I too used to use Opera, it was really useful on dial up connections because it'd load text before images so when you just needed a little bit of info you didn't have to wait.
I don't use it anymore, well except as a sort of minor alternative while a new version of firefox is compiling, but it wasn't the ad bar which did me in(didn't really care). To be honest what changed me over to mozilla(and then firefox/thunderbird) was very simple. The opera mail client sucked, and since I needed SSL IMAP support it was, at the time at least and under Windows, either Mozilla/Netscape mail, Eudora, or IE. The decision there was pretty simple and since I had to install the browser as well anyway(before minotaur) I just started using Mozilla.
Stop being a prat. True you pay for the OS in which IE is included(well most people do), but given that most people need that OS(haven't seen a linux distro which is ready for public consumption yet, though it works perfectly for my won needs), we can say that the OS license is a necessary expense for running a computer. Since IE is bundled with a necessary expense it is essentially free. Perhaps not as in speech, but as in beer, and all things considered most people are for more concerned with free beer than free speech. Judge this as you will.
True, but you have a certain basic understanding of the process. You know your car has an engine and approximately what that engine does, you know it has a gas tank, wheels, you may not know exactly how they all fit together, but you know what the parts sort of are and know how to either do basic maintinence or else hire someone to do basic maintinence for you. Knowing you have a problem you can't fix is more than most people manage.
You also know that if they start taking a wrecking ball to knock out that wall that they're not doing it right. In general you have a bsic level of understand of the product, even if you don't know the details.
First lets get this out of the way to show where I'm biased. I would love for Kerry to come out on top when they fix this.
That said, I don't care if Bush comes out another 3 million ahead at the end of this, if these claims are true, then something has gone drastically wrong. We should all be shocked an appalled by this regardless of our political affiliations or desires.
If 88,000 more people voted in Palm Beach than are allowed to vote, then regardless of who they voted for, we have a problem. If this happened, then either the companies making these machines are corrupt, or else they are incompetent, as are the election officials who approved the machines(everyone makes buggy first run technology, but using buggy first run technology for something as important as an election is, in my opinion, grounds for termination).
We all need to do something about this because if it's true then Republican or Democrat our votes don't matter, we are the whim of either a corrupt organization or total chance. This is something which, regardless of all other ends, is unacceptable in a place which claims to value freedom.
Hereabouts there are a larger than normal number of home breakins, but the threat to you is fairly minimal. Guns are not used in robberies because while they may or may not catch you for a regular burglary if you use a gun here they'll hunt you down like the dog you are. There aren't a lot of people in this state and it's a long way to anywhere else.
Regardless of whether other patent applications are obvious, I cannot see any way in which this one is not incredibly so.
Basic thought process(which we can attribute to anyone in Marketing, so basically anyone with half a brain). 1) I have a product. 2) I want to sell this product over the net internationally. 3) There are some basic things which need to be done in order for this to work(currency exchange, paperwork, etc) lets do them or at least as much of them as we absolutely have to.
Perhaps the idea of sticking them all together in one theoretical(they can't possibly have this actually done for any non trivial number of instances) bundle is not obvious, but the fact that all these things have to be done has been the case for the last 200 years and sticking the transaction on a PC won't change that.
It doesn't work that way though. Because different groups of people support different things. Bush couldn't have won without rural areas and Kerry couldn't have come close without the urban. If it comes right down to it Bush won because he managed to convince(rightly or wrongly) both rural and urban populations to believe in him.
Problem with this is that in order to create the "empire of freedom" as it would inevitably be called, you'd have to give conquered people the vote, at least in the not too distant future. Which would probably drive the Republicans out of office for the rest of eternity.
Once we draw a line between citizens and non citizens which makes non citizens somehow not deserving of the basic rights upon which our democracy is founded then we become far worse than anything the Patriot act could possibly make us.
Personally I'd rather live in a country which violates the rights of everyone than one which determines that violation based on race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin.
Once you've crossed that line it's far, far, far too easy to allow monstrous things to happen because they aren't happening to you.
First we'll get out of the way the problems here. Musicians, like any other form of creative talent can leave a legacy for their children. They can leave them signed copies of their first album, or other sorts of junk all of which, assuming you were successful enough that your song will have any value after your death anyway, will have monetary value, probably, depending on what it is, more than your average farm.
You can of course also leave any money you happened to accumulate during your life as can anyone else. Of course most artists don't accumulate that much money because the record companies are screwing them as badly or worse than their screwing the public, which is the real problem with this whole argument.
Now as to the issue of copyright extensions in general. Firstly I have the general feeling that artists were probably at the very bottom of the list of concerns when the concepts of patent and copyright were first hashed out so perhaps the rules aren't as fair to them, but still. The general purpose of copyright has always been to provide a form of limited term compensation to creative types encourage them to continue creating, rather than going off to do something else. This was so that creative types would use their talents to improve society.
Now with current copyright terms we have a problem, we encourage the initial creation, but since one successful idea/song/book/etc could theoretically set you up for both your lifetime and your children's lifetimes, then you no longer have any motivation to create and so society loses. If you had 20 or 30 years then you'd be encouraged to spend those 20 or 30 years working on a new book a new idea a new whatever it is you do and society would benefit(the whole purpose of copyright in the first place, I doubt congress or parliament or whoever came up with it first gave a fig about whether artists could survive being artists as opposed to something else, they just didn't want creative content to dry up).
Now onto a slightly less related rant. Personally I don't think companies should be able to hold copyrights or patents, they should be able to sign contracts allowing them say no more than 50% of the profits and sole distribution rights for a certain set period of time(less than the term of the patent or copyright) to recompense them for laying out money on the artist/inventor/etc in the first place, but patents and copyrights should belong to the person or group who developed them in the first place.
First off let's just say I'd prefer someone who flip flops to someone who makes a bad decision(ie Iraq) and then refuses to even acknowledge that a mistake might possibly have been made, let alone do anything to rectify it. Now I'm not saying we can leave Iraq now(we might have to, but there are some mistakes you can't just forget about), but I'd have a lot more confidence in Bush if he could admit mistakes were made because last time I checked you couldn't fix what you didn't see was broken.
Many of those issues are close to a decade apart, many different things happened within that decade, the US is not even close to the same place now as it was in 91, nor is Kerry likely the same man he was in 91.
The marriage penalty may have been a flip flop, but it also may be that Kerry was voting against some rider associated with the bill. Regardless it's a pretty small issue all things considered.
The Patriot Act is perhaps also a flip flop issue, but I'd say the bigger criticism of John Kerry(and many of the people who voted for the PATRIOT act and are now against it) is not so much that they have changed their opinions, but that they let the fear in the period immediately after 9/11 to blind their judgement in the first place. Of course Bush can't criticize people on that one because that would admit their might be something wrong with the PATRIOT act.
Also and finally, while principalled decisions are a good thing(I've been spending some time recently in Australia and the semi-left wing party here lost the election in part because they made a principaled decision about old growth forests), there is something to be said for a representative electorate which actually represents the desires of the populace rather than attempting to make decisions for them, in their best interest though they may be.
As opposed to what? A third party candidate who doesn't stand a chance and is probably at least a little insane(and who in the case of the only one I've seen against the DMCA believes in privatising absolutely everything, which would screw us all over much worse than the DMCA), or the multi-billionaire who probably can't spell DMCA.
John Kerry may not be ideal on this issue, or for that matter any other, but he's the best choice we've got.
The idea of stock options vs cash is that stock options, in theory, make you one of the "stockholders" and so when you are asked to make sacrifices for those very same stockholders you feel that you are making sacrifices for yourself.
Of course most of the vesting agreements make it difficult to actually get much out of stock options, but the idea is sound.
I really don't think this would happen. I live in Wisconsin, which is a bit of an unusual state voting wise I suppose. Here you essentially have a few largish cities which are on the whole liberal(Milwaukee has had socialst mayors not infrequently, and IIRC Nader beat Bush in the last election in Madison) and a lot of country side which is largely republican. We end up a swing state because here the total population of each group is roughly the same.
No politician is going to be stupid enough to entirely ignore the countryside. It would leave the entire rural to anyone who spent even the slightest bit of time paying attention to them.
In addition if this was a problem it's not going to get much worse, campaigning in todays world is essentially a couple of gratis vists to the places you know will vote for you and then attention to the various swing state in decending order of elecotral college votes. As I said I live the largest city in a swing state and I'm betting I've had more opportunities to see each of the presidential candidates in person than most of the American people, they're here every other week or so.
I don't particularly have a problem with the industry disliking file sharing(that they think they can stop it is a little cracked, but everyone can have their own delusions of grandure). What I have a problem with is that they automatically blame file sharing for some sort of massive drop in sales. Now I confess I haven't bought many cd's or been to many movies lately, but that's mostly because I'm unemployed and most of what they've released in the last few years has sucked.
When there's a movie I want to see, I go to the theatres, when there's a game I really want to buy, if I can afford it I buy it, same with cd's. None of this has changed from when you couldn't share stuff on-line.
When I used to download things, it wasn't because I wanted something but didn't want to pay for it it was because I was sort of interested in something, but not enough to spend money on it, had I not had the option to download them, I still wouldn't have bought them.
How can giving more weight to the votes of individuals possibly lead to fascism, unless by fascism you mean to imply any governmental system you dislike and which isn't blatantly communist(both fascist and communist have both been way too overused in the last 50 or so years).
It is perhaps possible to come up with convincing arguments for maintaining the electoral college as it is, or for changing it without eliminating it entirely, but merely implying the alternative would be fascism is inadequate.
The founding fathers were not particularly ingenious, they were a bunch of essentially aristocratic(though without formal title) land owners who wanted more say in local government and higher profits on their shipping. They weren't particularly bad men, but they weren't infallible saints either(see slave=3/5's of a person or the fact that they counted for population even when they couldnt' vote). The primary reason they created the electoral college rather than the popular vote(or so I've always been taught) is that, like aristocrats throughout time they feared that true democracy would result in mob rule(read poor people who might want to know why the founding fathers had so much money).
In the end, they came up with a reasonable(this does not mean perfect) governmental system, which was, for the most part about as liberal as was possible at the time, but most of its provisions are simply English common law and experience codified into a single document.
The US constitution is not the be all and end all of government and the constitution itself isn't why we have or do not have freedoms, the constitution is just a piece of paper, the Soviet Union had one too, one which in theory granted more rights to its citizenry than does ours, but that was only theory. Our constitution works because we have a general belief in the rights of the people, as do many other systems where those rights aren't written down.
As a small note this book seems to cover the complexities of open sources licenses none of which were written by greedy corporations, if they're complex that's either something which can't be helped(which means it can't be helped for most laws given the way we use them) or else it's the fault of the people who wrote them.
Bash corporations as much as you want they usually deserve it, but this isn't one of those times.
Those numbers aren't even close to accurate given the incredible number of sites which use google as a backend, just cause you stuck your portal on it don't make it not google.
I agree with most of what you say, just had to point out that it's not quite true for electric cars, true, the electricity has to come from somewhere and pretty much everything we have to produce electrical power interferes with something(even hydroelectric and wind). However a powerplant can use a somewhat more efficient process to generate a large chunk of power than a car could possibly use to produce slightly smaller amounts of power, plus it's a little easier to control pollution output in one place than in millions.
Well they don't necessarily have to have nefarious designs, they just have to lack it and want it, not everyone who wants to build nuclear weapons wants to blow people up with them, some of them just want in on the game.
That said, some of them are bloody loonies and given that finding sufficient fissionable material is really the only difficult part of making any sort of nuclear bomb they better get that shit off the sea floor poste haste.
The problem the government has to fix is outsourcing in general, not for IT in particular. Because regardless of experience or talent no one in this country can compete with someone who can live a reasonably comfortable life on less than 20,000 a year, because there comes a point where the cost of living here means you can't survive.
However, as much as I'd like to blame Bush or even for that matter Clinton for the problems in the IT sector in general it's not the fault of either. For years in the US(and to a lesser extent elsewhere) believed that IT was a magical profit gold mine and we got all the wonderful little dot com investments when anyone who could write HTML could get a really nice paying job(even if they had to work obscene hours like everyone else). That, surprise surprise, turned out badly and most companies cut their IT staff rather drastically, probably too drastically, but it will take some time for managers to become aware of this fact.
Add to this the fact that all of these god forsaken tech schools are promising a land of golden IT opportunity if you just get the certifications they offer(for almost as much as I paid for my 4 year degree may I point out) and you've got a situation where there are far far far too many qualified(well sort of) candidates for each job.
Even if we get a president who does all the right things for the economy IT will still be way behind for many years, well unless you're a woman or a minority, in a field so full of white males you're golden. This is why, I'm taking advantage of my dual citizenship and getting the hell out of here.
This isn't like the airbag people saying fuckit this'll set the car industry back. People use airbags, they save lives, it's possible that either the protection methods themselves or the work to circumvent them will result in some sort of benefit, but the anti-copying technology is a joke. It will never ever work.
Automatic rifles wouldn't really have helped. To start with firing on police officers, even police officers of a corrupt state is essentially a death sentence for you and your family while, in Russia particularly, they might only be after you at the moment and at least for a while leave your family alone. You've really got to have a certain mindset to try the "take them with me" approach to home defense, and most innocent people don't have it.
The other problem is that innocent people are remarkably good at convincing themselves that it couldn't possibly be real and that there's a mistake somewhere which will be rectified. Read an account of a woman who spent time imprisoned during the purges for a class and the woman in the cell next door was still writing devotional poetry to Stalin well into her incarceration.
Ok, first of all, though bin Laden wasn't(or so we believe, who knows with that nut job) in the US when the September 11th attacks took place, the crime which he conspired to commit was. There is no question that the September 11th attacks took place on American soil, the fact that the guy who organized them wasn't is immaterial.
Bank fraud(assuming you really believe it's not in the best interest of Australia to put a stop to that sort of thing on their own) is also a somewhat different case because though in this day and age money can be bits and bytes, it's not replicable, taking money from a bank account is legally not much different than taking actual money, because the one is a representation of the other. The people whose money it is and likey the bank at which said money is being held are both in the country pursuing the legal action.
What we are talking about here is a crime which was commited when this guy either shared data from his home computer, hacked up software on his home computer, or uploaded said data to some sort of server(which may or may not have been in the US) this is where this guys direct involvement in copyright infringement took place. All of these things have one thing in common, they involve his personal computer, which, internet or no internet, never left Australia.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't use it anymore, well except as a sort of minor alternative while a new version of firefox is compiling, but it wasn't the ad bar which did me in(didn't really care). To be honest what changed me over to mozilla(and then firefox/thunderbird) was very simple. The opera mail client sucked, and since I needed SSL IMAP support it was, at the time at least and under Windows, either Mozilla/Netscape mail, Eudora, or IE. The decision there was pretty simple and since I had to install the browser as well anyway(before minotaur) I just started using Mozilla.
Stop being a prat. True you pay for the OS in which IE is included(well most people do), but given that most people need that OS(haven't seen a linux distro which is ready for public consumption yet, though it works perfectly for my won needs), we can say that the OS license is a necessary expense for running a computer. Since IE is bundled with a necessary expense it is essentially free. Perhaps not as in speech, but as in beer, and all things considered most people are for more concerned with free beer than free speech. Judge this as you will.
You also know that if they start taking a wrecking ball to knock out that wall that they're not doing it right. In general you have a bsic level of understand of the product, even if you don't know the details.
That said, I don't care if Bush comes out another 3 million ahead at the end of this, if these claims are true, then something has gone drastically wrong. We should all be shocked an appalled by this regardless of our political affiliations or desires.
If 88,000 more people voted in Palm Beach than are allowed to vote, then regardless of who they voted for, we have a problem. If this happened, then either the companies making these machines are corrupt, or else they are incompetent, as are the election officials who approved the machines(everyone makes buggy first run technology, but using buggy first run technology for something as important as an election is, in my opinion, grounds for termination).
We all need to do something about this because if it's true then Republican or Democrat our votes don't matter, we are the whim of either a corrupt organization or total chance. This is something which, regardless of all other ends, is unacceptable in a place which claims to value freedom.
Hereabouts there are a larger than normal number of home breakins, but the threat to you is fairly minimal. Guns are not used in robberies because while they may or may not catch you for a regular burglary if you use a gun here they'll hunt you down like the dog you are. There aren't a lot of people in this state and it's a long way to anywhere else.
Basic thought process(which we can attribute to anyone in Marketing, so basically anyone with half a brain). 1) I have a product. 2) I want to sell this product over the net internationally. 3) There are some basic things which need to be done in order for this to work(currency exchange, paperwork, etc) lets do them or at least as much of them as we absolutely have to.
Perhaps the idea of sticking them all together in one theoretical(they can't possibly have this actually done for any non trivial number of instances) bundle is not obvious, but the fact that all these things have to be done has been the case for the last 200 years and sticking the transaction on a PC won't change that.
It doesn't work that way though. Because different groups of people support different things. Bush couldn't have won without rural areas and Kerry couldn't have come close without the urban. If it comes right down to it Bush won because he managed to convince(rightly or wrongly) both rural and urban populations to believe in him.
Problem with this is that in order to create the "empire of freedom" as it would inevitably be called, you'd have to give conquered people the vote, at least in the not too distant future. Which would probably drive the Republicans out of office for the rest of eternity.
Personally I'd rather live in a country which violates the rights of everyone than one which determines that violation based on race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin.
Once you've crossed that line it's far, far, far too easy to allow monstrous things to happen because they aren't happening to you.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha .
That is all.
You can of course also leave any money you happened to accumulate during your life as can anyone else. Of course most artists don't accumulate that much money because the record companies are screwing them as badly or worse than their screwing the public, which is the real problem with this whole argument.
Now as to the issue of copyright extensions in general. Firstly I have the general feeling that artists were probably at the very bottom of the list of concerns when the concepts of patent and copyright were first hashed out so perhaps the rules aren't as fair to them, but still. The general purpose of copyright has always been to provide a form of limited term compensation to creative types encourage them to continue creating, rather than going off to do something else. This was so that creative types would use their talents to improve society.
Now with current copyright terms we have a problem, we encourage the initial creation, but since one successful idea/song/book/etc could theoretically set you up for both your lifetime and your children's lifetimes, then you no longer have any motivation to create and so society loses. If you had 20 or 30 years then you'd be encouraged to spend those 20 or 30 years working on a new book a new idea a new whatever it is you do and society would benefit(the whole purpose of copyright in the first place, I doubt congress or parliament or whoever came up with it first gave a fig about whether artists could survive being artists as opposed to something else, they just didn't want creative content to dry up).
Now onto a slightly less related rant. Personally I don't think companies should be able to hold copyrights or patents, they should be able to sign contracts allowing them say no more than 50% of the profits and sole distribution rights for a certain set period of time(less than the term of the patent or copyright) to recompense them for laying out money on the artist/inventor/etc in the first place, but patents and copyrights should belong to the person or group who developed them in the first place.
First off let's just say I'd prefer someone who flip flops to someone who makes a bad decision(ie Iraq) and then refuses to even acknowledge that a mistake might possibly have been made, let alone do anything to rectify it. Now I'm not saying we can leave Iraq now(we might have to, but there are some mistakes you can't just forget about), but I'd have a lot more confidence in Bush if he could admit mistakes were made because last time I checked you couldn't fix what you didn't see was broken.
Many of those issues are close to a decade apart, many different things happened within that decade, the US is not even close to the same place now as it was in 91, nor is Kerry likely the same man he was in 91.
The marriage penalty may have been a flip flop, but it also may be that Kerry was voting against some rider associated with the bill. Regardless it's a pretty small issue all things considered.
The Patriot Act is perhaps also a flip flop issue, but I'd say the bigger criticism of John Kerry(and many of the people who voted for the PATRIOT act and are now against it) is not so much that they have changed their opinions, but that they let the fear in the period immediately after 9/11 to blind their judgement in the first place. Of course Bush can't criticize people on that one because that would admit their might be something wrong with the PATRIOT act.
Also and finally, while principalled decisions are a good thing(I've been spending some time recently in Australia and the semi-left wing party here lost the election in part because they made a principaled decision about old growth forests), there is something to be said for a representative electorate which actually represents the desires of the populace rather than attempting to make decisions for them, in their best interest though they may be.
John Kerry may not be ideal on this issue, or for that matter any other, but he's the best choice we've got.
Of course most of the vesting agreements make it difficult to actually get much out of stock options, but the idea is sound.
No politician is going to be stupid enough to entirely ignore the countryside. It would leave the entire rural to anyone who spent even the slightest bit of time paying attention to them.
In addition if this was a problem it's not going to get much worse, campaigning in todays world is essentially a couple of gratis vists to the places you know will vote for you and then attention to the various swing state in decending order of elecotral college votes. As I said I live the largest city in a swing state and I'm betting I've had more opportunities to see each of the presidential candidates in person than most of the American people, they're here every other week or so.
When there's a movie I want to see, I go to the theatres, when there's a game I really want to buy, if I can afford it I buy it, same with cd's. None of this has changed from when you couldn't share stuff on-line.
When I used to download things, it wasn't because I wanted something but didn't want to pay for it it was because I was sort of interested in something, but not enough to spend money on it, had I not had the option to download them, I still wouldn't have bought them.
It is perhaps possible to come up with convincing arguments for maintaining the electoral college as it is, or for changing it without eliminating it entirely, but merely implying the alternative would be fascism is inadequate.
The founding fathers were not particularly ingenious, they were a bunch of essentially aristocratic(though without formal title) land owners who wanted more say in local government and higher profits on their shipping. They weren't particularly bad men, but they weren't infallible saints either(see slave=3/5's of a person or the fact that they counted for population even when they couldnt' vote). The primary reason they created the electoral college rather than the popular vote(or so I've always been taught) is that, like aristocrats throughout time they feared that true democracy would result in mob rule(read poor people who might want to know why the founding fathers had so much money).
In the end, they came up with a reasonable(this does not mean perfect) governmental system, which was, for the most part about as liberal as was possible at the time, but most of its provisions are simply English common law and experience codified into a single document.
The US constitution is not the be all and end all of government and the constitution itself isn't why we have or do not have freedoms, the constitution is just a piece of paper, the Soviet Union had one too, one which in theory granted more rights to its citizenry than does ours, but that was only theory. Our constitution works because we have a general belief in the rights of the people, as do many other systems where those rights aren't written down.
Bash corporations as much as you want they usually deserve it, but this isn't one of those times.
Those numbers aren't even close to accurate given the incredible number of sites which use google as a backend, just cause you stuck your portal on it don't make it not google.
I agree with most of what you say, just had to point out that it's not quite true for electric cars, true, the electricity has to come from somewhere and pretty much everything we have to produce electrical power interferes with something(even hydroelectric and wind). However a powerplant can use a somewhat more efficient process to generate a large chunk of power than a car could possibly use to produce slightly smaller amounts of power, plus it's a little easier to control pollution output in one place than in millions.
That said, some of them are bloody loonies and given that finding sufficient fissionable material is really the only difficult part of making any sort of nuclear bomb they better get that shit off the sea floor poste haste.
However, as much as I'd like to blame Bush or even for that matter Clinton for the problems in the IT sector in general it's not the fault of either. For years in the US(and to a lesser extent elsewhere) believed that IT was a magical profit gold mine and we got all the wonderful little dot com investments when anyone who could write HTML could get a really nice paying job(even if they had to work obscene hours like everyone else). That, surprise surprise, turned out badly and most companies cut their IT staff rather drastically, probably too drastically, but it will take some time for managers to become aware of this fact.
Add to this the fact that all of these god forsaken tech schools are promising a land of golden IT opportunity if you just get the certifications they offer(for almost as much as I paid for my 4 year degree may I point out) and you've got a situation where there are far far far too many qualified(well sort of) candidates for each job.
Even if we get a president who does all the right things for the economy IT will still be way behind for many years, well unless you're a woman or a minority, in a field so full of white males you're golden. This is why, I'm taking advantage of my dual citizenship and getting the hell out of here.
This isn't like the airbag people saying fuckit this'll set the car industry back. People use airbags, they save lives, it's possible that either the protection methods themselves or the work to circumvent them will result in some sort of benefit, but the anti-copying technology is a joke. It will never ever work.
The other problem is that innocent people are remarkably good at convincing themselves that it couldn't possibly be real and that there's a mistake somewhere which will be rectified. Read an account of a woman who spent time imprisoned during the purges for a class and the woman in the cell next door was still writing devotional poetry to Stalin well into her incarceration.
Bank fraud(assuming you really believe it's not in the best interest of Australia to put a stop to that sort of thing on their own) is also a somewhat different case because though in this day and age money can be bits and bytes, it's not replicable, taking money from a bank account is legally not much different than taking actual money, because the one is a representation of the other. The people whose money it is and likey the bank at which said money is being held are both in the country pursuing the legal action.
What we are talking about here is a crime which was commited when this guy either shared data from his home computer, hacked up software on his home computer, or uploaded said data to some sort of server(which may or may not have been in the US) this is where this guys direct involvement in copyright infringement took place. All of these things have one thing in common, they involve his personal computer, which, internet or no internet, never left Australia.