"These officers just did what their supervisor told them to do. They are pawns in a chess game."
You're wrong. They may or may not have had approval or encouragement from supervisors, but they did want they did because they wanted to and thought they could get away with it. No decent human being would follow orders to do what they did. They're thugs with no respect for the laws they've been entrusted to uphold. This incident reflects terribly on the processes for vetting police candidates and monitoring ongoing behavior.
Re: I blame pirates while Techdirt blames creators. But then I'm reasonably moral, not a pirate who gains the unearned and whose thefts create the very problems that they then use to justify more piracy.
"It's always decent people who pay the price for thefts by moral lepers."
Ignoring your obvious ignorance of leprosy and resulting failed analogy, there is simply no good reason why there needs to be a tax on the possibility of infringement occurring. This method does absolutely nothing to benefit content creators; it is simply a money grab by people with absolutely no claim to any moral high ground.
"Why are services that simply retransmit the OTA broadcasts of others so "new and innovative" that they should be excused from violating the rights of creators?"
What orifice did you pull that strawman argument out of? Did you completely miss the bit where Aereo agreed to pay rebroadcasting fees and were still killed off? And just because broadcasters have the legal right (i.e. government-granted privilege) to act as a rebroadcasting gatekeeper, doesn't actually make it right or even smart.
"Why are you so opposed to innovations that actually take the rights of others into mind?"
This implies Mike has voiced opposition to innovative services that you support. Can you name them and point to Mike's comments on them?
Don't worry, we know you're a hypocrite who won't answer.
Re: It's the same move repeated over and over again by pirates: rather than pay the producers a pittance, they use technology to evade clear law and then don't understand why people get pissed off and try to stop their thefts.
"Now, I've provided a button nearby for pirates to click so they can make clear their intent to continue stealing."
I looked but couldn't find it, so I just hit 'report' instead.
"Instead of answering free speech with more speech, just censor away, kids."
The long list of comments answering you bears a striking resemblance to "more speech"...
"Yes, but you seem to be taking this from the attitude that every Web site should have comments."
I disagree, I think the criticism here is aimed squarely at the lame and disingenuous claims of improving the community by killing comments. I don't see anything above saying websites must have commenting.
Re: @ "Mikes position is more along the lines that copyright is intended to benefit the public (read the Constitution) not just rights holders"
"It's faith-based teachings not actualities, let alone the clear simple morality that creators own their creations and have sole control of copies -- yes, SOLE control: media only licenses you to read/view the content."
If you want creators to have sole control of copies (yes, SOLE control!) of their creations, perhaps you should turn your attention to the fact that the first thing most creators have to do when publishing their work is to completely relinquish that control to industry gatekeepers. There are few "actualities" in your claims of creator control.
"Yeah, it's so hard to find actual infringers that they must be making it up."
No, it's hard to profit from actual infringers, which is what these clowns are trying to do. Try to look beyond your usual "dirty pirates!" schtick and take note of the fact that this purely abuse of the copyright system for profit. If you're really so sure copyright is the only thing preventing total cultural meltdown then you should be equally outraged against it's abuse by people who have zero interest in actually protecting artists or their output.
Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.
"Brooks is right in fact about used CD sales, that's how should be, but is not law any more than is with books. I'd go for a tax on both those, because re-sellers have no intrinsic right to profit from those creations, but that's a whole 'nother topic, eh?"
So do you think people selling houses or cars or every used item on eBay have no intrinsic right to profit from those creations either? Would you like to tax every single person selling something they bought? You're right that's another topic, but one you'll never discuss because you know such sheer idiocy would have you mocked clean off the internet.
"He can come to the US and have his day in court. In fact, if he had done so 3 years ago and was in fact innocent, his problems would already be over."
And in the meantime he would have most a few years and millions of dollars more than he already has, forced to like in a country he has no interest in, unable to work or run a business and probably held without bail (OMG, flight risk!). You can't see why someone who believes they're innocent would fight as hard as they can against that? I'm pretty sure you would.
"The amount of effort he is putting into remaining out of the US is enough to make one think perhaps he knows that if he actually has to go to court on the underlying charged, he will lose big time."
Again, you seem to think simply going to court in the US would be no big deal, a minor inconvenience, a mere trifling. I'm not sure if you're being willfully untruthful or if you really are completely ignorant about what that experience would be like.
"I don't know his thought process, except to say that he is working extremely hard to avoid having to face justice."
He could also be working extremely hard to avoid having to face injustice. You might think the US legal system is a paragon of justice, but many people who've experienced it think its rotten to the core.
"Remember, extradition has nothing to do with guilty or innocence. The NZ courts are in no position to rule on that. They can only decide that the US has presented them with a valid extradition warrant, that the charges are covered by treaty, and that they have some semblance of a case."
And so far they've failed pretty badly at all of those things. You might think this has been dragged out by Dotcom's legal trickery, but if the US had a genuinely solid case this would've been over a long time ago. The case is weak, and lot's of legal minds smarter than you and I have said so.
"Yeah, I am really horrible, hating that Kim got rich on the back of others..."
That is literally the only way to get as rich as he is. He's just one of a very large club, so if you really just have a problem with rich people than at least admit that.
It should be noted that millions of happy customers around the world contributed that money for the legitimate use of a legal service. The only people complaining were the movie studios who are the poster children for getting rich on the back of others.
As that article points out, a lot of activities are described in the report as "illegal" or implied to be illegal, when they're simply not. Things like using VPN's to access US Netflix from other countries (terms of dervice breach), downloading infringing content (a civil matter, not criminal), or simply using uTorrent and Bit-Torrent for anything (perfectly legal). It's another case of repeating an incorrect or inaccurate claim often enough to trick the simple-minded policy makers into over-reacting.