CORRECTION TO MY PREVIOUS POST
"Joe Lee" wrote in message
news:47eb3233$0$32044$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "Cynic" wrote in message
> news:rhjku3h3nai9dj9mi8jh2573i89u5iobfc@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:18:30 -0000, "Joe Lee"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I am aware of that argument, and have stated many times why it is
>>>> deficit. If the production of child abuse images is illegal (which I
>>>> do not have a problem with), there cannot *be* the market you speak
>>>> of, because it is always going to be trivial to trace the money back
>>>> to the seller.
>>>
>>>I don't accept that proposition because it supposes that all those who
>>>download such images (& we're now talking about the most extreme &
>>>obscene
>>>images) will leave all the evidence connecting them with the suppliers,
>>>on
>>>their HD's & just inviting it to be discovered. I believe that the vast
>>>majority of those who buy such images will conceal not only the images
>>>themselves but any evidence that would associate them with the sellers.
>>>
>>>You seem to take no account of any steps they might take to avoid
>>>detection
>>>& therefore the difficulty inherrant in detecting the crime. Yes, once it
>>>has been detected & the location discovered & those responsible arrested
>>>&
>>>their Accounts seized *then* it becomes relatively easy to trace the
>>>transactions.
>>
>> You seem to take no account of the fact that in order to support your
>> argument, the people who make child . would have to sell it to an
>> *increasing* customers-base not just a couple of very careful and
>> computer-literate people. Apart from the seller being caught if just
>> *one* customer is careless, is the fact that the customer base can be
>> infiltrated by police.
>
>
> No, there's no connection between what I said & your conclusion that the
> people who sell images of abuse would *have* to sell it to an increasing
> customer base. That they choose to do so is more a sign of their greed &
> arrogance in believing that they'll continue to get away with it. You'll
> struggle if you try to draw a comparison between these activities & those
> of a legitimate industry.
>
>> But in fact, that argument would be in *favour* of decriminalising the
>> possession of kp. If the person who possesses it is not at risk of
>> conviction, they are not going to take so much care in covering their
>> tracks - it's not their head on the block.
>
> Is that intended as a joke or simply as an example of a perverse argument
> ?
>
>
>>
>>> > Ore is certainly *not* an example of a market that
>>>> would increase the amount of child abuse, because no money went to the
>>>> people who actually produced the material AFAIAA.
>>>
>>>Recognising that you don't actually know (& that only the individuals
>>>involved in the abuse & supplying the images could have known at the
>>>time),
>>>do you imagine that those who bought the images did so only after
>>>obtaining
>>>the most stringent reassurances that those who were pgysically committing
>>>the acts were not profiting in any way, or do you think as I do that they
>>>wouldn't have cared less who was & who was not making money so long as
>>>they
>>>got the pictures they wanted ?
>>
>> What difference does it make?
>
> I'm genuinely surprised you don't understand as
BEGIN CORRECTION
> (although you've now snipped it)
Please accept my apologies. I now realise that you hadn't snipped it.
END CORRECTION
> you did say "Unless money gets to people who make the stuff, it does not
> provide the incentive to make more."
> I have suggested in the question above that those who buy such images have
> no concern with whether the money goes to "people who make the stuff" i.e.
> those who physically commit the .ual abuse. If it does (either in cash
> or kind) & results in further abuse then your argument is not so much
> undermuned as fatally flawed. I wouldn't expect you ro recognise that but
> perhaps you now realise what difference it makes.
>
>
> > The fact is that vanishingly few of the
>> people who produce kp are making money from it,
>
> And that's a fact is it ? Please tell me how on earth you could possibly
> know that ?
>
>>and the ones who did
>> have quickly been caught.
>
> Then perhaps you can substantiate that statement by telling me how long
> the organisations you are aware of went on for before law enforcement
> authorities shut them down ?
>
> > Traffiking in real children is far less
>> risky and far more lucrative than selling kp over the Internet, and so
>> that's the direction that unscrupulous people who are interested only
>> in the money are going.
>
>
> Which is of course an entirely seperate matter & worthy of discussing
> somewhere else, but I don't think it should distract us away from twhat
> we're currently discussing.
>
>>> > Unless money gets
>>>> to people who make the stuff, it does not provide the incentive to
>>>> make more.
>>
>>>The money obviously goes to the "people who make the stuff" by which I
>>>include those involved in taking the pictures, maintaining the site,
>>>fulfilling the 'orders' for the images & operating the Bank Accounts.
>>
>> But what you describe has *not happened*.
>
> Which might cause us all to wonder why it was one of the most notorious &
> widely publicised examples of it's kind.
>
>> The landslide web site did
>> not even contain kp images, let alone make any.
>
> Landslide Productions provided the portal by which images could be
> accessed & bought - is that not correct ?
>
>> There are few people
>> stupid enough to sell kp on the Internet, and those that do can expect
>> to spend a long time in jail, whether they abused children and took
>> the photographs or not.
>>
>>>It would seem quite bizarre to me that only those physically committinng
>>>the
>>>acts would be the only ones in such an organisation who would not be
>>>gaining
>>>a financial reward by their actions.
>>
>> I have not claimed any such thing. *Nobody* is making money from
>> Internet child .ography, except for a brief time before going to
>> jail.
>
> I have refuted that elsewhere.
>
>
>>> While you understand that was the case
>>>regarding Ore I suggest you are straining credulity beyond it's limits if
>>>you believe that would hold true in every case.
>>
>> It is not an "organisation". If what you claim were true, you should
>> be able to point to quite a few prosecutions of such .ographers.
>> To claim that every one of the thousands of people who have been
>> convicted of downloading kp have been clever enough to cover up all
>> traces to the .ographer they were paying for the images would be
>> straining creduility! No such links were found because none exist.
>> The .ographer did *not* sell the material or make money from it.
>
> With respect that amounts to nothing more than an excellent example of
> self-delusion!
>>
>> The only exception is the type of child ".ography" that is illegal
>> in the UK but legal elsewhere. And that type did not involve children
>> in any abuse.
>>
>>>> The only cases I have heard of where children were .ually exploited
>>>> to make money from the sale of kp were quickly traced, the
>>>> perpetrators quite rightly convicted and AFAIK are still in prison.
>>
>>>How quickly do you think *all* such operations would need to be traced &
>>>closed down for your argument to be a valid one ?
>>
>> There are very few such operations that have existed. It looks like
>> that whenever one is found, the police monitor it for quite some time
>> before closing it down so that they can find all the customers.
>
> You previously claimed they were "quickly" shut down but now you say they
> remain in operation for "quite some time" which again demonstrates the
> flaw in your argument that no child (or other children) are subjected to
> further acts of .ual abuse as a result of those who choose to buy images
> in the meantime.
>>
>> Plenty of people copy CDs and DVDs, but there is no thriving market
>> with people selling unlawful MP3 or movie downloads over the Internet.
>> Such things are sold only as physical items in car boot sales etc. or
>> are counterfeits advertised as being legal. Plenty of people buy
>> illegal drugs, but you will not find any being advertised for sale on
>> the Internet. The reason is the same as the reason there will never
>> be a market selling *anything* that is obviously illegal over the
>> Internet, apart from a few stupid people who quickly get caught.
>
> --
> Joe Lee
--
Joe Lee
>
|