"It isn't a question of "you are a thief", rather it is a question of being disrespectful of the rights owners, the creators, the people who paid to make it. It's their choice, you need to learn to respect it properly"
Meanwhile, those that utilize alternative methods of funding find ways to fund projects without looking like selfish brats with entitlement issues...
Aw look, the maximalist is playing smoke and mirrors.
Let's get right down to it.
" Back up a couple of steps, and you will find singers, song writers, performers, actors, directors, and movie producers trying to make a living, and needing a structured system in which to do it efficiently"
Yeah, the "structured system" that you're advocating sure cherry picked those actors, directors, and movie producers while the middlemen got rich. Or is the next thing on your agenda to tell me that RIAA accounting and MPAA Accounting didn't keep profits in corporations instead of the artists and the public?
"Copyright provides the structure."
... That has to be the funniest line that I've seen all day. You get a funny vote for that. Not only does it ignore the fact that exceptions to copyright give a lot more leeway, not only does it ignore all the research that filesharing increases sales and the fact that my first rant shows how it didn't work for JK Rowling, but it shows exactly the type of people that don't understand where the puck is going, merely where it's been (Smith Sundance Speech).
As I said before, the artists, the movie goers are moving away from giving Hollywood their ideas, instead opting to make them and fund them through the crowd, making the middlemen dynamic of Hollywood obsolete. Unless more of the CEOs of Hollywood and the music industry get it through their heads that the 80s are gone and the digital technology is forcing them to change their jobs, they won't have to worry about being dinosaurs. The people will move around them without the use of copyright enforcement to keep them controlled.
The record labels, the movie distribution companies, they all exist because they are the most efficient means that could be found that is also a relatively global solution. No piecemeal required, they provide methods, systems, and processes that allow the artists to work at being artists, instead of having to be little business men, little miniputt players, or little sidewalk shucksters trying to push their wares.
And the internet does a lot to make their jobs as gatekeepers obsolete. Who needs to be a part of Universal if they've got Soundcloud, 10000 mp3s, a few minutes of free time, a vision of the remixes they want to do and places to show off their talents? Does girltalk and deadmau5 need a huge label like that or a smaller one that caters to them? OR do they want to go it alone? Nowadays, the playfield is level, and there are people that connect on Youtube, Veoh, Kickstarter, or a number of places and figure out how to meet up, make movies, music and games while not tied to one place like Hollywood is.
Most of those "methods" don't do much to help the artist. They do more to help the studios. What happens when they run out of ideas? Oh, that's right...
People do foster debate and disagree all the time. But taking one AC's one word dialogue and then using that for everyone else that talks on the site is rather broad, don't you think?
Am I the only one that feels there's a HUGE disconnect in society today? We have police officers who use laws to punish the innocent.
We have lawyers who use the laws to entitle themselves to other's earnings.
We have politicians that do their work mainly to support business over the common people. In my view, this does not make sense.
Police officers should be allowed to make clear conscience decisions on the laws that need to be enforced. They shouldn't be people that turn off their brain, remember a ton of laws and suddenly, they are just messengers of a bad system.
A politician should be a person who listens to what their constituents want, not the monied interests (mainly lawyers) who pay them. I personally believe we need more statesmen than politicians and sadly only a few people in Congress exemplify that quality (Wyden is one)
Lawyers should be looking to help society at large. Making the law something so complex and arbitrary that no one can gain access to it. It's ridiculous.
There's been at least one person that's been able to write up some good information about how to change our laws. Honestly, we need a better way to redress our government and allow more people to have a voice rather than allowing a bad system to hurt them.
Re: Re: Re: This may be the wrong crowd to mention it...
Given the fact that there are over 300 deaths from Tasers when utilized, I would be very concerned about the risks, and the type of people operating them.
Because Cebu keeps pretty civil for foreigners for the most part. And last I checked, most Filipinos were too interested in American songs like Justin Bieber to begin the fight against the government again.
"But then I hate the mass shakedown copyright lawsuits, but I applaud them going after people doing commercial infringment (not the infringing website thingy the real deal, burning their own dvd's and hocking them on the web/street.)"
TAC, have you read rethinking piracy?, the first chapter of Joe Karaganis' "Media piracy" book? It will change you life.
"I most likely have a romantic idea that copyright once upon a time was to make sure someone else would not make a copy of an authors work and deprive them of income."
Yes, but I have to be pragmatic here. Copyright is a fight with technology to set up middlemen to profit. It's not the most efficient way to utilize technology by any means. Think about the collection societies that use an artist's name as leverage. Think about how Microsoft makes money off of Google giving away Android and MS' patent infringement cases. Nowadays, the digital fight doesn't "deprive" them of income. When more people gain access to a work, there's more chances people will pay for it, not out of the goodness of their heart, but because they make a decision they want to support the artist. The really good ones always rise to the top. The ones with entitlement complexes languish worse than Sonny Bono with his copyright extension. If copyright has actually helped an artist, I have yet to see any evidence of it. I actually had someone argue that copyright helped an artist who was a victim of Hollywood Accounting. Because he withheld his script for a new movie that "progressed the arts and sciences".
Yeah, I never took the person seriously after that. Usually, they had a set up diatribe about how copyright is a right of the artist over the consumer. And the consumer lost every time.
" But like the group that was selling the acoustical soundalike things of the Beatles catalog... they should be shut down for just trying to use the Beatles recordings to profit. (mind you the original copyrights might have been up without the extensions etc etc etc... but for this example pretend the Beatles still had legitimate copyright on the songs)."
Culture always builds on the past. The Beatles built on the folk songs of US history. Just like the songsters of now built on those of the 90s and beforehand.
What I want to impress here is that these people created songs and were fans of the Beatles enough to make their own rendition of songs. That should be celebrated. If someone thought it was good, give them money. Does this hurt the Beatles' following? I don't think so. It's like Universal going after DJ Danger Mouse for making the Grey Album, or trying to make someone pay for infringing on copyright $150,000 per song. It makes no sense.
So for the intents of this mini rant, I'll make a suggestion. If copyright is to act as a socio-economic tool to people enjoying entertainment, we need to take it away. It has been subverted and abused to punish those that create, not assist in making new works. That's to the detriment of all.
" Is there something particularly wrong with hiring people who have experience dealing with the issues the DOJ faces regularly?"
It's a conflict of interest. A bias to only one sort of resolution and it greatly influences the way government affects people. That should be avoided in our government. Sadly, it's not, and we are facing a lot of problems of people such as Mitch Glazier or Neil McBride in high, appointed positions while they look to criminalize the populace.
"This question raised in this thread was whether members of the U.S. Attorney's office, which is part of the DOJ, regularly suborn perjury."
Do you want the FBI, CIA, or just the US Attorney's office?
We need to stop and explain Copyright for a second.
First of all, JK Rowling was getting benefits in Scotland before she "got lucky" and created Harry Potter in 1998. There is no way in hell that copyright protection has assisted her in any way, shape or form. In fact, JK Rowling's books are a GREAT example of what copyright interferes with. It interferes with the people having a connection to their author. She didn't sit down, writing out the world of HP in a cafe because she knew copyright would protect her work. She did this because she wanted an out. She wasn't turned down by editors that made her change her writing style 10 times until the first book was done because of copyright. NEVER has copyright actually protected an artist.
When she didn't put her books online, who did? Her fans.
When her fans made new story tropes to her characters, did she stop them from doing so? Hell no! She sat down, she read the stories and she Jossed the crazy rumors, such as Draco just being misunderstood, the Hermione/Harry fanfics, and the weird rumor about Sirius Black and Lupin the Werewolf being gay, while (*spoiler*) Dumbledore was gay all along (/*spoiler*)
Did copyright make her more money? No.
Did copyright give her a fanbase? No.
Did copyright give her a contract or an incentive to create anything? No.
And this gets into the next part of my rant. NO ONE is entitled to stop my enjoyment of a book, a piece of music, or anything else. If JK Rowling can't find a way to market her book towards me, she doesn't deserve my money. If her marketing team fails on that end, that's her loss. If the fans want to trade pdfs of technology, it does not cost $150,000 to make a copy. She needs to find a way to make it more enticing for people to give money to her and copyright has NEVER done that.
Copyright is a contract with the public. One that we hold the terms of negotiation. If someone uses copyright through various means to limit how WE, the people, consume media, then we can choose to accept it, or we can choose to find it elsewhere. DRM does not work. Ask Ubisoft. Filesharing has increased over the years, but the number of people willing to spend money on digital goods has also increased.
There's no way in hell I'm waiting 20 years, let along 98 years for a song to go out of copyright. If I hear it, and that's copyright infringement, so be it. But there are far too many media content choices in the world to wait for someone to get their act together. They want my money? They've got to earn it.
Our culture is growing hollow, and they keep making the same movies on the same ideas but this time with aliens, next time with pirates, then zombies, then ninjas... because all of the amazing ideas someone had about using a story they heard as a child... are locked in a closet in a corporate vault, slowly being bled dry to get a few more coins. As they lengthen the time to bleed them more, they still have yet to notice there are no new ideas, no new amazing worlds with new stories to tell, because they took it all away and forbid you to dream about it unless you pay them... again.
And here, I disagree with you. Art is moving. The ideas are moving away from Hollywood, but it's taking a while. Games are slowly becoming more indie. Smaller, more risky...
Music is all about the remixers such as Madeon, girltalk, along with the more established people like Jay-Z (a rapper) or Rihanna.
Movies seem to have gone the way of the webisode. Pioneer One has an interesting premise of having people pay for the next episode along with other scarcities.
Freddie Wong, a Youtuber has been successful in securing funding for his webisode project.
Can you do me one favor? If you're going to write a lot, please finish your thoughts? It'd help a lot in keeping this moving.
"Most media outlets name him as founder, his name is on most if not all of the ad contracts. I'd say ringleader is the right word. Feel free to disagree since this is an infringing case."
This isn't that hard to figure out. I'm sure if you googled NV or listened to any of the videos on Torrentfreak, you'll quickly figure out who the "ringleader" is. But even then, it's a misnomer since each played a different part in the site. For the most part, it seems they all had something they did on the site, and people filled the spots that they felt most comfortable in. And even then, there's others that probably filled roles. You can't run a site with just 5 people, with one being all the way in Greece.
"You're rambling again"
Now who's playing ignorant with facts?
Guess it's time for a timeline of events as the government did them. Bear in mind, I'm answering your question here:
"And you argue stupid shit that has everything to do with the nature of the crime and nothing to do with the facts and law."
So let's deal in facts as reported.
Jun 29, 2010 - Nine sites are taken down. From Disney HQ. In one of the stories, "Officials also seized assets from 15 bank, investment and advertising accounts, and executed residential search warrants in North Carolina, New Jersey, New York and Washington." That links up to all four suspects here.
Complaint comes in a full six months after the site is taken down with no way to complain to a judge about this. The people have to wait a full year and a half for an indictment on five videos that have gone on to make more than $500K in revenue but somehow, because it's released early on THIS website, they're interfering with the profits of Hollywood. And this exact process, the jailing of people for running a website with links on it, a conspiratorial look at people who come together to build something based on donations, not "illicit" or "ill gotten" goods, but people freely exchanging money for a service along with cheap ads, THIS is the future envisioned by Hollywood and Protect IP?
December 30th, 2010 - Forfeiture of 7 out of 9 sites. Ninjathis and Ninjavideo are oddly absent...
May 24, 2011 - Justice Department stalling on domain seizures. Plenty of debate on this in the months of Jan-May, but I'm keeping this a shorter reply.
February 17th, 2011 - FOIA request into domain seizures is put forth... Still waiting on a response today.
June 9th, 2011 - ICE says domain seizures a success. (They're wrong btw)
Jun 13th, 2011 - Rojadirecta sues the US government, forcing the government to make up a story about their "successful" mission.
July 20th, 2011 - US government shows its poker face for lawful seizure.
So, I've detailed through the links on the date, that the government hasn't given them any way to contest the domain seizures. The government has tried to stall for time while building a case or basically ignore the people wanting to challenge the seizures. I have yet to go into Richard O'Dwyer or Bryan McCarthy because that's basically more of the same issue. There's good writeups on how the seizures aren't legal. I like Karl's the most, for this part here:
Under 17 U.S.C. 512's "safe harbors" provisions, if the sites followed the rules laid out therein, they are not liable for infringement at all, and the only relief available is laid out in 512(j). Nothing in 17 U.S.C. 506 takes those safe harbors away. Even if you wrongly believe it did, obeying the law would (once again) make you an "innocent infringer" at most, thus ineligible for criminal infringement under 506. Yet there was not even an attempt to show that the sites did not follow those rules. And apparently many did.
So, my hypothesis still stands. Based on everything that I've shown, there is a possibility that the government lumped Ninjathis with Ninjavideo to bring out a higher amount. Based on the 15 bank, investment, and residential seizures, it seems that the government took everything they had to make sure they couldn't fight back. From all looks of it, this actually came out of nowhere. Nothing in regards to an indication that the five were to be indicted.
No clear way to challenge the proceedings. No judicial hearing. No magistrate to complain to. No, it's right to indictment after a year and a half of silence.
I hope that answered your question. If not, I got more.
"Yes. And???"
From all looks of it, while you split up my sentence, you missed the fact that all of the movies made a lot more than their budget even though they were released early on one site. Somehow, it's hard to miss the fact that the movie is still available on Pirate Bay, and so many other sites, yet still makes a lot of money... Hmmm...
"So maybe I should go steal something from---"
Non-sequitar.
"They received donations for the purpose of monetizing their continuing criminal enterprise. "
Links aren't criminal yet, bucko. And the government has yet to prove that. And last I checked, donations were given freely. As in, Hollywood has no claims to that money. The entitlement of those in industry is staggering...
"Online gambling is legal in other countries too. What happens when those companies provide services to US customers. Oops. And yes, I look forward to Richard's extended visit in the US."
We'll see Nov 3rd won't we? Also, your online gambling jibe? Needs work. We both agree it's legal in the US and outside, just some cops seize assets to fund their police force. Fancy that, the cops using seized assets to make their paychecks bigger.
Honestly, I don't quite know. My best guess is to find some way to limit a political party having influence in government politics by limiting who can be appointed to certain positions based on the status of the party.
I'll have to look more closely at that and get back to you.
On the post: How Copyright Extension Is Harming Classical Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Meanwhile, those that utilize alternative methods of funding find ways to fund projects without looking like selfish brats with entitlement issues...
On the post: How Copyright Extension Is Harming Classical Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Copyright Extension Is Harming Classical Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's get right down to it.
" Back up a couple of steps, and you will find singers, song writers, performers, actors, directors, and movie producers trying to make a living, and needing a structured system in which to do it efficiently"
Yeah, the "structured system" that you're advocating sure cherry picked those actors, directors, and movie producers while the middlemen got rich. Or is the next thing on your agenda to tell me that RIAA accounting and MPAA Accounting didn't keep profits in corporations instead of the artists and the public?
"Copyright provides the structure."
... That has to be the funniest line that I've seen all day. You get a funny vote for that. Not only does it ignore the fact that exceptions to copyright give a lot more leeway, not only does it ignore all the research that filesharing increases sales and the fact that my first rant shows how it didn't work for JK Rowling, but it shows exactly the type of people that don't understand where the puck is going, merely where it's been (Smith Sundance Speech).
As I said before, the artists, the movie goers are moving away from giving Hollywood their ideas, instead opting to make them and fund them through the crowd, making the middlemen dynamic of Hollywood obsolete. Unless more of the CEOs of Hollywood and the music industry get it through their heads that the 80s are gone and the digital technology is forcing them to change their jobs, they won't have to worry about being dinosaurs. The people will move around them without the use of copyright enforcement to keep them controlled.
The record labels, the movie distribution companies, they all exist because they are the most efficient means that could be found that is also a relatively global solution. No piecemeal required, they provide methods, systems, and processes that allow the artists to work at being artists, instead of having to be little business men, little miniputt players, or little sidewalk shucksters trying to push their wares.
And the internet does a lot to make their jobs as gatekeepers obsolete. Who needs to be a part of Universal if they've got Soundcloud, 10000 mp3s, a few minutes of free time, a vision of the remixes they want to do and places to show off their talents? Does girltalk and deadmau5 need a huge label like that or a smaller one that caters to them? OR do they want to go it alone? Nowadays, the playfield is level, and there are people that connect on Youtube, Veoh, Kickstarter, or a number of places and figure out how to meet up, make movies, music and games while not tied to one place like Hollywood is.
Most of those "methods" don't do much to help the artist. They do more to help the studios. What happens when they run out of ideas? Oh, that's right...
They just remix the same old crap when they've run out of ideas.
Seriously, Charlie's Angels? In this day and age? WTF?
On the post: Time Warner Cable CEO Remains In Denial About Cord Cutting
Re:
On the post: Hurt Locker File Sharing Lawsuit Lists Hockey Stadium IP Address
Re: Re: Re:
People do foster debate and disagree all the time. But taking one AC's one word dialogue and then using that for everyone else that talks on the site is rather broad, don't you think?
On the post: Another Day, Another Story Of Police Lying... Only To Be Found Out Due To Video Of The Incident
Is it just me...?
We have lawyers who use the laws to entitle themselves to other's earnings.
We have politicians that do their work mainly to support business over the common people. In my view, this does not make sense.
Police officers should be allowed to make clear conscience decisions on the laws that need to be enforced. They shouldn't be people that turn off their brain, remember a ton of laws and suddenly, they are just messengers of a bad system.
A politician should be a person who listens to what their constituents want, not the monied interests (mainly lawyers) who pay them. I personally believe we need more statesmen than politicians and sadly only a few people in Congress exemplify that quality (Wyden is one)
Lawyers should be looking to help society at large. Making the law something so complex and arbitrary that no one can gain access to it. It's ridiculous.
There's been at least one person that's been able to write up some good information about how to change our laws. Honestly, we need a better way to redress our government and allow more people to have a voice rather than allowing a bad system to hurt them.
On the post: Police Caught Tasing Teen Without Warning
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: some people get what they deserve
Is that your argument?
On the post: Police Caught Tasing Teen Without Warning
Re: Re: Re: This may be the wrong crowd to mention it...
On the post: Righthaven Loses (Big Time) In Colorado As Well
Re: The Judge disses copyright trolls in footnote
On the post: Conferences Worth Attending: Silicon Valley Human Rights Conference
Re: Philippines has no parliament
Because Cebu keeps pretty civil for foreigners for the most part. And last I checked, most Filipinos were too interested in American songs like Justin Bieber to begin the fight against the government again.
On the post: How Copyright Extension Is Harming Classical Music
Re: Re: Re:
TAC, have you read rethinking piracy?, the first chapter of Joe Karaganis' "Media piracy" book? It will change you life.
"I most likely have a romantic idea that copyright once upon a time was to make sure someone else would not make a copy of an authors work and deprive them of income."
Yes, but I have to be pragmatic here. Copyright is a fight with technology to set up middlemen to profit. It's not the most efficient way to utilize technology by any means. Think about the collection societies that use an artist's name as leverage. Think about how Microsoft makes money off of Google giving away Android and MS' patent infringement cases. Nowadays, the digital fight doesn't "deprive" them of income. When more people gain access to a work, there's more chances people will pay for it, not out of the goodness of their heart, but because they make a decision they want to support the artist. The really good ones always rise to the top. The ones with entitlement complexes languish worse than Sonny Bono with his copyright extension. If copyright has actually helped an artist, I have yet to see any evidence of it. I actually had someone argue that copyright helped an artist who was a victim of Hollywood Accounting. Because he withheld his script for a new movie that "progressed the arts and sciences".
Yeah, I never took the person seriously after that. Usually, they had a set up diatribe about how copyright is a right of the artist over the consumer. And the consumer lost every time.
" But like the group that was selling the acoustical soundalike things of the Beatles catalog... they should be shut down for just trying to use the Beatles recordings to profit. (mind you the original copyrights might have been up without the extensions etc etc etc... but for this example pretend the Beatles still had legitimate copyright on the songs)."
Culture always builds on the past. The Beatles built on the folk songs of US history. Just like the songsters of now built on those of the 90s and beforehand.
What I want to impress here is that these people created songs and were fans of the Beatles enough to make their own rendition of songs. That should be celebrated. If someone thought it was good, give them money. Does this hurt the Beatles' following? I don't think so. It's like Universal going after DJ Danger Mouse for making the Grey Album, or trying to make someone pay for infringing on copyright $150,000 per song. It makes no sense.
So for the intents of this mini rant, I'll make a suggestion. If copyright is to act as a socio-economic tool to people enjoying entertainment, we need to take it away. It has been subverted and abused to punish those that create, not assist in making new works. That's to the detriment of all.
On the post: One Ninjavideo Defendant Pleads Guilty; Expect Him To Testify Against The Others
It's a conflict of interest. A bias to only one sort of resolution and it greatly influences the way government affects people. That should be avoided in our government. Sadly, it's not, and we are facing a lot of problems of people such as Mitch Glazier or Neil McBride in high, appointed positions while they look to criminalize the populace.
"This question raised in this thread was whether members of the U.S. Attorney's office, which is part of the DOJ, regularly suborn perjury."
Do you want the FBI, CIA, or just the US Attorney's office?
On the post: How Copyright Extension Is Harming Classical Music
Re:
We need to stop and explain Copyright for a second.
First of all, JK Rowling was getting benefits in Scotland before she "got lucky" and created Harry Potter in 1998. There is no way in hell that copyright protection has assisted her in any way, shape or form. In fact, JK Rowling's books are a GREAT example of what copyright interferes with. It interferes with the people having a connection to their author. She didn't sit down, writing out the world of HP in a cafe because she knew copyright would protect her work. She did this because she wanted an out. She wasn't turned down by editors that made her change her writing style 10 times until the first book was done because of copyright. NEVER has copyright actually protected an artist.
When she didn't put her books online, who did? Her fans.
When her fans made new story tropes to her characters, did she stop them from doing so? Hell no! She sat down, she read the stories and she Jossed the crazy rumors, such as Draco just being misunderstood, the Hermione/Harry fanfics, and the weird rumor about Sirius Black and Lupin the Werewolf being gay, while (*spoiler*) Dumbledore was gay all along (/*spoiler*)
Did copyright make her more money? No.
Did copyright give her a fanbase? No.
Did copyright give her a contract or an incentive to create anything? No.
And this gets into the next part of my rant. NO ONE is entitled to stop my enjoyment of a book, a piece of music, or anything else. If JK Rowling can't find a way to market her book towards me, she doesn't deserve my money. If her marketing team fails on that end, that's her loss. If the fans want to trade pdfs of technology, it does not cost $150,000 to make a copy. She needs to find a way to make it more enticing for people to give money to her and copyright has NEVER done that.
Copyright is a contract with the public. One that we hold the terms of negotiation. If someone uses copyright through various means to limit how WE, the people, consume media, then we can choose to accept it, or we can choose to find it elsewhere. DRM does not work. Ask Ubisoft. Filesharing has increased over the years, but the number of people willing to spend money on digital goods has also increased.
There's no way in hell I'm waiting 20 years, let along 98 years for a song to go out of copyright. If I hear it, and that's copyright infringement, so be it. But there are far too many media content choices in the world to wait for someone to get their act together. They want my money? They've got to earn it.
Our culture is growing hollow, and they keep making the same movies on the same ideas but this time with aliens, next time with pirates, then zombies, then ninjas... because all of the amazing ideas someone had about using a story they heard as a child... are locked in a closet in a corporate vault, slowly being bled dry to get a few more coins. As they lengthen the time to bleed them more, they still have yet to notice there are no new ideas, no new amazing worlds with new stories to tell, because they took it all away and forbid you to dream about it unless you pay them... again.
And here, I disagree with you. Art is moving. The ideas are moving away from Hollywood, but it's taking a while. Games are slowly becoming more indie. Smaller, more risky...
Music is all about the remixers such as Madeon, girltalk, along with the more established people like Jay-Z (a rapper) or Rihanna.
Movies seem to have gone the way of the webisode. Pioneer One has an interesting premise of having people pay for the next episode along with other scarcities.
Freddie Wong, a Youtuber has been successful in securing funding for his webisode project.
And I know copyright seems all well and good, but if this has a shot at funding in the next few days, I would watch it, copyright be damned.
Ok, I'm finished ranting. I remain positive that more content is being introduced to people all the time. You just have to look for the good stuff.
On the post: One Ninjavideo Defendant Pleads Guilty; Expect Him To Testify Against The Others
Re: Re: Re:
"Most media outlets name him as founder, his name is on most if not all of the ad contracts. I'd say ringleader is the right word. Feel free to disagree since this is an infringing case."
This isn't that hard to figure out. I'm sure if you googled NV or listened to any of the videos on Torrentfreak, you'll quickly figure out who the "ringleader" is. But even then, it's a misnomer since each played a different part in the site. For the most part, it seems they all had something they did on the site, and people filled the spots that they felt most comfortable in. And even then, there's others that probably filled roles. You can't run a site with just 5 people, with one being all the way in Greece.
"You're rambling again"
Now who's playing ignorant with facts?
Guess it's time for a timeline of events as the government did them. Bear in mind, I'm answering your question here:
"And you argue stupid shit that has everything to do with the nature of the crime and nothing to do with the facts and law."
So let's deal in facts as reported.
Jun 29, 2010 - Nine sites are taken down. From Disney HQ. In one of the stories, "Officials also seized assets from 15 bank, investment and advertising accounts, and executed residential search warrants in North Carolina, New Jersey, New York and Washington." That links up to all four suspects here.
Complaint comes in a full six months after the site is taken down with no way to complain to a judge about this. The people have to wait a full year and a half for an indictment on five videos that have gone on to make more than $500K in revenue but somehow, because it's released early on THIS website, they're interfering with the profits of Hollywood. And this exact process, the jailing of people for running a website with links on it, a conspiratorial look at people who come together to build something based on donations, not "illicit" or "ill gotten" goods, but people freely exchanging money for a service along with cheap ads, THIS is the future envisioned by Hollywood and Protect IP?
December 30th, 2010 - Forfeiture of 7 out of 9 sites. Ninjathis and Ninjavideo are oddly absent...
(Side note: Law enforcement abuses seizures regularly)
May 24, 2011 - Justice Department stalling on domain seizures. Plenty of debate on this in the months of Jan-May, but I'm keeping this a shorter reply.
February 17th, 2011 - FOIA request into domain seizures is put forth... Still waiting on a response today.
June 9th, 2011 - ICE says domain seizures a success. (They're wrong btw)
Jun 13th, 2011 - Rojadirecta sues the US government, forcing the government to make up a story about their "successful" mission.
July 20th, 2011 - US government shows its poker face for lawful seizure.
August 8th, 2011 Rojadirecta calls USG's bluff.
Now with this, we get to NV...
Since we've seen that through Roja's case the aiding and abetting doesn't work, the government upped the ante for these people.
September 9 2011, the five with NV indicted.
So, I've detailed through the links on the date, that the government hasn't given them any way to contest the domain seizures. The government has tried to stall for time while building a case or basically ignore the people wanting to challenge the seizures. I have yet to go into Richard O'Dwyer or Bryan McCarthy because that's basically more of the same issue. There's good writeups on how the seizures aren't legal. I like Karl's the most, for this part here:
Under 17 U.S.C. 512's "safe harbors" provisions, if the sites followed the rules laid out therein, they are not liable for infringement at all, and the only relief available is laid out in 512(j). Nothing in 17 U.S.C. 506 takes those safe harbors away. Even if you wrongly believe it did, obeying the law would (once again) make you an "innocent infringer" at most, thus ineligible for criminal infringement under 506. Yet there was not even an attempt to show that the sites did not follow those rules. And apparently many did.
So, my hypothesis still stands. Based on everything that I've shown, there is a possibility that the government lumped Ninjathis with Ninjavideo to bring out a higher amount. Based on the 15 bank, investment, and residential seizures, it seems that the government took everything they had to make sure they couldn't fight back. From all looks of it, this actually came out of nowhere. Nothing in regards to an indication that the five were to be indicted.
No clear way to challenge the proceedings. No judicial hearing. No magistrate to complain to. No, it's right to indictment after a year and a half of silence.
I hope that answered your question. If not, I got more.
"Yes. And???"
From all looks of it, while you split up my sentence, you missed the fact that all of the movies made a lot more than their budget even though they were released early on one site. Somehow, it's hard to miss the fact that the movie is still available on Pirate Bay, and so many other sites, yet still makes a lot of money... Hmmm...
"So maybe I should go steal something from---"
Non-sequitar.
"They received donations for the purpose of monetizing their continuing criminal enterprise. "
Links aren't criminal yet, bucko. And the government has yet to prove that. And last I checked, donations were given freely. As in, Hollywood has no claims to that money. The entitlement of those in industry is staggering...
"Online gambling is legal in other countries too. What happens when those companies provide services to US customers. Oops. And yes, I look forward to Richard's extended visit in the US."
We'll see Nov 3rd won't we? Also, your online gambling jibe? Needs work. We both agree it's legal in the US and outside, just some cops seize assets to fund their police force. Fancy that, the cops using seized assets to make their paychecks bigger.
On the post: Conferences Worth Attending: Silicon Valley Human Rights Conference
Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure I'll weep as I tell you to get off your cross, make a bridge, and get over it. :)
On the post: Conferences Worth Attending: Silicon Valley Human Rights Conference
Re:
Awesome way to show your support for fact checking.
On the post: Police Caught Tasing Teen Without Warning
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: some people get what they deserve
Can you explain when exactly the kid got a chance to follow those instructions? It must be somewhere on the video and I'm just not seeing it...
On the post: Senate Lets Copyright Lobby Set Up Shop In Senate Building During PROTECT IP Debate
Re: Re: Re: A Plan to Remove Money from Politics
I'll have to look more closely at that and get back to you.
On the post: One Ninjavideo Defendant Pleads Guilty; Expect Him To Testify Against The Others
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Jay": READ THE 2ND LINK, don't remain willfully ignorant.
But then you're ignoring the fact that Neil McBride, the AG was once campaigning for more copyright through his work as the VP of the BSA, aren't you?
On the post: Can The NYPD Back Up Its Claim Of A Confrontation That Required Pepper Spray, Despite More Video Evidence?
Re: RE: Can The NYPD Back Up Its Claim Of A Confrontation That Required Pepper Spray, Despite More Video Evidence?
Next >>