Ha Ha! Very funny and as always very clever:)
Harsh. But fair.
Agree totally. Then we could all read what was said in the tabloids instead of having to wait for a court case.Real privacy is a pain in the butt when we need to scuttle someone.
Bearing in mind he's wanted on copyright infringements only. Not a millionaire drug dealer, escaped pedophile or anything really sinister. I think he should and we ALL should be concerned when the FULL force of the government bears down on a NZ Citizen, don't forget.But never mind after today's Parliament session watching Peter's and Norman Key's gone. Demanding a full enquiry they told him!
Copyright infringements are no more than redistribution policies that work for the ordinary person who would otherwise have to pay exorbitant prices to the well off.Helping sink this Government is a bonus that we should be grateful to Mr Dotcom for.He is the poster boy for the left.
Please note that I usually delete anonymous comments. The only reason why I haven't deleted the one above is that it would also delete the reply (which would be unfair...)
Paul: "Coypright infringements are no more than"... really? I would have thought copyright infringements were instances in which people acted outside established copyright law. Occam's razor. Copyright law isn't about redistribution of wealth, it's about protection of income. The effect is to produce an enterable market for "content", sure, but the story around current approaches to copyright is one of protecting a dying pay content market.Massive political instability with a hung/left parliament isn't really something to be wished for at this time in our country. Maybe you weren't around last time we had a snap election called by a distressed prime minister, but the government that followed was far worse for the left. Guess which party: Hint, begins with an "L" and ends with "abour party."We have nothing to be grateful to Mr. Dotcom for - should the US have not declared an interest, he would be in bed with this government. Certainly Mr. Banks had no objection to including Dotcom in his personal network of cronyism. Let's not make a folk hero out of a robber baron of the digital age.Anonymous: Resident, not citizen. I'm tangata whenua, he's not even a treaty partner. I'm annoyed about the process, I don't prize him above jewels. My rights are enshrined, he bought his.Also: A "full" enquiry is actually an enquiry with terms set by the "responsible" minister... can you guess who that might be?You're looking for a Royal Commission for what you want.
Paul: Oh I get it. You're saying people steal out of a sense of social justice.The Robin Hood construction only applies when you also give to the poor. Show me the 14 year old downloader who donates the worth of the content they don't spend money on to charity and I'll believe you. Otherwise it's just self-interest.
Redistribution is not theft, it is social justice. Why should rich people not have to share. We on the left have a duty to facilitate such action, and Kim Dotcom is a role model.
Copyright & patents have good reasons and a legitimate role in promoting innovation. But its all gone far too far. The time limit on copyright keeps being extended (because of Mickey Mouse FFS!) and the reach of patents has gone well beyond the sectors where huge money is needed to innovate. The "Tabbarok Curve" summarises all this in a single picture:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/19/innovation-policy-in-one-napkin/So yeah, we should be grateful to KDC for challenging a part of this bullshit. Not that I think he's done anything worse than YouTube.
What an idiotic and gormless comment! If a ctizen of this country cannot have a private conversation in his/her own home, then we have a police state. What next -ethnic cleansing? I suggest you leave the blogging business to those with a 3 digit IQ.
I usually delete abusive comments, but this one I will leave for posterity.
You don't understand. It's Hollywood they run the world (they think) and if anyone is doing something which that cant make money out of then it must be illegal, it must be stopped, and who cares about the law..Most people are aware that America has gone that way, one of the signs of their decline, but now it looks like NZ is going that way to. "Must bow to Hollywood, must bow to those who declare that what they did 20 years ago is fantastic and must never change, and anything new is to be banned."That's what Hollywood wants, and if the law doesn't say that then who cares, they pay money and get the law changed. The law still doesn't say that, doesn't matter. They are Hollywood and there word is law.. Pity NZ has lost in it all..Although looking at this story on multiple sites there isn't (at least so far) too much of "Its terrorists so we must be able to do what we want to do, who care about law," Or (of course) "But it's to protect the children.." So at least that part of the American disease hasn't made it here. Yet!
I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".2. Please don't abuse or defame others. 3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted. 4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.