Megabusted

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Peter, Jan 20, 2012.

  1. Peter

    Peter Guest

    NZ residents on piracy charges denied bail
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/6288082/NZ-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.
     
    Peter, Jan 20, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Peter

    Gordon Guest

    On 2012-01-20, Peter <> wrote:
    >
    > NZ residents on piracy charges denied bail
    > http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/6288082/NZ-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
     
    Gordon, Jan 21, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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..
     
    Frank Williams, Jan 23, 2012
    #3
  4. Peter

    Titus G Guest

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


    >> NZ residents on piracy charges denied bail
    >> http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/6288082/NZ-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?
     
    Titus G, Jan 23, 2012
    #4
  5. Peter

    Donchano Guest

    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/digital-living/6288082/NZ-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."
     
    Donchano, Jan 23, 2012
    #5
  6. Peter

    colp Guest

    On Jan 23, 5:41 pm, "Titus G" <> wrote:
    > Gordon wrote:
    > > On 2012-01-20, Peter <> wrote:
    > >> NZ residents on piracy charges denied bail
    > >>http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/6288082/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.
     
    colp, Jan 23, 2012
    #6
  7. Peter

    Peter Guest

    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.
     
    Peter, Jan 23, 2012
    #7
  8. Peter

    bubba ray Guest

    On Jan 23, 5:41 pm, "Titus G" <> wrote:
    > Gordon wrote:
    > > On 2012-01-20, Peter <> wrote:
    > >> NZ residents on piracy charges denied bail
    > >>http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/6288082/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.
     
    bubba ray, Jan 23, 2012
    #8
  9. Peter

    Enkidu Guest

    On 23/01/12 21:18, colp wrote:
    > On Jan 23, 5:41 pm, "Titus G"<> wrote:
    >> Gordon wrote:
    >>> On 2012-01-20, Peter<> wrote:
    >>>> NZ residents on piracy charges denied bail
    >>>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/6288082/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
     
    Enkidu, Jan 23, 2012
    #9
  10. On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:01:29 -0800 (PST), bubba ray <>
    wrote:

    >On Jan 23, 5:41 pm, "Titus G" <> wrote:
    >> Gordon wrote:
    >> > On 2012-01-20, Peter <> wrote:
    >> >> NZ residents on piracy charges denied bail
    >> >>http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/6288082/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..
     
    Frank Williams, Jan 23, 2012
    #10
  11. In article <>, colp <> wrote:
    >On Jan 23, 5:41=A0pm, "Titus G" <> wrote:

    (snip)

    >> 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?


    Sounds like "enabling" to me. :)

    >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.


    Luckily, NZ law does ... at least it does now. :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jan 23, 2012
    #11
  12. In article <4f1dc113$>, Enkidu <cliffp@bogus> wrote:
    (snip)

    >Yep, if you want to play your CD in the car, they reckon you should buy
    >a second copy.


    <idle question> ... does anyone know if they have ever produced any kind of
    justification for this view ?

    Seems to me if you are paying for a right to use something (as they often
    say ?) ... then it's only a way to attempt to limit rights (and make more
    dosh :) ). Have they ever said as much ?
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jan 23, 2012
    #12
  13. Peter

    Roger Brown Guest

    On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:55:45 GMT,
    (Bruce Sinclair)
    wrote:

    >In article <4f1dc113$>, Enkidu <cliffp@bogus> wrote:
    >(snip)
    >
    >>Yep, if you want to play your CD in the car, they reckon you should buy
    >>a second copy.

    >
    ><idle question> ... does anyone know if they have ever produced any kind of
    >justification for this view ?
    >
    >Seems to me if you are paying for a right to use something (as they often
    >say ?) ... then it's only a way to attempt to limit rights (and make more
    >dosh :) ). Have they ever said as much ?
    >
    >
    >



    Yes they are dead against shops selling second hand CD's

    They stated that they are not getting any revenue from the sales

    Seems what they are stating that you don't own the CD..
     
    Roger Brown, Jan 24, 2012
    #13
  14. In article <>, Roger Brown <> wrote:
    >On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:55:45 GMT,
    > (Bruce Sinclair)
    >wrote:
    >>In article <4f1dc113$>, Enkidu <cliffp@bogus> wrote:
    >>(snip)
    >>>Yep, if you want to play your CD in the car, they reckon you should buy
    >>>a second copy.

    >><idle question> ... does anyone know if they have ever produced any kind of
    >>justification for this view ?
    >>Seems to me if you are paying for a right to use something (as they often
    >>say ?) ... then it's only a way to attempt to limit rights (and make more
    >>dosh :) ). Have they ever said as much ?


    >Yes they are dead against shops selling second hand CD's
    >They stated that they are not getting any revenue from the sales


    Oh dear, how sad, never mind. :)

    >Seems what they are stating that you don't own the CD..


    ... I think rather they say you do own the CD ... but not what is on it. :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jan 24, 2012
    #14
  15. On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:06:14 +1300, whoisthis <>
    wrote:

    >In article <jfkod8$s9g$>,
    > (Bruce Sinclair)
    > wrote:
    >
    >> In article
    >> <>, colp
    >> <> wrote:
    >> >On Jan 23, 5:41=A0pm, "Titus G" <> wrote:

    >> (snip)
    >>
    >> >> 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?

    >>
    >> Sounds like "enabling" to me. :)
    >>
    >> >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.

    >>
    >> Luckily, NZ law does ... at least it does now. :)

    >
    >No it doesnt, however the NZ industry admitted that if it came to a jury
    >trial there is not a jury in NZ that would convict (for Fair use: ie
    >putting songs from a CD they own onto an iPod they own).


    Format shifting of CDs is specifically allowed in the NZ copyright
    act. Not for DVDs though.
     
    Stephen Worthington, Jan 24, 2012
    #15
  16. On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:28:47 +1300, Stephen Worthington
    <34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:

    >On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:06:14 +1300, whoisthis <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>In article <jfkod8$s9g$>,
    >> (Bruce Sinclair)
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article
    >>> <>, colp
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>> >On Jan 23, 5:41=A0pm, "Titus G" <> wrote:
    >>> (snip)
    >>>
    >>> >> 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?
    >>>
    >>> Sounds like "enabling" to me. :)
    >>>
    >>> >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.
    >>>
    >>> Luckily, NZ law does ... at least it does now. :)

    >>
    >>No it doesnt, however the NZ industry admitted that if it came to a jury
    >>trial there is not a jury in NZ that would convict (for Fair use: ie
    >>putting songs from a CD they own onto an iPod they own).

    >
    >Format shifting of CDs is specifically allowed in the NZ copyright
    >act. Not for DVDs though.


    I found the section in the new Copyright Act that covers this:


    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/45.0/DLM1704667.html#DLM1704667
     
    Stephen Worthington, Jan 24, 2012
    #16
  17. In article <>, Bret <> wrote:
    >On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:05:50 GMT, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>, Roger Brown

    > <> wrote:
    >>>On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:55:45 GMT,
    >>> (Bruce Sinclair)
    >>>wrote:
    >>>>In article <4f1dc113$>, Enkidu <cliffp@bogus> wrote:
    >>>>(snip)
    >>>>>Yep, if you want to play your CD in the car, they reckon you should buy
    >>>>>a second copy.
    >>>><idle question> ... does anyone know if they have ever produced any kind of
    >>>>justification for this view ?
    >>>>Seems to me if you are paying for a right to use something (as they often
    >>>>say ?) ... then it's only a way to attempt to limit rights (and make more
    >>>>dosh :) ). Have they ever said as much ?

    >>
    >>>Yes they are dead against shops selling second hand CD's
    >>>They stated that they are not getting any revenue from the sales

    >>
    >> Oh dear, how sad, never mind. :)
    >>
    >>>Seems what they are stating that you don't own the CD..

    >>
    >> .. I think rather they say you do own the CD ... but not what is on it. :)

    >
    >He has escaped from your bucket Bruce :)


    Bugger. Thanks :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jan 25, 2012
    #17
  18. In article <>, Stephen Worthington <34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:
    >On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:06:14 +1300, whoisthis <>
    >wrote:

    (snip)

    >>> Luckily, NZ law does ... at least it does now. :)

    >>
    >>No it doesnt, however the NZ industry admitted that if it came to a jury
    >>trial there is not a jury in NZ that would convict (for Fair use: ie
    >>putting songs from a CD they own onto an iPod they own).

    >
    >Format shifting of CDs is specifically allowed in the NZ copyright
    >act. Not for DVDs though.


    Truly ? Kind of invites the old law and donkey comparison if so. :) :)
    Inconceivable ! :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jan 25, 2012
    #18
  19. In article <4f1f13a1$>, Robert Cooze <c_o-o_z-e_r-b_@-c-o-o-z-eD_O_Tc_oD_O_Tnz> wrote:
    >On 24/01/12 21:36, Stephen Worthington wrote:

    (snip)
    >I know if I say someting in Court that is not true it is very bad and
    >the punishments involve real prison time. Or is it how much money you have.


    However ... if you lie in an ad (in a manner that cannot be easily disproven
    :) ), it's not only acceptable, it's encouraged, nay expected. :)

    Mine is the best. Best ever. Kills 99.9 % of bacteria .... etc. :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jan 25, 2012
    #19
  20. Peter

    Peter Guest

    Bruce Sinclair wrote:

    > In article <>, Stephen
    > Worthington <34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:
    >>On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:06:14 +1300, whoisthis <>
    >>wrote:

    > (snip)
    >
    >>>> Luckily, NZ law does ... at least it does now. :)
    >>>
    >>>No it doesnt, however the NZ industry admitted that if it came to a jury
    >>>trial there is not a jury in NZ that would convict (for Fair use: ie
    >>>putting songs from a CD they own onto an iPod they own).

    >>
    >>Format shifting of CDs is specifically allowed in the NZ copyright
    >>act. Not for DVDs though.

    >
    > Truly ? Kind of invites the old law and donkey comparison if so. :) :)
    > Inconceivable ! :)


    Strange but true.
    The NZ law allows format shifting (personal copy to another device) of audio
    recordings, but not of video.

    Gee. It makes it look like the politicians don't know what they are doing,
    doesn't it?
     
    Peter, Jan 25, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.

Share This Page