and take their Euros/Francs/Pounds/Marks with them.
I know you're not a troll or a bad intentioned poster, but the fact that two of your listed four currencies only exist in the history books any more speak volumes about the average american and the appropriateness of your username.
I'd rather have a 0.00000001% chance of being blown up by terrorist events organized by the government, than to live under the draconian restrictions on freedom the same government pushes allegedly in response to those said terrorist events.
Some people assume that fascism is something that happened in Italy pre WW2 or something. They never entertain the thought that germans, italians and spanish people didn't see it coming until it was too late to do anything about it. Why do the british/american people delude themselves under the false assumption that it could never happen with them?
There is nothing inherent in a democratic system apart from the constant watch of the people that stops the system from becoming undemocratic and fascist. The leaders generally work towards that state, however well intentioned they might be.
Companies are those that sell it for a price that will cover the costs of producing the software.
You're kidding, right? So software companies sell the first copy for 2 million dollars and every one after for the price of the plastic it's printed on?
Btw, I'm against copyright, so I'm advocating charging for creation, not for distribution.
Companies way overshoot the price, because it is outragous to pay for the right to use the distributed content, instead the actual production costs of the given content. Yeah, companies wouldn't be able to nail outrageous profits either, they'd just revert back to standard profits a painter has to be content with, rather than royalties every time someone looks at the walls he painted.
Oh btw, my model would get rid of copyright infringment entirely (when there is nothing to infringe;)).
Stigmatize treating Democracy as some kind of spectator sport
My favorite way to do that is to call those idiots and then explain what the original greek root of it, idiotes, meant for the greeks:
"Idiot" was originally used in ancient Greek city-states to refer to people who were overly concerned with their own self-interest and ignored the needs of the community. Declining to take part in public life, such as (semi-)democratic government of the polis (city state), such as the Athenian democracy, was considered dishonorable. "Idiots" were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters.
I mentioned the similar Australian law about sexual crimes, that is the reason I kept adding in their borders OR citizenship when talking about juristiction.
This UK businessman is neither conducting gambling operations in the USA, nor a citizen of the USA (and there is no such law that USA citizens are forbidden to gamble abroad).
Thepiratebay, allofmp3 and betonsports have one thing in common. They are all operate lawfully, catering mostly to places where it would be illegal for them to operate the way they do in their current location. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that. Multi national companies do that all of the time: they for example are headquartered in tax-havens although most of their operations take place in countries where they would be breaking the law for not paying taxes. Microsoft is like this with Ireland, Metro is like this with Switzerland, the list goes on.
You could call these loopholes, but there are only two categories: illegal or legal behaviour. In this comparison Microsoft and Metro would be "much more breaking the law" since they actually operate in those countries, not through the internet doing business with those country's citizens.
Actually, this is a very small difference, but important:
The action of gambling took place at TWO places (technically this still isn't accurate, but then we'd go into internet architecture):
a.) client-side: the USA client broke the law for gambling.
b.) server-side: the UK server and it's owners are in the clear, because it is legal to operate a gambling server in the UK.
Btw, let me ask the following: let's say, a las vegas casino were to offer gambling online. Are you saying the casino owners were committing a crime for letting USA citizens gamble online, while gambling on site is perfectly legal? IMO, the client/server side distinction still applies. The client could be held accountable, but the casino not.
Say I live in a hypothetical country where murder is legal, and I call up a hitman in the US to come hunt you down and kill you. Then I visit the US to dance on your grave. Should I be arrested? Minus the sensationalism, this is the same thing.
No, you shouldn't if hiring a hitman to kill me is legal in your juristiction. The hitman would be arrested anyway for murder. It is very hard to find analogies for this type of situation though, I'm not sure how much your example relates to the case we're discussing right now.
he shut his company down or somehow else prevented US citizens from illegally using his site?
People don't seem to get this. So, let me try to hilight it. IT IS NOT HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO PREVENT US CITIZENS FROM BREAKING THE LAW. He didn't break ANY laws. When a USA citizen buys something from a UK shop located in the UK and doing business in the UK, UK laws apply, UK taxes apply, and the rest is meaningless.
If we would accept your reasoning, why is that, that a citizen of the USA from a state where gambling is illegal can go to Las Vegas, gamble, then go back to his home state and NOT get arrested?
He let's Americans gamble on his site, so he lets them break the law. That's illegal.
No, it's not illegal. Maybe only in a fascist state. In a democracy, everyone has the option to decide whether they want to do something illegal or not. It is the citizens business if they decide to do so. Letting someone break the law is basically a component of FREEDOM. Note: there is a difference between letting someone break the law and actually helping them break a law, aiding a criminal or something similar. The difference being, that a store selling a huge katana sword to a gang member vs. a store employee holding the victim down while the gang member hacks his head off.
The problem is that this guy and his company accepted money from US citizens who were on US soil in exchange for providing a service that is illegal in the US. It would be trivial for him to refuse credit card transactions for cards where the address on record is in the US, and at least then he'd have plausible deniability. Of course, doing so destroys most of his market, so it's easy to see why he wouldn't do that.
So? Why should he even CARE or give a shit about that? He is a CEO of a business operating in the UK under UK laws. Why should he care about anything else but UK law? Tell me one good reason. You can't. It would be contrary to international practice, law and custom to assume otherwise but to limit a country's juristiction to its borders and citizens.
You see, the difference is that the service the company is offering from the UK would be illegal if they were based in the USA. One analogy to understand the situation is that this is the same case as if the citizens of the USA using this service were magically teleported to the UK, conducted their business and then went back to the USA. If that is illegal in the USA, then punish the citizens of the USA, but there is absolutely no basis for the USA to punish a legally operating legitimate UK business.
Only a few million people should be arrested then. The age of consent is 14 or 16 in most European countries. So you're saying pretty much half of Europe should avoid travelling to the USA because they would be arrested?
Fortunately, law doesn't work like this. You cannot exercise judicial power for things outside a country's juristiction or if you're not a citizen of that country (you can be held accountable for age of consent laws without borders solely based on citizenship, for example if you're an Australian and go to Thailand and back, you can still be arrested for sexual crimes if you had sex with a 13 year old girl in Thailand).
I think he might have believed in international law and customs that state a country's laws don't extend beyond their borders or citizens. How foolish of him eh? The USA is hell bent in the last few years (for the more history-savvy, for the last few decades) to ignore international law.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd rather have a 0.00000001% chance of being blown up by terrorist events organized by the government, than to live under the draconian restrictions on freedom the same government pushes allegedly in response to those said terrorist events.
Some people assume that fascism is something that happened in Italy pre WW2 or something. They never entertain the thought that germans, italians and spanish people didn't see it coming until it was too late to do anything about it. Why do the british/american people delude themselves under the false assumption that it could never happen with them?
There is nothing inherent in a democratic system apart from the constant watch of the people that stops the system from becoming undemocratic and fascist. The leaders generally work towards that state, however well intentioned they might be.
Btw, I'm against copyright, so I'm advocating charging for creation, not for distribution.
Companies way overshoot the price, because it is outragous to pay for the right to use the distributed content, instead the actual production costs of the given content. Yeah, companies wouldn't be able to nail outrageous profits either, they'd just revert back to standard profits a painter has to be content with, rather than royalties every time someone looks at the walls he painted.
Oh btw, my model would get rid of copyright infringment entirely (when there is nothing to infringe
Idiot was used in a medical sense, it was the old name for severe mental retardation.
Yes, I had this quote in mind when I wrote my OP. I've even used this quote to underline a point a few days ago here on /.
That's for six years?
A two-three new linux kernel versions have a longer summary changelog.
Obviously they don't GET it though.
Actually Microsoft owns separate companies like "Microsoft Europe", "Microsoft Asia" etc.
Microsoft Europe is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland and Ireland is member of the EU. That Microsoft is in trial in Europe.
I mentioned the similar Australian law about sexual crimes, that is the reason I kept adding in their borders OR citizenship when talking about juristiction.
This UK businessman is neither conducting gambling operations in the USA, nor a citizen of the USA (and there is no such law that USA citizens are forbidden to gamble abroad).
In my opinion, this doesn't change anything.
Thepiratebay, allofmp3 and betonsports have one thing in common. They are all operate lawfully, catering mostly to places where it would be illegal for them to operate the way they do in their current location. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that. Multi national companies do that all of the time: they for example are headquartered in tax-havens although most of their operations take place in countries where they would be breaking the law for not paying taxes. Microsoft is like this with Ireland, Metro is like this with Switzerland, the list goes on.
You could call these loopholes, but there are only two categories: illegal or legal behaviour. In this comparison Microsoft and Metro would be "much more breaking the law" since they actually operate in those countries, not through the internet doing business with those country's citizens.
Actually, the servers are in Costa Rica, the business is headquartered in the UK. So, I'm not sure if they broke any british laws either.
Actually, this is a very small difference, but important:
The action of gambling took place at TWO places (technically this still isn't accurate, but then we'd go into internet architecture):
a.) client-side: the USA client broke the law for gambling.
b.) server-side: the UK server and it's owners are in the clear, because it is legal to operate a gambling server in the UK.
Btw, let me ask the following: let's say, a las vegas casino were to offer gambling online. Are you saying the casino owners were committing a crime for letting USA citizens gamble online, while gambling on site is perfectly legal? IMO, the client/server side distinction still applies. The client could be held accountable, but the casino not.
If we would accept your reasoning, why is that, that a citizen of the USA from a state where gambling is illegal can go to Las Vegas, gamble, then go back to his home state and NOT get arrested?
No, you got that backwards. The shop isn't flying to Saudi Arabia selling vodka, but the Saudis are flying to the UK buying vodka in a local shop ("This is a local shop, for local people; there's nothing for you here").
You see, the difference is that the service the company is offering from the UK would be illegal if they were based in the USA. One analogy to understand the situation is that this is the same case as if the citizens of the USA using this service were magically teleported to the UK, conducted their business and then went back to the USA. If that is illegal in the USA, then punish the citizens of the USA, but there is absolutely no basis for the USA to punish a legally operating legitimate UK business.
Only a few million people should be arrested then. The age of consent is 14 or 16 in most European countries. So you're saying pretty much half of Europe should avoid travelling to the USA because they would be arrested?
Fortunately, law doesn't work like this. You cannot exercise judicial power for things outside a country's juristiction or if you're not a citizen of that country (you can be held accountable for age of consent laws without borders solely based on citizenship, for example if you're an Australian and go to Thailand and back, you can still be arrested for sexual crimes if you had sex with a 13 year old girl in Thailand).
I think he might have believed in international law and customs that state a country's laws don't extend beyond their borders or citizens. How foolish of him eh? The USA is hell bent in the last few years (for the more history-savvy, for the last few decades) to ignore international law.
So you're saying the server hosting the site somehow flew into the USA?
The only way they could have arrested him legally, if he broke a law in the USA WHILE in the USA.
You cannot break US laws outside the USA, so in the UK what he does is perfectly legal.
Why isn't the british diplomacy concerned about the kidnapping of a UK citizen? In the 18th century they would have sent the gunboats already.
When Vista comes out, it will be introduced gradually compared to the millions of installed Win98/NT/XP systems.
It will take years until/if it reaches considerable marketshare. ISPs have plenty of time to upgrade in the meantime.