Perhaps.Originally Posted by roachcoach
....
I suppose in summary I could say I feel that abusing "the internet is different" for their own ends are not just the pirates
Pota-y-to or pota-h-to?
What about the "victims", those being the ones getting their rights abused? Just because they're rich corporations doesn't mean they're free targets.
That's an entirely different debate....and one for another thread
Depends how you look at it.That's an entirely different debate....and one for another thread
Whether they should have IP protection is, indeed, a different issue, but the fact is, they do, under US, UK and most other country's laws. And those rights were deliberately infringed. Which makes them as much victims as those defrauded by 401k'ers or boiler-room scammers, and entitled to expect that justice should not be defeated by cross-border issues just because it's IP issues we're dealing with. So the law should protect them, and in the US and UK it does, through copyright, and this is it in operation.
I notice nobody has yet tried to justify why 401k-ers or boiler room scammers should be immune because they operate in a different jurisdiction .... though in practice they're often immune because they're hard to find and get evidence against.
I honestly don't know enough about either event to pass comment, which is why I've not.
However, I suppose the answer would be the same as the answer to this: If I stand in France and shot a Spaniard over the border, who gets to arrest me?
Edit: and don't say interpol
Last edited by roachcoach; 19-01-2012 at 04:47 PM.
The nearest (armed) cop, I'd think. Ask who gets to try you and I'll scream.
Valid questions though - what would be STUPIDLY unlikely cross border events in the past are now one hell of a lot easier in the digital age.
But the crimes continue regardless. As for victims, well they just don't get the reasons why people refuse to pay them. Its not as if they have lost revenue or customers because they were never getting paid in the first place.
I really dislike this assertion, for a start off, its rather un founded, its easy to hypothesis that because someone has pirated a TV show they are not going to buy a box set.
But obviously that might not be the case, however the pirate is getting something which is not his to have for free.
The only thing is your effecitvely saying the victim has no say in if its right or not because and sorry to make it seem like I'm putting words in your mouth "they were never going to buy it".
Now don't get me wrong, I think its foolish to do the whole x million copies pirated = x million lost sales. But its not the place of someone other than the rights holder to decide on the business model.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Jailing this man will not solve anything. Eradicating piracy is not guaranteed to raise revenue, it could even have an adverse effect as you point out. The fact is most customers just refuse to pay.
After saying I would not post again I am posting again on this point.
Firstly, if I follow they latest argument from Saracen, if you run a website you better make sure you take no holidays abroad because if you go on holiday to a country whose laws your website (unknown by you) broke then it is entirely right that you should get arrested and thrown in jail in that foreign country in their citizens looked at your website. Seems rather extreme to me.
The jurisdiction argument is very complex but for example if you hack a US Govt website from the UK I see no problem with the US having jurisdiction because you targetted a US based computer (could be tricky if hacked server was not in US) and must have sent something to that US computer to hack it, therefore extradition should apply.
But if you run a website (lets make it easy from a UK server) and people round the world look at your website then it is difficult to see why jurisdiction should be anything other than UK. The fact that your website may get advertising from foreign companies should not change that.
The problem is that most countries do respect basic international law principles about jurisdiction - the US does not. I suggest you look up the case of Gabe Watson US citizen who killed his wife in Australia, arrested, tried and convicted in Australia of manslaughter, served prison time in Australia and then released. Deported back to USA, arrested and under trial in US for the Australia killing because US authorities decided Australia was not tough enough (there is historical irony in there!). So if convicted he will serve two sentences for the same crime in two countries.
(O’Dwyer was said to be making approximately £15,000 per month from online advertising) Did he really make that sort of money ?
Doubt it, traffic to 'dodgy' sites isn't worth much.
I'm no Saracen apologist - but he has pointed out, repeatedly, that this was a serious crime in the UK as well. Quite why the CPS thought it better not to prosecute is another question.
Society's to blame,
Or possibly Atari.
There seems to be some doubt about whether it is a crime in the UK - well it should be.
And yes I think the CPS should have prosecuted the TVshack guy as well
This is definitely my last post on this subject, and I am only posting because I have found a link to a copy of the judgment.
Sadly the section dealing with dual criminality is very poorly reasoned by the judge and I hope an appeal to higher court where the point will be properly argued is made.
In this case dual criminality only applies if what O'Dwyer did falls within s107(2A Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This states "A person who infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work in public
(a) in the course of business,..." is guilty of an offence.
I think it is reasonable to assume O'Dwyer was acting in the course of business so the real question is whether hosting a web link is "communicating the work"
It is always best to build up the argument slowly.
The work in this case is a copyright work such as a film, piece of music or similar. Let use as an example a situation where someone in the far east has uploaded a copy of the film "Thor". TVshack as I understand it does not host that uploaded illegal copy but simply has a database of links to where Thor can be found.
It is clear that TVshack is communicating (after all what is the point of the internet if not to communicate information). The question is what is it communicating. To be an offence the law states TVshack has to be communicating "the Work" - or in my example a copy of the film Thor.
What the judge actually did was rely on a completely different law to suggest that parliament meant something other than the obvious meaning of the words quoted - and the actions used to try and justify this (the fact he made money from it, had no take down procedure) have logically absolutely nothing to do with whether the actions are "communicating the work".
A simple example will suffice: if the judge is right then when a newspaper publishes a TV listing guide then the newspaper is "communicating" each of the TV programmes in the listing (as it tells me when they are broadcast and on what channel) but that does not give me any real detail about what the programme is about, who is in it etc. All I have been given is the title, the time and the channel. I just cannot see how this is "communicating the work"
This is a long winded way of saying I think the UK law is defective, and linking should be an offence
I assume then anyone in possession of a gun in america is subject to British law and will be extradited over here. Oh wait, the americans think they make the rules don't they, most of them don't even know where Britain is.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote