People keep throwing around these pro- and anti- prefixes, but in the end, they don't mean much, or possibly anything at all, because they are usually just a shorthand for the logical fallacy of "false dichotomy".
I'm also anti-piracy, but then, I'm also anti-littering. I'm not sure which should have the greater punishment, it seems to me to be a matter of context.
Wow. Let's see now, when combine your post with "statements" from the **AA's reports, what conclusion we come up with.
(1) A large percentage of Internet communications are copyright infringement using P2P software. (2) Anyone using P2P software illegally uploads in order to gain profit (as in, getting other parts of the file from others). (3) Copyright infringement for profit is criminal. (4) This criminal infringement is being willfully aided by Internet providers in general (5) All Internet providers are also criminals, so we should shut them all down.
There now. Now the **AA's can go to sleep and rest peacefully, knowing that their bad dream of the Internet has been duly erased from reality... in order to serve Justice, of course.
Theoretically, you are right... but didn't you notice that AD only states "you are right / I was wrong", which in the absence/reporting of his original posts does not add anything to the discussion.
He carefully didn't actually state anything which is worth reading on its own. If he had stated "I was wrong, and the US government has no justification to seize Dotcom's assets", then I would agree with you that the posts shouldn't have been reported (and I have a suspicion that "you" are actually AD).
> because it doesn't cost any money to publish a book
Well, nowadays, exactly how much does it cost? From my personal non-professional viewpoint, it would seem to require a one-time payment for editing and cover art... and that's about it.
I don't believe that Tehranian himself cares about making money from his book; what's important for him (academic-karma-wise) is that it is published (and not by a vanity publisher).
The really stupid thing about your post, however, is that instead of making fun of Mike finding the ebook price ironic because of the supposedly significant production cost of said ebook, you should have instead made fun of Mike for ignoring obvious economic principles which drive academic ebook prices, namely that most such ebooks are bought out of research grant funds which often "just need to be spent", anyway. (Or am I missing something from my non-professional-economist viewpoint?)
No, you forgot to add a loop of string and the toy lock from your 8-year-old's diary... since either cutting the string or breaking the toy lock to get in the room is "criminal".
This seems to be an interesting example of people overrating their own importance: the judge, in effect, is claiming that mere fear of the justice system ("Watch out, I'll throw the book at anyone who hacks those locks!") should be sufficient to secure a hotel room door.
Wait a sec, this is the behavior we expect of a company backing "notice and staydown"? Given what they expect of others, even if they have a valid license, one would think they'd have the courtesy to at least take it down for appearances sake, right?
> Sure, it's easy if you have a long standing reputation > like Hitchcock or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
I see no reason this would necessarily mean it would be easy; one could easily be in the situation of having to traverse a large tree of estate administrations, since the post-mortum extension period could be several generations long...
I agree that that mainly works, but it's a pain to start to temporarily enable domains/subdomains one by one hoping that you manage to enable the serving of the media you're interested in, while still blocking the ad networks.
One wonders if this "wet/dry" was planned from the start, and only necessary because the authorities needed time to review the requested documents and make sure the really damning ones could be falsified.
Re: In Consistent Disagreement with Your Stance on Piracy
> continually growing problem of piracy
We see what you did there. Or possibly you meant "continually growing work to hide the continually growing box office profits from the continually more savvy actors who we are continually screwing over on their contract percentages"?