«

NZ residents on piracy charges denied bail
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...-residents-on-
piracy-charges-denied-bail

On the one hand we have USA govt taking out websites without due process
(what was feared with the SOPA / PIPA issue) and seeking estradition of
people out of NZ to face court in USA. Very scary stuff.

On the other hand, we have these global crooks creaming millions out of the
system, ultimately at the cost of consumers and businesses. On the face of
it, these appear to be seriously bad types, foreigners who don't deserve any
protection from NZ. They appear to be more deserving of a stint in Gitmo
Bay than many of the folk the USA military put in there.

And all with the backdrop of debate over law changes like SOPA / PIPA and
our very own "skynet" law.

This looks like it could be very interesting.

On 2012-01-20, Peter <> wrote:
>
> NZ residents on piracy charges denied bail
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...-residents-on-
> piracy-charges-denied-bail
>
> On the one hand we have USA govt taking out websites without due process
> (what was feared with the SOPA / PIPA issue) and seeking estradition of
> people out of NZ to face court in USA. Very scary stuff.
>
> On the other hand, we have these global crooks creaming millions out of the
> system, ultimately at the cost of consumers and businesses. On the face of
> it, these appear to be seriously bad types, foreigners who don't deserve any
> protection from NZ. They appear to be more deserving of a stint in Gitmo
> Bay than many of the folk the USA military put in there.
>
> And all with the backdrop of debate over law changes like SOPA / PIPA and
> our very own "skynet" law.
>
> This looks like it could be very interesting.
>
This is what they are after, huge headlines to scare the people off. Which
will happen. However they will regroup, as is the animal instinct. The war
is on. Until someting bigger comes along to worry about. Maybe that they
have succeded

On 21 Jan 2012 04:47:48 GMT, Gordon <> wrote:

>On 2012-01-20, Peter <> wrote:
>>




Look like Filesonic is also gone, only 100 more to go..

Gordon wrote:
> On 2012-01-20, Peter <> wrote:

>> NZ residents on piracy charges denied bail
>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...-residents-on-
>> piracy-charges-denied-bail

snip

> This is what they are after, huge headlines to scare the people off.
> Which will happen. However they will regroup, as is the animal
> instinct. The war is on. Until someting bigger comes along to worry
> about. Maybe that they have succeded

Is it just a coincidence that this FBI operation concluded just after the
legislation would have supposed, by those, (the music industry and
Hollywood), who lobbied the politicians to begin with, to have been passed?

It is my understanding that the alleged criminals provided the means to
share computer data and profited by this by charging for advertising and by
charging users based on download speeds and volumne. They did not illegally
sell copyrighted material but must have been aware that some/many of their
clients were using the service to break the law by breaching copyright.

Just as the music industry who sell music must be aware that some/many of
their clients break the law by uploading it to websites so others can
download it. Shouldn't they be arrested, extradited and prosecuted for
selling music to such people?

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:41:36 +1300, "Titus G"
<> shouted from the highest rooftop:

>Gordon wrote:
>> On 2012-01-20, Peter <> wrote:
>
>>> NZ residents on piracy charges denied bail
>>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...-residents-on-
>>> piracy-charges-denied-bail
>
>snip
>
>> This is what they are after, huge headlines to scare the people off.
>> Which will happen. However they will regroup, as is the animal
>> instinct. The war is on. Until someting bigger comes along to worry
>> about. Maybe that they have succeded
>
>Is it just a coincidence that this FBI operation concluded just after the
>legislation would have supposed, by those, (the music industry and
>Hollywood), who lobbied the politicians to begin with, to have been passed?

I would like to understand your point, but that paragraph doesn't make
sense.

>It is my understanding that the alleged criminals provided the means to
>share computer data and profited by (from) this by charging for advertising and by (superfluous)
>charging users based on download speeds and volumne. They did not illegally
>sell copyrighted material but must have been aware that some/many of their
>clients were using the service to break the law by breaching copyright.

Valid point.

>Just as the music industry who sell music must be aware that some/many of
>their clients break the law by uploading it to websites so others can
>download it. Shouldn't they be arrested, extradited and prosecuted for
>selling music to such people?

BTW - an industry isn't a "who."

On Jan 23, 5:41*pm, "Titus G" <znotr...@nowhereelse.com> wrote:
> Gordon wrote:
> > On 2012-01-20, Peter <nospamjy...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> >> NZ residents on piracy charges denied bail
> >>http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...2/NZ-residents....
> >> piracy-charges-denied-bail
>
> snip
>
> > This is what they are after, huge headlines to scare the people off.
> > Which will happen. However they will regroup, as is the animal
> > instinct. The war is on. Until someting bigger comes along to worry
> > about. Maybe that they have succeded
>
> Is it just a coincidence that this FBI operation concluded just after the
> legislation would have supposed, by those, (the music industry and
> Hollywood), who lobbied the politicians to begin with, to have been passed?
>
> It is my understanding that the alleged criminals provided the means to
> share computer data and profited by this by charging for advertising and by
> charging users based on download speeds and volumne. They did not illegally
> sell copyrighted material but must have been aware that some/many of their
> clients were using the service to break the law by breaching copyright.
>
> Just as the music industry who sell music must be aware that some/many of
> their clients break the law by uploading it to websites so others can
> download it. Shouldn't they be arrested, extradited and prosecuted for
> selling music to such people?

Only if it's not their music and those initiating the prosecution have
standing. As far as I know the RIAA don't acknowledge fair use.

Titus G wrote:
> Is it just a coincidence that this FBI operation concluded just after the
> legislation would have supposed, by those, (the music industry and
> Hollywood), who lobbied the politicians to begin with, to have been
> passed?

The police operation must have been months in the making, so it would have
taken quite a lot of organisation to get it to coincide with the politics in
USA. It seems more plausible that the swoop was timed for when as many of
the Mega gang was in one place (for a birthday or something).
Still, the concurrent timing with the politics seems notable.

> It is my understanding that the alleged criminals provided the means to
> share computer data and profited by this by charging for advertising and
> by charging users based on download speeds and volumne. They did not
> illegally sell copyrighted material but must have been aware that
> some/many of their clients were using the service to break the law by
> breaching copyright.

Depends what they have been charged with.

> Just as the music industry who sell music must be aware that some/many of
> their clients break the law by uploading it to websites so others can
> download it. Shouldn't they be arrested, extradited and prosecuted for
> selling music to such people?

It sounds like Mega gang was in a different league altogether.

The RIAA and MPAA and their NZ branches do lots that is wrong, unethical and
antisocial. But just because Mega is their enemy, doesn't make Mega into
good guys.

No matter how bad the Mega gang has been, justice needs to be fair and seen
to be so.

On Jan 23, 5:41*pm, "Titus G" <znotr...@nowhereelse.com> wrote:
> Gordon wrote:
> > On 2012-01-20, Peter <nospamjy...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> >> NZ residents on piracy charges denied bail
> >>http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...2/NZ-residents....
> >> piracy-charges-denied-bail
>
> snip

Think of it as like someone allowing thousands of drug dealers to
store and hide drugs on his property, and charging them a fee to do
so.

I have nothing against small scale copyright infringements as I
believe that most people who download illegal software etc would have
no intention of ever buying it anyway, but when you're talking about
someone making millions from piracy, that's a whole different story.

On 23/01/12 21:18, colp wrote:
> On Jan 23, 5:41 pm, "Titus G"<znotr...@nowhereelse.com> wrote:
>> Gordon wrote:
>>> On 2012-01-20, Peter<nospamjy...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> NZ residents on piracy charges denied bail
>>>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...2/NZ-residents...
>>>> piracy-charges-denied-bail
>>
>> snip
>>
>>> This is what they are after, huge headlines to scare the people off.
>>> Which will happen. However they will regroup, as is the animal
>>> instinct. The war is on. Until someting bigger comes along to worry
>>> about. Maybe that they have succeded
>>
>> Is it just a coincidence that this FBI operation concluded just after the
>> legislation would have supposed, by those, (the music industry and
>> Hollywood), who lobbied the politicians to begin with, to have been passed?
>>
>> It is my understanding that the alleged criminals provided the means to
>> share computer data and profited by this by charging for advertising and by
>> charging users based on download speeds and volumne. They did not illegally
>> sell copyrighted material but must have been aware that some/many of their
>> clients were using the service to break the law by breaching copyright.
>>
>> Just as the music industry who sell music must be aware that some/many of
>> their clients break the law by uploading it to websites so others can
>> download it. Shouldn't they be arrested, extradited and prosecuted for
>> selling music to such people?
>
> Only if it's not their music and those initiating the prosecution have
> standing. As far as I know the RIAA don't acknowledge fair use.
>
Yep, if you want to play your CD in the car, they reckon you should buy
a second copy.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:01:29 -0800 (PST), bubba ray <>
wrote:

>On Jan 23, 5:41*pm, "Titus G" <znotr...@nowhereelse.com> wrote:
>> Gordon wrote:
>> > On 2012-01-20, Peter <nospamjy...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>> >> NZ residents on piracy charges denied bail
>> >>http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...2/NZ-residents...
>> >> piracy-charges-denied-bail
>>
>> snip
>
>Think of it as like someone allowing thousands of drug dealers to
>store and hide drugs on his property, and charging them a fee to do
>so.
>
>I have nothing against small scale copyright infringements as I
>believe that most people who download illegal software etc would have
>no intention of ever buying it anyway, but when you're talking about
>someone making millions from piracy, that's a whole different story.


They did not make any money from piracy at all, the just charged a fee
if you wanted to dnload at full speed with out any size caps, you could
still download other smaller files for free..