Re: They made me do it, they did
@AC
There is this strange notion amongst some people (and evidently you are one of them) that complaining about bad practices or dishonesty is somehow 'whinging'.
What an odd idea.
Whinging is when you moan and complain without having a good reason so let me fill you in on what is actually going on here . . .
The MPAA, along with their friends the RIAA and the tendril organisations around the world and in concert with massive, insanely wealthy and powerful industries like the pharmaceutical, are trying to get laws changed around the world to benefit them and their business models.
They are using their vast wealth and influence to shape the discussions both in the various countries directly and through the US government, who end up pushing much of this.
The current effort is the TPP which has been intentionally hidden from public scrutiny in this country (Australia) but includes the extension of copyright and the criminalisation of copyright breaches for individual people - i.e. ones who aren't actually selling it.
Part of the ammunition being used by (e.g.) the MPAA and their associates, like AFACT* in Australia, is a slew of vastly inflated numbers that are a combination of overly-broad definitions, baseless assumptions, worst-case scenarios and un-warranted projections and extrapolations from un-representative samples.
Calling out the blatant exaggeration and - at times - outright lying that is being used by powerful, rich US companies as justification for changing the laws in OTHER COUNTRIES is not 'whinging'.
Whatever your view of 'Kim Dotcom', the facts that are coming out should give everyone pause. Earlier this year, the NZ courts found that, while the warrants to search were sustainable (despite some notable issues), the seizure and removal of evidence to the US was not. What you had was a government and police force actively breaking their laws that protect the people of their country (and Kim was covered by them as a resident) in order to bow to the wishes of an operation from another country carried out at the behest of and for the benefit of a collection of wealthy movie studios.
* - Now re-branded as the "Australian Screen Association", presumably after their much-publicised loss to iiNet in Roadshow Films v iiNet. You might note that the members of AFACT/ASA only includes one Australian company: Villiage/Roadshow, despite it making much of it's representation of Australian interests. Oh yes, it apparently works "with" and "in partnership with" local screen industries but the members are, excluding Roadshow, all overseas studios and distributors and includes, most notably, the MPAA. If you are familiar with the case above (iiNet), this was undertaken on behalf of the MPAA, who wanted it to look like an all-Aussie affair, using AFACT and Roadshow but in reality they were the instigators and chose this particular combination of players to best achieve their goals.