4 ms·

Exposing skin is pretty distant from what MegaUpload was accused of. (The validity of the charges is another matter, I just REALLY don't think it is correct to

Exposing skin is pretty distant from what MegaUpload was accused of. (The validity of the charges is another matter, I just REALLY don't think it is correct to compare this to not pulling your hijab down far enough)

sk5t 14y ago
It's not distant at all... why is providing a forum for users to make bytes/information available to each other categorically more villainous than showing a little ankle? Only your cultural perspective makes a Sharia infraction less severe than vague IP transgressions.
iandanforth 14y ago
Would editing the parent to say 'having sex with another man,' which is a capital offense, really change the substance of the argument?
Foy 14y ago
The specific analogy aside, the fact is that the U.S. government is basically saying that no matter who you are, or where you are, if you violate American law you'll be brought to American justice, even if they have to drag you to America against your will first. If any other country in the world did this, there would be complete public outrage. From my point of view, American copyright and patent laws are very, very wrong. They largely miss their intended purposes. What's more, apparently even non-Americans on the other side of the world are at risk of being the target of these legal shenanigans. I cannot stress how RIDICULOUS I think this whole affair is. It's as if the prosecutors figure that Megaupload operates on the Internet, therefore it's operating in America and is subject to American law... is this another example of people who do not understand how the Internet works making major decisions about the Internet and it's future?
- Steko 14y ago
  People who are upset about the case in general seem to be determined to read more into this tiny development then there actually is. What they're saying is that just because you don't have an address doesn't mean we can't freeze your assets. Consider a homeless person who had stolen money and kept it in a bank. Just because the government can't find the alleged thief and doesn't have an address for them shouldn't mean they can't freeze the account, allowing the thief to go on making withdrawls at ATMs around the world.
  - Foy 14y ago
    You are correct in assuming that I am upset about the case in general. However your analogy assumes that the homeless person (Megaupload) is guilty of theft and lives in the U.S. If this homeless person lives in another country and someone in America claims that this homeless person stole from them. Does the U.S. government even have the right to go and seize this homeless person's foreign assets? Everyone seems to be conveniently forgetting that Megaupload has NOTHING to do with the United Stated except for operating on the Internet and not discriminating against U.S. customers.
    - Steko 14y ago
      "Does the U.S. government even have the right to go and seize this homeless person's foreign assets?" I suppose it would depend on the treaties with have with where those assets are held. Also freeze =/= seize. They are similar and rhyme but not identical. "Everyone seems to be conveniently forgetting that Megaupload has NOTHING to do with the United Stated except for operating on the Internet and not discriminating against U.S. customers." Are you telling me that I can sit in Nowhereistan, hack into bank accounts all over the world to steal that money, transfer it into my Nowhereistan accounts and I'm immune to all the world's governments even though they have a treaty with Nowhereistan?
      - Foy 14y ago
        I'm not saying you are immune. But if the judge ruling over the case throws it out before it gets to court then your assets should not remain frozen indefinitely out of spite.
        Steko 14y ago
        Throws it out over a technicality in service because of a lack of address? We're back to the homeless thief with no address getting a free pass.
        nitrogen 14y ago
tibbon 14y ago
Its all point of view. Violating religious law vs violating the property of private corporations?
- kkowalczyk 14y ago
  There's no "religious" law in the context we're talking about. In both cases it's just law, enacted and enforced by the government of each country.
  - wpietri 14y ago
    And really, I suspect I've met some fundamentalist capitalists. "May Mammon bless our profits, and our capital, and our perfect markets. In St. Ayn's name, amen."

sk5t 14y ago

It's not distant at all... why is providing a forum for users to make bytes/information available to each other categorically more villainous than showing a little ankle? Only your cultural perspective makes a Sharia infraction less severe than vague IP transgressions.

iandanforth 14y ago

Would editing the parent to say 'having sex with another man,' which is a capital offense, really change the substance of the argument?

Foy 14y ago

The specific analogy aside, the fact is that the U.S. government is basically saying that no matter who you are, or where you are, if you violate American law you'll be brought to American justice, even if they have to drag you to America against your will first. If any other country in the world did this, there would be complete public outrage. From my point of view, American copyright and patent laws are very, very wrong. They largely miss their intended purposes. What's more, apparently even non-Americans on the other side of the world are at risk of being the target of these legal shenanigans. I cannot stress how RIDICULOUS I think this whole affair is. It's as if the prosecutors figure that Megaupload operates on the Internet, therefore it's operating in America and is subject to American law... is this another example of people who do not understand how the Internet works making major decisions about the Internet and it's future?

Steko 14y ago
People who are upset about the case in general seem to be determined to read more into this tiny development then there actually is. What they're saying is that just because you don't have an address doesn't mean we can't freeze your assets. Consider a homeless person who had stolen money and kept it in a bank. Just because the government can't find the alleged thief and doesn't have an address for them shouldn't mean they can't freeze the account, allowing the thief to go on making withdrawls at ATMs around the world.
- Foy 14y ago
  You are correct in assuming that I am upset about the case in general. However your analogy assumes that the homeless person (Megaupload) is guilty of theft and lives in the U.S. If this homeless person lives in another country and someone in America claims that this homeless person stole from them. Does the U.S. government even have the right to go and seize this homeless person's foreign assets? Everyone seems to be conveniently forgetting that Megaupload has NOTHING to do with the United Stated except for operating on the Internet and not discriminating against U.S. customers.
  - Steko 14y ago
    "Does the U.S. government even have the right to go and seize this homeless person's foreign assets?" I suppose it would depend on the treaties with have with where those assets are held. Also freeze =/= seize. They are similar and rhyme but not identical. "Everyone seems to be conveniently forgetting that Megaupload has NOTHING to do with the United Stated except for operating on the Internet and not discriminating against U.S. customers." Are you telling me that I can sit in Nowhereistan, hack into bank accounts all over the world to steal that money, transfer it into my Nowhereistan accounts and I'm immune to all the world's governments even though they have a treaty with Nowhereistan?
    - Foy 14y ago
      I'm not saying you are immune. But if the judge ruling over the case throws it out before it gets to court then your assets should not remain frozen indefinitely out of spite.
      - Steko 14y ago
        Throws it out over a technicality in service because of a lack of address? We're back to the homeless thief with no address getting a free pass.
        nitrogen 14y ago

tibbon 14y ago

Its all point of view. Violating religious law vs violating the property of private corporations?

kkowalczyk 14y ago
There's no "religious" law in the context we're talking about. In both cases it's just law, enacted and enforced by the government of each country.
- wpietri 14y ago
  And really, I suspect I've met some fundamentalist capitalists. "May Mammon bless our profits, and our capital, and our perfect markets. In St. Ayn's name, amen."