Another NinjaVideo Admin Pleads Guilty, Expect The Rest To Do So Too
from the dead-to-rights dept
This isn't much of a surprise, given our earlier stories. As we noted when the Justice Department indicted five people for their roles in the Ninjavideo community, they appeared to have a pretty strong case against them. So it really wasn't a surprise that one of the defendants, Matthew Smith, agreed to a plea bargain, which we noted almost certainly involved him agreeing to testify against the rest. For the Justice Department, that's pure gold. They can then use that to pressure everyone else into plea bargains as well (and each one down gets worse terms). So, it looks like Hana Beshara -- who was "the face" of NinjaVideo -- was the second to fall, taking a plea bargain deal in which she also pleads guilty. Those two were the big fish. I'd be surprised if the other three don't fold quickly as well at this point. Of course, as with the Smith plea, you should take what they admitted to with a pretty big grain of salt. If you want an obvious sign of how the agreement and reality may differ, just look at the details of the Beshara plea, in which she claims that she personally got $200,000 out of the alleged $500,000 the site made. We're skeptical that the site ever made anywhere close to $500,000 or that Beshara made $200,000. So notice that the $200k number is mentioned in how much she made, but no amount is stated in how much the government took from her:Beshara admitted that she and her co-conspirators collected more than $500,000 in overall proceeds during the website�s two-and-a-half years of operation, with Beshara personally receiving more than $200,000. As part of her plea agreement, Beshara agreed to forfeit assets seized by ICE�s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in June 2010, including cash, an investment brokerage account, two bank accounts, a Paypal account and one Internet advertising account.If ICE got anywhere near $200,000 out of those accounts, they would have said so. They didn't, probably because that money never existed.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: criminal copyright infringement, dhs, doj, hana beshara, ice, indictment, ninjavideo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am curious as if the 200k thing will stand. They'll need to find evidence to support it. Or make up some.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is a plea bargain. She basically confessed to this in exchange for something (leniency?). No one needs to prove anything at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Um, hello? The defendant's confession is evidence to support the finding. In fact, it's all the evidence that the court needs. Why you think the court would want more is unclear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Falsifying it to allow the prosecutor to convict someone else (or give someone else a longer sentence) is perjury, and judges don't like that. In addition, if the prosecutor knows the testimony to be false, they are also in hot water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is the hard part, proving that any wrong doing happened in the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course 200k was probably not seized. When you earn money - do you spend any of it - or do you bank it infinitum?
Its not hard to imagine that some amount less than 200k was actually recovered from her accounts. The money trail from banking payments and advertising revenue - not so hard to follow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1987 I got busted for Cocaine Traficking.Got a sentence that kept me in their system for 7 1/2 years over an 1/8 ounce Coke.
Why ???
Because I would not cooperate and wear a wire for the pigs.When Ratfucker does his time he may be tossin da salad as all of us inmates knew your story when you come in.Lots of prison info leaks.Usually you will know if an inmate is on the up and up or if he is to be scumdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then ask obvious questions to the drug dealers...."hey know any good places where we can obtain ILLEGAL NARCOTICS"
insert phrases now only found on scooby doo such as groovy and way-out man etc...
Wink a lot and point at the wire whilst smiling......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, talk about bullshit. The potential is that the government got some if not more back. It seems that the girl not only got the money, but set up an investment account.
Mike, you are such a sore loser!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One of his little pirate friends confessed. The little hamster in his head went into Auto-FUD mode. This site is hilarious! The comedy styling of Pirate Mike never gets old!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[citation needed]. Please prove that Mike is friends or has even met any of the members of Ninjavideo. Otherwise, kindly rescind your remarks and admit your ignorance.
Oh, who am I kidding? You'll just respond:
"______ pirate______ freetard ______ sycophant ______ the party is over ________ stealing _______ etc."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heck, they could benefit from using a thesaurus or a random rant generator with less predictability once in a while. If I cared, I might program an **AA shill rant generator. I imagine some of us will have to have such programs on hand in the future when the traditional entertainment companies finally die out or evolve and lose their shills. We'll miss the illogical rants and vitriol and will need something to respond to. Don't feed the virtual trolls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
There can be only one reason you dispute the statements of these now convicted people: You're utterly fixated on your notion that pirates don't make money off infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Maybe because content creators incur production costs and pirates don't. God you're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
And then rebill it dozen of times so that no movie or tv show ever shows a profit.
God, you're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
So here is the basic math for a content creator:
production costs (X) + whine about pirates (0) = production costs
Or using the pirates busness model:
production costs (X) + $500000 = $500k more than you had.
Who is the idiot here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Here's something you're forgetting: the pirates have the luxury of not bearing the sunk costs of creating the content in the first place. It's relatively easy to make money selling goods when you don't have to pay for inventory or product development.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Thank you for another non-sequitor, Jay, but I think a post that is actually on-topic would be more appreciated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Thank you for another non-sequitor, Jay, but I think a post that is actually on-topic would be more appreciated.
Get used to that. Jay graduated magna cum laude from the Mike Masnick School of Weasel Words. He majored in disingenuousness with a minor in rambling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
No, it's neither non-sequitor nor off topic. You seem to make some kind of argument where pirates just automatically make money off of someone else's work. You're ignoring all the complaints that people have with current distribution models that either rely or copyright or monopolistic pricing.
The problems of windowing, regionalization or high pricing. The problems of unavailability of product, or the ease of finding a movie on the internet versus distributing and easy access by the copyright holder.
From all that you seem to imply, if a movie makes no money, it's because of piracy. If it's just a bad movie, piracy is the scapegoat, which is exactly what I'm criticizing.
And this also ignores that "pirates" have their own sunk costs. They provide a website, pay for the servers, the upkeep, newer features, among a number of other things to entice people to freely come to their website and hang out. And they do this for none or nearly no profit usually.
So a bit of advice? Learn to focus on better arguments that aren't one sided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
No, it's neither non-sequitor nor off topic. You seem to make some kind of argument where pirates just automatically make money off of someone else's work. You're ignoring all the complaints that people have with current distribution models that either rely or copyright or monopolistic pricing.
The problems of windowing, regionalization or high pricing. The problems of unavailability of product, or the ease of finding a movie on the internet versus distributing and easy access by the copyright holder.
Stop pretending that you have an inalienable right to whatever entertainment you want, when you want it and the price you want. Your complaints are not a justification to unlawfuly take the property of another without compensation.
From all that you seem to imply, if a movie makes no money, it's because of piracy. If it's just a bad movie, piracy is the scapegoat, which is exactly what I'm criticizing.
Sometimes it's because it's a shitty movie. Sometimes legitimate sales are eroded by the widepread, unlawful free availability of the same product the rightful owner seeks to be compensated for.
And this also ignores that "pirates" have their own sunk costs. They provide a website, pay for the servers, the upkeep, newer features, among a number of other things to entice people to freely come to their website and hang out. And they do this for none or nearly no profit usually.
I'd suggest that none of the costs you cited come anywhere close to the production costs incurred by the rightful owner on a single film that had a N. American theatrical release.. And let's face it, the enticement for people to freely come to the website is largely dependent on "free" content. Otherwise, the world would be inundated with movie blogs and discussion boards instead of pirate sites.
So a bit of advice? Learn to focus on better arguments that aren't one sided.
You should consider following your own advice Jay. And you should have some respect for the people that have to make their living creating the entertainment that seems to be so important in your life. For every Hollywood millionaire there are hundreds of people struggling to make a middle class living. But the only thing that seems to matter to you is your entitlement to get what you want, when you want it at the price you determine, whether the source is the rightful owner or not. What's remarkable is that I doubt that you carry this attitude around in the other aspects of your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
So you're not going to acknowledge that there are problems with distribution models that make no sense to the consumer, instead criticizing me for pointing out those flaws. Shoot the messenger much?
"Sometimes legitimate sales are eroded by the widepread, unlawful free availability of the same product the rightful owner seeks to be compensated for."
Prove it.
"I'd suggest that none of the costs you cited come anywhere close to the production costs incurred by the rightful owner on a single film that had a N. American theatrical release.. And let's face it, the enticement for people to freely come to the website is largely dependent on "free" content. Otherwise, the world would be inundated with movie blogs and discussion boards instead of pirate sites."
You ignored the Red v Blue discussion, you ignore the fact that The Guild is free to watch. You ignore the multitude of people making a living on being either a Youtube partner or some kind of producer on free platforms. Put simply, you're ignoring the fact that new content is being created without the end user (ie consumer) worrying about "sunk costs".
"And you should have some respect for the people that have to make their living creating the entertainment that seems to be so important in your life. For every Hollywood millionaire there are hundreds of people struggling to make a middle class living. But the only thing that seems to matter to you is your entitlement to get what you want, when you want it at the price you determine, whether the source is the rightful owner or not. What's remarkable is that I doubt that you carry this attitude around in the other aspects of your life"
Oh please, stop with your entitlement speech. It's not like you care one bit about the people that are making a living through fair use and industries that don't think of a game or movie as the only end product. It's telling that you don't know who Nostalgia Critic is. Go research him and how he describes movies and makes a living. Or watch the Guild for FREE on Felicia Day's website.
Better yet, tell me how people enjoy watching Bad News Bears when it hasn't been in theaters for 20 years and they like their home theater instead of a movie theater.
Maybe if you would answer some questions instead of moralizing and trying to condemn people you'd actually have a better argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
The problems of windowing, regionalization or high pricing. The problems of unavailability of product, or the ease of finding a movie on the internet versus distributing and easy access by the copyright holder.
Of course I'm ignoring those things: they are not relevant to the discussion at hand. This particular comment thread deals with whether content creators can copy the business model of the pirates and still make money. Whether people like or dislike the current methods of content creators has nothing to do with whether "the way pirates are doing it" is a viable alternative for content creators.
From all that you seem to imply, if a movie makes no money, it's because of piracy. If it's just a bad movie, piracy is the scapegoat, which is exactly what I'm criticizing.
You must be pretending that I'm saying something I'm not. Feel free to point to any one post of mine that implies the nonsense you're spewing. When you're done finding nothing, you can admit that you were wrong.
And this also ignores that "pirates" have their own sunk costs. They provide a website, pay for the servers, the upkeep, newer features, among a number of other things to entice people to freely come to their website and hang out. And they do this for none or nearly no profit usually.
If content creators were to do the same thing, they would have the exact same sunk costs IN ADDITION TO the costs of creating and developing the product. Pirates do not share those sunk costs, so they enjoy an immediate advantage against the creators.
So a bit of advice? Learn to focus on better arguments that aren't one sided.
Where did you learn that it is appropriate to argue two-sides? Arguments are supposed to be one-sided! I'm arguing for a particular side, aren't I? And from the looks of it, so are you. If you don't want arguments that are one-sided, you should practice what you preach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Once the content is created, the content creators don't distribute the content as widely or as conveniently for the viewers and don't make that advertising revenue and so have less of a chance to recoup the costs of production.
I'm not seeing how the content creators aren't able to make back that money. Just because the pirates start at zero cost for production and the content creators start at a negative balance doesn't mean the content creators couldn't be making that same money that the pirates made...except, unless, you know...they overvalue their content and limit's availability and make customers jump through hoops for it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
You are certainly right that content creators could make their money based on the same type of model that pirates use to make money. The problem is that they would then have to compete with the pirates, and in that arena, the pirates would always win due to (1) the pirates' lack of sunk costs; and (2) the complete lack of a "first-to-market" advantage thanks to the ability to copy digital content instantaneously.
I realize that competition is desirable on the whole, but competition is also a disincentive to enter the market. And if content creators finds themselves unable to compete with the pirates sufficiently to make money, they will stop creating and go do something else. I view that as a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Spotify, Netflix and Hulu says you're wrong (or just ignorant -- take your pick).
Of course, now the industries behind all three are working hard to kill off those three -- but all three had noticeable impacts on infringement and showed that you absolutely can "compete" with infringement if you do things right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Spotify, Netflix and Hulu says you're wrong (or just ignorant -- take your pick).
Of course, now the industries behind all three are working hard to kill off those three -- but all three had noticeable impacts on infringement and showed that you absolutely can "compete" with infringement if you do things right.
Well, well, well. Here comes Elmer FUD with more of his bullshit.
Masnick, you know full well that Fox and NBC/U control Hulu and Hulu Plus. Why in the next sentence would you suggest that the owners of Hulu are trying to kill it off?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Because they are so it doesn't affect their own business model?
Have you not paid attention?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110130/01074712886/hulu-owners-looking-to-make-hulu-even- more-useless.shtml
You must be totally ignorant of history if you haven't seen legacy players try to kill off their own upstart efforts before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
I'm ignorant? Do you understand that Spotify, Netflix and Hulu do not create content, right? They instead license it. That does not strike me as the same model as that of the pirates.
Furthermore, pirates are burdened by the fact that their model is illegal and subject to civil liability and criminal prosecution. If they did not have that burden, I wonder how many companies would be willing to pay licensing fees to the content creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Of course they don't have the same model as the pirates. No one ever said they were.
Bringing up the legality of pirating doesn't even change the discussion, so why bother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Can you dolts not actually grasp that PRODUCING CONTENT HAS COSTS while merely hosting it is almost free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Can you dolts not actually grasp that that is a flat out lie?
I can EASILY produce content at zero cost to myself. I happen to have a laptop, a desktop, a few musical instruments, video equipment, etc. And friends who have the same or more than I do. Thus I can easily create a song, a video, a short story, etc. at ZERO COST. (Unless you want to count gas money in case I have to borrow equipment or have a friend bring it over, but hey $10 for the most part or a 6-pack is enough to cover that in most cases.) Hosting said content can also be done at zero cost to myself through free file hosting services (like Mediafire for example).
And while you may want to bring the argument that anything I produce can't possibly be in the realm of Hollywood's productions, that's just a pathetic attempt to debunk my statement. Why? Because how do you know? I've seen some amazing pieces of work (in all the variations thereof) that was done at no cost to the creators. Or at cost so trivial that you might as well say "no cost". (And I say this as a person who makes minimum wage yearly income.) Meanwhile, I've seen hundred million dollar efforts that were beyond abysmal. To the point that afterwards I said "they spent money on this?" And of course that'll lead to the "if it's such crap, why is it so popularly downloaded" to which I respond "why the heck not? Jersey Shore is for idiots and IS crap. People can't help but watch it nonetheless. Psh."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Yes you can. Nobody will pay you 500k a year to see it.
If you think that you can make content for nothing and make a ton of money, go for it. I think you will find yourself massively disappointed with the results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Can you dolts not actually grasp that that is a flat out lie?
I can EASILY produce content at zero cost to myself. I happen to have a laptop, a desktop, a few musical instruments, video equipment, etc. And friends who have the same or more than I do. Thus I can easily create a song, a video, a short story, etc. at ZERO COST. (Unless you want to count gas money in case I have to borrow equipment or have a friend bring it over, but hey $10 for the most part or a 6-pack is enough to cover that in most cases.) Hosting said content can also be done at zero cost to myself through free file hosting services (like Mediafire for example).
And while you may want to bring the argument that anything I produce can't possibly be in the realm of Hollywood's productions, that's just a pathetic attempt to debunk my statement. Why? Because how do you know? I've seen some amazing pieces of work (in all the variations thereof) that was done at no cost to the creators. Or at cost so trivial that you might as well say "no cost". (And I say this as a person who makes minimum wage yearly income.) Meanwhile, I've seen hundred million dollar efforts that were beyond abysmal. To the point that afterwards I said "they spent money on this?" And of course that'll lead to the "if it's such crap, why is it so popularly downloaded" to which I respond "why the heck not? Jersey Shore is for idiots and IS crap. People can't help but watch it nonetheless. Psh."
You are an amazing simpleton. What percentage of infringing content is the backyard, amateur video you describe versus motion pictures with actual production values. Try offering a pirate site that specializes in motion pictures with budgets of $10,000 or less and see how you make out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Red vs Blue
Red vs Blue DVDs
Red Vs Blue Season 1
Red vs Blue Distribution:
Although it is distributed serially over the Internet, Red vs. Blue is also one of the first commercially released products made using machinima, as opposed to a product merely containing machinima. DVDs of the eight completed seasons are sold through Rooster Teeth's official website, as well as at most EB Games, GameStop and Hot Topic stores in the United States.[66] For the DVDs, the episodes of the main storyline are edited together to play continuously as a full-length film. Because the episodes as individually released often contain dialogue that continues into or past the fade to black at the end of the video, Rooster Teeth either removes that dialogue entirely or films extra footage to replace the original fade to black.[67] On April 1, 2008, Rooster Teeth released a box set of all five seasons, including a DVD of new bonus content. In 2010, a remastered box set of the first five seasons was released, with the seasons 1 - 4 completely reshot, featuring a proper 16:9 aspect ratio instead of the highly letterboxed look of the original episodes, and a much higher resolution.
And the production costs are pretty low since it's based on using an established "format" of a Microsoft game engine. Should Microsoft now take them to prison for using it?
Don't get me started with Felicia Day and the Guild that doesn't use major licensing deals.
And don't get me started about how the production values of a movie are supposed to be bared by consumers when that's a sunk cost, that they have never had to bear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Sanctuary(that was webseries before signing with TV)
Youtube is full of original webseries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
You are clearly not taking into account the opportunity cost of doing something else that would make you money. The cost of time is a huge cost in making a visual, audio or literary work. If you think you can make such things "at ZERO COST", then you clearly do not value your own time very much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Ok, now try to earn a living doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
People do:
Michelle Phan - makes a living with her Youtube presence
Freddie Wong - Makes movies full time
Humble Indie Bundle - Makes millions of dollars on proceeds from people. Freely.
Big Buck Bunny - 200 GB download. Available to anyone with a connection, free time and a desire to watch. This is yet another project from Blender to promote the free open software movement.
Should I go on? Y/N
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
I value my own time highly. However, I suffer from insomnia. So as such, when other people are sleeping, I am awake and have free time. I.e. I can do something productive (create something) when I'd normally be sleeping. I.e. it's not me wasting time or saying my time is not valuable. And that's in addition to working 9-5 all week long. In addition to that, while I create, for the most part I'm on one of my computers. I repair computers and root/jailbreak phones and tablets as a side gig from home. You know what that means? That most of the time when I am creating something, I'm also working on something else (cleaning a computer from viruses, rooting someone's phone, etc) at the same time. I can multitask quite well. So yeah, I can make things "AT ZERO COST", and earn a buck while doing so. Think that covers your response in it's entirety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Quite simply: For 4 or 5 people, 500k a year split between them is a shit pot full of money for most of them, who were probably collected food stamps before this. But for a content creator, 500K is a drop in the bucket.
It all depends on where you stand. Clearly without any costs for content, 500k would be nice money. But if they actually had to pay for the content, they would have been screwed and lost.
It's pretty simple - I cannot imagine why you can't figure that out yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
In sum, Mike's cynacism is entirely unwarranted and unjustified here. It evinces a tremendous prejudice he has against those sworn to uphold the law and protect the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Mike's position here is easily explained by the fact that he's a pirate apologist, through and through.
Oh, Pirate Mike, are you not even try to hide it anymore? If you just admitted that you love piracy, I'd actually respect you... It's the lying, sliminess, and duplicity that really bothers me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Weird. I've never apologized for piracy, and as I've made clear I don't support it in any way, shape or form. Why you continue to lie, I don't know.
In fact, assuming you are who I think you are, you've insisted in the past that I've never, ever, suggested anyone is guilty in these kinds of cases. Yet here I've made it clear that I think the Ninjavideo folks clearly are guilty and have no case.
Oh, Pirate Mike, are you not even try to hide it anymore?
Hide what, exactly?
If you just admitted that you love piracy, I'd actually respect you... It's the lying, sliminess, and duplicity that really bothers me.
Um. The only lie would be if I said I "loved" piracy. I don't. I don't partake or support it. What I do think is that artists would be better off if they embraced what the technology allows and embraced what their fans want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
In fact, assuming you are who I think you are, you've insisted in the past that I've never, ever, suggested anyone is guilty in these kinds of cases. Yet here I've made it clear that I think the Ninjavideo folks clearly are guilty and have no case.
Yes, you've admitted that an obvious pirate was a pirate--Tenenbaum, Thomas-Rasset, and now the NinjaVideo Duo. That doesn't mean you're not a pirate apologist generally. Just look at the FUD you're spreading on this story, like it shouldn't be criminal (although they took in $500K while openly breaking the law), or that they didn't even really take in $500K (even though the feds seized the accounts and they admitted to it). Give me a break. You couldn't be more obvious.
Hide what, exactly?
Oh, please. Spare us the "who, me?" routine. Hide that you think that pirates are the bees-knees, Mike.
Um. The only lie would be if I said I "loved" piracy. I don't. I don't partake or support it. What I do think is that artists would be better off if they embraced what the technology allows and embraced what their fans want.
You don't think there's anything wrong with piracy, but people shouldn't do it. Got it, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
"You don't think there's anything wrong with piracy, but people shouldn't do it. Got it, Mike."
From Mike's quote, how did you get what you did? He didn't say there's anything wrong or not wrong with piracy. All he said was he doesn't participate in it himself or support it. Which clearly shoots down the "Pirate Mike" thing you and others use regularly.
In regards to artists, he's clearly saying they need to embrace technology and meet fans halfway (in a manner of speaking). As in, fans want various file types (mp3, flac, avi, mp4, etc.) and at reasonable prices and with no restrictions (DRM, always on internet connection, etc.)
Your dislike of Mike is apparent, but that doesn't excuse you spreading lies about him or libel ("Pirate Mike", being one of many examples, would be considered libel, given the way you present it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
I wasn't only relying on that quote. I'm relying on the entire body of evidence. The record speaks for itself. It's "Pirate Mike" as a matter of law, counselor.
In regards to artists, he's clearly saying they need to embrace technology and meet fans halfway (in a manner of speaking). As in, fans want various file types (mp3, flac, avi, mp4, etc.) and at reasonable prices and with no restrictions (DRM, always on internet connection, etc.)
And I think he's probably right about that. He's got good thoughts and ideas. No one's denying that.
Your dislike of Mike is apparent, but that doesn't excuse you spreading lies about him or libel ("Pirate Mike", being one of many examples, would be considered libel, given the way you present it).
My dislike is admitted. The "Pirate" moniker is more than earned. What you call libel, I call my opinion. See also U.S. Const. amend. I.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Can I see the "record"? Or by "the record" do you mean his open minded stance on the various issues? He's willing to discuss things rationally and respectfully. But he calls 'em like he sees them, IMO. I've been coming here for a few months, and I've never seen him advocate any wrong doing or anything along those lines. If anything, I've seen him advocate for the artists. As in they can do a lot themselves and there are ways to reach their audiences and give them what they want. He's pointed to great examples of how things can be done in ways that are beneficial to everyone.
"And I think he's probably right about that. He's got good thoughts and ideas. No one's denying that."
Actually, as a point of fact, several Anonymous Cowards are denying that. By referring to him as "Pirate Mike" they're trying to discredit him, by associating him with piracy. As in "he supports it, he advocates for it, etc". Thus in doing so, they're trying to trivialize what he does say. As in "oh Pirate Mike's just spreading FUD because of this or that, etc."
"My dislike is admitted. The "Pirate" moniker is more than earned. What you call libel, I call my opinion. See also U.S. Const. amend. I."
The "Pirate" moniker is more than earned in what way? Can you explain it to me? I'm asking legitimately. By "more than earned" do you mean because he criticizes the actions of the MPAA/RIAA? Do you mean earned because he's a self-admitted pirate (despite his own words up above saying he actually isn't)? I'd like to see how he's earned that moniker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
It's really easy. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I know Mike has been writing this blog for about 10 years (about 15,000 articles). Point me to ONE SINGLE ARTICLE in which Mike explains why piracy is not OK. You can't do it.
Mike will jump in the comments and pretend like he's not pro-piracy--he'll even explicitly say that piracy is not OK--but 15K articles speak for themselves.
What you will find are all sorts of articles about how piracy is inevitable, it causes no harm, it shouldn't be fought, anyone who is against it is just refusing to adapt, etc. All you will find is pirate apology. But you won't find is a single article in which he explains why he thinks it's not OK.
The obvious reason is because he doesn't really think it's not OK. I couldn't care less that he thinks this. What I do care about is the FACT that he lies about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Prove me wrong. Point me to one Mike article where he explains why he thinks "piracy is not OK." He's written, what, 1,000 articles about piracy? 2,000 articles? And yet not one article about why he thinks piracy is not OK.
The conclusion is inescapable--Mike does not really believe that "piracy is not OK."
I don't care that he thinks that, but I do care that he lies about it day after day.
Why the lies, Pirate Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
I dare you, Mike. Don't pretend like you haven't seen this post. Explain to all of us right here and now why "piracy is not OK."
Warm up the crickets, because I guarantee you Mike will not answer this straightforward question with a straightforward answer. He OBVIOUSLY believes that piracy is OK. Nothing else could explain the plethora of piracy-apologist posts on Techdirt.
"Pirate Mike," indeed. Give me a break with the lies already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
" I don't partake or support it. What I do think is that artists would be better off if they embraced what the technology allows and embraced what their fans want."
Amazing, there's been articles where he's defined that position and still he's attacked for it. Why are you so obsessed with calling him a pirate or anything else when he's been pretty consistent with his views on this for (what I assume) has been years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
How many hundreds and thousands of articles has Mike written about piracy, yet not one explaining why "piracy is not OK." There is only one reasonable explanation for this, and if you weren't so blinded by your bias you'd see the obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Finally, a few Google searches, would help you go a lot further than your Boy crying wolf routine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Where does Mike explain that "piracy is not OK"? That whole article is about embracing piracy. That's not even close to condemning piracy.
Sorry, Jay, but no dice.
Mike does not condemn piracy because Mike does not actually believe that "piracy is not OK." Why Mike lies about his true feelings is a whole other story...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
The opening line covers Mike's view on piracy.
"That whole article is about embracing piracy."
False. The article is about music videos being put online for free, and freely available (through Youtube, which the article mentions), when then in turn promote a band and the band's music. Thus potentially leading to more sales (of albums, concert tickets, and merchandise). It then goes on to state that DRM is not a good thing (in regards to one video attempted to be seen not being able to, due to the fact that Microsoft DRM prevents said video from playing on a Mac).
You're trying to paint that entire article as "embracing piracy", nothing could be further from the truth.
To summarize: The article is about how promotional content (music videos freely shown online) which could lead to sales, is being harmed by copy protection (DRM), making it so that promotional content can't be seen/heard by everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC does not read...
Alright, do what you want man. The record shows the three links in blue and your ignorance doesn't allow you to actually read the contents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
In, oh, I don't know, the first line of the article:
That whole article is about embracing piracy.
That whole article is about embracing the value of "free" as part of a business model.
That is not "embracing piracy." That is not even on the same planet as "embracing piracy."
To use the stupid "theft" metaphor that copyright maximalists are so fond of: You're saying that if I use a "buy one, get one free" coupon at my local grocery store, I've committed shoplifting.
I think this is why you just don't get it. If you (the content producer) embrace new technology, and distribute your content for free, it's not piracy. It is authorized. It is free speech (in all senses of the word). And it can make you money.
You may be using the same technology and distribution methods as the pirates. But that doesn't mean you are one, and it doesn't mean you approve of the pirates themselves. And if you're trying to shut down the pirates by shutting down "their" technology and prohibiting "their" distribution methods, you're hurting yourself, along with everyone else.
Pointing this out does not mean you "embrace piracy." It just means you're sane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
This has been answered by others ably below, and I've explained it plenty of times, but nothing I say will ever be to your satisfaction, so why waste the time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
LMAO! "Dodge, duck, dip, dive, dodge." No, Mike, it hasn't been answered. Not at all. And of course you yourself aren't answering it here either. You have all the time in the world to chime in, but never time to answer a simple question with a straightforward answer.
Give me a break, Pirate Mike. Do you really think for one second that your pro-piracy leaning and agenda aren't completely obvious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
You must really be proud of yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
You must really be proud of yourself.
Pirate Mike: All the time in the world to chime in, but never any time to answer a straightforward question.
If you think "piracy is not OK," then where is a single article that has you saying negative things about piracy?
You have hundreds if not thousands of articles about piracy, but I've never seen a single one where you took a stance on piracy being "not OK." How do you explain that?
Stop saying that others have answered the question. They haven't. No weaseling, Pirate Mike. Just answer the question, right here, right now.
Why won't you answer a simple, straightforward question? Scared to be pinned down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
If you think "piracy is not OK," then where is a single article that has you saying negative things about piracy?
What would you like me to do? To copy and paste what's already been said? Again: I HAVE answered the question, repeatedly.
You have hundreds if not thousands of articles about piracy, but I've never seen a single one where you took a stance on piracy being "not OK." How do you explain that?
Ok. And can you find one where I said piracy was OK? How do you explain that? You keep insisting that I think it's fine, but can't point to a single post where I have said it's fine. IN contrast, as Karl pointed out above, there are tons of posts where I have said it's not okay. So, um, what else do you want? I have said, repeatedly, that it's not okay. I've never said it's okay. In what world do you twist that into saying I really believe it's okay?
Why won't you answer a simple, straightforward question? Scared to be pinned down?
Again, I have answered, repeatedly. I've warned you in the past about your childish temper tantrums. Are you really about to throw another one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Warned me? LOL! I'm real scared! You can give all the weasel words you want, but it's abundantly clear that you are: (1) anti-authority, (2) pro-piracy, (3) anti-IP law, and (4) a piracy-apologist.
So, um, what else do you want? I have said, repeatedly, that it's not okay. I've never said it's okay. In what world do you twist that into saying I really believe it's okay?
Yes, you admit that piracy is illegal, and you admit that some people don't want their IP to be pirated. That doesn't mean you're actually anti-piracy. Not by a mile. If piracy is not OK, then why are zero out of a thousand or so articles about piracy not written from the viewpoint of someone who actually believes that piracy is "not OK"? Where's a single article where you explain what's "not OK" about piracy? They don't exist because you really don't think "piracy is not OK." Stop lying. It's really turning my stomach at this point. Stop fucking lying.
You keep insisting that I think it's fine, but can't point to a single post where I have said it's fine.
Straw man. No, you don't say explicitly that you are pro-piracy. That DOES NOT mean that you really don't like piracy. As I've pointed out repeatedly, the fact that you write article after article about the positives of piracy, with never an article that speaks negatively about piracy, proves you're pro-piracy. Give me a break, Pirate Mike. I know you're intentionally lying to me right here, right now.
Just admit that you are pirate-apologist, Pirate Mike. Your lies are truly revolting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
I've written thousands of posts on the site, and I don't believe piracy is okay. So you're wrong. The majority of posts on the site are written from the viewpoint of someone who doesn't believe piracy is "ok".
Where's a single article where you explain what's "not OK" about piracy?
Where's the single article where I say it is OK?
That's the point that you can't get through your thick skull. This blog is not about moral arguments concerning whether or not it is okay. That's why there are no blog posts that focus on either argument. Because arguing whether or not something is "ok" is a stupid and wasteful argument. Who gives a fuck if it's "ok" or not. I'm only focused on what I think is interesting and or useful: and that's how to help content creators do better, and how to increase innovation.
Straw man. No, you don't say explicitly that you are pro-piracy.
Let me get this straight. Just so we're clear:
The fact that there are no posts on the site directly addressing why piracy is not ok is 100% relevant. But the fact that there are no posts on the site directly addressing why piracy is ok is 100% irrelevant?
Really?
I'm really trying to understand how your mind works. At one moment you claim that because I haven't written X is bad, it means I support X. But then when I point out that I haven't written X is good either, you don't think it means I'm against X?
Please explain the way your twisted brain works. If I don't say something explicitly, does it or does it not mean I support it?
Along those lines, where is your comment explaining why you stopped beating your wife & child? You comment here all the time, and I've seen no such comment.
Just admit it, you are a wife and child beater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
I will note, with amusement, of course, that you refuse to respond to the points that I raised about the lack of logic in your argument, but instead stomp your foot demanding answers to questions I've already answered.
And then you call me a liar? Seriously, it's time for you to grow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
If I'm wrong about this, then take two seconds and explain how. Why's it so damn hard to get you to explain your position? What are you scared of?
There's nothing wrong with my argument. Just because you don't expressly say "piracy is the greatest thing ever" doesn't mean that your pro-piracy stance can't be discerned from your body of articles. It's common knowledge that you are pro-piracy.
Good grief, dude. You couldn't be more obvious. If want to defend pirates, then go for it. But come out of the pirate closet and just admit what you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
WTF? I gave an answer. Multiple times.
If I'm wrong about this, then take two seconds and explain how. Why's it so damn hard to get you to explain your position? What are you scared of?
I've explained it hundreds of times. Hell, Karl pointed out a bunch above, and there are many more than that. And it doesn't matter what I say because you'll just continue to claim I haven't answered.
There's nothing wrong with my argument. Just because you don't expressly say "piracy is the greatest thing ever" doesn't mean that your pro-piracy stance can't be discerned from your body of articles. It's common knowledge that you are pro-piracy.
Your knowledge of what is "common knowledge" is false.
But you still fail to actually respond to the point. Of course. Point me to the article where I say I'm pro-piracy.
You can't. Because it doesn't exist. Because I'm not "pro-piracy."
Now, according TO YOUR OWN LOGIC, because such an article does not exist, it MUST mean my position is that I'm not pro-piracy.
Using your own logic I am not pro-piracy.
Good grief, dude. You couldn't be more obvious. If want to defend pirates, then go for it. But come out of the pirate closet and just admit what you are.
Seriously, dude. Seek help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Ha, so not only did you just admit that he thinks it's "not OK," you gave two valid reasons why he doesn't believe it's OK. (Frankly, "it's illegal" and "it goes against the wishes of the artists" are probably the best reasons not to advocate it or participate in it.)
Now it's not enough that he thinks (and explicitly states) that piracy is not OK - the reasons he thinks so have to agree with yours? What utter and complete bullshit.
Reasons which, I might add, you have never explained either. Why are you so "pro-piracy?" After all, you haven't explained why you think it's "not OK," either. By your logic, that must make you "pro-piracy."
Seriously, dude, give it up. Anyone with half a brain can see that Mike is not "pro-piracy." Anyone who can read can look at the multiple links to articles on this site that I gave where he expressly says piracy "not OK."
The fact that you refuse to admit it only reflects badly on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
It is beyond obvious that Mike refuses to answer this simple question. It's just as obvious that Mike doesn't really believe that "piracy is not OK."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Answer the question, Mike. Tell your readers all the reasons why "piracy is not OK."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
It really hasn't been answered. Here's a simple, straightforward question:
Mike, exactly why do you think "piracy is not OK"?
Please answer with a simple, straightforward answer. No dodging, ducking, dipping, diving, or dodging.
Shall I warm up the crickets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
C'mon, Pirate Mike. Answer the question. Stop dodging. Stop with the weasel words. Stop pretending other people answered the question. They didn't.
Please explain exactly why "piracy is not OK."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
C'mon, Pirate Mike. Answer the question. Stop dodging. Stop with the weasel words. Stop pretending other people answered the question. They didn't.
Please explain exactly why "piracy is not OK."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
C'mon, Pirate Mike. Answer the question. Stop dodging. Stop with the weasel words. Stop pretending other people answered the question. They didn't.
Please explain exactly why "piracy is not OK."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
- http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060808/171238.shtml
- http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060816/1953202.shtml
- http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090114/0629223401.shtml
- http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110228/23515813305/new-study-70-people-find-piracy-socially-accep table.shtml
- http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110812/23402015511/stealing-isnt-saving-sharing-isnt-stealing.sht ml
Or perhaps you should read some of his comments:
- http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060816/1953202.shtml#c366
- http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090114/0629223401.shtml#c673
- http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090114/0629223401.shtml#c853
- http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090923/1409046297.shtml#c455
If you do a simple Google search for "don't condone piracy," you'll come up with pages and pages of hits from this site. But why let reality get in the way of your relentless, irrational hatred of all things Techdirt?
Shall I warm up the crickets?
Never send to know for whom the crickets chirp; they chirp for thee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Instead, it's article after article about embracing piracy, or spreading FUD on a piracy story. This NinjaVideo story is a perfect example. Pirate Mike thinks it shouldn't be a crime, and he doubts (without any basis whatsoever) that the details of the crime they admitted under oath are really accurate. Instead of condemning an obvious pirate (even you admonish them), Mike is reaching for any argument he can come up with to defend them. It's disgusting that he pretends "piracy is not OK" while he defends these obvious pirates.
Why must Pirate Mike lie and deceive? Why is he so intellectually dishonest? It's absolutely disgusting. It's ridiculous. Obviously Pirate Mike thinks piracy is great, and he'll defend the pirates whatever chance he gets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
I see, so your "evidence" is because you can't find one specific instance where he says "piracy is not OK" he must strongly believe in and support piracy? Despite just saying that he doesn't?
Lol. Wow.
"What you will find are all sorts of articles about how piracy is inevitable, it causes no harm, it shouldn't be fought, anyone who is against it is just refusing to adapt, etc. All you will find is pirate apology. But you won't find is a single article in which he explains why he thinks it's not OK."
Let's see, sounds to me like Mike's dealing with reality. Can you point us to an article where he says specifically that "it causes no harm" and "it shouldn't be fought"? Because I've yet to see him say that. I've seen him say instead of spending so much time fighting something that is inevitable, the industries so try and figure out why people are turning to piracy and offer them a better alternative. And, yes, there's nothing wrong with being against piracy, but it is indeed true. If you're not going to adapt to changing market trends, then that's your problem, and you do deserve to go the way of the dodo.
"The obvious reason is because he doesn't really think it's not OK. I couldn't care less that he thinks this. What I do care about is the FACT that he lies about it."
Or it could be that rather than say "I don't think it's not OK", he presents articles on HIS site showing the things I pointed out above. Which is actually more informative than saying "I don't think it's not OK". It is after all, his website. I read the MPAA blog too. Guess what? I see plenty of misinformation on there, with no room to discuss it (they don't allow comments, I wonder why that is). But sorry to say, Mike clearly already said he doesn't support piracy.
"Weird. I've never apologized for piracy, and as I've made clear I don't support it in any way, shape or form. Why you continue to lie, I don't know." - Mike Masnick (up above somewhere)
It seems to me, the one who is lying and the facts are there to prove so (through comments left on this site) is YOU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
The EFF blog doesn't allow comments either. That fact is meaningless without more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Well, how do you know how much they made? Do you have a source I can investigate and see for myself? Or are you just going with what "they say"?
Also, we all know no one has ever lied under oath before. /s
I mean, we just had an article the other day about a lady who a police officer claimed did something that she ACTUALLY didn't do. The police officer lied twice, on the stand, which means she "swore under oath".
And I've yet to see a pro-piracy bias. I've seen him question "facts" raised by the anti-piracy side. I've read how the numbers for piracy are exaggerated or don't appear to make genuine sense. I've seen him say instead of JUST focusing on the "effects" of piracy, maybe they should try and figure out the "cause". (I.e. what drives people to it, I've given examples up above). Etc. But if that's "a pro-piracy bias" to you, then you've got problems.
I could just as easily say your anti-piracy bias is causing you to attempt to assassinate Mike's character on a regular basis, rather than actually discuss anything beyond that. I could say, if you dislike Mike and his "bias", perhaps you could go elsewhere. To another site, more in line with your views. Instead of staying here.
If I think someone's an idiot, I don't stick around to further subject myself to their idiocy. But that's just me, I'm an adult and believe in acting my age, not like a child.
Oh, and "when Pirate Mike writes about piracy, he always FUDs it out to the max", if you change "Pirate Mike" to "MPAA/RIAA" or to "Anonymous Coward" (yourself), it remains just as true, if not more so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Will do when it comes to takedowns initiated by **AA and their ilk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
So why you're still doing it, shilltard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
I guess this is what happens when your basic beliefs are shaken to their core, and you have no other way to respond except to lash out angrily, and to post sour grapes messages like this.
It's really too bad, Mike had a clue about 5 years ago, but lost the plot when he started to get high on his own supply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
I think these "Mike opponents" are actually the same guy that has learned to use Tor to remain anonymous and muddy the waters. Some of them, at least are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Hey, you haven't used "reamed" in this context. Losing your touch already?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
'Amounts admitted in a back room plea bargain under threat of harsher penalties if you don't play along, and you still refuse to believe?'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
'Amounts admitted in a back room plea bargain under threat of harsher penalties if you don't play along, and you still refuse to believe?'
Do you have any evidence indicating that these confessions are less than truthful? If so, I'd love to hear it. Impeaching the credibility of each confession is one thing, but I don't see you or anyone else putting forth any evidence indicating that the accused are lying to the court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Do you have any evidence indicating that these confessions are truthful? If so, I'd love to hear it. Basing your arguments on what someone has said in order to get a reduced penalty is one thing, but I don't see you or anyone else putting forth any evidence indicating that the accused are telling the truth to the court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
I have the fact that she gave her confession under penalty of perjury. I have the fact that she's not contesting the veracity of her own confession. I have the fact that she gave her confession with the assistance of counsel. I also have the common sense principle that people tend to not admit to criminality in excess of what they truly did. If anything, Ms. Bashara confessed to a lesser crime than to the crime for which she's truly culpable.
Now it's your turn. Prove me wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'm also not saying Mike is wrong. All I want is the actual data, not what someone said to get a reduced sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Learn The Lesson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Learn The Lesson
Observing crooks would have helped the criminals. Learn from your enemies; they are your greatest allies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or maybe she spent a lot of it over the two year period?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hiding...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hiding...
Because they are apparently not very sophisticated. These kids certainly could have created a corporate structure to protect themselves from civil liability and potential scrutiny from the press and laymen. However, even if they had, that corporate structure does not protect one's self from criminal liability. The primary differece between trolls and these kids is that the trolls are not doing anything illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hiding...
I remember an AC pointed me to a discussion of Rick Falkvinge's...
I'm going to post it here because it's quite relevant.
In Iran, it is against the law to execute virgin women. Still, women are being sentenced to death, so the administration have come up with the idea of forcibly marrying them to prison guards the night before the execution. That way, they would no longer be virgins, and so can be legally executed. Two years ago, one such prison guard stepped forward and told his story, about how the women scheduled for execution would typically resist being forcibly married and have forced sex with the prison guards � so the guards would usually administer sedatives to make the legal process easier. Women are eligible for marriage from 9 years of age in Iran.
In nonlegalese, girls as young as nine are lawfully drugged, raped, and shot. (Iran executes in excess of 5,000 women every year.)
What is most striking about this is not the sheer horror of the evil inherent in the system, but the young prison guard�s reflection in the interview:
�The marriages were lawful.�
Here, it becomes painfully obvious that just because something is written into law, it is not good, just, and righteous. But many people who Believe In The Law will refuse to let this obvious counterproof knock them out of their comfort zone, and will therefore and rationalize it as Iran not being applicable, somehow being a barbaric country and not living up to modern, Western standards.
-------------------------------
Falkvinge goes on to explain how there were other countries, even his native Sweden, that had barbaric laws such as forced sterilization.
I'll put a few from the US here.
Jim Crow - The belief that people of different skins could be separated by law.
Executive Order 9066 - The belief that those of Japanese, Italian, or German descent were criminals without any type of due process during WWII. They lost their homes, the ability to move freely during war time and were imprisoned unfairly.
War on Drugs - To sum this up, it's an attack on an idea. The idea that you can morally regulate every person, imprison and reform them, while depriving them of education opportunities, or basic civil rights.
Just because everything is law, does not make it right or just in any way shape or form. And yet, you think what patent trolls are doing is great because it's legal, while what NV supposedly did is incorrect because ICE twisted the laws to make it illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hiding...
Just because everything is law, does not make it right or just in any way shape or form. And yet, you think what patent trolls are doing is great because it's legal, while what NV supposedly did is incorrect because ICE twisted the laws to make it illegal.
I am making no judgement as to whether patent trolls act morally. I am merely pointing out that the law allows them to carry out their actions. By contrast, the law does not allow the Ninjavideo kids to do what they did. And in the context of whether one can avoid punishment, the difference of legality is all that matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hiding...
Banks launder drug money and never get punished for it.
Digital Pirates have been doing the piracy thing for over 40 years now with millions of pirates literally escaping detection and punishment.
Over the years the software scene became almost impregnable to law enforcement, entertainment pirates probably will fallow the same learning curve and become harder to track.
So no, I don't believe legality matter, it is irrelevant in fact for most people who don't even see it happening, it only matters when you are caught doing it, but that doesn't happen that often and when it did it brought such a backlash that it was almost immediately abandoned as a course of action.
Just face it, those laws are not enforceable, people just don't have in them to respect those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hiding...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hiding...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG! ROFLMAO! Now that is some Grade A faith-based FUD. Classic, chubby. Classic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They picked one ugly face to make "the face" of NinjaVideo. Maybe the rapist in prison will find her attractive...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you kidding me? This blog is panty-peeler. Mike could hit that in a second.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal or not, there was a demand.. when there is a demand there is an opertunity to profit. Using half the effort to capitalize on this opertunity, that you used attacking some half wits with a web site, you could of created long term profits. As it stands, the customers will just go to another "illegal" service.. rinse and repeat... the whack-a-mole game continues....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm like a dog OMG.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Much different from other cases
Now, I personally have never visited the site, so I don't know exactly how they work. But the government's description does not seem far-fetched:
This means:
1. They were charging for access to content;
2. They had direct, specific knowledge that the material was infringing;
3. They personally facilitated the uploading of content, even obtaining the content in the first place.
4. At least according to the indictment, the infringing materials were hosted on NinjaVideo's servers; they weren't just providing links to third party sites.
None of those conditions were present in the other copyright seizures I've seen (Rojadirecta, dajaz1, torrent-finder, etc). Hell, even The Pirate Bay doesn't do any of that.
The $500,000 figure is not surprising. Even assuming they made no income from ads (which is close to reality), they also charged a minimum "donation" of $25 to access more content. To make $500,000, you would just need to get 20,000 "premium" memberships - over a two-and-a-half year period. (And the millions of users who didn't pay? Damn parasites! They were obviously freeloading on the back of NinjaVideo's hard work.)
You also need to pay attention to what that figure actually means. The government said "$500,000 in overall proceeds during the website�s two-and-a-half years of operation." In other words, this is net income, not profit. Take out the costs of running at least five dedicated servers (according to the indictment), and the profit is nowhere near even half that. In fact, I'm betting that's where the $200,000 figure comes from. The affidavit claims that Beshara "distributed proceeds to some of her co-conspirators." My guess is that the $200K was the total profits from the site, and Beshara paid out everyone else from that.
Of course, the fact that NinjaVideo is now confirmed guilty of criminal copyright infringement, doesn't mean the ICE's ex parte siezure of their domain name was warranted, or even constitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Much different from other cases
Which is actually a false claim. Having talked to a few people that have moved on to other sites, NV had an app made by Matt, but the content was still from Megavideo and other third party sites.
"2. They had direct, specific knowledge that the material was infringing;"
They had a working relationship with third parties to find good links. There's a few other sites with a similar set up where people uploaded content for streaming.
"3. They personally facilitated the uploading of content, even obtaining the content in the first place."
I'm not sure on this, but one of the things that was said is that they had a team that found content and "verified it". I believe Torrentfreak knew more of NV before the raid, trying to warn them of what was going on.
"4. At least according to the indictment, the infringing materials were hosted on NinjaVideo's servers; they weren't just providing links to third party sites."
A huge thing to note here. Did they follow DMCA protocol? How can we know? How can ICE know? Not trying to justify or condemn what they did, but it seems that through all of the talk, we don't know why they were targeted save for the fact that they are smaller than Google. Also, given that there are two people left that are face with arraignment (since one is in Greece, who has no extradition contracts with the US) I would wait to see what happens as the plea deals are used to coerce them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Much different from other cases
Which is actually a false claim.
Well, I don't know. If the allegations are true, they were holding back some content from free users, and only allowing paid users to access some of the content that was on their site. If even this is true, they are much worse than your average torrent site.
They had a working relationship with third parties to find good links.
If they were aware that those third parties didn't have legitimate access to the links in question, then the site owners actually had concrete knowledge that the material was infringing. I don't know for a fact that this allegation is true, but it's not unlikely.
I'm not sure on this, but one of the things that was said is that they had a team that found content and "verified it". I believe Torrentfreak knew more of NV before the raid, trying to warn them of what was going on.
I should do more digging about this. The way the indictment was worded, it made it sound like NinjaVideo actually instructed uploaders to find certain content, and upload it to their servers. Obviously indictments are full of all sorts of hullabaloo, so I shouldn't take this as a given, but I don't find it particularly hard to believe.
"4. At least according to the indictment, the infringing materials were hosted on NinjaVideo's servers; they weren't just providing links to third party sites."
A huge thing to note here. Did they follow DMCA protocol? How can we know?
This is significant under the law. According to a lot of case law (e.g. Perfect 10 v. Google), the location of the server where the content is hosted, is the location of the infringement. Furthermore, merely providing links to infringing content is not, in itself, infringement.
As far as DMCA's "safe harbors" are concerned, one can only be exempt from liability if one "does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing." Most sites (e.g. torrent-finder) do not have that actual knowledge, but that does not seem to be the case here. This was not a case of them providing a simple service with non-infringing uses, that wasn't policed enough for RIAA approval; this was a case where they were deliberately advocating that infringing material be uploaded.
Look, I'm not the biggest fan of the RIAA or the MPAA (to say the least). But even to me, NinjaVideo represents "the worst of the worst" as far as copyright infringement is concerned. ICE's actions are unjustified, but they are at least grounded in reality in this case. NinjaVideo is the stereotype of the "bad guys" that justifies ICE's actions - and that's really the problem.
What I'm really worried about is that people in general think the other seized sites are doing anything remotely similar to NinjaVideo. They were not. Treating them the same way is counter-productive, a waste of public resources, and most likely against the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Much different from other cases
There were private sections of the forums that could only be accessed by people who donated or contributed. These were one time payments of any amount someone wanted to give, and it was generally understood this was to maintain the site (whether the owners were honest about this is another matter). Access to these private forums could also be gained through other, non-monetary means (generally contributing to the forums basically).
Indeed they did. It was fully known by them that they were engaging in piracy. Much of the talk however was about how inadequate alternatives were, especially when considering international viewers of the site who couldn't access some shows legitimately anyway.
AFAIK the content was hosted elsewhere, but as mentioned, they were involved or at least had significant knowledge of the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom of Speech......
Nuff Said ????
PapaPaul
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just quoted several. Now, point me to one article where he says "piracy is OK." You won't be able to, and you know it.
Where's an article about someone being damaged by piracy?
Ah: it's not enough that Mike doesn't condone or advocate piracy, doesn't participate in it, says it's illegal and against the wishes of some artists. If he's not repeating the RIAA/MPAA party line, then he's "pro-piracy." I see.
By your standards, pretty much the entire planet is "pro-piracy."
Where's an article where Mike explains why piracy is bad?
Do you mean morally wrong? Mike does not try to put a moral spin on economic arguments. Nor should he. Nor should you.
Speaking for myself, however: I can not see why on Earth fans sharing the media they love could ever be considered "morally wrong." In fact, if anyone is "morally wrong," it is the people who try to prevent it.
Think of those "Star Trek" replicators, that can create food out of thin air. That device certainly would put a lot of farmers out of business. But do you think using that device should be illegal because of it? Do farmers' incomes justify outlawing a cure for hunger? Of course not. That would be completely immoral.
Same here. Culture was meant to be shared. That's its purpose. If you're advocating putting people in jail for sharing culture, then you don't have a leg to stand on, morally speaking.
Copyright may be necessary; it may be justified in economic terms. Circumventing it is certainly unlawful. But is not a moral imperative, and should never be thought of as one.
Where's a single article where Mike actually talks negatively about piracy?
He was not particularly fond of Judith Griggs, if you recall:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101117/03315211909/cooks-source-apology-really-a-rant-bl aming-the-woman-it-copied-for-daring-to-tell-people.shtml
That's just off the top of my head. If you use your old friend Google, I'm sure you'll find more like this.
Why must Pirate Mike lie and deceive? Why is he so intellectually dishonest? It's absolutely disgusting. It's ridiculous.
Funny, I could swear you were looking in the mirror when you said that. All you've done in this thread is spread FUD about Mike's personal motives, lie, and be intellectually dishonest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pirate Mike thinks that as long as he doesn't explicitly say "piracy is OK" then that means he can never be pinned down as being pro-piracy. Give me a break. It couldn't be more obvious. And again, it's not that I fault him for believing what he believes. I fault him for lying about it to his readers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you honestly think Mike is pro-piracy, then I'm sure you can't help anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Afraid I'll pin you down on being a pirate-apologist? You know I will.
I don't blame you for running and hiding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja crap !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ninja crap !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ninja crap !
This thread is done for me. Contrary to the lies of this AC I have explained my position numerous times.
I have not "refused." I have explained it over and over and over again.
The only one in denial is this AC.
I'm out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ninja crap !
Just saying you've explained it doesn't make it so. Funny how you don't even provide a single link to prove your point. You haven't answered the question ever, Mike. Everyone can see that you are absolutely refusing to answer this simple question. I've tried to corner you on this point before, and you always run off without answering. It's awesomely funny.
The only one in denial is this AC.
And yet you can't even provide a simple answer or a link. No one's buying your lies here, Mike.
I'm out.
Of course you're out, Mike. Everyone can see how much you hemmed and hawed, but never did you answer the question or provide a link to where you purportedly have answered this question in the past. Too funny. Classic. I'm bookmarking this exchange for my Pirate Mike scrapbook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ninja crap !
Just as you saying I haven't explained my position doesn't make it so either.
Anyone reading this can read the thread and see the multiple links people have put to places where I answered your question.
And they can note that you refuse to respond to your logical idiocy in which me not saying X means I believe X, but me not saying Y... also means I believe X.
Once again: seek help.
And yet you can't even provide a simple answer or a link. No one's buying your lies here, Mike.
Multiple links provided above. You ignore them.
And so far it appears that everyone here seems to agree with me. The only one who isn't getting any support is... oh wait: YOU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ninja crap !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ninja crap !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ninja crap !
Right, Pirate Mike was writing about his pirate friends. And looky at what Pirate Mike was arguing: (1) it shouldn't even be a crime!, and (2) it probably really wasn't even $500K! This is textbook pirate apology.
Let's put it all together. Mike is obviously anti-copyright and anti-authority, and he frequently writes pirate apology articles like this one. He posts all kinds of positive things about piracy, but never any negative things. His pro-piracy position could not be more self-evident.
Pirate Mike's treatment of this NinjaVideo story is just more evidence that Mike is pro-piracy. And the fact that he won't explain why "piracy is not OK" is further evidence that he doesn't really believe it.
Mike couldn't be more transparent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LMAO! Best thread ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]