Eric Holder Answers Question About Kim Dotcom Prosecution
from the blah-blah-blah dept
Attorney General Eric Holder was in New Zealand for a meeting of Attorneys General from the US, New Zealand, Canada, Australia and the UK. Radio New Zealand got to meet up with Holder and after asking him about the meeting proceeded to ask him about the Megaupload case (mp3), which the interviewer noted was of great interest to New Zealanders.Holder, in his usual fashion, answers with generalities that don't actually answer the questions being asked. He gives his standard "intellectual property theft = bad!" speech:
Well I don't want to comment on a case that is pending. But I will say, more generally, that we are very concerned about the theft of intellectual property. It's something that we take very seriously, both in the United States, and I think our allies do as well. With regard that case, we've been cooperating with the New Zealand authorities. And I will just rely on the pleadings we have filed in court to talk about that.First of all, we've pointed this out before, but you would think that the supreme "lawyer" for the government would know the damn law. There is no "intellectual property theft." That's a made up term by copyright maximalists. There is such a thing as copyright infringement, which is what he means. He should use the actual term. Otherwise it does make him look like a pawn of Hollywood.... Which leads right into the next question. The interviewer notes that Kim Dotcom has been saying that the case is all about the DOJ "heeding the beck and call of Hollywood moguls." Holder immediately responds:
Well, that's not true. I don't want to comment on that case other than to say that it was brought on the basis of the facts and the basis of the law and it's consistent with the enforcement priorities that this administration has had.Well, yes, the enforcement priorities that have heavily been pushed for by Hollywood.
The interviewer notes the various screwups in the case, and Holder doesn't bite, saying that there's been good collaboration and they expect everything to turn out fine in the end. The next question is about how serious Holder is about pursuing extradition, and Holder makes it sound like no big deal:
We have made an extradition request. We have an existing treaty between the US and New Zealand that has been used a great many times throughout the years. And I don't see how any individual would not be subject to that treaty.Uh.... that's a bullshit answer. Because the problem with the extradition issue is not whether or not Dotcom is subject to it, but whether or not the issues in the case are subject to it. The DOJ had to bolt on some questionable conspiracy claims to make this work, since mere copyright infringement is not an extraditable offense. Holder also responded to a question about New Zealand's attempt to spy more on citizens and residents by saying he doesn't see how that violates civil liberties. When questioned on that, he throws out some random statement about cooperation to stop terrorism, and again says that spying on people doesn't need to violate civil liberties.
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: copyright, copyright infringement, eric holder, extradition, kim dotcom, new zealand
Companies: megaupload
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What is wrong with extradition?
Tamils Against Genocide (TAG), a US-based activist organization seeking legal redress to Tamil war victims said, "Santhirarajah was arrested on 14 July 2008 on the US extradition request. He was remanded in custody (for more than 4 years) until the date of this judgment in 31 August 2012. Court also concluded that "in or about November 2009" was the time when it was reasonably practicable for the AG to make a determination whether to surrender Santhirarajah. Santhirarajah's liberty was curtailed extra-legally for a period of 2 years and 9 months," TAG noted.
But make no mistake that the US has successfully gone after hackers in the land downunder:
BEFORE he was extradited to the United States, Hew Griffiths, from Berkeley Vale in NSW, had never even set foot in America. But he had pirated software produced by American companies.
Now, having been given up to the US by former justice minister Chris Ellison, Griffiths, 44, is in a Virginia cell, facing up to 10 years in an American prison after a guilty plea late last month.
Still, it's amazing that a man that's never set foot in America can come to the US to be punished, ironically in the same way most Aussies were shipped to Australia to be exiled as criminals.
I don't know which is worse. The fact that Holder advocates for more prisons in America when it doesn't work or the fact that most people understand that he is greatly misleading the public about the pursuits of Hollywood. Better yet, why keep sending people to prison for the fact that Hollywood can't be bothered to innovate? There's story after story of their screw ups, their destruction of technology that people want, and their inability to adapt. After all of that, it's time to get some new stories from new industries based around what the public wants, not what a trade industry wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is wrong with extradition?
Once this get the attention it deserves the copyright cartel will have a lot of explaing to do, there have been many cases where hollywood accounting has shown massive amounts of fraud on behalf of the copyright maximalists and they honestly need to be investigated in a big way by the IRS and CID and any other organisation that investigates fraud on in a big way.
I wish techdirt or one of the tech news sites would do a full investigation as far as they can and forward their findings to the corect department to investigate and charge those guilty.
It would make a great story and i think would help remove some of those people that will not want anythign to do with the copyright cartel then , or will not want to be associated with them if they are investigated, like the damn vice president of America who is also involved in this theft from content creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Constitution
People make a lot of reverence to that piece of paper, yet our government is not working for the majority of people. And there's a ton of reasons why:
Bicameral legislation - No other modern democracy has this because it's inherently undemocratic. Just look at what it takes to get legislation that the public actually wants through Congress.
Tolerance of Slavery - Say what you will, but the fact that our government now depends on slave labor in prisons is rather telling. We've worked 40 years to bring about slavery for the masses by depriving them of wages, then depriving them of freedom and that's morally unjust.
Judicial Review - I have found very few arguments for Judicial Review given that because of the Courts, we have inducement when it was never written into law as well as a very pro corporate court is one of the most dangerous things to a republic we can have.
The Framers (not the Founders) wanted a representative democracy because they were fearful of direct democracy. And you know what? The Framers found massive loopholes to exploit the system culminating into James Madison's fears in Federalist Paper 10. However, James Madison would have gone in a more democratic way had he been told to bring about the Constitution in a different set of circumstances. Once he'd learned more about how the Constitution was being influenced by democratic measure, he lost doubts on democracy.
This doesn't mean that the Constitution can't be changed. It should be recognized that it has some massive weaknesses that have been exposed over the centuries.
In essence, with our Constitution, it's Democracy 1.0 whereas most other countries are running Democracy 4.5. They have proportional representation. They don't have an electoral college. They don't have money in politics. We don't have an effective government. We need universal healthcare and a government of/by/4 the people.
And that's what we should all strive for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Constitution
Course you think Hugo was the best leader on the planet (which kinda makes me wonder about your actual critical thinking skills, where anyone thats actual dealt with said lunatic thinks he was a dictator asshat...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
) How much money did Megaupload pay to the owners of such content?
) What did you know and when did you know it?
) How could you remain blind to the infringing content?
) Do you feel any personal responsibility over the presence of infringing content?
) How many millions of dollars did Megaupload get from that infringing content?
) How many millions of dollars did you Kim Dotcom personally get from that infringing content?
Those would do for a start. Questions are easy: it's the answers under oath in front of an impartial jury that Dotcom is trying to avoid.
Pirate Mike never misses a chance to defend grifters of infringing content. Here he's leveraging the unpopularity of shyster Holder to do it.
And yet again, Mike just can't see that "teh internets" and distance are NO absolute shield to prosecution. Megaupload was doing business in the US, despite not having a US address, and that's jurisdiction. The process may be tangled because new that crooks can so easily sell someone else's intellectual property, but -- on the instant case -- it's thoroughly moral to prosecute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
) Was the search warrant on Dotcom's home found to be illegal?
) Was the removal of items of Dotcom's property and then taken to the US against the authority of the NZ found to be illegal?
Anyone else like to give further questions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
before you speak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
1) no-one knows the servers have been stolen
2) none (although Kim has repeatedly offered to "help hollywood" on numerous occasions presumably he would have offered them monies if he had not been rejected out of hand)
3)When he was informed of the infringing content.
4) When he was informed of a piece of content he had it removed.
5) I doubt it, see my note about rejected offers. It's also worth saying that all this content was already out there anyone who didn't feel like paying for the content could still have got it.
6) 0 he sold adds and the ability to remove a lockout timer not content.
7) 0 see above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
He can't know because 1- only the rights holders can say it, 2- the nature of the service made it so the same file would be available for different people that tried to upload it and you can't know if they actually own said file, 3- the DOJ is refusing to let them access the seized servers to dig for info like that.
How much money did Megaupload pay to the owners of such content?
Megaupload is merely a storage service, the company would only be obliged to remove content upon receiving DMCA notices. If it was American of course.
What did you know and when did you know it?
I don't like tea with cookies, thanks. (This answer makes no sense? Neither did your question)
How could you remain blind to the infringing content?
MU did not. He complied with takedown requests and even had partnerships with major rights holders. I know you are implying he should have known every single stance of infringement but it's not possible thus the need for notices from rights holders.
Do you feel any personal responsibility over the presence of infringing content?
Irrelevant to the case. But why would he if MU complied with DMCA notices even though they didn't need to?
How many millions of dollars did Megaupload get from that infringing content?
How many millions has Ford gotten from drug dealers using their cars to transport drugs? Fair question? How much money did AT&T get from scamers using their networks to f-up people? How much money are you getting from your corporate masters?
it's the answers under oath in front of an impartial jury that Dotcom is trying to avoid
So far it's the US Govt that are avoiding those....
Megaupload was doing business in the US, despite not having a US address, and that's jurisdiction.
US firms have businesses in Saudi Arabia. I'm sure you support extradition of US citizens to Saudi Arabia because someone there used a service they provide on the Internet to violate local laws, right?
Keep going ootb, we enjoy the laughs ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
2)megaupload sent money to people who had popular files. Any rights holder who uploaded something popular made money.
3)I know l sorts of things which I have learned along the course ofmy life. AAny specifically infringing links I was notified About via a DMCA takedown notice were removed.
4.) There was a lot of stuff on that site and I don't have time to comb every server, even if I found something suspicious see 1)
5) nope. Talk to the guys who put it there
6) impossible to tell, see #1
7) see #6
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
Impossible to answer, since legitimate sites were uploading their content to it as well. No one can answer this question, and pretending otherwise is a lie.
) How much money did Megaupload pay to the owners of such content?
Depends on how the account was set up, genius.
) What did you know and when did you know it?
It's called the DMCA take down request. Seriously, are you really this stupid?
) How could you remain blind to the infringing content?
Because there's no way to know if it is infringing. By pretending that everyone doesn't have a license is pretty foolish. We trusted our customers, most of whom don't understand how copyright is abused. Sorry, used.
) Do you feel any personal responsibility over the presence of infringing content?
Why should I? I offered a service. How people used that service was not my concern. By your account, every person who fires a weapon into a school should have the gun maker held accountable. Hopefully, you realize the stupidity of this situation.
) How many millions of dollars did Megaupload get from that infringing content?
Not a penny. We derived our revenue from ads and premium accounts.
) How many millions of dollars did you Kim Dotcom personally get from that infringing content?
Not a penny. Didn't I just answer this question? You seem to think I personally uploaded this infringing content and distributed it. Either you're pretty daft or you don't understand how web services work.
Either way, we're done with this interview. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
Holder's interview = Devil talking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
But this whole case has been fudged like a GM keeping their favorite NPC around, and now it's backfiring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
When the MAFIAA does ANYTHING = gospel truth, divine intervention
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
Probably because you know you're not going to be able to defend the atrocious conduct of the authorities here - even to people who don't like Dotcom and/or think his actions were immoral or illegal. Imagine how little impact you'll have on the opinions of people who think that much of what he did should not be illegal to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
Less than was reported un DMCA, since many of the DMCA notices were false/inaccurate/outright lies
"How could you remain blind to the infringing content?"
See above, boy.
"Do you feel any personal responsibility over the presence of infringing content?"
Do you feel any personal responsibliity for being an idiot, boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
Is Mike Masnick responsible for you being insulted on his site?
That is the sam as the accusations you bring against Kim Dotcom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
Spare me the "It's not censorship because you only have to click a link." That response misses the point entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
Is that All?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
I don't report him but to be honest it's a waste of time trying to read or respond to him. When I see the pink I know it's probably him and it's not worth clicking unless I need a laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor
to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.
from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/censor
vb (tr)
1. to ban or cut portions of (a publication, film, letter, etc.)
2. to act as a censor of (behaviour, etc.)
Three different dictionaries. All saying the same thing. To censor is to suppress and/or delete information.
Now, let's look at Techdirt. Have a look at a pink comment, as they're called. What's actually written in pink?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show it.
The community has flagged the comment. Not Techdirt staff or management. The community. The readers of the site, who click on the Report button. Just like when you see the comments on a Youtube video for example, and click on Report there.
"Click to show it". A censor who DELETES information wouldn't tell you how to see it, now would he? Nope, because the information being censored would be DELETED , gone, wiped out. On Techdirt, it is NOT.
As for why OOTB get's reported on a regular basis? Because he has long since lost any claim to self-respect, any claim to deserving to have his voice heard here. We at Techdirt welcome debate, we want to hear from those who support copyright. What we, the community, want is a sane debate. Calm and polite back and forth. We want a pro-copyright person to say "Sorry, you're wrong in your belief of Y because of X. Here's why. And here's some sources to back it up". Instead, what Blue does is "PIRATE MIKE PIRATE MIKE!" while ignoring various truths (it doesn't matter how guilty of copyright infringement DotCom is, if the guys prosecuting him, i.e. the US, fuck up in every way possible). So far, we've heard from the US all sorts of nasty things about DotCom, and so far, we've seen the US actually do all sorts of nasty things to try and move the case forward. Sorry, but from where I'm standing, it's the US who are looking like the bad guys here.
Blue can support copyright all he wants, but he has to learn how to debate fairly. He has to learn to recognise facts that totally obliterate anything he says. He can say that someone who pirates a movie is evil, but he shouldn't ignore the fact that the cartels regularly cause far worse harm in the name of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now let's have Dotcom answer some questions:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In cooperating with the FBI, Mr Dotcom, a New Zealand citizen, was spied on illegally by New Zealand's Government Communications Security Bureau and his mansion raided using an unlawful search warrant.""
The above as taken from: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10882545
I guess Mr Holder was satisfied and approved with the Illegal spying, illegal raid, search and seizure and the removal of property to the US against the authority of the NZ court. /sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theft has been applied to intangibles for over a century in many fields of law including copyright. I'd love to see your evidence that it's a "made up term by copyright maximalists." I know your such a fan of evidence, so let's see yours. Or are you just basing that on faith?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you're going to keep demanding that no one call it theft, perhaps you could tell us the legal definition that you're using? Love to hear that definition while your citing your sources that show "copyright maximalists" made the term up. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you download a file, you haven't deprived the owner of it. Thus, the correct legal term is copyright infringement, not theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Right? A criminal court. Criminal. Crime!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also they aren't being hauled into criminal court at all. In fact, their own insistence on calling it theft when it is in fact infrongement has not done them any benefits in the court of law. So there's all that.
Calling it theft is trying to convince the public to change social moores and start thinking of it as theft.
It's not working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd like to see just ONE example of that. Just one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Are dictionaries broken in your world, or can you only access the ones with corporate-approved redefinitions? The ones designed to get emotional responses out of your propaganda when facts fail you?
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then kindly answer the question presented. When someone makes a digital copy of information, how is that theft? No property was taken. The holder has original rights to their version. So what exactly is being taken?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Easy. Because theft has a broader meaning than you think it does. For example, "aggravated identity theft": http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028A
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nothing was stolen, so no theft occurred. You're confusing analog laws for digital reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, that's right, because it doesn't exist.
Another blowhard.
Nothing to see here, move along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
both of your examples are wrong the first one is not thievery is spionage the second i ll grant it as thievery but not for the reason you think they are depriving one seat avalaibility
and thats why by definition is thievery.
well now intangibles cant be stolen lets go on the other side a mother has two children and one acuses the other of stealing his mother love the mother has not a finite quantity of love so the acusation of stealing falls flat and thats what happens to copyright infringement right now you dont have a finite quantity of ideas so the claim of stealing again falls flat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
- Infringement is not theft
- Pirating a song is in no way analogous to shoplifting a CD
- A pirate copy is not a lost sale
Those are the key points. All are demonstrable both legally and economically, and by your own admission, you've offered nothing to counter any of them, instead citing a bunch of unrelated laws to prove an inconsequential point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's it, all three of them. All about actual theft. None about this made up version of theft you're claiming it supports.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless it's proven to me otherwise, I will continue referring to "theft" as something where the owner has actually been deprived of something tangible, and "infringement" to refer to where the owner still has full usage of and access to the original item. I'm sure many will do the same. There's a massive difference between the two, and as far as I'm concerned the attempt to conflate them is just an attempt at emotional appeals and confusing complex issues - presumably because the actual facts don't support the actions attempted in this case and elsewhere.
So, come on. Convince me. Respond with evidence for once, not half-baked attacks and whining that someone isn't debating someone so bereft of proof for what he claims?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where's Mike's definition? What's his source? He's an evidence lover. Let's see his evidence of his definition for theft and his evidence for his claim that "copyright maximalists" made up the notion of IP theft. Why don't you ever ask for Mike's evidence, Paul? I am always glad to show my work. Why won't Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then SHOW IT. Just crying that others don't show theirs won't make you right or give you some kind of highground. It only shows that you have nothing and fear the writer (Mike in this case) for the message s/he brings.
Prove me wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Question 1 - Is Copyright handled at State Level or at the Federal Level?
Question 2 - If it is indeed handled at the Federal level, then why, in support of your assertion that copyrights can be treated as property, did you cite a STATE level ruling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Eric Holder is not using "theft" as a legal term, otherwise he'd be charging MU with theft. He's using it as a copyright maximalist's scare term based entirely on the commonly understood dictionary definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you were actually interested in having a serious conversation, you wouldn't be digging this up...again...for the millionth time.
This is yet another misdirection manoeuvre favoured by the - so called - maximalists used to derail the discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
For example, the Alabama Criminal Code defines "property" for purposes of its theft statutes as "Any money, tangible or intangible personal property, property (whether real or personal) the location of which can be changed (including things growing on, affixed to, or found in land and documents, although the rights represented hereby have no physical location), contract right, chose-in-action, interest in a claim to wealth, credit, or any other article or thing of value of any kind." Ala. Code � 13A-8-1.
Property has a very broad meaning--which Mike won't admit--and it includes intangibles--which Mike won't admit. Was the Alabama legislature accosted by "copyright maximalists" when drafting its criminal code?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copywrite infringement does not. It is the act of copying. Nothing is removed from the original owner.
Thus the two are not equivilent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"A person commits the crime of theft of services if . . . [h]e intentionally obtains services known by him to be available only for compensation by deception, threat, false token or other means to avoid payment for the services . . . ." Ala. Code � 13A-8-10
The meaning is broader than you think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trade secrets are intangibles, yet they can be the object of "theft" under federal law. I guess the "copyright maximalists" got to them too, right? Still waiting for Mike "Evidence Man" Masnick to explain how he determined that intangibles can't the object of theft and how he determined that the notion of IP theft was "made up" by those pesky "copyright maximalists." I mean, he wouldn't say something based on faith, would he?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a broad term. From the Restatement:Restatement (First) of Torts � 757 (1939).
If you have a customer list that is protected as a trade secret, and I copy it without permission without taking the original, I have stolen your trade secret despite the fact that you still have it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This right here completely destroys any relationship "Trade Secret" may possibly have had with copyright.
John writes a book. According to copyright, John and John alone (or those he authorises) is allowed to distribute the book. He has a government granted monopoly over that book. Meaning...the government doesn't allow for any competitors. No-one else is permitted to distribute John's book.
That line up there pertains to a normal marketplace, where competitors are allowed to exist and function, in the selling of the same product. This doesn't happen in copyright. John's work is unique. You can't say "just substitute it with another book!", like I would if I were considering which of two brands of coffee makers to buy. In the real world, both are coffee makers, that do the same thing. But not with works. The content of one book is (supposedly) more or less unique to that book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and who made up "IP Theft" if not maximalists? it had to come from somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Read up on Dowling. What you feel makes no difference to the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...something entirely different to your strange assumptions on any given occasion. If only you'd spend as much time actually reading the words written as you do attacking them.
In this case, I don't think that's ever been stated. It's certainly been stated in a recent article that infringement != theft, and it's also been stated that Harper Lee's copyright (an intangible) was clearly stolen, and that the theft via fraud that took place is one of the few examples where the term "copyright theft" can be accurately applied.
In other words, not only does your assumption not ring true, it's in direct opposition to a recent article written by him on this very site. I can cite where he's said that intangibles can be the object of theft. Can you cite the basis your strange assumption that he believes otherwise?
As ever - liar or moron? You have to be at least one to get things so often and consistently wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually the only thing you've proven is your problems with words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How can copyright be a TRADE SECRET?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yet again - try understanding the actual points instead of being an obnoxious obsessed fool. You might get somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If Hollywood was a service industry.
Which it's not.
And no, making movies doesn't make it a "service industry".
Also regarding sneaking into a movies, I've only ever heard of ONE case ever happening, and it happened a few months ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I still don't know what that has to do with copying a digital file, where nobody is deprived of anything tangible. Unless you want to depend of easily disproven lies, of course (all downloads are lost sales, nobody who downloads ever buys, etc.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now you're catching on. Same idea for infringement. The thing taken is an intangible interest or benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The room is only so big. There are only so many seats. There isn't infinities in play, like you would get with a digital file. Therefore, it is correct to say they stole the seat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you going to provide evidence for your bullshit, provide credentials that prove that despite no evidence you're more qualified than other commenters or just admit you're a lying moron? Those are the only 3 choices I can see, given that you're an anonymous commenter trying to pull an "argument from authority" fallacy without even demonstrating your authority?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
IP theft is not a thing. It's not a term defined in law. Copyright infringement is.
Why? Because with an actual theft the original item is removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now lets say in this world of stalls underselling in such a way is in fact illegal but defined a civil offense under that term so that I could, if I chose, bring a suit against the stall seller for damages for "underselling" my product. That upshot would be that while I may want to accuse him of stealing my customers I can't have him arrested for a criminal charge of theft but I can sue him for the civil charge of underselling.
At that point is it right to call "underselling" theft even if "underselling" is defined wholly differently and in this case in a civil sense, than theft which is clearly defined as criminal?
Theft is someone taking something that is "mine" and making it "theirs" in a way that means I no longer have "mine". It does not include "what might be mine in future" or a copy of something that is "mine". Colloquially there is some wiggle room but in terms of the law we've outright had to define who has the right's to copy indepently of theft because the harm of theft in a legal sense is not comparable to the harm of a copy of an idea because inherently a copy is additive while theft is subtractive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Citation Needed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The tl;dr is that I don't think it's theft (save in a useless colloquial sense) and the courts don't seem to either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's much like, and very related to, his notion that "property" can only refer to tangibles. He ignores multiple centuries of usage of the word "property" to arrive at his predetermined conclusion. He insists that what some guy said three centuries ago (can't remember who it was--Descartes?) is the only possible meaning, despite an incredibly dense body of law to the contrary. It's silly and narrow to think like this. He just doesn't want anybody to think anything bad about infringement or good about copyright. If copyright is property or if infringement is theft, that apparently challenges his narrative too much. And he's willing to ignore anything and everything that disagrees with him to arrive at where he started.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When did Mike mention Descartes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I agree that at the very least theft does cover some such situations. But that doesn't necessarily mean that copyright infringement is dispossession of an intangible, or that even if it is, that it is theft.
Stop harping on tangibility not being an absolute requirement and follow through on the remainder of your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's what I understood the argument to be, as I remember it, and I can't say that I agree with some of the particulars or with the idea that it eventually establishes that infringement is theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's two amendments that label it as such:
The Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999
No Electronic Theft (NET) Act of 1997
So at least you have some backing, even if I personally don't agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
These are the basics of US law. I would recommend that you all take a page from David A. Goldberger: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty/bios.php?ID=25
It's not the view-point of the argument, but the fact that the people can express their opinions is important. Defend freedom of speech, and realize that this tangential balance is what keeps justice alive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Holder's a shill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Individuals broke the law, they should stand trial.
They should not be allowed to skate just because it would be a difficult court case. I do not recall seeing anything in the Justice Dept prosecutors job description about a "too hard bag". There are people whose deeds are questionable at best being pursued for no apparent reason - to the point where they are physically and mentally harmed. And yet laundering money for the drug cartels is a-ok. Foreclosing property you do not own is fine and dandy. Justice Dept - yeah, right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stolen Ideas
OH MY GOD! I invented Windows and Microsoft stole it. It must be true because I can't remember it. Bill Gates must be living in my mansion!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mnr/mnr-20130509-0815-attorneys-general_meet_in_auckland-04 8.mp3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theft of intellectual property
Small correction - there is intellectual property theft ... hacking into a competitor's computer to get information, for example.
But peer-to-peer file-sharing is not in any way intellectual property theft.
Yes, copying with an owner's consent is the exact opposite of theft. But even more important, a DVD or video file is not intellectual property. It's PHYSICAL property, owned only by the person who possesses it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
regarding sneaking into a movie theatre
[ link to this | view in chronology ]