As was found out in 1851, patents are an incredibly stupid idea:
The granting [of] patents ‘inflames cupidity', excites fraud, stimulates men to run after schemes that may enable them to levy a tax on the public, begets disputes and quarrels betwixt inventors, provokes endless lawsuits...The principle of the law from which such consequences flow cannot be just. -- The Economist, July 26, 1851
He's continued legal maneuvers to stop the NZ courts from answering the simple extradition warrant are signs of someone trying very hard to avoid arrest - the very definition of a fugitive.
I don't think you happen to know what extradition means. Bascially, it's dependant on a treaty, which usually says: - The deed must be a criminal act in both countries - It can't be of a political nature. - If the punishment might be death penalty, a lot of countries won't extradite. New Zealand won't, for instance. Same goes for torture. - Citizenship. Some countries refuse to extradite their own citizens, but in turn will prosecute them themselves.
Also, it's generally understood, that if a country decides not to extradite, it will prosecute the perpetrator itself, IF the alleged deed is a crime in that country.
With Kim Schmitz, there is only one factor relevant: criminal act.
The trouble is, it's absolutely not clear whether what he did is a) criminal in the first place, b) criminal in both countries.
Because what he's accused of, "copyright infringement" would usually be under civil law. And people can't be extradited for cases relating to civil law. Even more, he's not even accused of that, but "aiding and abetting copyright infringement", which is even more removed from any liability.
But the US insists, because he might have done "aiding and abetting copyright infringement" on a massive scale, its now a crime. Which is not even undisputed in the US itself.
And now they expect NZ to extradite someone on a very weird interpretation of a US law?
How do you know he PUBLISHED the file? Because copyright happens to be about publishing, not about receiving or downloading something. And the technical term for PUBLISHING would be "copyright infringement" idiot.
What exactly has this to do with "assisting copyright infringement"? Which is civil, and not criminal law. And why would the DOJ be involved in the first place? It's clear somebody with an agenda is pulling the strings at the DOJ, and that agenda has nothing to do with law and justice.
And another thing that happens: GMO companies have a record of patenting crops that already exist in the wild. It's like claiming copyright over public domain works.
The NSA whistleblowing mostly uncovered criminal behaviour of a government agency. Actually things the people have a need and a right to know. It's about a government body doing bullshit. And it's totally irrelevant whether "damage" is being done. As a comparison: You can talk all day about "damage" to your scamming operation when you get outed.
The OPM hack on the other hand, THAT is really bad. There's no data there the public needs know. There's no revelation of criminal behaviour on the side of OPM not related to the hack (and related to the hack it's probably mostly "negligence"). Of course there might be rather criminal behaviour of the government or other agencies involved, but you can't really blame the OPM for: - Needing to screen way too many people because some idiots classify everything, so a lot of people need clearance to get their work done. - Other government agencies hoarding zero-day exploits which might have been found independently by the perpetrators and used against them.
When a patent office gets involved, don't expect anyone to profit except big companies. And the USPTO is one of the worst offenders in illegally granting patents, so you know somebody is getting screwed.
You could actually put a tax on gas, to cover the damage that's done to the environment and to people. Which would raise gas prices by a factor of 3. You could even factor in the costs of road building and repair, which actually wouldn't raise it much more.
The other option of course is to have people pay it with income taxes or healthcare costs. As it is done now...
Of course, since "it's not longer legal", you might just skip the hassle and expense of buying a CD and ripping it and just download the songs from somewhere where somebody already uploaded them illegally.
Clever strategy for getting people not to buy CDs anymore.
Thomas Babington Macaulay, MP, notes in his speech in the house of commons, 1841, regarding the proposed copyright extension to after the death of the author:
And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the words of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.
That was the moment respect for copyright died. And it won't get it back unless you lift these unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the words of the dead.
A rule-of-law society cannot allow sanctuary for those who wreak harm.
It's kind of circular, since as soon as you start to do mass-surveillance (or stripping away the rights to communicate without being monitored), you're basically turning everyone into suspects, which makes you not a rule-of-law society anymore, thus undermining the very premise you started with.
Most people know me (and call me) by it. Including those at my workplace.
You can google it. You probably wouldn't find my homepage when looking for my given name, but you sure find it with my nick.
So yeah, I do have a problem with "real names policy", because actually, the name they want is much less identifying, does much less belong to me than my nickname.
So you would declare some of your own population as "enemy combatants"?
You do realize that by revoking them their rights without due process, you'd place them outside the law? And you can't hold them responsible for killing your own military personnel, because, you know, they're now "enemy combatants". (You still could hold them responsible for killing civilians, but I doubt camp guards would qualify as civilians).
There are government agencies actually fostering absurd conspiracy theories, so they can discredit theories which happen to be factual as "conspiracy theories".
The GCHQ has the JTRIG department for this, I'd guess the CIA has such a department as well, given the CIA invented the phrase "conspiracy theory" in the first place to denigrate unwanted theories..
On the post: Google Giving Away Some Of Its Patents To Startups To Help Protect Startups From Trolls
There is no point
The granting [of] patents ‘inflames cupidity', excites fraud, stimulates men to run after schemes that may enable them to levy a tax on the public, begets disputes and quarrels betwixt inventors, provokes endless lawsuits...The principle of the law from which such consequences flow cannot be just. -- The Economist, July 26, 1851
Here's the whole text
http://seegras.discordia.ch/Blog/voices-against-the-patent-system-the-economist-1851/
On the post: German Film Distributor Issues Takedown Request Falsely Targeting IMDb, Reddit And Techdirt
localhost
http://127.0.0.1:4001/#/fr/
Really. See https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/10969223#
On the post: Even If You Think Kim Dotcom Is Guilty As Sin, The US Government Stealing His Assets Should Concern You
Re:
Of course not, that's when the suspicions started. The Obama era just confirmed them.
On the post: Even If You Think Kim Dotcom Is Guilty As Sin, The US Government Stealing His Assets Should Concern You
Re: Re: Re: Think of this as August.
I don't think you happen to know what extradition means. Bascially, it's dependant on a treaty, which usually says:
- The deed must be a criminal act in both countries
- It can't be of a political nature.
- If the punishment might be death penalty, a lot of countries won't extradite. New Zealand won't, for instance. Same goes for torture.
- Citizenship. Some countries refuse to extradite their own citizens, but in turn will prosecute them themselves.
Also, it's generally understood, that if a country decides not to extradite, it will prosecute the perpetrator itself, IF the alleged deed is a crime in that country.
With Kim Schmitz, there is only one factor relevant: criminal act.
The trouble is, it's absolutely not clear whether what he did is a) criminal in the first place, b) criminal in both countries.
Because what he's accused of, "copyright infringement" would usually be under civil law. And people can't be extradited for cases relating to civil law. Even more, he's not even accused of that, but "aiding and abetting copyright infringement", which is even more removed from any liability.
But the US insists, because he might have done "aiding and abetting copyright infringement" on a massive scale, its now a crime. Which is not even undisputed in the US itself.
And now they expect NZ to extradite someone on a very weird interpretation of a US law?
On the post: United Airlines Requires You To Install Special Brand Of DRM To Watch Movies On Flights
Re: Re: Re: Not a problem for me.
idiot.
On the post: Even If You Think Kim Dotcom Is Guilty As Sin, The US Government Stealing His Assets Should Concern You
Re:
On the post: Comcast Really Wants Me To Stop Calling Their Top Lobbyist A 'Top Lobbyist'
Re: Re: Oh, but you want to be called a "writer" instead of "Google flack"
Piracy:
1 the practice or an act of robbery of ships at sea;
2 a similar practice or act in other forms, esp. hijacking.
On the post: African Nations Agree To Plant Variety Treaty; Traditional Farmers' Group Shut Out From Negotiations
Re: Re:
On the post: NY Times Falsely Claims ISIS Is Using Encryption & Couriers Because Snowden
OPM
The OPM hack on the other hand, THAT is really bad. There's no data there the public needs know. There's no revelation of criminal behaviour on the side of OPM not related to the hack (and related to the hack it's probably mostly "negligence"). Of course there might be rather criminal behaviour of the government or other agencies involved, but you can't really blame the OPM for:
- Needing to screen way too many people because some idiots classify everything, so a lot of people need clearance to get their work done.
- Other government agencies hoarding zero-day exploits which might have been found independently by the perpetrators and used against them.
On the post: NY Times Falsely Claims ISIS Is Using Encryption & Couriers Because Snowden
Re: Re: Osama Bin Laden loaded with high tech gadgets
On the post: NY Times Falsely Claims ISIS Is Using Encryption & Couriers Because Snowden
Re: Osama Bin Laden loaded with high tech gadgets
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden
On the post: African Nations Agree To Plant Variety Treaty; Traditional Farmers' Group Shut Out From Negotiations
USPTO
On the post: Driverless Cars: Disrupting Government Reliance On Petty Traffic Enforcement
The other option of course is to have people pay it with income taxes or healthcare costs. As it is done now...
On the post: If The UK Wants People To 'Respect' Copyright, Outlawing Ripping CDs Is Probably Not Helping
Clever strategy for getting people not to buy CDs anymore.
On the post: If The UK Wants People To 'Respect' Copyright, Outlawing Ripping CDs Is Probably Not Helping
Respect? Blundered away in 1841
And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the words of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.
That was the moment respect for copyright died. And it won't get it back unless you lift these unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the words of the dead.
The whole speech is extremely enlightening:
http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/commentary/MacaulaySpeeches.html
On the post: Washington Post Observes Encryption War 2.0 For Several Months, Learns Absolutely Nothing
Re: The fundamental argument is flawed
It's kind of circular, since as soon as you start to do mass-surveillance (or stripping away the rights to communicate without being monitored), you're basically turning everyone into suspects, which makes you not a rule-of-law society anymore, thus undermining the very premise you started with.
On the post: I'll Put My Name On This Piece Declaring It Idiotic To Argue Against Anonymity Online
Re: Re: Chilling effects of forced identification
Most people know me (and call me) by it. Including those at my workplace.
You can google it. You probably wouldn't find my homepage when looking for my given name, but you sure find it with my nick.
So yeah, I do have a problem with "real names policy", because actually, the name they want is much less identifying, does much less belong to me than my nickname.
On the post: General Wesley Clark: Some WWII-Style Internment Camps Are Just The Thing We Need To Fight Domestic Radicalization
Re:
You do realize that by revoking them their rights without due process, you'd place them outside the law? And you can't hold them responsible for killing your own military personnel, because, you know, they're now "enemy combatants". (You still could hold them responsible for killing civilians, but I doubt camp guards would qualify as civilians).
On the post: General Wesley Clark: Some WWII-Style Internment Camps Are Just The Thing We Need To Fight Domestic Radicalization
Re: Re: LMGTFY is still active!?
The GCHQ has the JTRIG department for this, I'd guess the CIA has such a department as well, given the CIA invented the phrase "conspiracy theory" in the first place to denigrate unwanted theories..
On the post: General Wesley Clark: Some WWII-Style Internment Camps Are Just The Thing We Need To Fight Domestic Radicalization
Re: Re: No
No idea. But if Wesley Clark states he wants to intern everyone he thinks "radicalized", it makes him a dangerous radical.
Next >>