Fraud?

Now we all know that recently a company, O, has been pursuing damages of alleged anime copyright infringers using bittorrent protocol. Also, the current best ISP here, Pnet, has successfully challenged the court order and the judge has ruled that they need not release their customer's private information. One interesting part of the judge's ruling was that O was not the copyright owner nor the sole licensor of all but one of the anime titles that they claim to possess. A sample of the letters they send to alleged copyright infringers can be viewed here.

From the letter, assuming that it is authentic, claims that O has the right and is authorized to pursue copyright damages -- something that has already been proven false in court. Now one might ask why does copyright law state that only the copyright owner or sole licensor may claim damages. The answer is obvious (from my limited point of view). This is to prevent duplicate claims of copyright. If one is not the owner, there is no guarantee that the owner will be compensated after one have obtained its claims. Furthermore, the owner might pursue the copyright resulting in duplication. If one is not the sole licensor, one cannot claim that its business is harmed as one cannot prove that the alleged infringer will not buy products from one's competitors.

Hence entry 1 and 4 in the sample letter is in-substantiated. The question is since it is obvious that O knows it is not in a position to pursue damages but claim to be. For those that have paid, is this tantamount to fraud?

A simple quick search reveals a definition of criminal fraud from which I quote, "The term 'fraud' is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. [Fraud may also include an omission or intentional failure to state material facts, knowledge of which would be necessary to make other statements not misleading.]"

Now those unfortunate ones that have paid up were paying to someone that:
1. Does not have the right to claim damages
2. Claimed to have such a right
3. Quoted criminal law when one does not have the power to initiate.
4. Cannot guarantee that the real copyright owner will not pursue damages in future.
5. Sent a letter threatening legal action which may result in agreeing to pay damages under duress
6. Threatened legal action by quoting criminal law when in fact legal action by it will be a civil suit.

Well for copyright infringers, I guess it is the only correct thing to do is to pay the copyright owner damages, if they do ask for it. But definitely not a 3rd party. Hence, have they been defrauded? If the high court rejects company's O appeal against Pnet, I think it is high time those that paid up earlier file a police report.

Read more about it here: [1] [2] [3]

Sometimes we wonder why

xyss: Ha! I have caught you downloading anime!

otaku_no_1001: Huh? Show me.

xyss: There I have a list of file names that you obtained from bittorrent!

otaku_no_1001: Huh? But they were not completed and totally random data.

xyss: Well the courts have decided that this is enough for me to get your personal information from your ISP. Now hand over $5000 or I will sue.

otaku_no_1001: But but that's extortion!

xyss: I have this anti video blah blah supporting me you know. So you better pay! Or I will sue you even though I am already very busy suing people. (o_o)y

otaku_no_1001: Wait a minute. But didn't your company download those fansubbed anime, copied the subtitles and sold the videos [1]? How come you can still be part of that anti video blah blah?

xyss: Yes, no, and whatever. But you still have to pay me $5000.

otaku_no_1001: ( -_-')

[1] The Straits Times, 16 Aug 2007.

Porku Porku

Now we all know pork tastes good and China is the largest consumer of pork. So I was wondering one day, where did all these pork come from? Thus I decided to start thinking about how did pork transmit throughout the old world and came up with a hypothesis.

First, I shall start by establishing the origin of pork. This is simple. No other groups of people except the Chinese have found use for almost all parts of the pig. Hence pork originated from China.

From my limited observation and narrow perspective of the different European cuisines available, pork seems to feature more abundantly in central and eastern Europe. Now this has puzzled me. Although no doubt western Europe consumes pork, it does not seem to feature as often on their dishes. Beef seems more common. Neither does southern Europe seem to have much pork in their dishes (perhaps some bacon and ham on your pasta). Hence I establish the limits of mainstream pork adoption at the western, central European boundary (i.e. between France and Germany).

So the question now is how did the pork get there? Someone must have moved those pigs there but who? To answer this we will first rewind to the major episodes in history where people covered long distances.

Case 1: The Soviets did it circa 1950 AD. The communist front stretched from North Korean to Eastern Germany. However this seems too recent. I am quite sure those delicious German pork sausages were there during the Third Reich.

Case 2: Admiral Zheng He did it circa 1400 AD. Assuming he sailed round the world he could have reached Germany and gave them some pigs (just because he is Muslim does not mean that his sailors are). Well this cannot be right since he did not sail round the world.

Case 3: The Mongols did it circa 1300 AD. Well they established the biggest land empire in history from Europe to Asia. But close inspection shows that in Europe, they did not really get past Hungary, much less reached the borders of France. So it is rather unlikely.

Case 4: The Muslims did it circa 700 AD. The Muslim empire covered almost all land routes to China from Europe and at one time lay from Spain to Afghanistan. Since eating pork is prohibited in Islam, they might have driven it out into the surrounding lands. However, like the Mongols, they never bordered central Europe.

This leaves us with one of the last few candidates in history.

Case 5: The Huns did it circa 500 AD. The Huns were driven off the borders of China by the Han empire around 320 AD and eventually European Huns settled. Attila the Hun created the Hunnic Empire that covered central and Eastern Europe posing a big treat to the Roman Empire. Now if you examine this, then it will be clear why pork is more prevalent in central Europe towards the East. Since pork probably did not feature much on a Roman's diet (being the barbarian's food), this explains why western, southern Europe, and the Isles of Britain do not feature it as predominately. Hence the hypothesis. Somewhere from 2nd to 5th Century AD, the Huns transmitted pork from the borders of China, into Russia, and finally to the lands of modern day Germany.

Case Closed! Now for those of you who seriously take this seriously, please note that I have been totally debunked by the University of Oxford.

It is about time...

Nothing great really, but at least I do not feel so much like I am doing nothing useful.