On 22 June 2007 Hew Griffiths was sentenced to 51 months in prison for conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. It is noted he will only serve an estimated 15 months as the courts are granting him time served for the three years in Australian custody. Griffiths' sentencing on 22 June 2007, attracted significant attention in Australia, and some attention in the United States and other countries which have recently signed, or are currently negotiating, bilateral Free Trade Agreements with the USA.
Hew Raymond Griffiths finally returned to Australia on 2 March 2008 after having spent six weeks as an illegal alien in the US immigration detention system following his release from prison on 26 January 2008 (Australia Day). A condition of his repatriation to Australia was that he never again re-enter the United States of America, a country he parenthetically had never visited before being extradited to it.
Bear in mind, he took a plea bargain. The system is set up to take a plea deal for less time than actually go to court and lose 90% of the time and stay in jail longer.
They had a man sitting in a jail cell that had never been in the US, but exported US law to Australia...
And now the president wants to do that with ACTA, and lobbyists want to enforce PIPA while saying there's nothing to worry about with breaking the internet into smaller more decentralized groups.
"Well, counterfeiting items should still be illegal. Even assuming zero losses to the original (and I think it's nonzero even though it's not one-to-one), it's still fraudulent"
... No customers are fooled by thinking a Prudo bag is $10 on a street corner before their payday.
It's not a fraudulent transaction. It's one that allows for a larger number of people to trade up on a good.
The GAO's piracy report came to the same conclusion. Sadly, the USTR, the Chamber of Commerce, the MPAA, and the RIAA along with a number of different industries (fashion, I'm looking at you) have not read that report...
"What do you not understand about a small start up business? Netflix, Hulu, etc have millions in resources. Small entrepreneurs don't."
You're thinking of now. What happened when they started, with Blockbuster as the main competitor? What happened with Grooveshark, iMeem, Grokster, or anything that came before Spotify that actually competed with free? What has happened when more young movie makers are forgoing Hollywood and finding individual success on Youtube or through independent financing?
They are all competing with free. They found ways besides copyright to finance, produce, direct, and make money off new scarcities rather than distribution.
So you're still either ignoring or missing those people that *are* competing with free and finding their own success.
" You're still not entitled to steal it."
Not stealing, yet again. Stop the misleading argument please. It's already been explained to you enough times. But hey, if you feel it's stealing let's look at how far back that particular rabbit hole goes:
A number of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a man named Dowling, who sold "pirated" Elvis Presley recordings, and was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. The Supremes did not condone his actions, but did make it clear that it was not "theft" -- but technically "infringement" of the copyright of the Presley estate, and therefore copyright law, and not anti-theft statutes, had to be invoked.
So "copying" is not "stealing" but can be "infringing." That doesn't have the same sound bite quality as Valente's position.
Copyright infringement is not theft.
If I make an exact copy of a handbag, I haven’t stolen the handbag.
If I make an exact copy of a twat, I haven’t stolen James Murdoch
In 1985, the Court ruled in Dowling v United States that copyright infringement is not theft, even when dealing with physical objects, such as vinyl records.
While industry bodies might still want to claim it’s still theft there is one simple fact that’s clear. In treating it as theft the benefit would be to the alleged infringer. A higher evidence standard, an independent investigation, legal counsel provided free for the alleged infringer, and vastly smaller penalties.
---------------------------------------------------------
If you still want to commit to equating copyright infringement and theft, feel free, but I've got even more links waiting to show that copyright infringement is not theft of a physical product.
So you're saying that Hadopi and the UK Digital Economy Act were also a success?
Bear in mind, I have yet to see a copyright scheme relying on success. Even when the death penalty was a part of the punishment, that didn't stop the copying. But we'll have to see. You don't have a shred of evidence supporting this. But I'd take that bet that enforcement won't stop infringement save for a minor slow down as the people respond to those incentives from government.
"Jay, what payment processor will be viable if they engage in funding illegal activity"
You're missing the point deliberately it seems. If people can't use Visa, Amex, or Mastercard, they'll use Paypal. If they can't use Paypal, they'll switch to Bitcoin or Flattr. If those begin to expose their details, people move more and more underground to less reputable sites.
It's like no one's taught you the first rule of economics:
People respond to incentives. Also, Isaac Newton's Third Law explains the exact same thing: For every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.
Also, there's other alternatives than Bitcoin. I know quite a few different ones. Bitcoins just so happens to be the most popular currently.
"It's pretty likely that the director, like the gaffer, the honeywagon driver, the screen writer and the actors did this as work for hire. This happens in every industry. "
... So let's just ask every artist to be a work for hire and be screwed out of doing shows they plan to do again
You don't even know what the director wants to do. He lost control of Gargoyles to Disney. Meanwhile, ironically, it's Disney saying they're doing this for his benefit.
Yeah, and dancing in front of the TFJ Memorial is illegal.
Someone else has a great response to this so I won't retread that same ground. Link
Also, the post above me (Another AC) has responded while you continue the use of a tired term.
So I won't be responding to the stealing bits. Merely the other parts that make a lot more sense.
"What do you mean those in the industry? You?"
The MPAA, the RIAA and any member of the industries that support copyright legislation in the millions of dollars to screw over the consumers. Does that answer the question, chief?
"Go steal something from Walmart or B&N, or even the library."
Excellent disingenuous argument. Go read those other two arguments. It could change your life if you actually paid attention to them.
" That's why a small, start up legit business that wants to go head-to-head with those pirate site will get killed. One pays for content, the other doesn't. See any competitive advantage here?"
Netflix got killed by Walmart? Blockbuster? Hollywood Video?
You have proof of this?
"Don't know the range of stuff you're talking about but even a nincompoop like you must see a difference between those sites and one that downloads a full, uncut version of a copyrighted motion picture or tv show."
Thank you for admitting you don't get it. You don't understand that people use movies through the fair use doctrine to give new spin and commentary. People share works such as Game of Thrones to tell how the book and the TV show are different and how. Thank you also for admitting that you do not understand how free works helps influence other tangible products. If people didn't pay for the movie and it was an ABC special, I'm sure it would still be popular and influence book sales. People find it on their favorite site, discuss it, see if they like it, and wonder when the DVD is coming out. That's how sharing works. And you don't get it. I find that the saddest part of this, though it's the most enlightening. It tells me if you can't figure out a way to compete, like Netflix did against piracy and Blockbuster, like Evian with free water, like libraries take a copy of a book to preserve it either digitally or in their physical presence away from Barnes and Noble or Borders (oh wait...), then you need to get out of the market and let others who know what they're doing handle it.
"You are not entitled to get something of value that belongs to someone else for nothing."
Then by all means, let's shut down Hollywood. They have no right to make movies based on books or games. They have no right to tell people how to spend their money. They have no right to believe they're entitled to my money that I choose to spend on my entertainment budget per month. They have a right to vie for it. And if they have nothing that I want, I go elsewhere. It's that simple. But this supposed belief that copyright infringement is stealing is beyond ignorant when all evidence proves that piracy improves the quality of goods, increases sales, and leads to better economic output than copyright enforcement.
3(a)(2) -IN REM- If through due diligence the Attorney General is unable to find a person described in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action against a nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities.
----------------------
I guess the huge loophole of people being born outside of the US means they get no right to contest an in rem action before it occurs.
Fox is an owner. They delayed their releases for 8 days arbitrarily in an attempt to put more focus on the TV. Hilarity (read: piracy) ensued.
"Netflix"
Just split up their DVD and streaming business since Hollywood overvalues their content.
"Vudu"
Consumer response: "Who?"
"Distribution models are evolving. "
No question. Just not evolving like those in industry want it to.
". However, piracy itself inhibits new start-up distributors. How can a legit distributor who pays license fees compete with the one who doesn't? "
So you don't buy bottled water or eat at restaurants? How do used game stores compete with Wal-Mart or Target? How do used book stores compete with libraries and Barnes and Noble?
"Maybe the big players can overcome it, but small start-ups will get slaughtered by pirate sites. "
Newsflash: The small start-ups are usually the "pirate sites". They just change the way the model works and form niche markets. If you really want ideas, look at Nostalgia Critic and his commentary on movies, the plethora of sites dedicated to discussing music and authorized releases, and the number of game sites that post game footage with trailers and downloads of the newest games.
"So the solution needs to come from both sides of the ledger."
Sorry, chief, there's no both sides of the ledger. If you can't compete, get out of that market and then enter when you can. That's economics.
Has anyone told you that the selective enforcement, the growing amount of money spent on drugs (currently upwards of $75 billion), the tattletaling, long imprisonments, and focus on trying to limit supply of drugs from Canada, Mexico, Singapore, Thailand, Turmenistan, China, and anywhere else other than the US, has failed
And the fact is, decriminalization and legalization of certain drugs would probably work a lot better to help societies around the world that a look at prohibition. Unless you're going to go against the Global Commission on Drug Policy...
"An action can be taken ONLY AFTER the responsible party cannot be located."
So the huge loophole of foreign sites is unexplained, and domestic liability is increased. Great set of laws by those that just don't want to make their own legal alternatives and go crying to Congress to support their business model.
On the post: Another NinjaVideo Admin Pleads Guilty, Expect The Rest To Do So Too
Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
On the post: Disney 'Analyst': My Lack Of Imagination Necessitates Passage Of PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On 22 June 2007 Hew Griffiths was sentenced to 51 months in prison for conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. It is noted he will only serve an estimated 15 months as the courts are granting him time served for the three years in Australian custody. Griffiths' sentencing on 22 June 2007, attracted significant attention in Australia, and some attention in the United States and other countries which have recently signed, or are currently negotiating, bilateral Free Trade Agreements with the USA.
Hew Raymond Griffiths finally returned to Australia on 2 March 2008 after having spent six weeks as an illegal alien in the US immigration detention system following his release from prison on 26 January 2008 (Australia Day). A condition of his repatriation to Australia was that he never again re-enter the United States of America, a country he parenthetically had never visited before being extradited to it.
Bear in mind, he took a plea bargain. The system is set up to take a plea deal for less time than actually go to court and lose 90% of the time and stay in jail longer.
They had a man sitting in a jail cell that had never been in the US, but exported US law to Australia...
And now the president wants to do that with ACTA, and lobbyists want to enforce PIPA while saying there's nothing to worry about with breaking the internet into smaller more decentralized groups.
USA. Land of the free indeed.
On the post: Canadian Copyright Reform Authors Know The Law Outlaws Circumvention Even If No Infringement... But Don't Seem To Care
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: For All The Complaining About Chinese Counterfeits... China Is A Massive Growth Market For Luxury Goods
Re: Re:
... No customers are fooled by thinking a Prudo bag is $10 on a street corner before their payday.
It's not a fraudulent transaction. It's one that allows for a larger number of people to trade up on a good.
On the post: For All The Complaining About Chinese Counterfeits... China Is A Massive Growth Market For Luxury Goods
Re:
On the post: Disney 'Analyst': My Lack Of Imagination Necessitates Passage Of PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're thinking of now. What happened when they started, with Blockbuster as the main competitor? What happened with Grooveshark, iMeem, Grokster, or anything that came before Spotify that actually competed with free? What has happened when more young movie makers are forgoing Hollywood and finding individual success on Youtube or through independent financing?
They are all competing with free. They found ways besides copyright to finance, produce, direct, and make money off new scarcities rather than distribution.
So you're still either ignoring or missing those people that *are* competing with free and finding their own success.
" You're still not entitled to steal it."
Not stealing, yet again. Stop the misleading argument please. It's already been explained to you enough times. But hey, if you feel it's stealing let's look at how far back that particular rabbit hole goes:
The Register - 2003
A number of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a man named Dowling, who sold "pirated" Elvis Presley recordings, and was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. The Supremes did not condone his actions, but did make it clear that it was not "theft" -- but technically "infringement" of the copyright of the Presley estate, and therefore copyright law, and not anti-theft statutes, had to be invoked.
So "copying" is not "stealing" but can be "infringing." That doesn't have the same sound bite quality as Valente's position.
Jack of Kent - 2009
The Guardian - 2010
Copyright infringement is not theft.
If I make an exact copy of a handbag, I haven’t stolen the handbag.
If I make an exact copy of a twat, I haven’t stolen James Murdoch
Torrentfreak - 2011
In 1985, the Court ruled in Dowling v United States that copyright infringement is not theft, even when dealing with physical objects, such as vinyl records.
While industry bodies might still want to claim it’s still theft there is one simple fact that’s clear. In treating it as theft the benefit would be to the alleged infringer. A higher evidence standard, an independent investigation, legal counsel provided free for the alleged infringer, and vastly smaller penalties.
---------------------------------------------------------
If you still want to commit to equating copyright infringement and theft, feel free, but I've got even more links waiting to show that copyright infringement is not theft of a physical product.
On the post: Disney 'Analyst': My Lack Of Imagination Necessitates Passage Of PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bear in mind, I have yet to see a copyright scheme relying on success. Even when the death penalty was a part of the punishment, that didn't stop the copying. But we'll have to see. You don't have a shred of evidence supporting this. But I'd take that bet that enforcement won't stop infringement save for a minor slow down as the people respond to those incentives from government.
On the post: Disney 'Analyst': My Lack Of Imagination Necessitates Passage Of PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIPA is FAIL!
You're missing the point deliberately it seems. If people can't use Visa, Amex, or Mastercard, they'll use Paypal. If they can't use Paypal, they'll switch to Bitcoin or Flattr. If those begin to expose their details, people move more and more underground to less reputable sites.
It's like no one's taught you the first rule of economics:
People respond to incentives. Also, Isaac Newton's Third Law explains the exact same thing: For every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.
Also, there's other alternatives than Bitcoin. I know quite a few different ones. Bitcoins just so happens to be the most popular currently.
On the post: Disney 'Analyst': My Lack Of Imagination Necessitates Passage Of PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIPA is FAIL!
... So let's just ask every artist to be a work for hire and be screwed out of doing shows they plan to do again
And you didn't know that dancing is illegal there? Intriguing...
On the post: Disney 'Analyst': My Lack Of Imagination Necessitates Passage Of PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIPA is FAIL!
Yeah, and dancing in front of the TFJ Memorial is illegal.
On the post: Disney 'Analyst': My Lack Of Imagination Necessitates Passage Of PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIPA is FAIL!
Look, there's other sources than Visa, Amex, and Paypal. All you're doing is making the alternatives a LOT more popular.
On the post: Disney 'Analyst': My Lack Of Imagination Necessitates Passage Of PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Someone else has a great response to this so I won't retread that same ground. Link
Also, the post above me (Another AC) has responded while you continue the use of a tired term.
So I won't be responding to the stealing bits. Merely the other parts that make a lot more sense.
"What do you mean those in the industry? You?"
The MPAA, the RIAA and any member of the industries that support copyright legislation in the millions of dollars to screw over the consumers. Does that answer the question, chief?
"Go steal something from Walmart or B&N, or even the library."
Excellent disingenuous argument. Go read those other two arguments. It could change your life if you actually paid attention to them.
" That's why a small, start up legit business that wants to go head-to-head with those pirate site will get killed. One pays for content, the other doesn't. See any competitive advantage here?"
Netflix got killed by Walmart? Blockbuster? Hollywood Video?
You have proof of this?
"Don't know the range of stuff you're talking about but even a nincompoop like you must see a difference between those sites and one that downloads a full, uncut version of a copyrighted motion picture or tv show."
Thank you for admitting you don't get it. You don't understand that people use movies through the fair use doctrine to give new spin and commentary. People share works such as Game of Thrones to tell how the book and the TV show are different and how. Thank you also for admitting that you do not understand how free works helps influence other tangible products. If people didn't pay for the movie and it was an ABC special, I'm sure it would still be popular and influence book sales. People find it on their favorite site, discuss it, see if they like it, and wonder when the DVD is coming out. That's how sharing works. And you don't get it. I find that the saddest part of this, though it's the most enlightening. It tells me if you can't figure out a way to compete, like Netflix did against piracy and Blockbuster, like Evian with free water, like libraries take a copy of a book to preserve it either digitally or in their physical presence away from Barnes and Noble or Borders (oh wait...), then you need to get out of the market and let others who know what they're doing handle it.
"You are not entitled to get something of value that belongs to someone else for nothing."
Then by all means, let's shut down Hollywood. They have no right to make movies based on books or games. They have no right to tell people how to spend their money. They have no right to believe they're entitled to my money that I choose to spend on my entertainment budget per month. They have a right to vie for it. And if they have nothing that I want, I go elsewhere. It's that simple. But this supposed belief that copyright infringement is stealing is beyond ignorant when all evidence proves that piracy improves the quality of goods, increases sales, and leads to better economic output than copyright enforcement.
On the post: Disney 'Analyst': My Lack Of Imagination Necessitates Passage Of PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That depends. Has Operation In Our Sites been an overwhelming success in your eyes?
On the post: Disney 'Analyst': My Lack Of Imagination Necessitates Passage Of PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
3(a)(2) -IN REM- If through due diligence the Attorney General is unable to find a person described in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action against a nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities.
----------------------
I guess the huge loophole of people being born outside of the US means they get no right to contest an in rem action before it occurs.
On the post: Disney 'Analyst': My Lack Of Imagination Necessitates Passage Of PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fox is an owner. They delayed their releases for 8 days arbitrarily in an attempt to put more focus on the TV. Hilarity (read: piracy) ensued.
"Netflix"
Just split up their DVD and streaming business since Hollywood overvalues their content.
"Vudu"
Consumer response: "Who?"
"Distribution models are evolving. "
No question. Just not evolving like those in industry want it to.
". However, piracy itself inhibits new start-up distributors. How can a legit distributor who pays license fees compete with the one who doesn't? "
So you don't buy bottled water or eat at restaurants? How do used game stores compete with Wal-Mart or Target? How do used book stores compete with libraries and Barnes and Noble?
"Maybe the big players can overcome it, but small start-ups will get slaughtered by pirate sites. "
Newsflash: The small start-ups are usually the "pirate sites". They just change the way the model works and form niche markets. If you really want ideas, look at Nostalgia Critic and his commentary on movies, the plethora of sites dedicated to discussing music and authorized releases, and the number of game sites that post game footage with trailers and downloads of the newest games.
"So the solution needs to come from both sides of the ledger."
Sorry, chief, there's no both sides of the ledger. If you can't compete, get out of that market and then enter when you can. That's economics.
On the post: Disney 'Analyst': My Lack Of Imagination Necessitates Passage Of PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the fact is, decriminalization and legalization of certain drugs would probably work a lot better to help societies around the world that a look at prohibition. Unless you're going to go against the Global Commission on Drug Policy...
On the post: Disney 'Analyst': My Lack Of Imagination Necessitates Passage Of PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re:
So the huge loophole of foreign sites is unexplained, and domestic liability is increased. Great set of laws by those that just don't want to make their own legal alternatives and go crying to Congress to support their business model.
The 80s called. They said it's time to grow up.
On the post: Does The NYPD Really Think That Shooting Photos/Videos Of Protests Is 'Disorderly Conduct?'
Re: Re:
On the post: University Police & Administration Freak Out Over Nathan Fillion Firefly Poster; Censor, Threaten Professor
Re:
On the post: Disney 'Analyst': My Lack Of Imagination Necessitates Passage Of PROTECT IP
Re: Re:
Next >>