunity but if you're just an employee then you lose your job for the same thing - even if it was accidental.Most amazing of all is -- why do people stand for this hypocrisy?No idea.