FBI Didn't Break Law When Copying Megaupload Data Because the Data Wasn't "Physical Material"
96 replies, posted
[QUOTE=zin908;36234552]Wait does this mean if I can get a 3d printer I can pirate a Mercedes, and it will be legal??!?!
I am going to a 3d printer shop brb[/QUOTE]
but you wouldn't download a car!!!
oh shit.
No where did they say it is legal. Maybe in NZ it is.. But not here. Still waiting for something from the government that states that pirating is no longer illegal... Instead of just saying that they couldn't bring it oversees but really could.
[QUOTE=donfrema;36234627]No where did they say it is legal. Maybe in NZ it is.. But not here. Still waiting for something from the government that states that pirating is no longer illegal... Instead of just saying that they couldn't bring it oversees but really could.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Alxnotorious;36231208]But it does show that the precedent could be set if a similar case were ever brought to the Supreme Court.
I digress I didn't notice it was in the Zealand High Court until a bit later myself.[/QUOTE]
Did you even read the article? It wasn't a judge who made the decision (no decision was made), it was the FBI's lawyer who claimed what they are doing is legit because of this reason.
[editline]7th June 2012[/editline]
It also has nothing to do with stealing, it has to do with an agreement that no evidence would be handed over to the FBI after dotcom's arrest
[QUOTE]"Mr Akel said that there had been an agreement that none of the evidence against Dotcom, seized after his arrest, would be provided to the FBI without prior agreement.[/QUOTE]
And the FBI's lawyer argues that there's a loophole in this agreement making it only count for physical evidence.
I posted this some posts up.
[QUOTE=zin908;36234552]Wait does this mean if I can get a 3d printer I can pirate a Mercedes, and it will be legal??!?!
I am going to a 3d printer shop brb[/QUOTE]
It would be theft of design.
[QUOTE=donfrema;36234627]No where did they say it is legal. Maybe in NZ it is.. But not here. Still waiting for something from the government that states that pirating is no longer illegal... Instead of just saying that they couldn't bring it oversees but really could.[/QUOTE]
Like they're really gonna tell you.
this is something people can use in a court case that will bring everything to a screeching halt and thus Piracy will become unprosecutable as form of theft.
[QUOTE=goon165;36234689]Like they're really gonna tell you.
this is something people can use in a court case that will bring everything to a screeching halt and thus Piracy will become unprosecutable as form of theft.[/QUOTE]
No, they can't. Read.
This has nothing to do with law, it has to do with an agreement between the FBI and the public prosecutor (I think) that the FBI would not get nor take any evidence after dotcomm's arrest.
they are right, it isnt theft but it is a breach of copyright law.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;36233901]It's a product you buy but I'm allowed to steal it because it's not physical material.
Pirate logic.[/QUOTE]
Firms actually argue it as a service, because it removes lots of liability from them in-case the software acts wonky.
So no.
We REALLY need clear-cut and simple rules regarding software that EVERYONE is forced to follow.
Even the governments and all their organizations.
And remove all DRM bullshit since it doesn't work anyway and is just a hassle to legal users.
And no funky pricing schemes either, those also just encourages piracy.
In short: the companies should stop acting like dicks if they want the customers to stop acting like dicks.
Karma.
Too bad you still can't talk about warez here, after all Garryland is not a part of America and therefore their laws do not apply here.
[QUOTE=Jurikuer;36234964]Too bad you still can't talk about warez here, after all Garryland is not a part of America and therefore their laws do not apply here.[/QUOTE]
Yes you can.
[QUOTE=NielsGade;36234938]This does not mean you can copy copyrighted material, this is something completely different.
[b]There was no copyright on the data (that we know of)[/b] and was considered evidence.[/QUOTE]
You haven't downloaded from Megaupload have you? It was probably among the top 10 sites to inadvertently offer movies and stuff.
[QUOTE=Van-man;36234908]
In short: the companies should stop acting like dicks if they want the customers to stop acting like dicks.[/QUOTE]
It's worth reminding yourself from time to time who started the need for DRM.
Just saying, publishers aren't the sole demons in this.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;36234189]But that is not a physical object in a sense of owned property. Electricity is a physical property, but you can't "own" it. The only way you could "own" it is if you were to copywrite it, and there's no way in the world that you could ever copywrite physical properties such as magnetism and electricity. You can own a hard drive, just as you can own a magnet. You don't own the properties of these objects, you just own the physical object.[/QUOTE]
So if I had a published book written by having the letters scorched into the page instead of using ink, I would be free to duplicate the contents to my heart's content and it wouldn't be copyright infringement? After all, I own the book, and nobody can own the chemical process that wrote the letters on the page, right?
Same exact thing. It doesn't matter what physical process is being used or how it's being stored, the information is encoded on and linked to a physical object. Saying that someone can't own computer data because it's 'just' binary patterns of magnetism is every bit as silly and arbitrary as saying that someone can't own physical data in a book because it's 'just' molecular patterns of light-reflecting material.
[QUOTE=NielsGade;36234938]This does not mean you can copy copyrighted material, this is something completely different.
There was no copyright on the data (that we know of) and was considered evidence.[/QUOTE]
Umm all that music, all these movies, that's all copyrighted.
[QUOTE=areolop;36230789]Final Nail in the coffin. Pirating is not illegal in the US because you are not 'physically stealing' the files.
You fucked up, FBI. You fucked up big.[/QUOTE] When you read the term "Fuck Up" in the Merriam Webster's Dictionary from now on, it'll have a little picture of the FBI's logo next to it. The legal precedent that this will set will make any litigation related to digital piracy in the United States next to impossible to carry out. Good job FBI for making it uber easy to pirate stuff now in the US.
[QUOTE=HorizoN;36231042]Yea, isn't information basically inscribed into microscopic valleys on the hard drive/disc?[/QUOTE]
If a man makes an engraving of a dick on the side of his house, and someone walks up and copies the engraving on a stone tablet in their hand, they're still not stealing anything.
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;36235201]The legal precedent that this will set will make any litigation related to digital piracy in the United States next to impossible to carry out.[/QUOTE]
Glad to see people are actually reading the article, especially where it says this was in New Zealand, isn't actually a legal statement, and carries no real weight in the US.
What a bunch of fucking hypocrites...
[QUOTE=catbarf;36235097]So if I had a published book written by having the letters scorched into the page instead of using ink, I would be free to duplicate the contents to my heart's content and it wouldn't be copyright infringement? After all, I own the book, and nobody can own the chemical process that wrote the letters on the page, right?
Same exact thing. It doesn't matter what physical process is being used or how it's being stored, the information is encoded on and linked to a physical object. Saying that someone can't own computer data because it's 'just' binary patterns of magnetism is every bit as silly and arbitrary as saying that someone can't own physical data in a book because it's 'just' molecular patterns of light-reflecting material.[/QUOTE]
For one, at some point in time somebody did own the process used to write the letters on the page. Secondly, what is owned is the meaning behind these words (or in this case, magnetic spots on a hard drive) not the actual letters.
What the FBI is arguing here is that since there was no physical property being taken, it was legal. In that aspect, nothing was being taken since data is not a physical object. Copying an object does not take something away, it makes another. What they did do was take the "meaning" that is derived from the data. You don't own the Data, you own what it "means".
This is like me taking your book, writing it down word for word, and giving you your book back and keeping the one I made.
Now the whole purpose of copywrite is to prevent someone from making monetary gains off of your intellectual property. That would be like me taking your book, copying it word for word, giving your book back and selling my book for money.
If your simply copying an object, you are not stealing anything. Stealing implies that you are losing something and not having it in any way, shape, or form. Copying it means you get to keep what is yours, and I get to keep what I just copied. Now if I were to copy what you made and tried to sell it, then you would be losing the potential money I made off of what should be your money. But if I copy it and don't do anything, nothing is gained and nothing is lost.
Example: "So if I had a published book written by having the letters scorched into the page instead of using ink, I would be free to duplicate the contents to my heart's content and it wouldn't be copyright infringement? After all, I own the book, and nobody can own the chemical process that wrote the letters on the page, right?
Same exact thing. It doesn't matter what physical process is being used or how it's being stored, the information is encoded on and linked to a physical object. Saying that someone can't own computer data because it's 'just' binary patterns of magnetism is every bit as silly and arbitrary as saying that someone can't own physical data in a book because it's 'just' molecular patterns of light-reflecting material."
I just copied everything you wrote. You still have it in your post, and I now have it in mine. I'm not claiming it to be mine, which would constitute a lose for you in claiming the title of original creator. I'm not selling it to anyone, which would constitute a loss of monetary gain for you. I simply have a copy for myself, and you have the original.
Within the context of law the act of copying is within copyright, so for me to copy your text if it were copyrighted would be illegal.
While I'm not here to argue the legitimacy of piracy, I am outlining the problems and questions that one must ask when facing this sort of thing in our modern world.
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;36230902]I don't think you guys should be so quick to jump the gun.
The most this precedent could mean is you don't get slammed for stealing [b]on top of[/b] copyright infringement for pirating.
You can still get hit with copyright infringement, though. This isn't a "piracy is legal" thing. It's just saying piracy isn't stealing - which it isn't. It is, however, still copyright infringement.[/QUOTE]
could someone please explain to me why downloading a movie to view personally would be copyright infringement
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;36232089]Yes it is. Everything physical is just a manifestation of the information which describes it.
[editline]7th June 2012[/editline]
No, the data is stored in magnetization of sections of the drive[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=zakedodead;36231504]Not without being meta bullshit.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;36235748]could someone please explain to me why downloading a movie to view personally would be copyright infringement[/QUOTE]
because you're infringing on copyright
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;36235722]For one, at some point in time somebody did own the process used to write the letters on the page. Secondly, what is owned is the meaning behind these words (or in this case, magnetic spots on a hard drive) not the actual letters.
What the FBI is arguing here is that since there was no physical property being taken, it was legal. In that aspect, nothing was being taken since data is not a physical object. Copying an object does not take something away, it makes another. What they did do was take the "meaning" that is derived from the data. You don't own the Data, you own what it "means".
This is like me taking your book, writing it down word for word, and giving you your book back and keeping the one I made.
Now the whole purpose of copywrite is to prevent someone from making monetary gains off of your intellectual property. That would be like me taking your book, copying it word for word, giving your book back and selling my book for money.
If your simply copying an object, you are not stealing anything. Stealing implies that you are losing something and not having it in any way, shape, or form. Copying it means you get to keep what is yours, and I get to keep what I just copied. Now if I were to copy what you made and tried to sell it, then you would be losing the potential money I made off of what should be your money. But if I copy it and don't do anything, nothing is gained and nothing is lost.
Example: "So if I had a published book written by having the letters scorched into the page instead of using ink, I would be free to duplicate the contents to my heart's content and it wouldn't be copyright infringement? After all, I own the book, and nobody can own the chemical process that wrote the letters on the page, right?
Same exact thing. It doesn't matter what physical process is being used or how it's being stored, the information is encoded on and linked to a physical object. Saying that someone can't own computer data because it's 'just' binary patterns of magnetism is every bit as silly and arbitrary as saying that someone can't own physical data in a book because it's 'just' molecular patterns of light-reflecting material."
I just copied everything you wrote. You still have it in your post, and I now have it in mine. I'm not claiming it to be mine, which would constitute a lose for you in claiming the title of original creator. I'm not selling it to anyone, which would constitute a loss of monetary gain for you. I simply have a copy for myself, and you have the original.
Within the context of law the act of copying is within copyright, so for me to copy your text if it were copyrighted would be illegal.
While I'm not here to argue the legitimacy of piracy, I am outlining the problems and questions that one must ask when facing this sort of thing in our modern world.[/QUOTE]
You are absolutely correct on all counts, and I think we might be arguing two different things. In this specific instance, I think it would come down to what the precedent is with print media. If the FBI had some important piece of evidence in the form of a paper document, for example, would they be able to photocopy it and send it elsewhere? If not, then I don't think they'd be any more justified in copying electronic media.
Amazing, when MU went down, the Internet was sad. But now, we are happy because we can do whatever now! The FBI said so!
[QUOTE=Medevilae;36237356]'The Crown' reports the FBI wasn't breaking the law, no one at the FBI said that.[/QUOTE]
It's basically the fbi's lawyer so it might as well be.
[QUOTE=Leather Belt;36230797]What was the problem with Megaupload then? They didn't host physical material.[/QUOTE]
MONEY LAUNDERING.
READ THE FUCKING INDICTMENTS!
[editline]7th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=danielplazzy;36231960]The difference between pirated software and counterfeit money is that pirated software works the same as regular software
A better analogy would be comparing a knockoff of Photoshop to the actual thing[/QUOTE]
Malware?
[QUOTE=VengfulSoldier;36237506]MONEY LAUNDERING.
READ THE FUCKING INDICTMENTS![/QUOTE]
Can you please shut the fuck up and read the image on [url]www.megaupload.com[/url]
[QUOTE=zakedodead;36236069]quote[/QUOTE]
what the fuck are you talking about that's not meta bullshit
information theory is a huge part of modern physics
They stole magnetic fields which were set in a specific way. That is physical. Or is that just for megaupload, and once it's in the hands of the FBI, then it suddenly doesn't count?
[QUOTE=toaster468;36237530]Can you please shut the fuck up and read the image on [url]www.megaupload.com[/url][/QUOTE]
Racketeering, Money Laundering, And two counts of Copy Right Infringement.
You just proved my point.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.