The internet Freedom war has begun.

DeletedUser16008

Im surprised no one else has picked up on this so I will. The Internet freedom wars have begun.

U.S. Shuts Down MegaUpload, Charges Kim Dotcom & 6 Others With Piracy

Kim Dotcom. was arrested in New Zealand on Jan 19 2012

Kim made millions on the internet, changed his surname to Dotcom, tried to buy New Zealand’s most expensive mansion and drove around in a Rolls Royce with the number plate: “GOD”.
 But today Kim Dotcom’s life of luxury came crashing down after police in Auckland raided his house as part of an American-led offensive against the hugely popular file sharing site MegaUpload.
The 37-year-old German-born internet tycoon – who changed his name from Kim Schmitz – appeared in Auckland’s North Shore District Court this morning alongside three employees as prosecutors in the States announced that they had taken down MegaUpload.
The Hong Kong based website is one of the world’s most popular file sharing sites, allowing users to quickly download and send attachments that are too large to send via email such as video, multiple photographs and music files.
Mr Dotcom has always insisted that his creation is a legitimate business which makes its money from advertising and selling premium subscription accounts to its users. But in an indictment that was unsealed yesterday American prosecutors say the majority of content that was being shared was pirated material that had cost its victims an estimated $500m and made $42m for Mr Dotcom last year alone.
The timing of the raid is prescient. Earlier this week scores of major websites held a 24-hour protest against new anti-piracy laws making its way through the American legislature that would shift the responsibility of policing online piracy from law enforcement agencies to websites and internet providers.
Critics fear the laws will have a destabilising effect of freedom of speech on the web whilst supporters say the legislation is desperately needed to combat online piracy. If the arrests result in guilty convictions, the raid against MegaUpload could become an example of how traditional law enforcement agencies can tackle file sharing sites.
After requests from the FBI, simultaneous raids took place on MegaUpload assets around the world, including Mr Dotcom’s mansion and nine further properties in New Zealand. He now faces an extradition battle to the United States which could take more than a year to complete.

Im sure your all aware of SOPA and PIPA... you should be and shame on you if you dont care, its likely youll be the one moaning or indited if this happens as intended. It affects EVERYONE WORLDWIDE, youd better believe it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2012/01/18/what-are-sopa-and-pipa-and-why-all-the-fuss/

Megaupload is just the latest corporation to feel the brutality of early 21st century state-run justice. The point, is not actually to provide "justice" so much as to make people fearful of using the Internet and sharing information that may someday be deemed "criminal."
In fact, copyright laws were developed by royalty to counteract the spread of information in books after the invention of the Gutenberg Press.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press

The same tactics that applied then are being applied now. War, authoritarian legislation and copyright infringement are all tools of this particular elite that we have been saddled with.

The Gutenberg Press itself radically reshaped the Western world and have no reason to think the Internet Reformation is not going to do likewise.

Personally i'm all for piracy and not copyright. To basically use Hollywood and the Music industry to try and censor the Internet is appalling. The greedy pigs want to milk every last dollar out of you..... oppose this tyranny because not only are the US attempting to enforce this on the world but the worst bit is they will be using those that use the internet as business and social networking as their unpaid slave police to do it. :censored:

Scumbags id like to shoot the lot of them sometimes :shootout:
Make no mistake the internet is the last true bastion of freedom in communication that we have...... YOU are the target and your childrens freedom.

RESIST THIS anyway possible or tomorrow you may wake up with your website shutdown or a summons for not enforcing the law or even worse pulled out of your bed and shipped off to the US no matter where your home in the world may be...

Do not make the mistake it has nothing to do with you, your innocent and ignore this, the Jews said that long before WWII and when the knock on the door came there was no one fee left that were strong enough to help, and that started out just as innocently as a few leaflets then later a yellow patch etc..... the rest is ...... tragic history.




 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

i agree with what you say, and all i have to add is two remarks;

1: the irony is that some FBI web agent will probably find this thread and order all our executions, as well as shutting down the website,

and 2, i suggest that argument be turned into a viral email, that way if the authorities do decide to shut it down, they'd be forced to hack into personal emails; the perfect trap.
 

DeletedUser

The mistake in your arguments is that DotCom was profiting from his piracy acts (allegedly 500 million dollars worth of profits). It's one thing to share, it's an entirely different thing to charge people for extra services associated with that sharing of pirated material.

As it was indicated to me, they stole television shows and would allow you to watch them at one hour on, one hour wait. If you didn't want to wait, you had to pay.

I hold no remorse for this guy, nor their business. Indeed, I would call it piracy gone bad. They indermined the intent of piracy, exploiting both the industry and the internet users. They basically acted like a pay-per-view broadcasting station, without paying dues.

No Victor, this is not the man, nor the business, you should be standing behind. These were crooks, plain and simple.
 

DeletedUser16008

Hellstromm said:
The mistake in your arguments is that DotCom was profiting from his piracy acts (allegedly 500 million dollars worth of profits). It's one thing to share, it's an entirely different thing to charge people for extra services associated with that sharing of pirated material.

As it was indicated to me, they stole television shows and would allow you to watch them at one hour on, one hour wait. If you didn't want to wait, you had to pay.

I hold no remorse for this guy, nor their business. Indeed, I would call it piracy gone bad. They indermined the intent of piracy, exploiting both the industry and the internet users. They basically acted like a pay-per-view broadcasting station, without paying dues.

No Victor, this is not the man, nor the business, you should be standing behind. These were crooks, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Your missing the entire point HS, I dislike the guy and would never pay a bean for any of his rip off services, i am not standing behind him, it is the precedence it will set if convicted.

The time is now and why do you think they chose such an unflavourable target ? for exactly the reason you have posted about him being a crook etc....... Its a testcase and we all know what happens when one is won or lost... a precedence is set and they have been smart enough to pick a patsy like this guy so people like you will point and gloat at his demise when really its far bigger than this crook.

btw you cant "steal" something thats been broadcast or made and put into the public domain, the work has been completed and how dare anyone expect to make endless revenue deciding who can use it or not for a "fee". Possession is 9/10ths of the law so the saying goes once in the hands of the public it becomes "their " property to do with what they wish. If people choose to pay a guy like this for something they can have for free if they wait a bit then that's their stupid choice, i see nothing wrong with making money off of anothers will to part with his money for convenience. SKY do it etc so why not anyone else ?

I hate copyright laws,what they pretend to protect and what they really stand for, mostly selfish greed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

In the case of mp3s, how much business does it actually cost them? Surely anyone cheap enough to download them at no cost would buy CDs used if they could no longer download them. Maybe selling used CDs should be a crime.
 

DeletedUser15057

Not wanting to hijak this excellent thread - however - interesting that the US has an extradition treaty with NZ for this type of 'crime' ...........but nothing to allow a person who helped a person die (euthanized, possibly murdered) to be extradited back to NZ to face charges.......ah well priorities, priorities!!!
 

DeletedUser30834

So many things.

Doc Paine
The treaty that allows the extradition is part of the two recent (1990ish) WIPO treaties WPT and WPPT. You can find more about them at their WIPO website.

Hellstromm, I do not disagree with you but it is my understanding that the 500 million number isn't the profits he supposedly made, but the damages done to the copyright holders not collecting their revenue. Minor nit to pick I know.

Victor,
Nothing has been placed in the public domain. It has been in the public's realm, but the copyright has never moved away from the owners. It's really no different then buying a book or a CD. Just because they are being sold to the public, played on the radio or read in public venues doesn't remove the copyright. Unfortunately, the copyright is a legal right created by law to allow the control the copying and distribution of the protected content. There are some exceptions for fair use like being able to use snippets of something or recording it for later viewing but they do not generally allow the distribution of the material or content. A few countries even have an excise tax on recordable media to allow compensation to the copyright holders for copying that will be taking place. Even the US does this for CD/DVD and cassette tape media marked for Audio/Music. This is why you will see two stacks of CD's sitting on the shelf with a 5 dollar difference and price with the only difference being one is labeled music CD and the other labeled Data (don't listen to the best buy sales drone who will try to tell you one offers better quality playback of music). Nonetheless, Even these countries still generally do not legally allow the distribution of the protected content without explicit permission of the copyright owner/holder.

Also, this isn't a new precedent. International copyright law has worked this way several times in the past. There is Richard O'Dwyer and TVshak, Hew Raymond Griffiths and the Drink or Die warez offerings, Vladimir Katalov and his removal of adobe's encryotion and ultimate vindication in court (yes, encryption is covered under the WIPO treaties in which the same encryption standards created in the US's DMCA came from) are all well know precedents dating back to the 1990's. Another one that we probably all do not remember is the case of Jon Lech Johansen or DVD JON who wasn't extradited because Norway is a standing member of WIPO and chose to charge and trial him at home. He was found not guilty the two times they tried to convict him. BTW, he is the one who brought us the DeCSS decryption that makes it so easy to copy DVDs in our own homes now.
 

DeletedUser

Sumdumass said:
Hellstromm, I do not disagree with you but it is my understanding that the 500 million number isn't the profits he supposedly made, but the damages done to the copyright holders not collecting their revenue. Minor nit to pick I know.
Click to expand...
They confiscated more than $200 million, not including property. He certainly didn't have that sort of money before he started Megaupload. No, it has not yet been determined how much the copyright holders lost. That will have to be determined.
 

DeletedUser

Yes, that's how indictments work. They pose numbers in an accusation, but a review of the confiscated evidence can (and likely will) result in changes to the allegations. Nonetheless, thank you for the other corrections Sum.

Victor, what sort of precedence do you think is being made here?
 

DeletedUser30834

Sure it can. My point was to the 500 million being thrown around. It's pertaining to the copyright holder's damages and not profits he made as you implied in your post.

Hellstromm said:
The mistake in your arguments is that DotCom was profiting from his piracy acts (allegedly 500 million dollars worth of profits). It's one thing to share, it's an entirely different thing to charge people for extra services associated with that sharing of pirated material.
Click to expand...
 

DeletedUser

everyone should just change to creative commons/general public license.....
 

DeletedUser16008

It won't be setting any precedence as its not under SOPA i thought it was, my mistake but it does still show that the US government will happily go after someone and such as kim dot com for about 200m when others get away with stealing trillions legally. Seriously if you think this guy is such a big criminal because hes been stealing out of the mouth of the legal monopoly Music and Media industry you need a reality check, the guy might be a jerk but hes not an Evil,conniving,lying,blood sucking leech as the Finance or Media industry is. Its ok to screw someone as long as its legal ? ...... naaa not in my book its not.

John Corzine at MF Global with a letter of Marque gets away with Stealing about 1.2Billion.... the difference ? one had a licence or "Letter of Marque " the other did not and thats what separates a Pirate. One will be hunted the other is licensed to screw you all he wants. You see any banker in court over all the trillions "stolen" by fraudulent trading ? or rarely "stealing anothers information to insider trading" ?

Sumdum I know what copyright laws say. Copyright is a total joke, is very selective all geared to big industry making overly excessive profit and "buying" a license to do so from a government so they can inflate prices way beyond real market value, you think a CD is worth $20 ? give me a break. I happen to totally disagree with copyright in the first place let alone International copyright law, all its about is getting the Tax as far as the government legal action is concerned thats the real pig, the Government is doing this, in another country fercrissakes.

Im not going to go into a copyright argument as I couldn't give a monkeys about an argument to support it. Its fuedel, its made up by the elite to protect originally the Elite and copyright has never been of net benefit to society but instead serves to enrich a few at the expense of creativity and freedom.

I pay for what i think is worthwhile but I have to tell you, for example if a good band chooses to charge for a download of its new album on its own website and its a reasonable price ill gladly pay for it, I wont pay for a CD "hard" licenced copy of warner bros when ive already purchased the "right" to own it from the original artist, nor will i pay stupid money for a CD piece of media ive had on maybe vinyl for 30 years, i paid for the copyright once ill be damned if im paying again....Plus as far as im concerned i have made no agreement of restriction, its mine and i paid a premium already when purchasing it and as its my property i should be allowed to do what i wish with it, including making money on it if i so wish.

I couldnt give a care about say Nike as a copyright brand either.... a simple white T shirt sold for say $50 because it has a tick logo on it ??? ... so the same factory prints a 1000 more and puts them out the back door for someone to sell in the market at $5 instead of $50, i say good for everyone going to the market and Nike get another 1000 tshirts giving them free advertising and good luck to the guy making $4 and not ripping anyone off, apart from nike whos making x10 on the same basic $1 cost item THATS the RIP OFF ....now you tell me ...... same product same t shirt same base cost of $1 .........one costs $5 the other $50 all because of Copyright, so whos the real Pirate?... or should I say highwayman, its daylight robbery.... because in the modern world one wont rob you of anything the other most certainly will .....
 

DeletedUser30834

It is what it is.

The problem is, if it is the law of the land, then violations of the law means potential legal troubles. I couldn't really care less about this kim character either. I have not purchase but 2 CDs in the last 20 or so years and attempted to take one back because the music was so horrible I felt I was ripped off (well, all but the one song they played on the radio at the time). I sure as hell aint going to pay some third party for the ability to buy or pirate a CD.

I do believe you summed up the entire joke copyright is pretty nicely though. The problem is that it is what it is, a law that in most cases is required to be in place due to international treaties, and ignoring it will create legal problems most likely.

As for the nike Tshirts, are you sure you are not thinking of trademark law instead of copyright law. I understand it is just as ridiculous but they are really different areas of the laws.
 

DeletedUser16008

Sumdumass said:
It is what it is.

The problem is, if it is the law of the land, then violations of the law means potential legal troubles. I couldn't really care less about this kim character either. I have not purchase but 2 CDs in the last 20 or so years and attempted to take one back because the music was so horrible I felt I was ripped off (well, all but the one song they played on the radio at the time). I sure as hell aint going to pay some third party for the ability to buy or pirate a CD.

I do believe you summed up the entire joke copyright is pretty nicely though. The problem is that it is what it is, a law that in most cases is required to be in place due to international treaties, and ignoring it will create legal problems most likely.

As for the nike Tshirts, are you sure you are not thinking of trademark law instead of copyright law. I understand it is just as ridiculous but they are really different areas of the laws.
Click to expand...

Yup your right there is a difference between copyright and trademark. Mostly its a difference between a piece of work ie media etc and a logo. Equally as you say ridiculous.

Differences between a copyright and a trademark are as follows:

1. The purpose of a copyright is to protect works of authorship as fixed in a tangible form of expression. Thus, copyright covers: a) works of art (2 or 3 dimensional), b) photos, pictures, graphic designs, drawings and other forms of images; c) songs, music and sound recordings of all kinds; d) books, manuscripts, publications and other written works; and e) plays, movies, shows, and other performance arts.

2. The purpose of a trademark is to protect words, phrases and logos used in federally regulated commerce to identify the source of goods and/or services.

3. There may be occasions when both copyright and trademark protection are desired with respect to the same business endeavor. For example, a marketing campaign for a new product may introduce a new slogan for use with the product, which also appears in advertisements for the product. However, copyright and trademark protection will cover different things. The advertisement's text and graphics, as published in a particular vehicle, will be covered by copyright - but this will not protect the slogan as such. The slogan may be protected by trademark law, but this will not cover the rest of the advertisement. If you want both forms of protection, you will have to perform both types of registration.

4. If you are interested in protecting a title, slogan, or other short word phrase, generally you want a trademark. Copyright law does not protect a bare phrase, slogan, or trade name.

5. Whether an image should be protected by trademark or copyright law depends on whether its use is intended to identify the source of goods or services. If an image is used temporarily in an ad campaign, it generally is not the type of thing intended to be protected as a logo.

6. The registration processes of copyright and trademark are entirely different. For copyright, the filing fee is small, the time to obtain registration is relatively short, and examination by the Copyright Office is limited to ensuring that the registration application is properly completed and suitable copies are attached. For trademark, the filing fee is more substantial, the time to obtain registration is much longer, and examination by the Trademark Office includes a substantive review of potentially conflicting marks which are found to be confusingly similar. While copyright registration is primarily an administrative process, trademark registration is very much an adversarial process.

7. Copyright law provides for compulsory licensing and royalty payments - there is no analogous concept in trademark law. Plus, the tests and definition of infringement are considerably different under copyright law and trademark law.

http://www.lawmart.com/forms/difference.htm

Pretty much the same idea, to market at stupid inflated prices protected by law under licence......
 

DeletedUser

Meh, I get the distinct impression you never wrote, painted, designed or invented. Without copyrights, patents, and yes even trademarks, people can take your work and claim it as their own. The above protections serve the little guy more than it does the big guy. To view it in any other way is to be a pawn of, and talking head for, unscrupulous businesses.
 

DeletedUser16008

Meh, I'm well aware of the arguments for it HS but refute it serves the little guy more, thats how its touted, not how it is IMO.

You any idea how much copyright or trademark or even patent is bought and then shelved to avoid these things coming to market as it threatens current marketable products ? especially designs and inventions etc. For every one used there are hundreds and thousands bought up and shelved. These things would be worked on, improved on, changed, adapted and utilized, often at enormous benefit and progress to humanity, instead they sit and rot in a file or a shelf unseen and unused because someone owns a licence to hide it, mostly corporate.
 

DeletedUser

Allow me to insert a bit of perspective.

It takes me months, sometimes years, to write a book. Hours upon hours of time and energy, with alternative forms of income to hold me over, in the hopes of future profits. This is incredibly hard work and is taken directly out of my mind and utilizing my distinct talents in research, prose, creativity and presentation.

If i were to make that effort, the last thing I want is for someone to take credit for my work and obtain the profits that should have been due me (such I did experience once as a ghost writer, never again). People and corporations that steal in this, and similar, fashion are scum (and I say that with no reservations). They are the ones who strive for success without effort. The instant gratification, who cares who you exploit, to hell with everyone else, kind of people that are the fundamental characteristics of virtually every sociopathic criminal. Copyright laws, trademark laws, and patents provide a means for people to protect their works and obtain just profits for their efforts. Those who utilize the laws are working stiffs. Granted, some not necessarily in the traditional 9 to 5 sense, but what they construct IS work.

Copyright & patent laws protect work, but they also serve a greater purpose. They protect motivation. Without these laws, talents of this world would be less inclined to produce, artists less inclined to paint/sculpt, writers less inclined to write. Not merely for the loss of potential profits, nor merely for the lack of income to devote to such endeavors, but for the loss of legacy many such aspire to obtain (let's just hope none of you ever experience the emotional heartache of seeing your 340 page book, which took months to write, being published under someone else' name).

The trademark laws also exist to protect name, so that others of no scruples don't sell substandard products under your quality name brand, and thus harming your enterprise (great or small) or exploiting your success.

Both your arguments are disturbingly devoid of "real" application and are instead focused on the notion of community property. Well geez, for someone who claims bloody murder on any social programs, you sure as hell don't seem to care when you want what "I" worked to create.



Edit --- in regards to your comment about patents, etc., being purchased and shelved, it requires two to participate in such actions: One to buy, the other to sell. You may want to pose a horrible picture here, of corporate baggery, but if someone offers me a substantial amount of money for my patent, I'll sell it. What the "new" owners do with it, I no longer have a say. That's what buy and sell constitutes --- a transfer of ownership.

And yes, there are also plenty out there exploiting inventors, writers and artists, but that's the problem with scum, not a problem with the laws designed to protect against said scum. Laws can only do so much, the rest is up to us to ensure we understand said laws and know how to protect ourselves from these scum who generally try to take advantage of our ignorance in said laws.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser16008

Writers will always write, painters will always paint and inventors will always invent HS, that is the ones that are in it for the passion not the financial rewards.

lol Trademark and quality, thats funny i have first hand xp of that notion and in a lot of cases its complete rubbish, literally.

I know and agree with what your saying about individuals tho and protecting from the scum, im just saying the scum have taken massive advantage of these laws ... but whats new there huh ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Van Gogh painted 860 oils and 2100 other artworks and only sold one painting in his lifetime. Emily Dickinson wrote 1800 poems, only a handful of which were published during her life time.

Artists create to create, they don't do it for the money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top